Chris Hodges wrote:
Huge wrote:
Rinsing the containers out takes me a only a moment and completely

... wastes the benefit of recycling them.


Probably does on strict economic grounds, but as its marginal I
would prefer to see as much material as possible recycled rather
than wasted.


Why? If it doesn't work on strict economic grounds, it doesn't work
on any other.

Depends how far ahead you look - landfill tax is escalating, and new
sites are becoming more expensive (as they're rarer) so costs are
rising. Incineration is unpopular with those who live near the
incinerators.

If you want a selfish point of view, you get more wheelie bin space
(assuming you're on them) - my local council won't take anything
that's not in the bin on the normal collection. Near where I work
it's rationed bin bags and recycling boxes.

We've got rationed bin bags and a green plastic box recycling scheme round
here. I (single person) get exactly the same allowance of bin bags as next
door (family of 2 adults + 2 kids), I barely get through a bag a week and
most of that is the junk that comes through the front door and plastic
bottles which they won't recycle.
Our council does have a remarkable approach to recycling though, they appear
to have a crack team who go around evenly distributing the contents of the
green boxes all along the pavement and roadside so they don't have to pay
too much to dispose of what they collect.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

Martin wrote:
snip (text recycled!)
The company for which I work now have to (by law) design and pay for
end of life products, this means we have to pay the recycling costs
of all products we design and manufacture. Why don't supermarkets
have to do the same, and take back the empties?

Some of the equipment we buy is covered by that scheme as well and as 'they'
keep banning more and more of the chemical parts it will become very
expensive in a few years time for the original manufacturers to take it all
back and try and seperate out all the nasty contents. Up till now we just
paid the council a few bob for use of their landfill and chucked it in.
I'm guessing that things like cars, TVs and fridges will be covered by it
soon as well.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:16:04 -0000, mich wrote:

For the record, I do rinse them, thats a requirement. But they still
smell of something not quite nice , especially after being in there
for six weeks!

Six weeks? Thought you said that they collected every 2... Ah I see
they only take full sacks. Fing stupid! Done to reduce the cost of the
bags no doubt, thats where a box scores it is reuseable and doesn't
have to be full.

Further, I have to be careful because if I put too much junk down
the drains it will clog them

As this is uk.d-i-y perhaps you ought to ask about drainage systems.
B-) A properly installed drain is pretty difficult to block with just
ordinary kitchen waste. The normal culprits are fat, roots, nappies,
female sanitary products or condoms none of which should be in a drain
in the first place.

and b*gger up my septic tank eventually, probably.

A bit more organic matter won't hurt, more food for the bugs. It will
add to the sludge build up though but I doubt noticeably. Also on a
septic tank.

I already work more hours than I have available ( when you take out
travelling time) so every minute at home is precious.

I know the feeling, when I work it's a 60+hr week (ex travel) would be
70+ if I wanted it (I don't, 60 is *more* than enough).

It seems they have an outside contractor doing it. Do I complain to
the council who take b*gger all notice anyway like as not, or to the
contractor , who will probably care even less?

Whoever is holding the purse strings, I suspect that will be the
council. Re-cycling is a fairly high profile "good thing" for a
council to be involved in, I would expect contact information about
the scheme to be on their website, especially as it appears from your
postings to be a new scheme. Is there no phone number printed on the
bags?

On the whole it strikes me that the scheme has been setup to handle
the volumes of waste from the 2+2 family and is not flexable enough to
deal with the person living on their own(*) who lives on fresh real
food and doesn't generate much waste. Forget about the scheme, either
bung it all the black sack or take it to the recycling banks when you
shop always assuming where you shop has some.

(*) Thats the impression your posts give, maybe incorrectly.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:40:11 +0000 (UTC), Bluestars wrote:

I think there is more to life's values than strict economics.

Hear, hear.

Accountants: Know the cost of everything, the value of nothing.

Even if it does cost more to recycle in makes far more sense to me to
do that than dig stuff out of one hole, use it once and stuff it back
into another. 'Cause that first hole will, not if, will, run dry at
some point in the future. Hopefully before the first hole does run
completely dry the pure economics will make the use recycled materials
more viable.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:54:38 -0000, mich wrote:

Why take plastic milk bottles but not plastic lemonade bottles?

Different plastic for a start, milk bottles are HDPE, fizzy drinks
PET. At least a large proportion of plastic has a recycle logo and a
number/abbreviation to tell you what it is.

I wish our recycling box took plastic, that makes up the bulk of black
bag waste.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:11:35 -0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

Its usually burned

Contributing to the CO2 layer.

Ah but only putting back the CO2 the tree used to make the paper/card
absorbed in the last 30 years or so. It is *not* the same as burning a
fossil fuel such as oil or coal where you are putting back CO2
absorbed millions of years ago...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"David Hearn" writes:
Why does recycled goods have to be cheaper than non-recycled?

Because the costs reflect the difficulty of obtaining whatever it is (or
at least, should). If obtaining 'x' new is cheaper than obtaining it
by recycling, then the recycling is pointless. Take paper. Recycled paper
is more expensive than new, not as good quality and requires nasty
chemicals
(bleach) for recycling. Where's the point in that? Ditto glass. There is
no market for glass cullet in the UK. All recycled glass has to be used
for
landfill or road surfacings. Where's the point in that?

http://www.envirowise.gov.uk/envirow...X?OpenDocument

"Producing glass using recycled cullet is more energy efficient than
producing glass from basic raw materials (typically by about 30%)."

"Except in more remote areas, where transport costs may be dominant, the
economics are usually in favour of recycling. The key issue is one of cullet
quality."


http://www.wrap.org.uk/publications/...tionSept03.doc

"The UK production of glass fibre insulation is around 150,000 tonnes per
year and currently all the glass fibre manufacturers are using recycled
glass as a feedstock."


http://www.edinburgh-crystal.co.uk/story015.asp

"Currently about 30% of glass melted was originally cullet and so the
re-melting process is fairly waste free."


http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...g/report/4.htm

"It is estimated that there is approximately twice the capacity for clear
and amber cullet usage within the container glass industry than is currently
collected."

So - plenty of uses for cullent (not just what you'd expect) along with
currently twice the capacity of clear/amber cullet compared to what they're
collecting. THEY NEED MORE!

D

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
David Hearn wrote:

Local Authorities are required to significantly reduce the amount put
into
landfills. If people refuse to recycle, even when systems are in place,
that's bad.

Did you stick your fingers in your ears and shout LALALALALALA... as you
typed that. The point is that the so-called "recycling" schemes are
bunk. Where I live the council set up a scheme of having two collections
for refuse. One for the rubbish and one for "recyclable materials".

Firstly the rules on what may be recycled are complicated and they
change from week to week. I honestly don't know what I can put in the
recycling bin. Also there is an instruction to wash all the waste going
into the recycling bin if it has been used for food.

So I have to use the clean drinking water I have paid for to wash some
item that is worth less than the water used to clean it and spend my
time which is *very* expensive to do the work. Then they will send a
second refuse vehicle using even more fossil fuel to collect the gash
and take it to a "recycling centre".

Except of course they don't. They simply take the stuff and dump it into
landfill. How do I know this? Because the local council told us that
because they do not have a recycling facility available that all they
can do with the content of the recycling bin is dump it.

What a stupid waste of time, money and resources.

Certainly sounds like it. Sounds like your council is pretty dumb! No
point going to all that trouble if you're not going to recycle it.

[snip]
Recycling isn't meant to be a cheap alternative to landfill, its meant
to
stop us from polluting (large landfills with plastics which don't really
decompose) and stop wasting resources (metal and plastics - plastics use
petrochemicals which are a finite resource).

The above drivel shows that you haven't even thought about the issues.
Firstly plastics do not pollute. They are relatively inert. When put
into landfill they simply form an inert mass, just like glass, sand,
rock gravel. The worst thing that plastics do in the main is to look
unsightly although the pillocks who throw plastic strapping into the
countryside deserve crucifixion, as do those who throw fag packets,
paper nappies, fast food containers and glass/metal packaging. However
in landfill the majority of this gash is just gash.

To say that plastics don't decompose is largely the mark of a fool. They
do, end of story.

Well, polystyrene has an unknown decomposition rate and is commonly
estimated to be longer than aluminium can (200-500 years) and glass bottles
(500 years).

Other plastics may well decompose significantly faster,

And if you are so worried about misuse of petrochemicals why have you
not thought about the fact that collectign plastics to recycle them uses
more petrochemicals than manufacturing them from fresh feedstock?

I despair that people who have such a shallow grasp of the issues they
pontificate on dare to open their traps.

Collection doesn't have to use petrochemicals (but probably usually does) -
but I agree that maybe that is commonly forgotten about.

If you remember the start of this thread, it was someone who wanted to know
how other people coped with recycling schemes. Somehow its turned out into
a Us vs Them type thing with people saying that recycling is a waste of
time, or that its good etc. I've never claimed to have a deep understanding
of recycling - I just simply gave my take on how I cope with the recycling
scheme Guildford Borough Council has in place. If you've got a problem with
that scheme - don't complain to me about it - talk to them.

D

In message , Huge
writes
"Bluestars" writes:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Bluestars" writes:
Probably does on strict economic grounds, but as its marginal I would
prefer
to see as much material as possible recycled rather than wasted.

Why? If it doesn't work on strict economic grounds, it doesn't work
on any other.

I think there is more to life's values than strict economics.

And I don't. Economics is information, providing all the externalities
are figured in. A

But are all the externalities factored in? - in respect of the
discussion here I suspect not.

--
Chris French, Leeds

In message , mich
writes

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...


I 've never kept a paper more than three days.

Its usually burned

Contributing to the CO2 layer.

I make no excuse. I burn them. I put them on the fire in place of fire
lighters. I have few options except to use solid fuel in my home.


anyway, burning paper isn't adding to the net amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere, seeing as most of it made from
conifer trees. And plenty of new trees are being grown to replace those
cut down.
--
Chris French, Leeds

In message , mich
writes

"Martin" wrote in message
...
snip

What really confuses me is that they will accept glass bottles for
recycling, but not old window/picture glass; plastic bottles, but not
other
plastic packaging (even when it's the same plastic!); news papers but not
yellow pages/old phone books/junk mail.....?

Recycling is important, I do all I can; but the rules just don't seem to
make any sense!

I agree, it doesnt make sense. And why does junk mail go in with the
newspaper but cardboard has to be put seperately?

Why take plastic milk bottles but not plastic lemonade bottles?
There are so many exceptions.


Depends on where you live and on the exact scheme operating it seems.

In some parts of Leeds (such as ours) there is 'Green Bin' scheme for
recycling.

We get a green wheelie bin as well as a black one.

In the green one we can put:

all sorts of papers, magazines, telephone catalogues etc. though not
envelopes (something to do with the glue and the recycling process I
think) and cardboard.

Plastic bottles of all sorts

Cans and Aluminium foil, etc.

They ask you not to put in glass bottle -I have a plastic box by the
green bin that they go in.

It is collected monthly by what looks like a standard refuse type truck
and taken to a sorting station (and in answer to a previous post - yes
this place does exist - I've seen it)

While a pre-sorting system sounds good, I have to say, having taken part
in one before, I do much prefer this from my POV.

I don't have to have different bags/boxes cluttering up the place - ok
if we did I'd probably manage it ok, we have the space. But if I lived
in one of Leeds many back-to-backs? It's bad enough then finding place
for a wheelie bin.
--
Chris French, Leeds

I don't have to have different bags/boxes cluttering up the place - ok
if we did I'd probably manage it ok, we have the space. But if I lived
in one of Leeds many back-to-backs? It's bad enough then finding place
for a wheelie bin.

A daughter lives in one of those and has both green and brown bins. Space
for them isn't too much of a problem because they have a small garden, which
many Leeds back to backs have. Those who don't have to have the bins on the
street - or in the old yards which were built to house lavatories and
middens. I know because I was brought up in one of those - a scullery house
now demolished - with the yard next door and spent the first years of our
marriage - with three babies - in a one up and down straight onto the street
but with a yard down the street, also now demolished.

One of our wheelie bins, while taller, has a very different footprint from
the old dustbins. Its square format makes it more space-saving though.

You can buy wheelie bins in most parts of the country, I understand. That
could be another solution to the OP's 'problem'. I suspect though that he
wouldn't want to bother taking his rubbish to a bin.

Mary
also Leeds and not far from
--
Chris French, Leeds

Huge wrote:
"mich" writes:
They have just started a curbside recycling system in my area and I
have been delivered of a series of coloured sacks for separating out
materials ( tins and cans, textiles, and newspapers).
This is a complicated system because in addition I have to put all
glass jars in a separate carrier ( presumably a recycled one for the
supermarket. All other rubbish is still collected weekly and most
folks here ( including me) use black bin sacks ( I have a dustbin
outside I put this into also) Recycling bags are collected
fortnightly.
It is not a tub or bin system like in other places I have been.

So, how do people cope?

Simple. Don't bother. The vast majority of recycling schemes are
bunk. The materials are either sold at a loss, imposing a cost on
chargepayers, in which case it wasn't worth recycling, or in some
cases put in landfill anyway.

I aggree. I used to dutifully put my recycling in the green bin provided
(all in one scheme) and took my bottles to the bank.
Then I heard over 1000 tons of recycled stuff in my county (Hampshire) had
been seen dumped in a landfill anyway because they didn't know what to do
with it.
Then the council put the tax up some enormous percentage, so I thought stuff
it...

Another problem with these schemes is if you have a small flat or similar
with no garden, where do you store all these seperate bags/bins?

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...


You can buy wheelie bins in most parts of the country, I understand. That
could be another solution to the OP's 'problem'. I suspect though that he
wouldn't want to bother taking his rubbish to a bin.

Thats not actually fair. I would take the stuff out to the bin if I had room
close to the house.

However, I sort of draw the line at having to buy three bins ( one for each
bag) and from which I will have to remove the bag and lug it 200 yards down
to the curbside. However, in my case it would have to be 600 years to the
curbside as the nearest I could get the bins in would be 400 yards (at the
end of the rear garden).

But I suspect your comment is based on your bias, not on the facts. Anyone
who denies me the right burn paper on a fire on the grounds I am polluting
the atmosphere would have to be biased.

I simply wonder what kind of ecological wonder of a home you live in, what
kind of ecologically friendly heating and power source you have ( wind
generation or solar panels perhaps?), who composts everything, has reed
beds to convert their sewerage? Who puts out less than one black bag of
waste for landfill a week, that you can criticise me without compunction.

At least I am honest enough to say I will not, rather than keep stum and not
do it anyway.
Most in my position would simply let you think they were wonderful
recyclers. I am not. I will only do it if I am not inconvenienced too much
and I can afford the outlay.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"David Hearn" writes:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"David Hearn" writes:
Why does recycled goods have to be cheaper than non-recycled?

Because the costs reflect the difficulty of obtaining whatever it is
(or
at least, should). If obtaining 'x' new is cheaper than obtaining it
by recycling, then the recycling is pointless. Take paper. Recycled
paper
is more expensive than new, not as good quality and requires nasty
chemicals
(bleach) for recycling. Where's the point in that? Ditto glass. There
is
no market for glass cullet in the UK. All recycled glass has to be used
for
landfill or road surfacings. Where's the point in that?


http://www.envirowise.gov.uk/envirow...HQX?OpenDocume
nt

"Producing glass using recycled cullet is more energy efficient than
producing glass from basic raw materials (typically by about 30%)."

"Except in more remote areas, where transport costs may be dominant, the
economics are usually in favour of recycling. The key issue is one of
cullet
quality."


http://www.wrap.org.uk/publications/...tionSept03.doc

"The UK production of glass fibre insulation is around 150,000 tonnes per
year and currently all the glass fibre manufacturers are using recycled
glass as a feedstock."


http://www.edinburgh-crystal.co.uk/story015.asp

"Currently about 30% of glass melted was originally cullet and so the
re-melting process is fairly waste free."

Err, yes, but I doubt they use supermarket bottle bank cullet.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...g/report/4.htm

"It is estimated that there is approximately twice the capacity for clear
and amber cullet usage within the container glass industry than is
currently
collected."

So - plenty of uses for cullent (not just what you'd expect) along with
currently twice the capacity of clear/amber cullet compared to what
they're
collecting. THEY NEED MORE!

Blimey. I stand corrected. That's what you get for reading the popular
media.

(As it happens we recycle glass anyway, because the bottles are too
heavy to go in the plastic sacks, but that's beside the point.)

Seems that there's too much green cullet though... we import so many green
bottles of wine/lager and use so little of it ourselves. Maybe that's what
gets used for road surfaces?

D

On 9 Nov 2003 11:54:34 GMT, Huge wrote:

Precisely so. Once it become economic to recycle stuff, then it's
entirely sensible. Until then, it's just a waste of energy.

Depends how big you make the picture. Use of recycled materials
reduces the demand for new raw ones, this delays the time when raw
ones become uneconomic to use.

At present we still rely very heavily on raw materials and don't have
the facilities or, in some cases, the technology to remove this
reliance on raw materials. The time "bought" by using uneconomic
recycled materials now can be used to develop the recycling
infrastructure and the technology that *will* required in the future.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Chris Hodges" wrote
| btw I was in Japan recently, where they have real space problems.
| You have to sort rubbish into compostable, combustable, recyclables,
| etc. At least one sort is collected almost daily.

"collected almost daily" is a very big difference from "once a fortnight"

Owain

David Hearn wrote:
Seems that there's too much green cullet though... we import so many green
bottles of wine/lager and use so little of it ourselves. Maybe that's what
gets used for road surfaces?

It is (also the green seems to get a lot of brown added at some stage).
I wonder why glass fibre insulation isn't greenish though.


--
Chris
-----
Spamtrap in force: to email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder.co.uk

chris French wrote:
anyway, burning paper isn't adding to the net amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere, seeing as most of it made from
conifer trees. And plenty of new trees are being grown to replace those
cut down.

It's probably more energy efficient or produces less CO2 to burn the the
newspapers in a fireplace/wood-burning stove rather than take them away,
and fetch back something else to burn. If you're stuck on solid fuel of
course

--
Chris
-----
Spamtrap in force: to email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder.co.uk

"Huge" wrote in message
...

I think there is more to life's values than strict economics.

And I don't. Economics is information, providing all the externalities
are figured in.

Are you sure?
The problem is quantifying all those externalities in money terms.
Environment is one of those externalities in the waste equation yet is hard
to quantify in money terms.

A special sort of modern domestic refuse is abandoned and burnt out cars.
Without factoring in the environment cost, the economics for the local
authority would say they should be left there. However if they were around
your home you might think there was more to life's values than strict
economics.

Roger

"Mary Fisher" wrote in news:3fae2eee$0$8568
:

You can buy wheelie bins in most parts of the country, I understand. That
could be another solution to the OP's 'problem'. I suspect though that he
wouldn't want to bother taking his rubbish to a bin.


You would't get far round here with a wheelie bin, we haven't got the right
sort of dustcart

mike r

Owain wrote:
"Chris Hodges" wrote
| btw I was in Japan recently, where they have real space problems.
| You have to sort rubbish into compostable, combustable, recyclables,
| etc. At least one sort is collected almost daily.

"collected almost daily" is a very big difference from "once a fortnight"


That's what I thought when I was out there.

--
Chris
-----
Spamtrap in force: to email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder.co.uk

In message , chris French
writes
In message , mich
writes

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
.net...


I 've never kept a paper more than three days.

Its usually burned

Contributing to the CO2 layer.

I make no excuse. I burn them. I put them on the fire in place of fire
lighters. I have few options except to use solid fuel in my home.


anyway, burning paper isn't adding to the net amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere, seeing as most of it made from
conifer trees. And plenty of new trees are being grown to replace those
cut down.

I think you are confusing two different things here

Sustainable forests and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere

--
geoff

In message , geoff
writes
In message , chris French
writes
In message , mich
writes

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t.net...


I 've never kept a paper more than three days.

Its usually burned

Contributing to the CO2 layer.

I make no excuse. I burn them. I put them on the fire in place of fire
lighters. I have few options except to use solid fuel in my home.


anyway, burning paper isn't adding to the net amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere, seeing as most of it made from
conifer trees. And plenty of new trees are being grown to replace
those cut down.

I think you are confusing two different things here

Not at all - though possibly not phrased it very well on re-reading.


Sustainable forests and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere

By referring to new trees being grown, I meant that as long as more
tree's are being grown (to produce future paper) to absorb the CO2
released (in the long term) there is not A net change in the CO2 level
in the atmosphere do to the paper being burnt (or otherwise decomposed
for that matter)
--
Chris French, Leeds

In message , Mary
Fisher writes


I don't have to have different bags/boxes cluttering up the place - ok
if we did I'd probably manage it ok, we have the space. But if I lived
in one of Leeds many back-to-backs? It's bad enough then finding place
for a wheelie bin.

A daughter lives in one of those and has both green and brown bins. Space
for them isn't too much of a problem because they have a small garden, which
many Leeds back to backs have. Those who don't have to have the bins on the
street - or in the old yards which were built to house lavatories and
middens.

Well I might resent filing up large parts of my garden with two wheelie
bins (esp. as the black bin never gets anywhere near full unless I use
to to get rind of stuff I might otherwise take to the 'tip')

I was thinking more of finding space for various boxes/bins/bags etc.
for pre-sorting the recyclables

--
Chris French, Leeds

Well I might resent filing up large

Large?

parts of my garden with two wheelie
bins (esp. as the black bin never gets anywhere near full unless I use
to to get rind of stuff I might otherwise take to the 'tip')

I was thinking more of finding space for various boxes/bins/bags etc.
for pre-sorting the recyclables

But, Chris, we don't have that problem. If we did I'm sure I'd find a way
round it - and so would you.

Mary

--
Chris French, Leeds

"Owain" wrote in message ...
"mich" wrote
| "David Hearn" wrote
| So, how do people cope?
| Simple. Don't bother. The vast majority of recycling schemes are
| bunk.
| Local Authorities are required to significantly reduce the amount
| put into landfills. If people refuse to recycle, even when systems
| are in place, that's bad. Even if it costs the taxpayer more money,
| its still necessary as they have to recycle more and landfill less.
| Besides, if local authorities don't reduce landfill, they'll lose
| funding from the Government, which means taxes go up even more...

But if the LAs lose funding from the Govt, local taxes might rise but
central taxes should drop correspondingly, so the overall tax burden should
stay the same. (It won't of course.)

| So much for the discussion about the importance or not of the ecological
| issue but the reality is no one will recycle anything when it has to sit
| reeking around a kitchen for weeks on end now will they?

The answer is for businesses to cut the amount of excess product packaging
at source, and have all waste packaging returned to the retailer for
re-use/recycle wherever possible. But they won't do that unless the Govt
makes them, and the Govt prefers to put the burden on the individual
householder.

If the Govt mandated the use of deposit glass bottles for all drinks that
would reduce the plastic and aluminium that needs to be disposed of from
milk bottles and cola cans, and a similar scheme should encourage brewers to
reuse beer bottles rather than pubs sending them for cullet.

Owain

Where I am at present glass beer bottles have a deposit, but also
plastic cola/lemonde bottles as well, (e.g., the 2 litre sort) so
there is no need to change the packaging at all, merely! impose a
charge and set up the recovery infrastructure. Here the supermarkets
typically have a machine where you feed the bottles, plastic or glass,
through a hole where they are electronically inspected, and a reciept
issued that is honoured at the checkout till. These machines also
have a small conveyor that will take a beercrate and the bottles,
inspect them, and put the refund on the reciept. So crates, plastic
and glass deposit bottles can all be automatically accepted.
Somewhere in the back of the store these are kept for collection.

People here also separate the non deposit glass and paper and put them
in at collection points. We have biological collection - green bin -
and other - grey bin collection alternate weeks, and blue (paper) once
a month. However to have alternate week collection without the bins
would be rather nasty, the biological kitchen refuse plus grass
cuttings etc get a bit off in the summer.

We also have a special smart ID card to use the local waste site, I am
allowed 200Kg a week there. (you are automatically weighed in and
out) This has been brought in because people from other areas were
visiting the local site to avoid paying in their districts and could
use the old dump for free. Some other local councils in the district
have wheelie bins with identity chips in so they record how much you
are putting into the system and charge accordingly.

Complex isn't it, with a big infrastructure. And, if you were
wondering, this is Holland, only 120 miles away from the UK.

Eric.

Owain wrote:
But if the LAs lose funding from the Govt, local taxes might rise but
central taxes should drop correspondingly, so the overall tax burden should
stay the same. (It won't of course.)

Not quite... all this stuff on recycling, landfill etc arises from a
battery of EU directives that have come into force over the last decade.
The penalty for non-compliance is, potentially, unlimited fines of the
member country, so the tax burden would rise and only the EU coffers
benefit...

In message , Mary
Fisher writes



Well I might resent filing up large

Large?

parts of my garden with two wheelie

Ok, a large proportion.

bins (esp. as the black bin never gets anywhere near full unless I use
to to get rind of stuff I might otherwise take to the 'tip')

I was thinking more of finding space for various boxes/bins/bags etc.
for pre-sorting the recyclables

But, Chris, we don't have that problem. If we did I'm sure I'd find a way
round it - and so would you.

Yes, if I had a small house with a small kitchen, with a small garden or
yard then I would probably end up throwing the waste away rather than
arse about with various plastic bags.....
--
Chris French, Leeds

Huge wrote:

Bearing in mind that there is no market for glass cullett in this country
and it all ends up as landfill or road surfacing.

Too be honest, that doesn't bother me much. The argument used to
run "consumers will never sort their waste for recycling". Even if
it currently all ends up in landfill, I'd rather that argument was
void should a market open up in the future.
--
Selah

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:03:38 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Gower wrote:

Huge wrote:

Bearing in mind that there is no market for glass cullett in this country
and it all ends up as landfill or road surfacing.

Too be honest, that doesn't bother me much. The argument used to
run "consumers will never sort their waste for recycling". Even if
it currently all ends up in landfill, I'd rather that argument was
void should a market open up in the future.

And in the future somebody could dig up that nicely sorted landfill and
recycle it :-)

"John Armstrong" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:03:38 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Gower wrote:

Huge wrote:
Too be honest, that doesn't bother me much. The argument used to
run "consumers will never sort their waste for recycling". Even if
it currently all ends up in landfill, I'd rather that argument was
void should a market open up in the future.

And in the future somebody could dig up that nicely sorted landfill and
recycle it :-)

This is off topic now, but has anyone thought of the terrible consequence
for history if we recycled everything and put nothing into land fill?

There would be nothing for the future "Time Team" archaeologists of the 25th
century to did up and tell us all about our lives g

This is off topic now, but has anyone thought of the terrible consequence
for history if we recycled everything and put nothing into land fill?

There would be nothing for the future "Time Team" archaeologists of the
25th
century to did up and tell us all about our lives g

That would be a big relief for the archaeologists.

On 11 Nov 2003 22:24:22 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

And once the materials become rare and costly enough, I can see that
happening. Well, I can't, because I'll have been dead for a while, but
you see what I mean...

You are making a rash assumption. During the next 500 years they might
dig you up and pass your DNA over to the team that did Dolly the
Sheep, then it remains to be seen whether you would consider yourself
dead.

Time for a joke to lighten things up:

Remember last year when they dug up James Hanratty to see whether his
DNA matched that found at the murder scene in the 50's? If the DNA
hadn't matched they'd have had to give the DNA to the Dolly the Sheep
team so that they could have a retrial and then let him go

Fortunately the DNA did match so he did it for sure.

PoP

On 11 Nov 2003 22:24:22 GMT, Huge wrote:

And once the materials become rare and costly enough, I can see that
happening. Well, I can't, because I'll have been dead for a while,
but you see what I mean...

It happens already to some extent. Reworking of spoil heaps for a
start. Then of course there are the old Victorian land fills excavated
for the bottles/pots that they contain which are now quite
collectable.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:30:40 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:



This is off topic now, but has anyone thought of the terrible consequence
for history if we recycled everything and put nothing into land fill?

There would be nothing for the future "Time Team" archaeologists of the
25th
century to did up and tell us all about our lives g

That would be a big relief for the archaeologists.

And the viewers.
--

Dave

--

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:30:40 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:



This is off topic now, but has anyone thought of the terrible
consequence
for history if we recycled everything and put nothing into land fill?

There would be nothing for the future "Time Team" archaeologists of the
25th
century to did up and tell us all about our lives g

That would be a big relief for the archaeologists.

And the viewers.

We don't have a telly so only hear the archaeologists' side.

Mary
--

Dave

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:10:12 UTC, "David Hearn"
wrote:

Rinsing takes practically no water if you do it at the end of the
washing up
in the not-so-clean water. Enough to stop it smelling and makes it
clean
enough for recycling.

But if you have a dishwasher, that not-so-clean water is inaccessible.

I don't mind recycling....but my council have made it MUCH less
practical to do.

Much like mine, with paper collections.
They issued us with green plastic boxes that weigh, when full of news
papers, enough to make a healthy man wince at the weight. When the paper
gets wet, when waiting for collection, what are the 'bin' men going to have
to lift. I can see some of the heavier boxes getting left at the edge of the
house holder's property as being too heavy for them to carry.

The whole scheme would have been better thought out by putting paper
re-cycling bins on some street corners, rather that issuing each house with
a small box to be put out for collection.

My local council started paper collections last year, but I have not seen
any collections for well over 6 months now.

Dave

"David Hearn" wrote in message
...


How long does it take for you to put a tin into one box when you're
finished
with it? Now, imagine if you have a box full of different things and
then
have to separate them? Takes much longer. Then imagine you've got 5,000
boxes to do every day.

The cost of your time to put a tin into one box and a jar into another one
at a time (ie. as you finish with them) is probably no longer than it
would
take to put into the bin.

OK then.

I live in a small house with no front access to the back of it, unless I go
through the house (I am second in a block of 6 terraced/town? houses). This
means that all these boxes/bins must live at the front of my house.
Incidentally, they will ferment quite well, as the sun is out there till
well
past mid day. However, I opted to have bin bags that I can store out of the
heat..

When the house was built, (25 years ago) I had a cupboard at the front of
the house that housed one of the 'old fashioned' bins. Now it houses the bin
bags that I fill with my rubbish.

If I had one box for tin cans, another for aluminium cans, another for
plastic bottles/containers, now another for cardboard, then another for
paper, another for green waste, followed by another for un-recyclable waste.
That amounts to at least 7 waste bins.


If all these bins were at the front of my house, where would I park my car
on my property?

I have enough space to park 2, sometimes 3 cars side by side in front of my
house, but should I start to charge my local council for rental space of
their boxes and bins?

Dave

"mich" wrote in message
...
They have just started a curbside recycling system in my area and I have
been delivered of a series of coloured sacks for separating out materials
( tins and cans, textiles, and newspapers).
This is a complicated system because in addition I have to put all glass
jars in a separate carrier ( presumably a recycled one for the
supermarket.
All other rubbish is still collected weekly and most folks here
including
me) use black bin sacks ( I have a dustbin outside I put this into also)
Recycling bags are collected fortnightly.
It is not a tub or bin system like in other places I have been.

So, how do people cope?

I just put everything in the bin, as normal. If your local council are like
mine and don't care about how your house suffers between collections, then
why should you.

Any suggestions as to how I can set up a system for storing these bl**dy
bags?

Sling them in the bin and forget the councils re-cycling targets that were
set by this government.

Looking at the size and speed they are filling, each bag is likely to
take at least a month to fill for me, so they have to hang around that
long.
I cant keep tripping over them. I am getting fed up and soon , I'll sling
the SOB's out and S*D the saving the earth!
Anyone solved such a problem?

Dump them in the general waste from the house, problem solved.

I might add, I am a bit of a greeny at heart, but the way
government/councils have put together their recycling procedures, I am
deeply disappointed in the way they are going about their practices of
recycling waste.

Dave