"it is likely that councils will still have to collect data from all bins, and therefore all households, in order to select out data relevant to those who are opted in"
No ... those who opted out have bins without chips in .... derrrrrr
A government announcement today that it is scrapping plans to penalise householders for not recycling scores eight out of ten for effort – but it may not go far enough to appease the civil liberties lobby. Your bins will still be microchipped, and - whether you like it or not - your household waste habits will still be …
Where's this then?
It's certainly a very common claim used by people to justify not sorting out recycling. It's entirely possible that whilst recycling is getting up to speed in an area, stuff will get landfilled until everything is fully working. It's also possible that this could happen if they simply get overloaded - recycling paper and cardboard after Xmas, for example.
But councils are now being very heavily penalised for not recycling (per ton of rubbish landfilled), so it hits them right in the pocket if they don't. That's a strong incentive for them to get it right. Oh, and it's an incentive for you to recycle too, bcos your council tax is paying for this.
In the old "stick" scheme, one of the objections levelled against it would be that weighing bins and punishing people for having too much waste would encourage fly-tipping. In the new scheme however we're going to reward people for recycling. So one of two scenarios now appears apparent:
a) They reward people for putting LESS stuff in their bins, weighing less (hence "recycling" more)... which will, err... encourage empty bins and fly tipping!
b) They'll reward people for having MORE stuff for recycling. So then people will start nicking next door's recycling stuff and putting it in theirs, or leaving bottles half full etc., creating a whole new "benefit scam" recycling fraud.
The Royal Borough's scheme, run by an American company, is a joke. Instead of encoraging residents to produce less rubbish, it merely encourages them to put more in the recycling bin. I generate very little rubbish, typically putting my bins out every four or five weeks. I recycle as much as possible, and would recycle more if the council wasn't so picky about what can be recycled - plastic bottles OK but other containers made out of the same plastic aren't accepted.
Moreover the scheme is open to abuse. I could easily pick up catalogues from Argos and put them straight in the recycle bin. I could have an arrangement with an opted-out neighbour. He would use my recycling bin whiolst I would use his wheely bin. We need to reward people for generating less rubbish, not for recycling more regardless of what goes to landfill.
As a Maidenhead resident, I was very dissapointed with the con-servatives when they ..finally... introduced the scheme. M&S vouchers and coffee vouchers? (No Lidl, Asda,Tesco vouchers? or how about some of MY cash back?...no? )
Asda reading has a pretty decent recycling area, unlike Sainsburys maidenhead. or Tescos.
My workplace also has decent recycling, so if I prepare food at work, i generate little waste.
In fact , the only thing I use is the civic amenity site in stafferton way for garden waste and white goods disposal .Haven't put a bin out since September 2008, after i got a snotty note about not putting stuff in the correct container.
Heard Pickles on the radio today: some guy who'd done a study of schemes elsewhere in Europe said more or less that rewards are OK, bit they're not the whole answer because they don't give people an incentive to produce less waste. Pickles came on and said "bloody ridiculous" and started ranting about tesco cards and said he believed in treating people with respect bla bla.
If this is the intellectual level of our elected representatives then I despair.
... where? I know it won't be from "recycling" since most of it ends up in landfill anyway (thus incurring an EU-imposed landfill tax - which is why the push for recycling has been so voluble and vigorous to start with) or ends up being stored in huge warehouses while it waits for a slow boat to China. None of which brings in money.
So where does the money come from? I'd have to assume it comes from taxation of some form. This is going to add another cost burden to a state that is already faced with a huge spending deficit.
My wonderful local council has opted everyone in by sneakily fitting the chip into black, blue and green bins. Well tough for them because I have removed them from mine, It's not difficult. A knife gets them out in about five seconds.
They are located under the rim at the rim at the front in one of the circular slots.
"So what they're saying is that they'll pay me to nip out just before the recycling collection and move all the stuff in my neighbour's recycling box to my box?"
Pfft, think outside the bin. Swap your RFID chip for theirs, then tell them that you're not registered and offer to put most of your recycling in their bin. They'll thank you for stealing from them.
Of course, you'd have to have the morals of a cabinet minister to do it.
Apart from anything else, Mr "Fatty" Pickles' own constituency doesn't actually have wheelie bins, so I'm sure the local cash strapped council (Cons) are going to be overjoyed to have to provide them.
The other, blindingly obvious, problem is how do they know what proportion a household recycles? I have a compost heap, so compost-able things go on there. As do my shredded documents (because the council refuse to recycle shreddings, and I refuse not to shred anything with my details on it!).
Compare my rubbish bag heap to my neighbours and my household produces less than 50%, despite containing the same number of people, but due to the lack of huge bags of grass cuttings and food waste the proportions really don't work in my favour.
Last thing is once they have the bin issue sorted out is it will take the bin men far longer to do their rounds. At the moment they wander along the road and grab solo bags, adding them to their own bin men wheelie bins. Only taking them to the lorry once full. If every thing has to be weighed, each household's bin is going to have to be taken to the lorry one by one... (Actually two by two of course).
At the moment mine really are a well coordinated example of a slick operation. Time and motion studies wouldn't be able to streamline anything in the collection stage.
Oh well, guess I'll be throwing household rubbish in the neighbours bin then... Or maybe just swap the chips to swing the general/recycle ration more in my favour.
Councils could send out sticky RFID chips which an individual household could decide to stick on their bins or not, thereby opting in as they wish. I believe some of the bins have a hole in which an encased chip can be easily placed in anyway.
It is rubbish (pun intended) to say that *everyone* must have their bins chipped in order to be able to reward people ... only those who physically opt-in need them ... just like loyalty cards (which are all opt-in), you get something if you do something and get nothing if you can't be bothered. It is self-policing as well because people will want to check online that their bins are being properly recorded so they get rewarded ... again no need to chip every bin, only those that are interested in getting something for recycling will need the chipping.
So, charging for waste generation is a "punitive and vindictive tax", eh? Can Alex Deane tell us how it's 'vindictive' that people who generate waste should pay to dispose of it, when the alternative is that we all subsidise them?
A tax or charge on non-recyclable waste is absolutely fair. Those of us who make an effort not only to recycle, but to choose products that have minimal unnecessary or unrecycable packaging are going to end-up subsidising the landfill habits of the lazy and selfish. I bet these people who go on about a 'rubbish tax' are the same people who bang-on about 'people on benefits' and the money they cost too. They are no better. Either recycling and reduce your waste or pay your way to bury it without burdening us taxpayers who actually care about something other than our wallets.
Impose a tax on those who produce unnecessary packaging (supermarkets, I'm looking at you). This gets passed onto the consumer. Consumer notices that heavily packaged goods are more expensive, and buys goods with less packaging. Less rubbish ends up in bins.
There is no reason it is necessary to package things like fruit and veg into little polystyrene trays and cover them in shrink-wrap. Supermarkets do this entirely for their own convenience. People might suggest that wrapping things keeps them fresher, but I would counter this with the observaion that a lot of perishable goods 'sweat' when shrink-wrapped, which allows bacteria and fungi to break them down faster.
The spanner in your argument is that the "people on benefits" pay nothing in to the council tax pot, whereas the people moaning about the waste tax are being sucked dry year after year by ever increasing council tax bills. Waste collection and water are the only council services I avail myself of. Living in Scotland I downright object to having to pay for water, let alone having to pay more for waste disposal!
Here have a grenade - do the world a favour and recycle yourself.......
Someone who uses energy-saving light bulbs and switches off appliances at the wall when not in use pays less for their electricity than someone who leaves filament light bulbs and electric heaters blazing away in unoccupied rooms.
Someone who has a high-efficiency combination boiler and TRVs on all radiators pays less for their gas than someone who leaves pans uncovered and has an inefficient, permanent-pilot boiler with a poorly-insulated, gravity-fed hot water cylinder.
So why the hell should I pay the same amount to have a two-thirds-full wheelie-bin removed every six weeks, as somebody who puts out an overflowing wheelie bin every single week?
The "chip" in the bin is just a machine-readable version of the house number people usually paint on them anyway.
I live in a flat. We have six wheelie bins, and a number of black recycling boxes and brown compost bins, in a communal bin store, shared by three houses and six flats, which are themselves different sizes. How would one suggest to equitably share the rewards, or more importantly, the penalties (as these would surely follow) imposed by any such scheme.
Charging people for taking their waste will lead to a very simple and obvious result. They will put in their car boot, drive to a lay-by or other spot where they think they can't be seen, and dump it. Soon there would be rubish everywhere.
And what does "recycling" now mean? It seems to have degenerated into a synonym for "rubbish" - eg at work, what were once "rubbish bins" are now called "recycling bins". How exactly is this stuff "recycled"? Who really separates the diverse stuff my council asks for in a purple bag ("all containers") into the separate materials? Armies of Chinese 8 year-olds from what I've heard; who else could or would do that work? Or is it just shipped to China to be dumped in holes and back-yards there?
I really would like to see some investigative journalism on what happens to "recycled" stuff, instead of the constant greenwash pured down our throats.
A guy in Bristol was making his living by advertising a "recyling" service, but dumping it in all sorts of places in the city, quite openly. Got away with it for years.
A lot of things are illegal (think parking, speeding, making excessive noise), but people do it, and they get away with it. The incentive to fly tip will be massive, and to millions of people.
Most of the sorting is done in our own country (UK) by machine, with the bulk of sorted materials then exported - the recycled materials are 'raw' materials after all, so they're exported to the biggest manufacturing producers (mainly China) in the same way that other raw materials are.
That some councils are still asking people to sort materials themselves means that they are using less sophisticated recycling facilities. Councils who ask you to put all recycling material into a single bin are using more advanced/automated recyclers, the output of which will see about 95% of the material supplied recycled - the remaining 5% being material that cannot yet be recycled efficiently or is too contaminated to recycle (ie food packaging not washed out).
I recycle practically everything I can manage. The puny little recycling bin I got off the local council couldn't hold a hamster's fart so I end up loading my car up once a week with at least 7 bin bags of plastic and cardboard taking it to the local point myself, at my expense. I tried putting out 4 bags of plastic and cardboard and one box of tins, all I got was a snotty yellow sticker slapped on my bags saying, "Reason for refusal: Too much for one house!". WTF?! You've got a fecking 7 ton truck with huge bins in the back to collect it?!
Upshot of this is I make a massive effort and get bugger all for it! Alright so personal gain is not something we are doing this for, but I will still end up on the blacklist same as the dirtbag three doors down from me who puts everything he throws out in his general rubbish bags, never even recycling so much as one little plastic bottle!
Unless we are to have lockable bins then the moving of point-scoring recycled waste to our own bins and moving of penalised waste to others is going to happen. If they don't chip all bins, even better, it makes it a victimless crime.
Waste which is detrimental to an 'owner' and cannot be passed onto someone else will be burned, buried, fly-tipped, will drip-feed into public waste bins or simply be pushed through the nearest hole of recycling points or post boxes.
Myself and neighbours used to have a nice collective waste management system running where we would fill one bin before starting on the next. That maximised bin use, minimised bin movement and emptying plus saved time and cost for the collection agencies and council. The mere mention of intended chipping and charging individuals by our council brought that to a crashing halt. A brilliant shot in their own foot.
Where I live, mainly a Victorian terraced area, what was once a relatively nice place now looks like a South African township with the numerous different bins imposed on us littering gardens and street as there simply is nowhere else to put them. It's an utter eyesore and has led to a domino -like collapse in the state of the area which could now, and quite fairly, be called a slum.
If you want to tackle the rubbish problem, you need to tackle the supermarkets.
I don't know the exact figure, but i'd be surprised if less that 70% of what we send to landfill comes from supermarkets. No wonder they are so keen to stop us using plastic bags (not in itself a bad idea) - keeps the heat off the real issue - the vast amount of packaging used for everything else.
Could you lot whine more?
I mean if your neighbour moves your rubbish from your bin to his and you miss out on the amazing tenner a month because of this (at the absolute upper limit nearly), I can see that it's both a travesty against natural justice and a massive, gaping hole in your finances. Clearly this is the first step in the barcoding of all people and their posessions. Probably RFID us too.
It's a pilot scheme in one area, if there are flaws in the scheme, this is where they'll be found out. Possibly it might even work. Who knows? As it stands it only affects people who want to give it a go. Look at it like a scientific experiment to test a hypothesis, if it doesn't work, the hypothesis will be shown to be false.
a tenner a month is probably peanuts to the self selecting reg audience, there are areas where it would lead to big problems.
any sort of reward/fine based on what goes into a, necessarily, unsecured bin outside your house will have people coming from all over to fill bins or pinch recycling, probably strewing rubbish all over your garden & street in either case. After all even a tenner a month is 8-10 litres of diamond white!
Even if people steal your recycling, you're not worse off
That's the thing that's getting me here, people are whining about the possibility of someone stealing their possible chance to get something they wouldn't otherwise have or need.
It's basically whining about the possibility of a possibility of an idea's possible downsides. I fully expect people to complain about the possibility of people stealing their farts while they sleep when someone works out how to convert them into electricity which could be sold to the grid (fuel cell undies).
I can see where the idea came from. Supermarkets tried to charge 1p for carrier bags, but then realised it is better PR to give 1p back to people who reused bags (no doubt upping the price of something to retrieve the money).
But as others have said this doesn't work for recycling because it penalises those who takes steps to avoid wasteful packaging in the first place - the very thing we really want people to do.
Our council have introduced bins for green waste, so I suppose at some point in the future I will lose out financially for having the cheek to compost my own potato peelings.
Based on my commercial buying experience, a company like Tescos probably pays at most £1 per 1000 for the carrier bags of the type they used to give away. Now say a large supermarket gets through 15000 bags a day, that's about £5400 per year. For ease of calculation, let's say Tescos has the equivalent of 200 large supermarkets, that's £1,080,000 per year.
Now, Tescos don't give away bags, they sell "bags for life" for 9p each. Even being generous, let's say Tesco pay £1 per 100 for these "more substantial" bags, and instead of getting through 15,000 per day, we'll be generous and say they only get through 1000 per day. That's 72 million of the new bags per year on which they are now making a profit of 8p each, or £5.76M total.
So, by "going green", using these rough figures, Tescos has gone from giving away over £1M to making a nearly £6M profit.
No, you've missed a bit. Those free carrier bags get used by most people as bin liners. Now that the free bags are less available, people have to buy bin liners too. So there's even more profit for the supermarkets, and it's not reduced the number of plastic bags going to landfill at all!
Recycling from households is pretty wasteful. If is a good social practice as it gets people to think about their waste, but all the trucks chuntering about picking up the recyclable waste pretty much defeats the purpose. Best thing is - remove it at source; tax the producers.
Lest waster generated is less waste to be dealt with. So tax those companies who using wrapping, upon wrapping upon wrapping for no reason other than to "make it feel luxury and boost the consumer mind share of our corporate value chain" or whatever.
And tax the living hell out of the companies who use mixed materials that are hard to recycle and, pretty much, out law non-recyclable packaging materials.
As consumers we can do our bit - consume less! It really is that simple. The less crap you buy, the less crap you have to dump. The one big waste that needs stamped out at home is food waste - we throw so much out that it is disgusting.
Very little of all this has to do with real recycling - it's knee-jerk quota-driven politics without much grasp on reality. Self-righteous ivory-tower councils - who can never quite grasp why the paying cusomers can't just all do as they're damn well told - simply pile regulation upon regulation. If that doesn't work - well then - clearly more regulation is needed. It's never-ending.
It's all the product of damaged minds - of people who really need to grow up and get a grasp on reality. Including what it's like trying to manage out here in the real world. In fact, much of the 'recycling' boom seems to be down to councils with refuse departments clearly reluctant to soil their hands with anything that's actually refuse.
In my area, the worst part of the 'recycling' drive (leaving aside deep suspicions that most of it still goes into landfill anyway) is the elevation of bin men (sorry - refuse disposal officers - barf!) to ad-hoc law enforcement officers. They strut around, making up their own rules as they go along, and waste taxpayer's time and money checking my rubbish more closely than Customs checks my luggage at an airport.
I'm retired and disabled after a lifetime of working and taxpaying. I need my local council to periodically collect my refuse. That's it - bottom line - it's what I THOUGHT I was paying for.
Instead I'm saddled with 3 huge bins (so far!) I can barely manage. Pavement or no collection - they won't even take them from just an inch inside an open gate. And a recycling manual bigger than the one that came with my PC. They empty early in the morning, but it's an offence to leave them out overnight or for too long after emptying (as well as dangerous for a blind neighbour). So I have to get up early, retired or not. Now they're talking about computer chips???
God knows I'm paying through the nose - why the hell can't they just GET ON WITH IT!
This analysis would still overlook composting and garden digesters for food waste, neither of which are rewarded by the RBWM scheme. So total household recycling is almost certainly understated.
Maybe the lesson is that since there is no reward for these activities then there is no need to do them ... surely not?
Yes, but for a public sector project to be declared "successful" it merely has to achieve an easily movable "goal", loosely defined by the people paying themselves to run the project in cooperation with the kind of £600 an hour Feng Shui consultant you usually see hanging around outside government buildings - without killing anybody in the process.
In my direct experience, most local government staff have only one priority. To be fair to them, are ALLOWED only one priority. To keep their over-salaried masters happy. Public service isn't even an issue. "Success" is an infinitely re-definable state, defined by by empire-building senior officials, and the measures of success tend to be generated well in advance of evidence which is often highly suspect in itself.
I've seen annual reports written by officials who have never seen the inside of the department concerned. 'Statistics' purporting to come from departments who have never set eyes on the figures, let alone generated them. Performance statistics altered and resubmitted time and again - or else - until they were deemed to be acceptable.
Local government? It's all a huge joke. A so-called 'democratic' system that allows the taxpayer little real influence beyond how high he's permitted to jump.
What if the product is EXACTLY the right one, but has too much packaging? And anyway, don't we already pay something called TAXES for rubbish collection? Packagers are the problem here.
Surely if the government wants to crush somebody with the full jackboot of the law it should be the manufacturers, who even now over-package products to an insane degree. There should be a national schema for recyclement and it must be binding on ALL councils; no exceptions, no excuses; the current postcode lottery of what can be recycled and where is a joke.
For example, where I live, we are ORDERED to put glass bottles and jars in the landfill bin because they can't recycle them from the house collections! FAIL. Oh yes, you can recycle some things at the local tip if you are lucky enough to have a driving licence and a car but lots of people have neither.
Or if you want to recycle a cardboard shipping package covered in packing tape, the tip can accept it for recycling but the household service can't. If you are, after spending ages, successful in getting all the tape off, the box may well have disintegrated due to half of it coming off with the tape.
Oh and the sooner it is outlawed to use any form of non-recyclable material, for example expanded polystyrene, to impact-protect goods, the better. Cardboard frameworks are used by some manufacturers and these can be recycled, so why is it still legal for them to use lots of polystyrene pellets?
"Your bins will still be microchipped, and - whether you like it or not - your household waste habits will still be recorded centrally."
Except that several local authorities have said they have absolutely no intention to waste money on chipping the bins and installing the necessary equipment on the trucks to identify and weigh the bins. After all it would probably be a pretty hefty investment and one for which LAs are unlikely to see any return. If there was to be a "stick" approach you can bet any fines levied would find their way direct to the treasury. OTOH local authorities would no doubt be expected to fund any carrots.
As for recording things centrally, when you say "centrally" I hope you don't mean naionally. That would be an investment in a silly new IT project wouldn't it? And that is something the coaltion are dead against. Then again even if your use of the word "centrally" refers to each individual town hall then the conlibs still have a problem. They've told us that their central government are not going to interfere in town halls, and yet this smacks of ecactly the sort of nulabour meddling that they have criticized so much.
And lets not forget that a carrot approach would probably mean unscrupulous types nicking stuff out of their neighbours recycling bins. Wheras a stick would mean people dumping their non recyclables in their neighbours bin, or perhaps fly tipping in the dead of night.
If the coalition want to interfere in local refuse collection and recycling then maybe their first step ought to be to impose a national standard. Not only is it the case that almost every LA seems to have a different set of bins, bags and boxes into which we need to dump different types of waste, but some LAs even have different schemes within their own catchment area. I've just spent a week staying in a house in another LA where there was a wheely bin, a box with two seperate compartments and a green bag. Other than the green bag there was no indication of what should go in each receptical. This totally differes from our local system of two wheely bins and a box each of which are clearly labeled.
The whole recycling/ black bin is a scam, if they really wanted to reduce landfill the answer is to charge the producers on a per non-recycled packaging weight system to promote them to recycle..
When the consumer buys a product they pay a deposit like the old pop bottle system,when they return it to the store they get their money back. The producer has an agreement with the seller to collect their waste packaging and return it for recycling. The producer is having to process his own waste and hence would make the materials very cheap to renew so simple plastics and paper no composites.
The net effect will be that the producer has some new costs but these are offset against not having to buy in raw packaging materials, the consumer gets his money back if they recycle and the seller makes some cash storing waste for the producer.
This would reduce fly tipping as throwing money away is always unpopular
The producers who complain that they need fancy packaging to sell their products would no longer have this excuse and could sell on their good name alone, all products are equally packaged so the consumer gets to pay for the product not the packaging .
As the recycled waste would be returned to the original producer this promoting less use of composite materials and hence reduced production costs/ nateral resource use.
The list of benefits of this method really is endless however it is not in use because the current policy is not designed to reduce our waste. It is simply a away for our local councils to spend less of our money on providing us with a service and to sneak in a future recycling tax.
"if they really wanted to reduce landfill the answer is to charge the producers on a per non-recycled packaging weight system to promote them to recycle" That charge would be paid by you and me and we already vote with our feet as soon as we start comparing product prices.
Producers don't go out of their way to use packaging which is difficult to recycle - they try to use as little as possible, congruent with delivering a product to the consumer with the best trade off of lowest cost / acceptable delivery problems.
Getting rid of composites sounds like a great idea and I'm not a huge fan of them myself ... but the reality is that too many of us opt for composites on the shelf - the products don't degrade to the same extent as non composites and have a long shelf life when we get them home. They also allow very bright surface printing which is favoured by package designers for good visibility on the shelf. Again, don't blame the producers- blame our hypocrisy about packaging. We don't want too much of it, but we buy stuff in bright colours and we want products that are factory fresh when we can eventually break our way through the packaging.
When I was a lad I went to the grocer and most products were in bulk and then served into paper packets - the kind of model that I think that you would like to go back to. It took time to get served so it wasn't unusual to talk to people while you waited, but even if you could put up with the delay, I doubt that much of that product would be saleable these days - the H&S inspectors would have a field day combing it all for insect faeces.
Welcome to the 21st century. Over here, if you generate rubbish, you pay for its disposal. There are various schemes in operation in order to make this payment as just as possible (or at least superficially just while still being realizable). If you have a common bin for several parties, you're out of luck - simple as that. You pay a flat rate and have little chance of bringing that down. Other schemes include weighing the bin while it's being emptied and counting the times the bin has been emptied - both of which require some identification on the bin.
For a concrete example for my village:
- rubbish goes into a wheelie bin which can be put out for emptying once a week. You pay for twelve emptyings a year (which also pays for the other services, see below) in any case. Anything above that costs you an additional ~10 Euros.
Anything else is free of additional charges:
- compostables (plant cuttings and similar) you should either compost in your own garden or may bring them to the communal 'compost heap' (any time during daylight hours, the stuff is shredded and you can also pick up ready compost from there)
- recyclables can be brought in twice a week (wednesday afternoon and saturday morning), must be sorted (8 containers the last time I counted - plus a few smaller bins)
- large stuff (bedframes, bicycles, mattresses, bricks..) can be brought in twice a year
Stuff like fridges are usually collected (and recycled) by the dealer who sold you the new one.
So, you pay for the rubbish you produce. if you don't want to recycle, you can put your stuff in the wheelie bin and pay for its removal. Neighbours dumping their stuff in other people's bins are not a problem - or you can put a padlock on your bin, or put the bin inside a lockable compartment. People throwing their waste into the woods occasionally are - but most people doing so are quite stupid (i.e. leave some envelopes with their address in the waste...) and the fines are quite steep.
AC since I really don't want to start a flame war.
Oh yes, bin identification is being done with a barcode sticker. So no RFID that must be nuked.
"If you have a common bin for several parties, you're out of luck - simple as that."
Or in luck if you are the one getting the goodies from being such a nice re-cycling person.
Or out of luck depending on whether fines are being shared out for overly heavy waste collections for the entire property, you share a fine for wasteful neighbours.
Regardless as you freely admit it works in your village so bad luck for everyone else right?
Surely everyone everywhere has to pay for the disposal of rubbish. Surely someone is not under the illusion that is not so ?
In the UK we have the sensible arrangement of recognising some bills are better paid for out of a public kitty, which is why the authorities demand payment on a regular basis.
This does not mean the authorities have any right to start nosing at our private affairs. They are entrusted with our money to pay for certain things, such as rubbish disposal, and some other things, such as sticking their nose in where it isn't wanted, are outside of the remit we give them.
... to take it back.
So I buy a bottle of drink from the supermarket. When I'm done, they're obliged to take it back.
They of course bought it from a wholesaler, who would be obliged to take it back.
They of course bought it from a manufacturer, who would be obliged to take it back.
Put a deposit on the bottle, make the bottle out of glass and "PING!" you're back in the 1970s when we did all that. Just need to extend this reverse vending to other packaging.
There are folk that dont live in towns. The fact you actually HAVE a bin collection , you should count your self lucky.
I know you pay for it, so do we but weve never had a collection in 37 yrs.
When out local Purbeck district council went all green, they mailed all rate payers to say what a wonderful new system there going to give us, when i asked them why I hadnt had a collection in 37 yrs thay asked me where was the property despite telling them the rates payment code.
When i suggested that for folk like us, who dispose of all our own refuse, no we dont fly tip either, that as a jesture of good will they reduce our rates by what it costs to collect, they refused.
So I told them to keep their schemes and i didnt want them coming to our remote home ever.
What do we do? well any food waste is composted, any thing with a thermal value is turned into heat and hot water( from our own supply I must add) in our MK. 6 cellulose oxidiser, a high efficiency refractory lined incinerator, a Mk I Rayburn in fact.
A trip out to do shopping is combined at the same time with a trip to the local recycling center, where tins and bottles are disposed of.
At the same time the wood skip is checked for all oak posts structural size timber and work top thick chip board. All processed into sized wood for the afforsaid stove.
As for other services we have none , (We had to make our own road in) We generate our own power with diesel but will move to bio fuel next year. so we plan to be completly independent from every service by this time next year. Thats another story.
When every household had proper fires, the bin men only had to collect ashes, The bins were galvanised steel, and they used to put a pink powder in the bins to sanitize them. that was in the 1940's and the milkman came with a horse and dray.
Those were the days.
If they are going to charge the individual consumer for waste disposal on a quantitative system the end result will be more rats, more smog and a general lowering in the quality of environment and our health.
The people who say "I am not one of the naughty children, I recycle my waste carefully" are missing the point. Processing rubbish at home is less efficent and produces more harmful gases and smog, even when everyone follows the rules. The fact is that there are always some people who will just dump their rubbish if it is not taken off them.
How many times have to bought something packaged like a russian doll, all that superfluous waste needs to be stopped at source not messianicly shuffled before being driven about in a car.
It is commendable that people want to do their bit for the environment but the truth be told their efforts are in vain they are simply hiding the evidence for the state.
The only difference between the "new" scheme and the "old" scheme (out with the old), is one of presentation.
The reason why...?
There is no manoeuvring room under the underlying EU directive. We are actually governed by a completely alien quango, which we cannot elect or throw out (apparently).
So, the fact is, that this country is covered in friggin' holes, but under the EU waste directives, the only officially appointed bodies (councils and their usually French contractors) that are allowed to fill them, have to pay dearly to achieve this, and consequently we have to pay them.
NB: This applies to almost every facet of government in the EU nations, so we have just been participating in a re-shuffle rather than a general election... different faces... same policies.... very slightly different presentation.
And as for the one called Sarah Bee... Have a good laugh... you did the last time I commented in this vein, but remember, one day there will be a directive governing the minutiae of what is written in august journals such as this, and you will be out of a job.
I can't really see why consumers/householders need to be involved in this at all.
Goods come with a certain amount of waste attached. We use the goods and put all the waste in a big bin. Then someone comes and collects the waste and does whatever the hell they want with it. It's none of my concern. If they want to recycle it or mine it for diamonds, that's entirely up to them.
No, the reasons we're involved as consumers are: (a) the green lobby hates consumerism and wants to punish us, (b) refuse processing is handled in a fragmented way by local councils who are chronically unimaginative and (c) we're a massive source of free labour for sorting rubbish.
Given the goal of having half the blooming population educated to degree level, I'd say expecting this highly trained workforce to spend their time sorting rubbish is an insult at best. If rubbish sorting has to be done, it should be by people who want to do it or who have no other career choice (which i guess might apply to some degree courses come to think of it).
Personally, receiving a paltry bribe in the form of some tokens to spend my time sorting rubbish for the council doesn't appeal all.
Better by far, and probably far more economical, is to have rubbish sorted by machine. The mining industries of the world are highly adept at digging crud out of the ground and extracting useful materials, so I can't believe processing domestic rubbish by machine is beyond the wit of man. Beyond the wit of local councils, I can believe, however.
But all this presupposes that putting rubbish in landfill isn't a possibility. We're told there isn't any space left, but this is a blatant lie. The country is full of empty holes and if you take a trip almost anywhere by air you'll soon notice how the human population is all concentrated in small areas and how most of the world is absolutely brim full of huge areas of empty space. Just perfect for landfill, in fact, if it weren't for institutionalised nimbyism.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021