Date: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:33 pm. By: John Beardmore
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-26 12:18:55 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes
Of course. This further makes the point that if you want people to consider longer timescales, they will need to be encouraged to do so.. making it attractive financially is the best, fastest and lest resistance way to achieve that. But legislation is also quite effective, and perhaps less perverse than bribing them with their own money that you have taken off them in taxation.
Better not to take it from them in the first place. This avoids the administration.
As long as acceptable environmental standards are met.
Although environmental taxation does seem to be on the rise...
Soft touch. Easy money.
No softer than any other tax, though it will probably hit those with more profligate lifestyles more, so applause may be quite widespread.
If there is some value in sorting waste (and I think that's highly questionable in the first place but let's accept it for the moment), either I can do it or I can pay someone else to do it. I prefer the latter. The outcome does not depend on whether or not I do it or someone else does it, Well it does, in that it's least energy intensive to sort at source, so it's likely to be less cost effective for you and less beneficial to the environment to have somebody else do it. This doesn't look at the complete picture. The other effect of operating in this way is that the sorting is being done, in effect, by free labour from the perspective of those with the accountable cost - i.e. the local authority. If they have to do it, then it adds cost, whether that is in labour or energy. Well you are the one who is keen to cut LAs out of the picture. Why not sort your own crap instead of forcing them to tax you to do it less well ?
The point is that I should have the choice of selecting a supplier/service who will do this and paying them directly (not via the LA),
Maybe, though not all choice is a god given right.
or one who provides a basic service whereby I do half of their work for them.
Or you might reach a compromise where you do a small fraction of the work and pay them a reasonable amount of money.
I'm not convinced this is too far from where LAs taking us at the moment.
I take a broader view.
:) Could have fooled me !
Well let's face it, the greenwashers have done a pretty good job :-)
So have the more numerate academics.
From my perspective, if I do this work it takes me time to do so. That is expensive either directly or in terms of lost opportunity cost. If I can spend my time productively, I do more business and the government and ultimately the exchequer makes more because of corporation tax, income tax and national insurance. The reality is that I can generate far more money for that by doing things other than sorting rubbish. Or possibly you are just too proud or idle.
Not really. I'm far from idle. I simply want to spend my time on more productive things that sorting rubbish.
Which is possibly why you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution from an environmental perspective.
Or maybe you just produce too much rubbish.
I produce only the rubbish that results from the things I buy.
Well spotted !
Before you make the next suggestion of altering patterns of consumption; forget it.
I don't suppose you big fan of measuring progress other than by GDP, or Contraction and Convergence either ?
I'm struggling to imagine that your contribution to society is of such value that it's better for us all to tax your commercial activities than have you put your rubbish instead of having you separate your wastes by using more than one bin. (How long would it take you anyway ??)
I am not setting out to "contribute to society" other than via taxation and my own choice of charities and voluntary activities that I do. I certainly don't need "society" to value my efforts or not - just my customers. They do.
Jolly good.
Therefore, I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that provided that the outcome is achieved, the method, in terms of who does the work is irrelevant. Not if the total effort required to do the job is increased.
As long as the cost is covered, it's irrelevant.
From your perspective perhaps.
Of course. I suspect that is true of many people. As I've said, it takes very little bad publicity to discredit all of this stuff. It would be interesting to know how much of this bad publicity is actually true.
and how much else is never discovered.
Who can say ?
The approach is all wrong. national and local government seek to achieve results by compelling people rather than rewarding them. It's no wonder that they have difficulty. Well at the moment they do neither. You don't have to sort your rubbish, but they make provision for you to do it if you want to.
That's good. As long as they don't attempt to compel me to do it and continue to collect it all weekly, I have no problem.
:) Life's hard isn't it ?
The moment that they attempt to change any of that, they will have a major fight on their hands. Local councillors are very aware of that from most residents.
You can prove that in some statistical sense I trust ?
Well - I'll be pleased if you do... I might invest in a company doing so as long as it has a viable and demonstrable business model.
:) I trust that would involve having a clue about the technology.
Of course. I never make investments without thoroughly reearching first.
Good !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore