Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 01:34:24 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-24 22:01:13 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes
The trouble is that only partial views are taken and the true economic and environmental impacts not taken into account. Actually, local authorities do quite a bit of life cycle analysis to try and get this stuff right. While they don't / can't because it's hard to get the data and interpret the results, they may be better informed than you think. One would hope so too, considering the number of people I am paying them to employ to do so. However, the outcome, which is what I am interested in, is weak indeed. In some respects. Not sure that's all down to LAs though.
Possibly. Possibly not. I pay the LA though.

So does central government...

This is always assuming that items genuinely are recycled as claimed and not just thrown in with the rest of the landfill. see instances of refuse collectors throwing what naive people have separated into their recycling bins in the back of the truck with the rest of the rubbish. Or even landfilling green waste because they don't have the facility to process it. Bu bad examples don't mean that there is never a benefit, or that it's not beneficial in the general case. They should begin with things where there is a demonstrable and clear cut case for an economic saving and the means exists to do it. Well - you might think that. As an environmentalist I think there is more to this than picking a bit of low hanging fruit...
That you may, but if you want what you are attempting to do to be effective as opposed to a feel good, then it needs to be low hanging fruit to almost everybody. The most effective ways to achieve that is to make it financially attractive to people and to tell the truth. Until that happens, it is rather pointless.

Well telling the truth is good.
Paying people to do it out of the taxes they pay the council seems a bit daft if they can 'just do it' though. I thought you were opposed to needless bureaucracy ?

When I am convinced of that, I will stop putting everything into the standard bins and liners. Well - you can do what you like, though I suspect that LA recycling is very much driven by the processing of those materials for which they can find markets.
or easy disposal without too many questions being asked.

The waste legislation makes that quite difficult these days. This may be why embarrassing truths occasionally come to light.

Nobody has asked for a reduction in service, but the service they are required to give is no longer the same. That's pure marketing nonsense. Well no - it's umpteen changes in the law. I am quite sure that there is nothing in the law that requires them to reduce collection frequencies. If there is a requirement to collect a greater range of stuff without doubling up road miles and staff, it may amount to that.
Then the premise is wrong in the first place.

Well - so you say. Most people seem to disagree.

If the objective can't be acheved without reducing the level and quality of service, then the objective is wrong.

Arguably collecting a greater number streams is improving the level and quality of service.

I am almost as sure that there is nothing that requires the householder as opposed to the collection outfit sorting out what needs to be recycled and what doesn't. Indeed, but most people recognise that separation at source is easier than separation after mixing and covering in slime.
That's for the contractor to figure out. It is what they are being paid a great deal to do.

A lot of though has gone in to this down the years. Just trying to make it somebody elses problem doesn't cut it.
Nobody wants to pay a lot for waste disposal, least of all you. The amount they are paid is significant, but the volume of material they handle is vast, so obliging them to implement a high tech energy intensive process that ultimately you'd have to pay more for doesn't seem like much of a proposal to me.

OTOH, if the expectation of the LA is that I should do this, then I am looking for a reduction in the price I pay.

Heaven forefend you make little effort for the common good.

I don't have the time, motivation or interest to sort through a whole pile of different types of assorted plastic crap to determine what is what and what should go where. Yet you have the time, motivation or interest to consume the contents. It seems unfortunate that expect to gain the benefit of modern materials, but are utterly reluctant do deal with the consequences of their use.
I am not reluctant to deal with the consequences of their use at all. I pay a great deal of money to the LA to do the job for me.

Well - you pay some money for it. That it's a "great deal" is a subjective observation unless you want to come over all numerate ?

Either they do the job and I pay them to do it, or I do it and pay them a lot less. I don't expect to pay *and* do their work for them.

In legal terms, what you expect is neither here nor there in a sense, and as a last resort, you could always try and be a bit flexible.
Waste collection around here generally used to consist of collecting the ash from peoples grates and throwing it down a hole.
Things have moved on in that we consume more, and (society / environmentalists / academics / legislators), can see more benefit to separation and recycling.
Separation is most cheaply done at source by those who aren't too proud or 'up them selves' to do it. While for time being at least you have the option of having all your waste thrown down a hole, if you want other people to separate it, in the end you may be required to pay.

These people are paid a great deal of money. By whose standards ?
By any standards.

Subjective tosh.

Moreover, they know, or should know what facilities they have for dealing with different types of material. The LA may have very few facilities - they sub out the process usually, remember ? I'm not sure that the subcontractors are paid enough to hand sort or invest in the necessary machinery, especially if contracts only last 5 years or so.
So the obvious solution is to take the LA out of the loop and allow multiple contractors to compete for the business on household by household basis.

You and Huge may find this "obvious", but others amongst I can see obvious problems with it.

This would allow a range of choice in terms of price and service and people can choose which they want.

But not necessarily any more efficiently from an environmental point of view.

Quite reasonably I want and expect them to deal with it. What you regard as reasonable is up to you, but I don't hear the sound of you scurrying off to tender for this sort of processing, well paid though you maintain it to be !
There are a whole range of business activities that one can do. I could probably make a lot of money being a barrister as well, or perhaps a dentist, but it wasn't a path I chose. However, both seem to be quite lucrative.

Fair point - but the grass is always greener. What you regard as "a great deal of money" may look a bit sick when you have 250,000 tons of waste to separate and rehome.

I'm sorry but there is the equivalent of blood on the hands of both central and local government. EU Directives are not generally prescriptive in terms of the detail of implementation and neither is their transposition into UK statute. There is a lot more flexibility, I am sure than they would have people believe. There may be flexibility in method, but perhaps less in targets, politics and culture.
.. or in ability, I suspect.

Bit of a cheap shot I think.

Then the law needs to change again, if indeed it does actually prescribe what they are supposed to do to the level of detail that they claim. Therein lies the doubt. I am sure that if I look, I will find that there is a great deal more flexibility than they suggest. Possibly, but look for example at Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) which bans the landfill of some hazardous wastes, liquid wastes and tyres, sets targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill to 75% of 1995 baseline levels by 2006, to 50% by 2009 and to 35% by 2016 to reduce methane greenhouse gas emissions which partly originate from the anaerobic breakdown of biodegradable waste in landfill. It additionally aims to reduce the amount and toxicity of landfilled waste, defines standards for the design and operation of existing and new landfills, promotes the pre-treatment of waste before it is landfilling, and prevents potentially harmful wastes mixing by requiring certain types of waste to be disposed of in particular sites. If you go to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ and search for "Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC)", you can see the bulk of material that even this recent change throws up.
I expect that they will be mandating the collection of cow farts next.

Certainly changing the intestinal flora has been suggested, and may be practicable.

This is typical of the kind of Directive that the EU should not be doing across the whole continent. It should be a matter for individual government.

:) I couldn't possibly comment !

It is an illustration that this is all part and parcel of the disease in local and central government and how there needs to be a massive cull of headcount. I'm not sure that sacking a bung of people makes the remainder more honest. Probably more like more paranoid and devious.
That's fine. I wasn't setting limits on how many should be sacked. There are many departments where running it down to zero would be just fine.

To you perhaps...

There may be *some* value in doing *some* recycling, but when the package and reasons are tainted with this and the PC arguments of "being seen to do the right thing", people become disillusioned with the whole thing. Elected members have an incentive to be seen to do the right thing, but statutory compliance is perhaps the bigger driver once you get past the political speech writers. If one is a jobsworth, I am sure it is. Yes - exactly that - if you want to keep your job...
The mindset is to use as much of the regulation as possible, especially if it results in the need to employ more bureaucrats and to build bigger empires. It's not at all impressive. But it is the civil service way.
Which is precisely why there needs to be a massive slash and burn operation.
Public sector employment is back to over 20% for the UK as a whole - nearly 30% in Northern Ireland and 25% in Scotland, the North East and Wales. Nearly 60% of them had been in their jobs for over 5 years.

Including presumably the NHS and all levels of teaching ?

There is absolutely no justification for this in terms of numbers or of lack of mobility.

Not sure what mobility has to do with it.

Under 10% of the workforce at the outside should be in the public sector

Not sure what is so magic about 10% ?
I'm less concerned by the size of the sector than what it is doing.

If they want to reduce that for cost reasons, then fine, but take that element out of the council tax, and I'll make my own arrangements with a private contractor. I think there's more to it than saving money. Such as an excuse to hire more jobsworths for the gravy train. Such as a desire, and externally imposed requirement, to deliver better environmental performance, yet all your criticism of those to whom council tax is paid suggests that you are criticising LAs. Yet the framework in which they operate, and the targets imposed on them largely come from central government and indeed the EU. They do have the ability to implement things in different ways, but choose to lie and cheat. I wasn't singling out LAs for special treatment. The disease goes all the way to the top. Well, you did refer to council tax and say "Nobody has asked for a reduction in service, so there is no reason for the supplier (i.e. the LA) to reduce it". You'll have to forgive me for assuming that you were thinking about what you were writing about. Absolutely. There is no inconsistency in what I said. Possibly not - it's just not very obvious to the reader.
You just need to read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I read it with quite enough care thanks.

Basically, they are not adding any value, only cost. There is no reason or excuse for them to be in the supply chain. ...that you perceive... It's hard to find evidence to support any other view given the that they execute what they are supposed to do. Well - you may have reason to assume this based on your experience. My experience is different to yours, though the politicisation of the issue is unfortunate in that it stops LA officers speaking freely, and gives them a party line to follow. This really isn't a matter of politicisation, but of demonstrable incompetence. Well, you may regard it as demonstrated within your LA. In mine, some of the officers have been a bit useless, but from one mayor down, I've seen startling levels of confusion, politicisation and denial of the obvious. If it's like that at the top of the organisation, it's no wonder the lower echelons are stressed, reciting garbage by rote, and wishing you'd stop asking smart questions.
I can always get more P45s......

:)

It would be far more effective for there to be a free market in collection and disposal in the same way as there is in the energy sector. People who want to pay the lowest price can buy from a supplier who offers that. Those who want to go for more of a tree hugging operator and pay more because it gives them a warm fuzzy can do that, and people who want to buy a value add service where the supplier comes, sorts and disposes of the that. I guess the point here is that LAs are obliged to implement recycling, and the minimum specification is not something they can alter. They will almost certainly then go through some sort of tendering process to get that service delivered at the lowest price. If you want to change the way this is done, it's a matter for central government. Absolutely. I'm directing some efforts there as well. This does need to be exposed for the scam it is. Well - I'm not sure that its a scam in that there is no obvious beneficiary of a fraud, but where the wrong thing is being done this should be fixed, and where the right thing is done badly, that should be fixed. Where public money is involved, as it is here, this does need to be fully and openly investigated. If there is any basis to assume an offence has been committed. The offence you seem to identifying is 'not doing it your way'.
Not really. Whether or not criminal offences as commonly understood have been committed is neother here nor there. The issue is that these people have the stewardship of our money, yet their standard of performance is very weak indeed as witnessed by the poor value for money.

Well - investigate away if you think you have a case and time to spare.

There are plenty of opportunities for the hangers on to be making money. Which "hangers on" ?
Extra people brought into departments permanently or temporarily.

Typically don't make huge sums ?

Firms of management consultants ineptly making the decisions that the employees should be making but aren't.

I'm not sure this is too common.

The employment of each extra person in the LA to run the charade is a fraud in itself. I'm not convinced.
At one in five of the workforce and rising, each person unnecessarily employed in this area, which is completely a cost centre and not a profit centre in terms of UK PLC is a fraud.

Without having an inventory of what they do, it's hard to say what I'd rather wasn't being done. I'm not sure there is too much, and I'm not sure that waste would be on my list.

They might well, if there is one. I prefer to deal with these things at a higher level. Things are more likely happen as a result of pressure from above. Maybe, but scrutiny can be fairly effective if you get them on the case. It's their job, where as the CEO may opt to bury bad news or delegate investigation to the officers responsible for the problem. Been there, got the T-shirt.
That depends on how you go about it.

Yes.
So how do you stop the CEO doing that ?

I repeat the comment. It is seriously discredited. I am looking at the complete picture. I'm not at all sure that you are. You have some conjecture about the [lack of] benefit, and some allegations about the people who implement the process, but no evidence that you have seen the big picture or looked beyond your own LA to speak of.
One can look on multiple levels.
ON a local one, it is possible to see the most detail and to do so personally.
On a larger scale, there are plenty of press and other sources to be found without looking at all far.

Indeed - though I'm not sure how accurate they are.

The problem is that it takes only a small number or even one obviously bogus aspect, whether it be wasting peoples' time with figuring out which product is which and prosecuting them if they get it wrong; How often does this happen ?
It only needs to happen once with something as stupid as this.

Depends if it's gross contamination like car batteries in compost, or aluminium foil in the can bank.

material that is supposed to be recycled going in with the general trash, ridiculous shipping of materials to remote locations Not necessarily an issue. It depends what it is.
and the employment of extra bureaucrats to run it all. Well - how many ? It won't run itself.
It doesn't need to be "run". The whole thing can be outsourced to several commercial operators and customers can pay them directly, just as they pay for many other services and that's that.

You yourself have spoken about the LA policing the work and managing the licensing I think ? That's pretty much what they do now.

Then on top of that, we are told that it's all wonderful And indeed - it may well be better environmentally that what we had before.
.. and it may not. More greenwash.

Or not.

Which is precisely why they should be taken out of the chain. They add no value. Well - somebody has to organise at a local level.
Very little if anything needs to be "organised"
I heard this same silly nonsense from the highways dept of my LA. They were asked to justify why they had hired quite a substantial number of people in a consulting firm (about the same as the dept itself) to go out and do traffic surveys plan layouts etc. The answer was that they had to "organise" the consulting firm. Complete nonsense. The whole department should be sacked, along with the consulting firm.

I couldn't say.

I am in contact with a few of the better ones in my district and gradually the excess bureaucracy is being exposed. OK, good !
The challenge becomes how to do the sackings. ...Oh so vindictive...
Not really. If people are adding value to something, it is reasonable to employ them. If they are not, then they should be removed from the position and encouraged to do something gainful.
The challenge is that it is too hard to do that, especially with those of public sector mentality.

I suspect that you and they would not share a definition of "gainful".

I hope that that will come but will probably not be before a change of central government. What has central government got to do with it ?
A great deal. Some holding of purse strings with respect to LAs is one example.

Maybe. It'll be interesting to see what central government don't want done. If anything.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-26 22:21:27 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 01:34:24 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-24 22:01:13 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes
The trouble is that only partial views are taken and the true economic and environmental impacts not taken into account. Actually, local authorities do quite a bit of life cycle analysis to try and get this stuff right. While they don't / can't because it's hard to get the data and interpret the results, they may be better informed than you think. One would hope so too, considering the number of people I am paying them to employ to do so. However, the outcome, which is what I am interested in, is weak indeed. In some respects. Not sure that's all down to LAs though.
Possibly. Possibly not. I pay the LA though.
So does central government...

It doesn't particularly have to do so. That's just the current financial arrangement. They are easily changed.

That you may, but if you want what you are attempting to do to be effective as opposed to a feel good, then it needs to be low hanging fruit to almost everybody. The most effective ways to achieve that is to make it financially attractive to people and to tell the truth. Until that happens, it is rather pointless.
Well telling the truth is good.
Paying people to do it out of the taxes they pay the council seems a bit daft if they can 'just do it' though. I thought you were opposed to needless bureaucracy ?

I am, which is why I suggested taking the councils out of the food chain on this altogether and sitting them on the sidelines simply arranging licensing.

When I am convinced of that, I will stop putting everything into the standard bins and liners. Well - you can do what you like, though I suspect that LA recycling is very much driven by the processing of those materials for which they can find markets.
or easy disposal without too many questions being asked.
The waste legislation makes that quite difficult these days. This may be why embarrassing truths occasionally come to light.

Such as recycling in landfill...

Nobody has asked for a reduction in service, but the service they are required to give is no longer the same. That's pure marketing nonsense. Well no - it's umpteen changes in the law. I am quite sure that there is nothing in the law that requires them to reduce collection frequencies. If there is a requirement to collect a greater range of stuff without doubling up road miles and staff, it may amount to that.
Then the premise is wrong in the first place.
Well - so you say. Most people seem to disagree.

Have you made a survey?

If the objective can't be acheved without reducing the level and quality of service, then the objective is wrong.
Arguably collecting a greater number streams is improving the level and quality of service.

Greater choice for the customer is the important thing.

I am almost as sure that there is nothing that requires the householder as opposed to the collection outfit sorting out what needs to be recycled and what doesn't. Indeed, but most people recognise that separation at source is easier than separation after mixing and covering in slime.
That's for the contractor to figure out. It is what they are being paid a great deal to do.
A lot of though has gone in to this down the years. Just trying to make it somebody elses problem doesn't cut it.

It's amazing what can be achieved when there is money to be made or lost or jobs to be lost. It focuses peoples' minds very well indeed.

Nobody wants to pay a lot for waste disposal, least of all you. The amount they are paid is significant, but the volume of material they handle is vast, so obliging them to implement a high tech energy intensive process that ultimately you'd have to pay more for doesn't seem like much of a proposal to me.

If one takes the overhead of the local authorities out of the loop there is a great deal more money to spend on the service product itself rather than measurement thereof.

OTOH, if the expectation of the LA is that I should do this, then I am looking for a reduction in the price I pay.
Heaven forefend you make little effort for the common good.

I make a great deal of effort for "the common good". You should see my P60.

I don't have the time, motivation or interest to sort through a whole pile of different types of assorted plastic crap to determine what is what and what should go where. Yet you have the time, motivation or interest to consume the contents. It seems unfortunate that expect to gain the benefit of modern materials, but are utterly reluctant do deal with the consequences of their use.
I am not reluctant to deal with the consequences of their use at all. I pay a great deal of money to the LA to do the job for me.
Well - you pay some money for it. That it's a "great deal" is a subjective observation unless you want to come over all numerate ?

In terms of what I get for what I pay, it's a very bad deal.

Either they do the job and I pay them to do it, or I do it and pay them a lot less. I don't expect to pay *and* do their work for them.
In legal terms, what you expect is neither here nor there in a sense, and as a last resort, you could always try and be a bit flexible.

Why? It's by making fudges and accomodations to cover the incompetence and fat of local and central government that has taken us to the point of more than one on five people working in these areas - one in three in some regions. I don't mind paying for things for one moment. I do object to paying for unnecessary overhead and incompetence.

Waste collection around here generally used to consist of collecting the ash from peoples grates and throwing it down a hole.
Things have moved on in that we consume more, and (society / environmentalists / academics / legislators), can see more benefit to separation and recycling.
Separation is most cheaply done at source by those who aren't too proud or 'up them selves' to do it. While for time being at least you have the option of having all your waste thrown down a hole, if you want other people to separate it, in the end you may be required to pay.

I should have the choice of whether I want to do it or to buy a service where someone else does it.

These people are paid a great deal of money. By whose standards ?
By any standards.
Subjective tosh.

In comparison with what they deserve, it's a great deal of money. That's comparative.

Moreover, they know, or should know what facilities they have for dealing with different types of material. The LA may have very few facilities - they sub out the process usually, remember ? I'm not sure that the subcontractors are paid enough to hand sort or invest in the necessary machinery, especially if contracts only last 5 years or so.
So the obvious solution is to take the LA out of the loop and allow multiple contractors to compete for the business on household by household basis.
You and Huge may find this "obvious", but others amongst I can see obvious problems with it.

I can understand that some people have trouble thinking outside the box whether it be by fear, IQ or lack of imagination.

This would allow a range of choice in terms of price and service and people can choose which they want.
But not necessarily any more efficiently from an environmental point of view.

Having the customer bought in to what is reasonable is the key issue. That won't be achieved by greenwashing, coercion, lying or any of the other techniques employed by the environmental lobby. Unfortunately, because they seem to believe their own BS, they imagine that everyone else will. Sorry but it won't fly.
The solution is to make it financially appealing and to provide choice. Once that is done, people who want to play the green game can do so, people who want to buy a comprehensive service of someone else doing the rubbish processing can do that.
It's really not very difficult.

Quite reasonably I want and expect them to deal with it. What you regard as reasonable is up to you, but I don't hear the sound of you scurrying off to tender for this sort of processing, well paid though you maintain it to be !
There are a whole range of business activities that one can do. I could probably make a lot of money being a barrister as well, or perhaps a dentist, but it wasn't a path I chose. However, both seem to be quite lucrative.
Fair point - but the grass is always greener. What you regard as "a great deal of money" may look a bit sick when you have 250,000 tons of waste to separate and rehome.

I don't see things in such limited ways.

I'm sorry but there is the equivalent of blood on the hands of both central and local government. EU Directives are not generally prescriptive in terms of the detail of implementation and neither is their transposition into UK statute. There is a lot more flexibility, I am sure than they would have people believe. There may be flexibility in method, but perhaps less in targets, politics and culture.
.. or in ability, I suspect.
Bit of a cheap shot I think.

Just an observation. Sometimes the truth is painful.

I expect that they will be mandating the collection of cow farts next.
Certainly changing the intestinal flora has been suggested, and may be practicable.

I don't believe it. Yes actually I do.

This is typical of the kind of Directive that the EU should not be doing across the whole continent. It should be a matter for individual government.
:) I couldn't possibly comment !

Yet another reason that the whole game is so discredited.

It is an illustration that this is all part and parcel of the disease in local and central government and how there needs to be a massive cull of headcount. I'm not sure that sacking a bung of people makes the remainder more honest. Probably more like more paranoid and devious.
That's fine. I wasn't setting limits on how many should be sacked. There are many departments where running it down to zero would be just fine.
To you perhaps...

There are so many areas of duplication and waste that I often think that it would be better to shut the whole lot down and start again.

Public sector employment is back to over 20% for the UK as a whole - nearly 30% in Northern Ireland and 25% in Scotland, the North East and Wales. Nearly 60% of them had been in their jobs for over 5 years.
Including presumably the NHS and all levels of teaching ?

Government figures.

There is absolutely no justification for this in terms of numbers or of lack of mobility.
Not sure what mobility has to do with it.

I don't suppose that you do. It is inflexibility that is one of the largest factors in the demise of enterprises. In the public sector, they are continually propped up with public money. In the private sector, they go broke.

Under 10% of the workforce at the outside should be in the public sector
Not sure what is so magic about 10% ?
I'm less concerned by the size of the sector than what it is doing.

I picked the number only because it implies cutting the present level by a half and to illustrate that the cuts need to be swingeing - not just tinkering with a little natural wastage here and there.

Absolutely. There is no inconsistency in what I said. Possibly not - it's just not very obvious to the reader.
You just need to read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
I read it with quite enough care thanks.

Good. Then you shouldn't be confused any more.

Not really. Whether or not criminal offences as commonly understood have been committed is neother here nor there. The issue is that these people have the stewardship of our money, yet their standard of performance is very weak indeed as witnessed by the poor value for money.
Well - investigate away if you think you have a case and time to spare.

I pay others to do that.

There are plenty of opportunities for the hangers on to be making money. Which "hangers on" ?
Extra people brought into departments permanently or temporarily.
Typically don't make huge sums ?

Outside firms of management consultants? Are you kidding?

Firms of management consultants ineptly making the decisions that the employees should be making but aren't.
I'm not sure this is too common.

I'm sure that it's exceedingly common. I know of 4 local authorities within a 20 mile radius who spend vast sums on it.

The employment of each extra person in the LA to run the charade is a fraud in itself. I'm not convinced.
At one in five of the workforce and rising, each person unnecessarily employed in this area, which is completely a cost centre and not a profit centre in terms of UK PLC is a fraud.
Without having an inventory of what they do, it's hard to say what I'd rather wasn't being done. I'm not sure there is too much, and I'm not sure that waste would be on my list.

Almost every department, last time I asked.

They might well, if there is one. I prefer to deal with these things at a higher level. Things are more likely happen as a result of pressure from above. Maybe, but scrutiny can be fairly effective if you get them on the case. It's their job, where as the CEO may opt to bury bad news or delegate investigation to the officers responsible for the problem. Been there, got the T-shirt.
That depends on how you go about it.
Yes.
So how do you stop the CEO doing that ?

He is still accountable and very sensitive about his position and empire.

material that is supposed to be recycled going in with the general trash, ridiculous shipping of materials to remote locations Not necessarily an issue. It depends what it is.
and the employment of extra bureaucrats to run it all. Well - how many ? It won't run itself.
It doesn't need to be "run". The whole thing can be outsourced to several commercial operators and customers can pay them directly, just as they pay for many other services and that's that.
You yourself have spoken about the LA policing the work and managing the licensing I think ? That's pretty much what they do now.

There is no control over their staffing and they are in the payment path between customer and supplier. Plenty of fat to trim there.

Which is precisely why they should be taken out of the chain. They add no value. Well - somebody has to organise at a local level.
Very little if anything needs to be "organised"
I heard this same silly nonsense from the highways dept of my LA. They were asked to justify why they had hired quite a substantial number of people in a consulting firm (about the same as the dept itself) to go out and do traffic surveys plan layouts etc. The answer was that they had to "organise" the consulting firm. Complete nonsense. The whole department should be sacked, along with the consulting firm.
I couldn't say.

I could. Articles will shortly be appearing in the local press....

I am in contact with a few of the better ones in my district and gradually the excess bureaucracy is being exposed. OK, good !
The challenge becomes how to do the sackings. ...Oh so vindictive...
Not really. If people are adding value to something, it is reasonable to employ them. If they are not, then they should be removed from the position and encouraged to do something gainful.
The challenge is that it is too hard to do that, especially with those of public sector mentality.
I suspect that you and they would not share a definition of "gainful".

I am sure not. I wonder if they would share my definition of who is paying for them?

On 2006-11-26 14:40:33 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 10:19:03 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:10:08 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
Oh - above you suggested that it was a tidiness issue ... "I don't want to clutter the kitchen with assorted boxes for this type of plastic and that, ... " Are there any more issues? I'm not even sure what the "cost issue" is. On the one hand we are told that councils are 'reducing the number of collections' and thus reducing costs. On the other hand we are told that councils are employing 'armies of officials' and thus increasing costs.
This is
What is ??
why the solution is to fire the "armies of officials".
It is akin to companies who employ armies of accountants. They typically fail as businesses because for each person out making the money, there are two counting it.
:) Another LA obsession...
The current structure of local authorities plus private contractors is wasteful. Take out the local authority element and apply the saving to the job rather than the measuring of it.
And if you don't measure it, how will you know your savings are being delivered rather than siphoned off ?

Simple. It's called a competitive market.
Contractors compete for the customers' business. They can offer a low priced service and compete that way or a better service at a higher price and compete that way.
Supermarkets manage it very well by having typically 4 brand threads:
- Cheap own brand
- Mainstream own brand
- Vendor brand
- Premium brand
People buy what they like and/or what they can afford.

On 2006-11-26 13:20:57 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:59:32 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
In Clackmannanshire it is simply a matter of checking whether there is a triangle with a 1 or a 2 inside it. Hardly complicated.
Styrofoam, plastic bottle tops, margarine tubs, carrier bags, ..... ?
Simply a matter of checking whether there is a triangle with a 1 or a 2.
I haven't ever noticed either on expanded polystyrene, for obvious reasons.

What obvious reasons? It's plastic.

Bottle tops sometimes have a 2 on them.

Sometimes, sometimes not.

I can't recall ever noticing either on a margarine tub.

Maybe, maybe not.

I have seen some plastic bags with a 1 or a 2 on them, can't remember which. Hardly complicated.

An inconsistent shambles.

On 2006-11-26 14:51:22 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 12:14:36 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
However, when it comes to plastics, I really don't want to deal with checking the list for every item being thrown away. In Clackmannanshire it is simply a matter of checking whether there is a triangle with a 1 or a 2 inside it. Hardly complicated.
Styrofoam, plastic bottle tops, margarine tubs, carrier bags, ..... ?
If they aren't on the list, residual waste...

Fine. I don't want to waste my time looking up numbers, figuring out which type of plastic,metal or paper product goes where, therefore it all goes in the one bag until this is properly organised.

On 2006-11-26 14:48:09 +0000, John Beardmore said:

If you wish to convince others then you need to come up with convincing arguments.
I don't need to convince anybody other than those who can deregulate the whole charade.
They are among the set 'others'.

I prefer to focus on the subset of "others" who can actually change something, quickly and effectively.

Alternatively, I can continue to chuck everything into the (one) bin.
For now...

In perpetuity.

This is purely and simply a cost issue and the attempts to dress it up as anything else are laughable. The background has already been explained in some detail.
Really? More greenwash.
:) You are free to regard it as such. Fortunately for every single one of us, the is no law against malformed opinions !

Coming to any other conclusion is hard to justify.

On 2006-11-26 14:56:08 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 10:21:03 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:07:48 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
You may be prepared to pay for this, others would rather do the simple task of sorting (and some rinsing) themselves. I certainly would. It's hardly stretching even my little brain. Indeed. With a single bin for residual waste, a single bin for recyclables (with the sorting being done at the kerbside) and a single bin for composting, I'm sure it is within the grasp of just about everyone.
Definition of recyclables?
Not requires in any abstract or academic sense.

Que?

Newspapers but not bundles of newspapers
:) Just put them all in.

I do now.

(Some) plastic bottles but not the tops
This is a good question.
Plastics but not styrofoam or carrier bags
How hard can it be ?

It probably isn't. I don't want to waste time on looking up lists of what can and can't go where.

Aluminium cans but not foil
Just give them the lot unless they are contaminated with something nasty.

Not according to the guidelines of my LA.

The clearest definition of recyclable I've seen so far is council refuse department, although I have my doubts about that.
Yawn....

The sound heard there every afternoon...

On 2006-11-26 15:33:55 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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.

Of course. That also depends on sensible definitions of those standards, full justified and agreed by all parties - especially the ones paying.

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.

It may well be, until those with profligate lifestyles move their resources off shore and the applause dies away rather rapidly.

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.

There is very little that isn't or shouldn't be.

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.

That could be a product offering for some people.
There could be another where the price is less if you take rubbish to the tip
A third where it's more if they do all of the work.
There is no need for compromises.

I'm not convinced this is too far from where LAs taking us at the moment.

I don't think that most of them have any clue as to where they are going. Most seem to think they do and are unwilling to admit to mistakes. That's the most dangerous situation of all.

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.

Now I'm *really* worried.

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.

I'm not any more part of any problem than anyone else. I am simply not going to accept that one-size-fits-all solutions which assume that I take a specified role are the way to go.

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 ?

Clearly defined measurements and outcomes are the key way.

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.

I'm the customer.....

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 ?

Who indeed.

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 ?

Generally yes, it is. That's why I would rather somebody else sorts the rubbish if they are motivated to do 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 ?

Sure. It is one of the key issues in each local election.

On 2006-11-26 15:39:08 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> writes On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:18:55 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
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.
Shhhh. That doesn't fit in with Daily Wail sound bites about the rubbish Talaban and thus you must be lying:-)
ISTM that the current voluntary approach is working reasonably well, despite the odd council cockup and refusenik. With luck the stick will not need to be deployed too often, though it may need to be deployed in the end.
Pretty much my take, thought tax on residual waste bins might be the next step if the pundits are to be believed.

It's very interesting to read talk of big sticks and things of this nature, when the correct solution is to provide the service that the customer wants to buy.
Can you imagine what would happen if Sainsbury's began inspecting peoples' shopping when they enter the store and charging them if there is a box of Tesco cornflakes in their bag?
Yet this is the proposal here.
This amply demonstrates how discredited the whole thing is when it is perceived that there is a need to bully people in order to get them to conform with a questionable objective.

On 2006-11-26 15:53:46 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 08:43:14 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
I really don't mind what they do. I expect to be able to put out all of the rubbish, each week, and for it all to be collected. I don't expect to do half the job of the refuse collector. "I want. I want. I want."
I'm the customer. I pay. I should be able to choose.
Regardless of your own political philosophy, you are also a person served by the state.

It isn't an issue of politics but of value for money.

For this you pay taxes.

Way too many taxes. There is relatively little that *needs* to be delivered by the state. Once defence is taken out, virtually nothing.

You should be able to change all this within the democratic framework if enough people agree with you.
Go on then... ...but don't count on my support.

I wasn't expecting it. However, I am sure that one day people will begin to realise the extent to which they are overpaying for third rate services.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 14:48:09 +0000, John Beardmore said:
If you wish to convince others then you need to come up with convincing arguments. I don't need to convince anybody other than those who can deregulate the whole charade. They are among the set 'others'.
I prefer to focus on the subset of "others" who can actually change something, quickly and effectively.

I won't hold my breath.

Alternatively, I can continue to chuck everything into the (one) bin. For now...
In perpetuity.

We'll see...

This is purely and simply a cost issue and the attempts to dress up as anything else are laughable. The background has already been explained in some detail. Really? More greenwash.
:) You are free to regard it as such. Fortunately for every single one of us, the is no law against malformed opinions !
Coming to any other conclusion is hard to justify.

For you perhaps, but there are plenty of other mind sets out there.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 14:51:22 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 12:14:36 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
However, when it comes to plastics, I really don't want to deal with checking the list for every item being thrown away. In Clackmannanshire it is simply a matter of checking whether there is a triangle with a 1 or a 2 inside it. Hardly complicated. Styrofoam, plastic bottle tops, margarine tubs, carrier bags, .....
If they aren't on the list, residual waste...
Fine. I don't want to waste my time looking up numbers, figuring out which type of plastic,metal or paper product goes where, therefore it all goes in the one bag until this is properly organised.

Well - you are within your rights for the time being.
J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-26 13:34:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:

I really don't care whether it's a centralised or decentralised facility. I pay for a disposal service and I expect the supplier of that to deal with these issues. That's what I'm paying them to do.
So where's the contract that says what the state will do for you ?

A very good question. If they are not going to tell me exactly what I am supposed to be getting for my money, why are they expecting payment for it?

In the absence of such, why do you assume you are entitled to any particular service or level of service ?

Another good question. In regard to refuse collection, they have provided, for decades, collection once a week of anything that I put out for them. It all goes in bags and bins and that's it. I am not looking for a reduction in that level of service unless they are willing to reduce the price charged.
The question of entitlement would go given competition between collection firms with the customer paying directly. Then the equation is simple. If they perform, they get paid. If they don't, they don't get paid. If they don't perform too may times the customer goes elsewhere.

The second option is to do the sorting at the container, with staff sorting the contents of the container into a multi-compartment vehicle. If one provides a separate bin for compostable waste, which is taken off separately to a composter, then the sorting operation is very much less dirty. One could then provide two containers, to be collected on alternate weeks. One container is the one for residual waste and one for recyclable waste. The second option seems a lot better to me.
I really don't mind what they do. I expect to be able to put out all of the rubbish, each week, and for it all to be collected. I don't expect to do half the job of the refuse collector.
I may wish to use some material from the garden to make compost for the garden, but don't expect to be compelled to do so.
So in essence, you expect to able to dispose of any amount of any kind of waste, and it to be the states problem regardless of material, mixture, or quantity ?

In essence I would prefer the state to be out of the food chain and I will choose a service offering based on competitive prices from several suppliers.
For example, if I want to dispose of a load of building materials today, I can order a skip. Yellow Pages and the internet are full of suppliers offering skips. There are different deals available and I can negotiate the best price and the most convenient delivery and collection arrangements.
It's entirely reasonable that that concept be extended for all rubbish collection in just the same way that other commodity services are purchased. For example, I can buy a mobile phone on a pay-as-you-go basis, or a commitment period. The longer I commit to, the better the deal or product offering.

On 2006-11-26 13:38:49 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:11:28 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said: On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:02:53 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote this:-
When they asked what would happen if they put all their rubbish in the black (landfill) bin they were told they couldn't be fined for this. So now to avoid the chance of a fine for another mistake they simply tip everything in the black bin, recycle nothing and are advising their neighbours to do likewise. The sort of own-goal which councils are noted for. Another own-goal was to put RFID chips on bins without having a discussion about it with the public.
All of which illustrates the motivations of those involved. It has to do with control games and nothing to do with the objectives or the requirements of the customer.
It's not a game. It may just be about protecting the environment.

It's a power game. The other comments about wielding big sticks and the like and compeliing people to do things that cannot be properly justified, demonstrate that point to a tee.
That's why I made the comment to you earlier that the environmental lobby continually shoots itself in the foot.
If there were more honesty, it would be worthy of consideration. Until that changes, its effectiveness will continue to be limited.

On 2006-11-26 13:52:10 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:23:42 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
The sort of own-goal which councils are noted for. Another own-goal was to put RFID chips on bins without having a discussion about it with the public.
All of which illustrates the motivations of those involved.
Not necessarily. Instead they could be as incompetent as you frequently claim they are.

Or both.

Pay per throw will probably happen which will be great news for those who throw away large amounts of low density materials, like expanded polystyrene. Eventually they might go the same way as the post office, charging by size as well as mass.

Who knows. International shipping has been based on weight and dims since time immemorial