Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Andy Hall writes

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 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.

:) People generally have problems with their own anti social traits.
It's not pretty to threaten people, but ultimately most behaviours are constrained by social norms which are expressed as law, and law in enforced through physical force and if necessary violence.
What is new here is that what is considered normal waste disposal practice is being changed at one end by the likes of FOE, and at the other end by the likes of the EU, DEFRA, EA, DTI, LAs etc.
In the end they will exercise the law against individuals who don't conform. Were the proposed changes a matter of fashion I'd be on your side. As they are (albeit very badly drafted and implemented in some respects) matters of sustainability and survival, I'm not.

That's why I made the comment to you earlier that the environmental lobby continually shoots itself in the foot.

I don't think it does.

If there were more honesty, it would be worthy of consideration. Until that changes, its effectiveness will continue to be limited.

I think the amount of dishonesty is quite limited.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 23:56:41 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 14:51:22 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.
It will remain my practice until there is either competition or a price reduction

Or enforcement...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 23:55:58 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 14:48:09 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
Alternatively, I can continue to chuck everything into the (one)
For now... In perpetuity. We'll see...
See what?

How long it is before waste separation becomes compulsory for a start, or how long before they start charging for residual / unsorted waste.

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 :) 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.
I'm sure that there are, which is another reason that the customer should be able to purchase from a range of suppliers.

And certainly a reason why you shouldn't assume that only one conclusion can easily be justified.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-27 00:35:24 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes 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.
Depends where you are coming from.

Really? Go on....

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.
Hardly.

I'm afraid it is. On the one hand you are suggesting that the customer has a "choice". On the other you are saying that he has a choice but if he picks any but the first, he has to pay for the first anyway.
It may be your definition of a choice, but it isn't mine.

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.
You think it's questionable. Most people accept it.

Have most people actually looked?

I think we should do the LCA better, but at least the likes of LAs are starting to do that these days.
Cheers, J/.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 17:05:28 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Fine - let the local council sell a package of waste disposal, vermin control, WHY? Good question. But why complicate things with further product bundling ?
Because some customers like to buy bundled products...

Possibly so, though it seems odd to be fighting to unbundle waste from the bundle of stuff we pay LAs for, while suggesting they move into another area of activity and sell waste services bundled in that !

and let those who want to buy it and those who don't make their own arrangements. On the other hand, why encourage LAs into an area such as this which further grows their empire ?
Remember that this would be financially separate from the LA because it would not be funded from council tax but by people buying the service or not.

So it's not an LA thing at all then ? If so, what is it ?

Probably it would need to be an independent company, carrying the local authority branding,

So something to do with the LA then, depending on the LAs reputation.

and with the local authority as shareholder.

So not independent at all then.

Profits could perhaps go into local authority coffers, but losses could not be made up from them - any borrowing would need to come from the market.

Hmmm...

This would be needed so that there is no subsidy of the LA branded product from public money.

OK - sounds perverse, but it's your dream.

Given that trading environment,

<Axiom>

which is, after all, how it should be,

</Axiom>

it would be very interesting to see how small the number of people would become.

Number of people doing what ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-27 00:57:51 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes 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 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?
Because, all be they ill specified, they are providing you with various services.

Whether I want them from that supplier or not?

In the absence of such, why do you assume you are entitled to any particular service or level of service ?
Another good question.
So you shouldn't be then.
In regard to refuse collection, they have provided, for decades, collection once a week of anything that I put out for them.
Well, not quite anything.
So essentially, your argument is based on nothing stronger than tradition and convention, the very arguments you seek to rubbish when you sack the town halls of England !

No, it's based on having bought product X at price Y and being told that I have to have product X/2 at price Y + 30%
That is nothing to do with tradition and everything to do with incompetence and unnecessary bureaucracy.

I am not looking for a reduction in that level of service unless they are willing to reduce the price charged.
Doesn't really matter what you are looking for though does it ?

If I am paying, yes it does. It also seems to matter to a goodly number of people in the district.

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.
There is another 'equation' about citizens obeying the law and the consequences of not doing.

More bullying and compulsion with no justification?

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.
Yes - I think we'd gathered that.

I am glad that the message sunk in at last.

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.
Yes though skips differ from bins in that most people are filling their bins most of the time.

You should see how quickly and often I can fill a skip.

It's entirely reasonable that that concept be extended for all rubbish collection
Not really - see above.

There is no reason at all why not.

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.
Mobiles are not delivered once a week in trucks. Not is electricity, gas or land lines. Your analogy fails in the ergonomics of delivery.

Ergonomics of delivery? What kind of greenspeak is that? The important thing is tht the customer receives the service that he is paying for.

On 2006-11-27 00:50:05 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
It isn't an issue of politics
I suspect most things are politics in some regard, and you seem to come at this with a fairly pre formed view, not uncharacteristic of the UK political right.

What curious ideas you have.
Are you saying that freedom to choose where to buy things is a characteristic of the political right? Very odd perspective.

It sounds like a bit knee jerk from the range of things you tell us are "obvious".
It's kind of as if you think you should be preaching to the converted, but haven't noticed that you aren't.

I also think that people are able to form their own views. I don't have any need for them to agree with me or otherwise.

but of value for money.
As though that were the only thing that mattered.

Unless and until that aspect is satisfied, the rest is irrelevant.

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.
Apart from the maintenance of all shared assets.

Roads?

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.
Possibly. Hopefully they'll notice the need to live sustainably too.

Of course. But only when how to do so is presented honestly and properly.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 00:35:24 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 15:39:08 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , David Hansen 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. Depends where you are coming from.
Really? Go on....

Well again, your only concern is that the 'customer' gets what they want in the short term.
Coming at it from a sustainability / resource conservation standpoint isn't really on your radar.
There are other perspectives which seem just as valid as yours, and these are asserting themselves through legislation and will no doubt continue to do so for some time.

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. Hardly.
I'm afraid it is. On the one hand you are suggesting that the customer has a "choice". On the other you are saying that he has a choice but if he picks any but the first, he has to pay for the first anyway.
It may be your definition of a choice, but it isn't mine.

It's not a great way for governments to do things, but its a much bigger area than just waste.
Government acts more or less as if you have a contract with them to pay for and accept certain services. This is why I touched on the notion of the absence of contract earlier. If the nature of the agreement between government and people could be clarified, perhaps some sort of meaningful opt out would be possible.
As it is though, you'd be looking at people wanting rebates for not having children, not producing much waste, not having many health problems, not using any envirowise products, not having a higher education etc. You might like that, but I'm not sure how many people would want to live in your world with you.

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. You think it's questionable. Most people accept it.
Have most people actually looked?

Enough relatively independent academics have looked at separation and recycling in a fairly sophisticated way to justify it I think, but it's not always easy to know which of the plethora of implementation options are the best.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 00:57:51 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 13:34:53 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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 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? Because, all be they ill specified, they are providing you with various services.
Whether I want them from that supplier or not?

That's certainly the way it is now.

In regard to refuse collection, they have provided, for decades, collection once a week of anything that I put out for them. Well, not quite anything. So essentially, your argument is based on nothing stronger than tradition and convention, the very arguments you seek to rubbish when you sack the town halls of England !
No, it's based on having bought product X at price Y and being told that I have to have product X/2 at price Y + 30%

By you admit to having no contractual relationship with the LA.
You 'brought a pup' not a service.
You don't even know I suspect, what you are being charged for waste, not the full details of the service provided on your behalf.

That is nothing to do with tradition and everything to do with incompetence and unnecessary bureaucracy.

No - it's based on tradition and your assumptions.

I am not looking for a reduction in that level of service unless they are willing to reduce the price charged. Doesn't really matter what you are looking for though does it ?
If I am paying, yes it does. It also seems to matter to a goodly number of people in the district.

Good on them. You can take on the EU together then.

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. There is another 'equation' about citizens obeying the law and the consequences of not doing.
More bullying and compulsion with no justification?

I'm not seeking to justify it - just pointing it out.

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. Yes though skips differ from bins in that most people are filling their bins most of the time.
You should see how quickly and often I can fill a skip.

:)

It's entirely reasonable that that concept be extended for all rubbish collection Not really - see above.
There is no reason at all why not.

Well - I can see one, so your inability to see one doesn't mean none can exist.

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. Mobiles are not delivered once a week in trucks. Not is electricity, gas or land lines. Your analogy fails in the ergonomics of delivery.
Ergonomics of delivery? What kind of greenspeak is that?

Look it up if you're struggling. It's not particularly a green thing so it won't hurt you.

The important thing is tht the customer receives the service that he is paying for.

:) No - that's only AN important thing. There are others.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-27 01:04:33 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
All of which illustrates the motivations of those involved. It has to do with control games and nothing to do with the objectives or 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.
:) People generally have problems with their own anti social traits.
It's not pretty to threaten people, but ultimately most behaviours are constrained by social norms which are expressed as law, and law in enforced through physical force and if necessary violence.

Ah. so now we are bringing in the nebulous concept of "society". Previously, communists used terms like "the people" as a nebulous label to justify the unjustifiable.
The next step is to say that all are equal, followed by the tagline that some are more equal than others.

What is new here is that what is considered normal waste disposal practice is being changed at one end by the likes of FOE, and at the other end by the likes of the EU, DEFRA, EA, DTI, LAs etc.
In the end they will exercise the law against individuals who don't conform.

To the totalitarian state?

Were the proposed changes a matter of fashion I'd be on your side.

Do you have difficulty telling the difference between things that are demonstrably worthwhile and fashion; or is it basically that anything that looks vaguely green must be OK.

As they are (albeit very badly drafted and implemented in some respects) matters of sustainability and survival, I'm not.

Where things do *genuinely* relate to sustainability and survival, I agree with you. However, I need to be convinced of that for each proposed measure. That is not happening - there is still way too much fluff.
I also don't accept that disposal has to be done in a prescribed way by a local authority with me acting as front end contractor on their behalf and I have explained why

That's why I made the comment to you earlier that the environmental lobby continually shoots itself in the foot.
I don't think it does.

There's none so blind....

If there were more honesty, it would be worthy of consideration. Until that changes, its effectiveness will continue to be limited.
I think the amount of dishonesty is quite limited.

I imagine that you would....

On 2006-11-27 01:06:18 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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.
It will remain my practice until there is either competition or a price reduction
Or enforcement...

More bullying?

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 00:50:05 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes
It isn't an issue of politics I suspect most things are politics in some regard, and you seem to come at this with a fairly pre formed view, not uncharacteristic of the UK political right.
What curious ideas you have.
Are you saying that freedom to choose where to buy things is a characteristic of the political right?

No, but they seem to go on about it more. More to the point, they tend to be offended by state provision.

It sounds like a bit knee jerk from the range of things you tell us are "obvious". It's kind of as if you think you should be preaching to the converted, but haven't noticed that you aren't.
I also think that people are able to form their own views. I don't have any need for them to agree with me or otherwise.

Good.

but of value for money. As though that were the only thing that mattered.
Unless and until that aspect is satisfied, the rest is irrelevant.

Not everybody thinks so, though I guess the core problem is that different people place different values on different outcomes.

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. Apart from the maintenance of all shared assets.
Roads?

For a start.

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. Possibly. Hopefully they'll notice the need to live sustainably too.
Of course. But only when how to do so is presented honestly and properly.

Indeed, but a 'dirty protest' doesn't really move the debate forward much.
Costed alternatives and honest detailed criticism of assumptions and data might.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-27 01:08:38 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 23:55:58 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 14:48:09 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Alternatively, I can continue to chuck everything into the (one) For now... In perpetuity. We'll see...
See what?
How long it is before waste separation becomes compulsory for a start, or how long before they start charging for residual / unsorted waste.

That's fine. If they want to have waste separation, either they need to offer it as part of their service or to deregulate the market, or preferably both.

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 :) 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.
I'm sure that there are, which is another reason that the customer should be able to purchase from a range of suppliers.
And certainly a reason why you shouldn't assume that only one conclusion can easily be justified.

So why do you think that it is acceptable for a monopoly to force its paying customers, against their will, to take less service for more money and do half the work for the supplier into the bargain?

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 13:13:21 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:51:39 +0000, Huge said:
I do wonder if the State is that marvellous, why it isn't prepared to compete against private enterprise.
Because it knows full well that it can't. The reality is that it doesn't get the opportunity.
Precisely. That's because it spends most of its time legislating and regulating to protect its position rather than actually doing somehting useful.

This is tosh. Cite one bit of waste legislation on the last decade that "protects the position" of government. Or indeed any at all.

The inevitable result is overpricing and poor quality. The only way to defend that is not to have any competition so that people have comparison points. This strikes me as a political belief rather than an observation based on what can be observed in the town hall.
One only has to look in a few places to see a consistent malaise.

Guess I just look under different rocks.

And in this particualr case, there's no reason whatsoever why the local Council shouldn't sell a "Home Care" package that people could choose to buy or not, as they wish. Absolutely. But what do you include in this ? This sounds horribly like the water companies trying to sell you insurance in case your rising main leaks !
Not really. It means that the local authority can continue to offer services which people buy (not paid for out of council tax) in competition with independent firms. They may even outsource delivery.
This kind of thing happens in many sectors - telecommunications and financial services being two examples.
For example, I can get a credit card from American Express or I can get a British Airways one which is delivered and operated by American Express. Both allow me to buy things and have their terms and conditions. Each offers a different package of benefits and costs.
Supply and branding can be applied in almost any sector. So for example, SITA could offer a range of waste collection services that I might like to buy; or I can buy a different package of services from the local authoriity but operated by SITA.
It just requires a little imagination and application of business principles.

Yes - though I'm not sure what the point is or how it helps.
And calling it a "Home Care" package implies that there is more bundled into it than waste collection. I thought you only wanted to pay for what you used ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 01:06:18 +0000, John Beardmore said:
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. It will remain my practice until there is either competition or a price reduction Or enforcement...
More bullying?

Law enforcement tends to be that way if you are the one being forced.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore