Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Andy Hall writes

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 wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.
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.

:) I doubt they see it that way.

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?

Because behind the scenes there is a lot more going on to dispose of multiple waste streams in a more sustainable way.
There is more to it than end user convenience.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-27 01:26:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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.

No. I think that the customer (and it is customer and not 'customer' - he *is* paying) should get what they want in the medium and long term as well.

Coming at it from a sustainability / resource conservation standpoint isn't really on your radar.

Actually it is.
You seem to want to approach this from the perspective of unqualified greenwash, government run monopoly, no freedom of choice, hang the expense and if people refuse to accept it, wield big legal sticks.
Hardly the moral high ground, let alone the economic one.
I believe that it's possible to achieve the *genuinely important* objectives without any of those trappings, by encouraging people to do them and giving them choices as to how.

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.

No doubt. I shall assert myself in a different direction.

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.

That's fudge.
It's always possible for the government no longer to provide something and not to pay for it. De facto, that has been done with dentistry. They simply haven't been honest about it.

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.

Hmm... As soon as "academics" start to look at something, we know that we are in trouble.

In message , Andy Hall writes

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 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.

I'm happy to leave pop political theory to those who give a damn.

The next step is to say that all are equal, followed by the tagline that some are more equal than others.

Cheap shot and somewhat off the point.

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?

:) That's a matter of opinion. Too close in some ways for sure.

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;

Not usually.

or is it basically that anything that looks vaguely green must be OK.

Well, I've got an MSc in environmental decision making so I have put a bit of thought into this stuff.

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.

And also the proof is fairly mathematical and quite local specific.

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

Indeed, but I find your view rather unconvincing. It seems to be born of bloody mindedness rather than any real desire to change in the best way possible.

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....

As those that do not look. So apart from your LA, have you actually researched this issue at all ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-27 01:14:07 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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 !

Part and parcel of the same thing.
Some people may feel more comfortable buying their rubbish collection from the "council", just as some people feel more comfortable dealing with "the gas board"
In order to accomodate them within a competitive framework, the LA department would need to be separated out to be on the same commercial terms as private operators.

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 ?

There can only be a free market if there is a level playing field. One could not have the LA participating if the funding of its operation were not separated from the finances of the LA with full accounts available and to ensure that there is no subsidy etc.
The alternative would be for the LA not to participate as a contractor at all.

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.

Use of the LA's brand, but operating in the commercial marketplace. It would be a very fast way to learn whether people really do care about receiving their services from it or not.

and with the local authority as shareholder.
So not independent at all then.

Just one suggestion as a vehicle for profits to go to the public purse. There are probably other types of applicable corporate status.

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...

Well.... if it's viable, it should not be a problem.....

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 ?

Working for Local Authority Waste Collections Ltd. in the admin departments.

Cheers, J/.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 01:26:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:
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 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.
No. I think that the customer (and it is customer and not 'customer' - he *is* paying)

But he is not the only one paying, nor necessarily the best informed of those that are.

should get what they want in the medium and long term as well.

Even if that results in minimum spend and environmental damage.

Coming at it from a sustainability / resource conservation standpoint isn't really on your radar.
Actually it is.
You seem to want to approach this from the perspective of unqualified greenwash, government run monopoly, no freedom of choice, hang the expense and if people refuse to accept it, wield big legal sticks.
Hardly the moral high ground, let alone the economic one.

I think the case for recycling is relatively clear in the long run, though it's not been an easy industry to get started. Recycling is amenable to life cycle analysis and this is pretty much the best benchmark we have to determine what is appropriate in which circumstances.
I suspect it is the case that waste collection is most efficiently achieved by a single provider, and all the evidence I know of indicates that separation of waste streams at source is more efficient than later separation.
I don't particularly support the notion of provision of services that are free at the point of use - it distorts markets tremendously, but I'm not sure that I always like the alternatives better either.
Freedom of choice is great as long as it doesn't get you freedom to choose from a range of choices which are all worse.
The world is not a perfect place, but I'm happy to let the state carry on promoting recycling as best it can using the best available tools to work out what is appropriate, and if uptake is limited, I won't be too upset if some level of enforcement is undertaken in the interests of improving environmental performance.
You can talk about big sticks if you like - I can live with that.

I believe that it's possible to achieve the *genuinely important* objectives without any of those trappings, by encouraging people to do them and giving them choices as to how.

Maybe - I'd like to think so, but I suspect you are too busy looking for excuses not to do anything to actually find out what it is best to do.

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.
No doubt. I shall assert myself in a different direction.

?

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
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.
That's fudge.
It's always possible for the government no longer to provide something and not to pay for it. De facto, that has been done with dentistry. They simply haven't been honest about it.

:) Maybe, but if there were an explicit contract, it would be much harder to keep them on track.

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.
Hmm... As soon as "academics" start to look at something, we know that we are in trouble.

Well - you may not like them, but I don't see any indication of better ideas from you, or of any detailed analysis that goes beyond your telling us what's obvious [to you].
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-27 01:44:08 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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.

Laws can be changed. The worrying thing here is how quickly some people seem to want to introduce heavy handed methods when there are perfectly reasonable ways to achieve sensible objectives without.

On 2006-11-27 01:46:14 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
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.
:) I doubt they see it that way.

I don't suppose they do, which is more prima facie evidence as to why there needs to be substantial culling in LAs.

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?
Because behind the scenes there is a lot more going on to dispose of multiple waste streams in a more sustainable way.

There is another part of the problem. Weak justification, so make the discussion "behind the scenes" and inform the customers of the outcome after the decisions are made.

There is more to it than end user convenience.

Unless there is end user convenience, it won't happen.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 01:44:08 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Laws can be changed. The worrying thing here is how quickly some people seem to want to introduce heavy handed methods when there are perfectly reasonable ways to achieve sensible objectives without.

Yes - I think most LAs are trying a softly softly approach for the time being, but if people are going to dig in and demand to see detailed personalised LCAs before they use the waste paper box, I can see LAs feeling compelled to try other strategies.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-27 01:36:55 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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.

I see. I wouldn't say that state provision offends me. I just see it as largely unnecessary

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.

True.

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.

After that, it starts getting pretty thin in terms of shared resources and things that actually *need* state involvement.

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.

Who said anything about a dirty protest?
I haven't suggested chucking chip papers, crisp packets and fizzy drink cans on the ground (not that I buy any of these things) - they can go in bags and bins as they always have.
If it is possible to sort mechanically, or otherwise *some* different types of plastic or metal, then I am sure that given thought and investment, other types can be as well.

Costed alternatives and honest detailed criticism of assumptions and data might.

It might well. I'm not in the business of waste disposal and pay others to deal with it. As a customer, I simply want a choice of who I pay and what they provide directly to me. If they have a requirement imposed on them to dispose of rubbish in particular ways, that is what I am paying them to do. They have to figure out the best way to do that that meets the requirements and at a price that the customer will pay.

On 2006-11-27 01:32:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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.

Which is very wrong. There is no other transaction where the supplier takes money up front, doesn't tell the customer what he will get for it and then expects the customer to be grateful that he got anything. Imagine what peoples' reaction would be if that happened in a shop. They wouldn't go there again. Yet they seem to think that it's perfectly OK when the state is doing it because it's "free" I worry about the level of IQ of some people if they can't see past that one.

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.

Did I have a choice of buying from them or not?

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.

It really doesn't matter. The LA does not *need* to be in the business of collecting money to spend on waste disposal on my behalf. I can sort it out myself, thanks.

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.

lack of competition is not an assumption, it's a fact.

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.

That's a lost cause.

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.

Ah I see.

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 this case one would have to scratch around a very long way to come up with a reason as to why there should be a de facto LA monopoly on domestic 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. 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.

Google doesn't reveal anything meaningful. Do you mean some form of wheels to move the dustbin around so that the dustman (sorry refuse collection operative) doesn't put his back out or what?

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.

It's the first and most important if customer support is important. Of course, if the approach is going to be one of riding roughshod over that and imposing legal remedies, it probably doesn't matter.

On 2006-11-27 01:52:56 +0000, John Beardmore said:

:) 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.
I'm happy to leave pop political theory to those who give a damn.
The next step is to say that all are equal, followed by the tagline that some are more equal than others.
Cheap shot and somewhat off the point.

Really. I thought it was rather to the point in the context of phrases like "antisocial traits" and "social norms", both of which reflect back to the era when such phrases were de rigeur.

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?
:) That's a matter of opinion. Too close in some ways for sure.

Which is precisely why this needs to be highlighted for what it is.

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;
Not usually.

That's good.

or is it basically that anything that looks vaguely green must be OK.
Well, I've got an MSc in environmental decision making so I have put a bit of thought into this stuff.

I see. Does this include consideration of individual freedom of choice and the economic impacts of environmentalism? I don't mean the impact of the economy on the environment.

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.
And also the proof is fairly mathematical and quite local specific.

How convenient. So we have a one size fits all solution to a set of problems that vary by geography.
This is a great way to convince people of the case for environmental measures.
I guess that this part is kept quiet, though.

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
Indeed, but I find your view rather unconvincing.

I'm not too bothered about that.

It seems to be born of bloody mindedness rather than any real desire to change in the best way possible.

The best way possible meets the objectives while bringing the customer with a choice of solutions. It doesn't come out of presenting one solution and compelling the customer to do that one solution in a particular way or else.

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....
As those that do not look. So apart from your LA, have you actually researched this issue at all ?

Why would I care about what other LAs do? That's a matter for them, and I have no influence at all over it. I don't have a lot of influence over mine, but I do have some as a customer and as a voter.

On 2006-11-27 01:43:12 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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 comment was about the general behaviour of government.

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.

Perhaps that's where you are going wrong. The malaise is in broad daylight for all to see.

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.

Sigh.
Didn't your environmental studies course have anything about business principles..?

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 ?

So create "Home Care" bronze, silver and gold products.
Bronze is basic rubbish collection, silver includes collecting additional things such as garden rubbish etc. and gold includes rat catching and wasp nest destruction; or whatever. Just illustrations.

On 2006-11-27 02:33:38 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 01:44:08 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Laws can be changed. The worrying thing here is how quickly some people seem to want to introduce heavy handed methods when there are perfectly reasonable ways to achieve sensible objectives without.
Yes - I think most LAs are trying a softly softly approach for the time being, but if people are going to dig in and demand to see detailed personalised LCAs before they use the waste paper box, I can see LAs feeling compelled to try other strategies.

Then it will become *really* interesting.

On 2006-11-27 02:12:01 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Well again, your only concern is that the 'customer' gets what they want in the short term.
No. I think that the customer (and it is customer and not 'customer' - he *is* paying)
But he is not the only one paying, nor necessarily the best informed of those that are.

Other people in the LA area are as well and should also be able to have the choice of where they buy.
It is the thin end of a very long wedge to suggest that because somebody allegedly doesn't know what they are doing that they shouldn't have choice. The next step is that they shouldn't have the vote either. While that may be true, unfortunately it isn't how democracy works.

should get what they want in the medium and long term as well.
Even if that results in minimum spend and environmental damage.

I said that the minimum standard should be that required to meet the justifiable requirements at the time.
Whatever is done, even if everything on the far horizon of what environmentalists might like for Christmas is done, there will still be environmental damage. The only way to completely reach that point would be the removal of the entire human race from the planet. Even then, other species would continue to have an impact on the environment unless you want to take the view that it only matters if humans did it.
Ergo, we will always be in a situation where there are compromises and perfection will never be achieved.
Given that, it doesn't make sense to talk in terms of minimal spend and environmental damage. It doesn't matter how much money is spent, there will always be some.
Therefore it comes to a set of tests of whether or not given initiatives and their execution are justifiable or not and whether people are willing to pay to address them.

Coming at it from a sustainability / resource conservation standpoint isn't really on your radar.
Actually it is.
You seem to want to approach this from the perspective of unqualified greenwash, government run monopoly, no freedom of choice, hang the expense and if people refuse to accept it, wield big legal sticks.
Hardly the moral high ground, let alone the economic one.
I think the case for recycling is relatively clear in the long run, though it's not been an easy industry to get started. Recycling is amenable to life cycle analysis and this is pretty much the best benchmark we have to determine what is appropriate in which circumstances.

In some specific instances, it may be interesting to recycle. I am far from convinced that it is across the range of things currently in the frame for so doing.

I suspect it is the case that waste collection is most efficiently achieved by a single provider, and all the evidence I know of indicates that separation of waste streams at source is more efficient than later separation.

That depends on your measure of efficiency. I think that unless the customer finds the whole package satisfactory in the ways that matter to him, there is no point in talking about efficiency as measured by how much diesel the bin lorry uses etc. While I think that that may be important, I am also concerned about the efficiency of spending my time messing around sorting through rubbish, looking up what it is, and putting it into whichever box. That takes an amount of time and I don't think is an efficient use of that.

I don't particularly support the notion of provision of services that are free at the point of use - it distorts markets tremendously, but I'm not sure that I always like the alternatives better either.
Freedom of choice is great as long as it doesn't get you freedom to choose from a range of choices which are all worse.

Which is why there do need to be minimum standards. I am sure that private waste contractors have certain SLAs with LAs today, so it would not be that difficult to adapt them.

The world is not a perfect place, but I'm happy to let the state carry on promoting recycling as best it can using the best available tools to work out what is appropriate, and if uptake is limited, I won't be too upset if some level of enforcement is undertaken in the interests of improving environmental performance.

Even if the basis is bullshit?

You can talk about big sticks if you like - I can live with that.

Even if this continues to extend into other areas?

I believe that it's possible to achieve the *genuinely important* objectives without any of those trappings, by encouraging people to do them and giving them choices as to how.
Maybe - I'd like to think so, but I suspect you are too busy looking for excuses not to do anything to actually find out what it is best to do.

On the contrary. In respect to rubbish collection, if I choose to spend ages to sort through rubbish, put it in boxes and tie it with a green bow then I should be able to do that. If OTOH, I prefer to chuck everything into one bag, have someone collect it and they sort through it (for extra cost if they like), then I think that it's perfectly reasonable. The outcome is the same, and I get to choose whether I want to spend my time doing this, or paying someone else to do it. This is not a difficult commercial concept.

That's fudge.
It's always possible for the government no longer to provide something and not to pay for it. De facto, that has been done with dentistry. They simply haven't been honest about it.
:) Maybe, but if there were an explicit contract, it would be much harder to keep them on track.

Oh I disagree. It is accountability to the individual customer and competition that does that really quickly.

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.
Hmm... As soon as "academics" start to look at something, we know that we are in trouble.
Well - you may not like them, but I don't see any indication of better ideas from you, or of any detailed analysis that goes beyond your telling us what's obvious [to you].

It's not a case of whether or not I *like* them, but one of how connected are they to the real world.
If they want to run mathematical models and analyses and whatever else they want to do, that's fine. However, their output should be taken in the context of a data point, not the definitive criterion for decision.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 01:46:14 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
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.
:) I doubt they see it that way.
I don't suppose they do, which is more prima facie evidence as to why there needs to be substantial culling in LAs.

To you maybe.

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? Because behind the scenes there is a lot more going on to dispose of multiple waste streams in a more sustainable way.
There is another part of the problem. Weak justification, so make the discussion "behind the scenes" and inform the customers of the outcome after the decisions are made.

Any organisation will inevitably do much of its work out of public view, but that doesn't make the justification weak.

There is more to it than end user convenience.
Unless there is end user convenience, it won't happen.

:) It already is.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore