Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Andy Hall writes

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.

Hmmm... Seems to verge on misrepresentation to brand it as the LA, yet cast it off as an independent entity.
Perhaps better to privatise it fully and rename and rebrand it.
If there were a competitive market the LA might not do especially well, but there might still be less waste in simpler provision from a single contractor.

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.

Community Interest Company springs to mind.

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.....

That seems a bit naive. The markets support projects that make money for the markets. Arguably they have less interest in end users that LAs do. You don't vote for merchant banks !
Then there's PFI...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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 wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.

OK, but that includes central government, and ultimately the EU etc, not just the householder.

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.

You may have to go a long way to escape environmental legislation.

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.

That could tax philosophers for a very long time.

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.

Except the overheads of unconditional choice - holding a market for its own sake rather than that of the service provided / offered.

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

Most know that the EU is in the driving seat, and the UK government 'sock puppet' interprets EU regulations, sometimes perhaps a little overzealously.

and are unwilling to admit to mistakes. That's the most dangerous situation of all.

No wonder with you breathing down their necks !

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.

Like you have any better tools ?

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'll second that if you'll let me do a waste audit !

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.

You may not like them, but legislation ultimately determines what we have to accept.

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.

Yes - it's a question of which indicators and what changes you regard as good outcomes though.

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.....

But not the only customer, not the only type of customer, and not all stakeholders are customers.

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.

Oooo... The weight of those empty cans !

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.

So where is this ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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?

OK.
Not requireD in any abstract or academic sense.

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

Into what ? You mean you are recycling something ?

(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.

Well - I'm sure you'd soon remember them, bright lad like you !

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.

Indeed. Personally I'm happy to apply common sense rather than hide behind their excessive caution.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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

Faith then !

Contractors compete for the customers' business. They can offer a low priced service

Maybe.

and compete that way or a better service at a higher price and compete that way.

Maybe. :)

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.

Well yes, but there is a difference in that dust carts take up more than shelf space !
To me this all sounds like more carts out collecting on the roads, and more aggregate environmental impact. How will people buy into lower footprint solutions ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-28 21:58:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 14:40:33 +0000, John Beardmore said:
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.
Faith then !

No need. Given the opportunity to compare, customers tend to be preety good at identifying what they want.

Contractors compete for the customers' business. They can offer a low priced service
Maybe.

Certainly. Some customers like to buy on price.

and compete that way or a better service at a higher price and compete that way.
Maybe. :)

Certainly. Some customers like to buy on service.

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.
Well yes, but there is a difference in that dust carts take up more than shelf space !
To me this all sounds like more carts out collecting on the roads, and more aggregate environmental impact. How will people buy into lower footprint solutions ?

People will buy into what they want to buy.
If you would like to buy a low footprint solution, you would be at liberty to do so.

On 2006-11-28 16:50:49 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 00:50:00 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 12:17:47 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
Bottle tops sometimes have a 2 on them. Sometimes, sometimes not. So? If they have a two on them they go in with the other plastics for recycling, if they don't they go in the residual waste bin. Hardly difficult. The issue is not whether or not it is difficult, but customer choice, payment made and service (not) supplied. Your view. A better question might be 'What is it reasonable to ask of the people who create the waste ?'
That question would be "Which services would you like, for how long are you willing to commit to a deal and is price X acceptable?"
:) Well - that's your view.

It's called the view of the market. Some people may not voice it in these terms, but this is the essence of a commercial transaction.

On 2006-11-28 21:36:30 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Newspapers but not bundles of newspapers
:) Just put them all in.
I do now.
Into what ? You mean you are recycling something ?

I don't buy a lot of printed newspapers because it is better not to create the need for them in the first place. I also don't like the ink getting all over everything.

(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.
Well - I'm sure you'd soon remember them, bright lad like you !

I don't want to waste bandwidth and storage on stuff like this when it can be dealt with differently.

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.
Indeed. Personally I'm happy to apply common sense rather than hide behind their excessive caution.

Me too, which is why it all goes in the same sacks.

On 2006-11-28 21:30:56 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes 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.
OK, but that includes central government, and ultimately the EU etc, not just the householder.

Central government and the EU are not spending their own money but ours. I would rather have a situation where I have control of how my money is spent rather than these people.

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.
You may have to go a long way to escape environmental legislation.

I wasn't commenting for myself, but pointing out that if the government tries to be clever and populist vote winning by artificially tilting taxation towards the well to do and businesses, they will rapidly find it to be self defeating because said things will disappear off shore. Not only would that result in the loss of taxation of the immediate targets but also that from the organisations and individuals supporting them.

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.
That could tax philosophers for a very long time.

It certainly seems to tax the public sector.

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.
Except the overheads of unconditional choice - holding a market for its own sake rather than that of the service provided / offered.

There is nothing wrong with unconditional choice in and of itself. I already said that each supplier would have to have a minimum offering to meet minimum requirements.

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
Most know that the EU is in the driving seat, and the UK government 'sock puppet' interprets EU regulations, sometimes perhaps a little overzealously.

Which is why that incompetent behaviour needs to be rolled back.

and are unwilling to admit to mistakes. That's the most dangerous situation of all.
No wonder with you breathing down their necks !

Nobody breathes down anyone's neck provided that they are doing what they should be doing.

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.
Like you have any better tools ?

I'm simply making the point that ivory tower academics are not normally in very good touch with economic reality and therefor should provide only a small data point and nothing more.

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'll second that if you'll let me do a waste audit !

You audit your waste and I'll audit mine....

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.
You may not like them, but legislation ultimately determines what we have to accept.

Unless legislation is changed or people choose to ignore it. This is the ultimate result of over regulation and the problem then comes that the good and useful things are ignored along with the worthless.

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.
Yes - it's a question of which indicators and what changes you regard as good outcomes though.

Freedom of choice for the individual.

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.....
But not the only customer, not the only type of customer, and not all stakeholders are customers.

Stakeholders are at liberty to become customers if they are not suppliers.

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.
Oooo... The weight of those empty cans !

Shouldn't be too expensive in that case.

On 2006-11-28 17:03:45 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 18:21:13 +0000, John Beardmore said:
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 Well - we can each judge the tone of your posts I guess.
I don't know where this "we" comes from.
Well - remarkably there seem to be more than two of us in this thread, and WE, can each judge the tone of your posts.

Oh I see. A representative sample, then. There is no "tone" to my posts.

Is it you who is incapable of working things out for himself or are you simply assuming that to be the case for others?
I'm not having any trouble and I doubt anyone else is.

I'm pleased to hear it.

Yes, though there is probably much to be said for education, public health provision, health and safety, environmental protection the police etc...
Out of those, the only one that marginally may be worth doing in the public sector is policing and even that is marginal
Again - this is your view, and I don't get the feeling that it's widely shared !

It really doesn't bother me. As long as there is freedom of choice, one of the choices can be to stay with the status quo.

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. I doubt it will be cheap, and it's likely to be energy intensive.
Let's see what happens when the drongos in the LAs are taken out of the food chain.
Let's see what happens when you have the software, circuit diagram and the components list.

??

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-28 21:58:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 14:40:33 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
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. Faith then !
No need. Given the opportunity to compare, customers tend to be preety good at identifying what they want.

But this doesn't mean that any of the offerings they might have will be any better than the service they have now, or that the aggregate environmental impact will be less, or that the costs will be lower.

Contractors compete for the customers' business. They can offer a low priced service Maybe.
Certainly. Some customers like to buy on price.

Yes - though is there any guarantee they'll be offered lower prices ?
Do people even know what they are paying now ? Do you know what you are paying ?

and compete that way or a better service at a higher price and compete that way. Maybe. :)
Certainly. Some customers like to buy on service.

Some aspects of it anyway.

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. Well yes, but there is a difference in that dust carts take up more than shelf space ! To me this all sounds like more carts out collecting on the roads, and more aggregate environmental impact. How will people buy into lower footprint solutions ?
People will buy into what they want to buy.

If it's on offer.

If you would like to buy a low footprint solution, you would be at liberty to do so.

But if in aggregate, all of the solutions have a bigger environmental footprint than the present single provider solution, I won't be able to go back to the old solution will I ?
In essence you seem to want me to bet the future, at least of waste collection, on your own political ideology, and I decline to do so, because you have no detailed plan, can't guarantee that there will be any reduction in aggregate environmental impact, and can't promise that any aspect of the service that I value will be improved.
Now we've got that clear, would you mind standing at our next local council elections so I can not vote for you please ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-28 19:46:50 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 22:40:25 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 01:32:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:
So where's the contract that says what the state will do for 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. Apart from most vague bundling deals, ADSL MAX etc, and all the other 'free at the point of use' services supplied by the state.
All of which is mid 20th century bullshit which is way past its sell by date.
Well no - and it blows away your assertion that:
"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".

Hardly. That's the exact point.

pup' not a service. Did I have a choice of buying from them or not? No, but nor do you know what you bought, despite your assertions that the terms should not be varied.
The issue is over choice of supplier, as has already been explained.
That there is more than one issue has also been explained.

Of course there is more than one issue, there always is.
However, customer choice is the key one from which most of the rest flow.
If the objective is to reduce waste and to make better use of what is used, one can either force people along a particular path against their will or by bullshitting them that it's the "thing to do".
Alternatively, they can be offered a range of solutions from different suppliers, all of which deliver a certain minimum. They can pick between them according to their circumstances and views.
For example, one can buy electricity on price, on customer service, on means of generation, on ethical profile of supplier, etc. and with charging based on different patterns of use.
Personally, I buy at the best price consistent with acceptable service because there are quite a number of suppliers at or close to the optimum for my pattern of use. However, I do look for them to meet a good level of service consistent with what their stated way of handling customer service is. They get two chances and on the third, I will change supplier.
I can fully accept that some people like to pay a little more for so called green electricity and so on. That's fine for them. I don't want to buy on that basis.
There are some people who have an aversion to call centres or the internet, and so on.
Both electricity and rubbish collections are commodity services. I see no reason for rubbish collection not to be offered in the same way.

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. Possibly. Funny that you can be arsed to do that, but not to toss cans in a sack.
Not really. I would look at price and service offers from a number of suppliers once or twice ay year and then they handle the rest of it.
Well - it seems odd to me unless you have a quite astonishing number of cans !

I am talking about period of operation of an agreement. For example, if I am willing to sign up with a supplier for a two period, I would expect to get better pricing than if I sign up for 6 months.

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. Well - lack of 'free at point of use' competition anyway.
Lack of competition. The concept of free at the point of use is an umbrella terms for wastage, incompetence and inefficiency.
Also for 'access', 'relief of poverty', and 'facilitating change'.

That's waffle.

Yes, F@POU services do distort markets hugely, but maybe sometimes it's worth it ?

I think that the sometimes cases are vanishingly small.

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. My guess is that most people are pretty satisfied with the present set up and really can't be bothered to find a better alternative.
Can't be bothered results in bad service and over payment all round. State run service provision is riddled with it.
Maybe - but do people think it's worth changing ?

It's a question of opening their eyes to how appalling it really is in value for money terms. Why do you think that so much is spent in marketing the status quo?

There will always be a vociferous few, but where as I've met lots of people that want LAs to do better, you are the first one I've met who wants them out of the loop except in a licensing and policing role like they are already.
That's because I think laterally, outside the box and individually.
Let's not leap to conclusions...

I never do.

If there is a way that "most people" want to do aomething, then I will automatically look for an alternative.
Then rant about democracy and claim we should all want it ?

Nope. Everyone is at liberty to look for alternatives. They may not wish to choose them or even to look. However, they cannot then complain about their lot.

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? There's an element of that, but it's to do with the design of the whole system, to deliver the best effect, for the least effort and resource.
. and best value for the customer?
Well - if the duplication of provision and road miles are reduced, quite possibly.

Duplication of provision only happens if all suppliers are precise clones. The whole point of market liberalisation of the sector is to proved a range of choices that are not duplicates.

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. Point is that customer support isn't the only thing that's important, and all the development that's gone into the waste industry has been about handling and processing separate streams, not making the customer feel important.
Which is precisely why it is wrong an will fail unless there is choice or compulsion.
But I for one don't want sycophancy from bin men - I want to know that the waste I give them, sorted where appropriate, is disposed of with the minimum practicable environmental impact, even if that's not necessarily the cheapest option.

I don't want sycophancy from anybody. My only requirements in a business transaction are to agree on what is to be done and the price and to then expect that to be delivered.
I would like to pay the bin men and their employer to deal with the disposal problem for me. As far as I am concerned that means with as little use of time on my part as possible. I am not interested in the detail of how they do it - that's what I am paying them to do.
OTOH if you would like to buy a service where part of the agreement is that they do so with minimal environmental impact (perhaps by use of horses and carts for example), then go ahead.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-28 21:36:30 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Newspapers but not bundles of newspapers
:) Just put them all in. I do now. Into what ? You mean you are recycling something ?
I don't buy a lot of printed newspapers because it is better not to create the need for them in the first place.

Agreed.

(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. Well - I'm sure you'd soon remember them, bright lad like you !
I don't want to waste bandwidth and storage on stuff like this when it can be dealt with differently.

The question should perhaps be, can it dealt with better ?

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. Indeed. Personally I'm happy to apply common sense rather than hide behind their excessive caution.
Me too, which is why it all goes in the same sacks.

Yes, but the residual waste sacks, or the recycling sacks ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-28 19:32:11 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes 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".
It's closely linked to the notion of democracy.

No it isn't. "Society" is a nebulous term which is orthogonal to democracy.
Democracy, in terms of current use in western Europe is much more closely aligned with freedom to choose.

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.
The notion of norms is pretty well understood in social science circles and most others that care to think about it.

.... and this is supposed to be a recommendation? I don't hold social science in very high esteem at all, I am afraid.

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.
It needs to be highlighted for all the things that it is and is part of. There is more to it than a political structure, however obsessed with the structure you are.

I'm not obsessed with anything in this field - I'm simply highlighting the shortcomings.

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.
All of the above in fact. Wouldn't be much use otherwise.

It's curious in that case that so much environmentalist propaganda and proposal chooses to ignore these very points.

So we have a one size fits all solution to a set of problems that vary by geography.
Or alternatively recycling is worthwhile more or less everywhere, though I think Lerwick justify their incinerator because shipping to the mainland for recycling doesn't generally make sense, and the incinerator emissions blow 'harmlessly' out to sea.

There are probably many more instances where rubbish incineration for electricity generation would mke eminent sense.

This is a great way to convince people of the case for environmental measures.
Well - it's not performance art !
Bottom line is, you are asking if and how the case for recycling can be demonstrated.
I'm telling you there is a technique, that allows impacts to be quantified, and the best you can do is say
"How convenient".
Well - yes it is. Nothing's perfect, but you don't seem to have anything better, fond of assertion and allegation though you are.

I am not setting out to provide anything better, so there is little point in making criticisms on that basis.
I am simply highlighting that unless and until the case for specific recycling procedures which discount alternatives can be demonstrated, and demonstrated honestly with everything taken into account, they are nothing more than greenwashing.

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.
Well choice isn't a bad thing except where providing multiple services results in redundant duplicated equipment and journeys.

Again. If different operators are offering different services, there is not duplication.

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?
To learn about the situation you claim exists would be a good start.

Waste of time. Unless I can have some influence over what they do (which I can't) it is rather pointless spending a lot of time on it

On 2006-11-28 20:22:55 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
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.
Hmmm... Seems to verge on misrepresentation to brand it as the LA, yet cast it off as an independent entity.

This happens all the time. In one sense, it does now because the LA outsources the actual collection.

Perhaps better to privatise it fully and rename and rebrand it.

That would be another option.

If there were a competitive market the LA might not do especially well, but there might still be less waste in simpler provision from a single contractor.

Then the question to ask is why wouldn't the LA do particularly well?

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.
Community Interest Company springs to mind.

They could be a charity or charitable trust if they wanted. I really don't mind.

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.....
That seems a bit naive. The markets support projects that make money for the markets.

Absolutely, and that's how it should be.

Arguably they have less interest in end users that LAs do. You don't vote for merchant banks !

The end user holds the cards because he can choose to buy elsewhere. That is a very effective form of voting.

On 2006-11-28 15:42:49 +0000, Huge said:

They haven't changed much. You only have to see David Hansen's posts here to see that. If they'd only get some education and stop treating environmentalism like some kind of bloody religion.

Quite.

Mellowed? Hell, I've got worse.

Excellent.
So have I.