Siting of panels for solar water heating

On 2006-12-02 19:03:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-02 17:06:12 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Only if you can't opt out, which in this case you can. No I can't, because I still have to pay. That is not the ability to opt out. Well - to be strictly accurate, you can opt out of using the service, but you can't opt out of paying for it. Just like education etc...
Quite, and that is also wrong.
Maybe - but a different debate.

Of course, but a symptom of the same malaise.

Of course people can arrange their own waste collection agreements in exactly the same way that they buy food, gas, electricity, telecommunication and most other commodities. Not that most seem to want to. That is not a reason for not offering a choice. Well - I would have thought it should be a factor.
Has the choice been offered?
Most people don't seem to care.

In this area they do.

Personally I'm unconcerned that it hasn't.

I'm quite concerned that it hasn't. At present, this suggests only overpayment and inefficiency. At the point that costs escalate further and service is degraded, I will become very concerned.

If the business model of the incumbent supplier is sound, he should have nothing to fear. That assumes that it is about protecting the incumbent supplier. It might just be about efficiency of delivering the service.
If the supplier is not being efficient about doing that, then he will lose money and ultimately go out of business. That is the advantage of a free market.
No - as has been discussed, the very provision of multiple services to serve the same areas may well render the whole process less efficient, even if individual companies, vehicles, individuals etc are more efficient.

This depends on your definition of efficiency. I am referring to efficiency in providing the service wanted by the customer at the right price.

There is no issue with bargaining power unless there is a monopoly as there is today. Guess we've done this one to death, but be it better or worse than a monopoly, it is an aspect of state behaviour that is more akin to 'bundling' than a monopoly. In effect you want to 'unbundle' waste disposal from the facilities we pay for out of taxes. Yep. That would be a good start, and an easier one than tackling the health service first. Not sure you'd get much support for that either...
Not yet.
Well, the political right has been arguing this one for years, and in US it seems to have held sway more. Not sure I'd like to live there though.

On that I would agree with you but not for this reason.

However, I predict that there will be a general trend (probably over decades) to a 21st century model of delivery with less and less state involvement.
:) Predict what you like.

I often do. Surprisingly often I am right.

It doesn't require a big bureaucracy to organise people's lives them. ? If you don't understand that...... I can understand it, but surely a big bureaucracy is worse ? And presumably what the bureaucracy does is also of some significance ?
Exactly, and usually not a lot.
Well, personally I am quite pleased at some of the environmental regulation coming out of the EU. I accept that it is a HUGE bureaucracy with mint and all the trimmings, but I don't see anything likely to result in comparable environmental progress emerging from any other institution.

Probably because the structure doesn't allow for it. While I am a supporter of a free trade environment within Europe, I am not a supporter of the EU as the means to achieve it or its interference in aspects such as this one.

Inadequate though our progress has been in many areas, we have seen a huge difference of culture with respect to waste over the last decade, but some of the new stuff will probably piss you off even more !

I doubt it.

I especially like these:
Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/CE - 21 April 2004) by 30th April 2007,

Directed at industrial operators who will become liable for damage caused. I have no issue with that concept.

and
Directive 2005/32/EC on the Eco-design Requirements for Energy-using Products (EuPs).

No issue with this one either. If a product can be engineered to use less energy without affecting functionality and without increasing total cost of ownership then it makes sense to do that.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 13:53:00 +0000, John Beardmore said:
It has nothing to do with emotion I don't know. The term monopoly has connotations which border on the criminal in many quarters.
This is hair splittingly close to it.

Well
a) it's established custom and practice
and
b) it appears to be a statutory duty.
It seems to be unlikely to be both criminal and statutory duty.

but freedom of choice over how services are bought by the individual, who is, after all, paying. The current arrangements do not provide a freedom of choice unless people pay twice. It is none other than a monopoly. Except in that you have the option of not using it.
Do I have the option of not paying?

No, but you do have the option of not using them.

If you consider the activity of the Competition Commission, this would qualify for its attention by any metre stick. Bring it to their attention then.
Funnily enough I have......

Good. What did they say ?

The points above list 4 characteristics of a monopoly. Undoubtedly there are more that one could add. Possibly, though some LAs do consult the public when tenders are evaluated.
Sigh... The LA should not be issuing and evaluating tenders where there is money involved. They don't understand the concept of value.

I see no evidence of that. What evidence do you have that this is generally the case ?

and effect, Except you do have the option to have any licensed agent take your waste if you want them to. Fine. Then they should be in a position to compete in the market for weekly collection as well as delivery and collection of large
You mean the government should butt out of the market and leave it to private firms ? Absolutely. The government should butt out of every market, with a very few exceptions. Well - as long as they deliver the environmental performance ar the same or better efficiency.
The environmental performance aspect needs to be properly evaluated as well and cut down to what actually, really makes a difference and what does not.

Well yes, though it's likely that this will result in more and better separation and recycling I suspect.

I should be in a position that if I choose one, I opt out of paying the council tax amount for it. Yes - that might be fair. While we are at it we should give people tax rebates for not using any government service... How much bureaucracy would that create ? Simple. It could be done the other way around. Don't collect the tax in the first place and people pay for the service. Hmmm... That pretty much rules out all 'free at the point of use' state provided services. I'm not sure that's a good idea.
I am. The only exception that I can see as ultimately justifiable is defence. The concept of "free at the point of use" is a mid 20th century lie which is 50 years past its sell by date.

Well - a lot of people seem to like it as even the conservatives seem to have noticed.

and a poorly run one at that. In some respects. I guess to some extent this situation has perhaps arisen to address a need from an era when the private sector did not offer waste collection services, but imperfect though the present situation is, I'm not sure that having three providers working the same streets would be more efficient, reduce congestion, or otherwise be too smart.
I'd settle for 3 licensed operators with each having a different collection day on a given street. OK - by this implies that there will be a licensing process and tendering process to select the three. More bureaucracy. Nope. No tendering process because the local authority would not be in the commercial path between the customer and the supplier. So who enforces the three providers only rule, and who selects them ? To whom are they accountable ?
Licensing arrangement.

Administered how ?

Accountability is to customers (as it always should be)

No legal accountability then ? So corporate responsibility ?

and by renewal (or not) of license.

Administered how ?

Renewal would be based on meeting of *minimum* standards including minimum customer satisfaction scores.

And how would these minima be set ?

Licensing would consist of a maximum price point to provide the minimum statutory requirement - and I mean the minimum, not some interpretation of it. Well somebody has to interpret it.
That needs to include the customer, since he is paying.

So it does get interpreted then !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message

In article , meow2222@care2.com writes: At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free,
Why on earth do you mix it up in the first place? I don't, and I therefore I don't have to spend any time sorting it out.

Good point!
Mary

-- Andrew Gabriel

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

In message , Andy Hall writes
A skip would be a much more practical method of disposal, but the cost does not make sense at �120 a pop several times a year.
Mini skip ? Ask the council to collect ? Some will.

Think of the smell by the time it's full!

Mary

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

Inadequate though our progress has been in many areas, we have seen a huge difference of culture with respect to waste over the last decade, but some of the new stuff will probably piss you off even more !

That doesn't mean that it's not a good solution to a real problem.

I especially like these:
Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/CE - 21 April 2004) by 30th April 2007,
and
Directive 2005/32/EC on the Eco-design Requirements for Energy-using Products (EuPs).
That should wipe the smile off your set top box !

<G>
Mary

On 2006-12-02 19:42:46 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-02 18:52:22 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Well for a start they don't have much experience at marketing and advertising. Their history is in providing a service, not selling it. Therein lies one of the basic problems. They don't know how to run a business. Possibly because they aren't businesses.
As I said.. therein lies one of the basic problems. They are operating in a market protected environment with no notion of customer service because there are no negative consequences of a failure to perform.
Actually there are !
But there are also negative consequences to failing to meet recycling targets and failing to make other environmental improvements.

Fine. That's why I made the point about having basic levels of service as seen by the customer. What happens after that is the responsibility of the operator because that's what he is being paid to do. All of that is a given. If the operator wishes to offer a broader range of services then he should be able to do so.

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. Only if making money for the markets is the ONLY thing that matters. But it isn't. Of course not. The product has to meet the requirements of the customers in order for them to want to buy. But your concern above was with money and markets. There is no law linking that with what people want !
My concern is over customer choice.
Your only concern apparently.

I haven't said that, you have.

The objectives are a given.
:) Which ones ?

Meeting of minimum legal requirements for the disposal of waste.

The market is the most effective way to achieve that,
Faith.

Experience. It has worked very effectively for millennia.

and is very closely linked with what people want.
Assumption.

Observation.

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. Only if you get the sensible options to choose from. Of course. The options need to be sensible from the perspective of the customer. Well to me, the provision of multiple competing services that win or loose on the basis of how well the advertise as much as how well they satisfy the customer makes little sense, especially if they are only required to meet minimum environmental standards.
Generating customer demand is but one facet of a business, and advertising one facet of that. For a service-based business, customer retention is a key factor, added to which it is far cheaper to retain customers than to go out and find new ones. Customer retention is based on making sure that the customer is getting what they expect and are happy with the service. Advertising is not usually a major aspect of that.
None the less, businesses without this kind of customer will have to win them somehow, so an advertising battle is likely to determine initial market shares if most of the businesses that will provide the service are new.

It's called business startup cost. Realistically, established businesses would be the first to apply for licenses anyway.

The point is to offer a range of services that will appeal to the customer.
Well - that's a point...
For example, several times a year, I would like to dispose of assorted DIY and other waste that would otherwise involve several trips to the tip or ordering a 6 yard skip. Trips to the tip are very wasteful of time, especially at weekends. During weekdays they are usually quieter, but then that involves eating into time that can be more profitably employed. A skip would be a much more practical method of disposal, but the cost does not make sense at �120 a pop several times a year.
Mini skip ? Ask the council to collect ? Some will.

Mini skip costs almost as much as a full sized one. The council will collect if and when they feel like it - not acceptable. They should provide a half day or at worst a day when they will collect.

A waste disposal contractor could collect my regular rubbish (normal minimum contract) and then make his service more attractive by including a discount on skips or so many a year bundled with the contract - perhaps smaller skips.
You do realise that if you don't use those skips you may be subsidising those that do though ?

Nope. If you don't want the package with skips or skip discounts, you don't buy that package.

In other words, he can address my entire set of problems in that area if he chooses to offer that.
Ahhh... The perils of bundling !

So I have the choice to buy bundled or not. I can work out my likely pattern of use and go for that. The principle is the same as for electricity tariffs. I can buy low or high usage rate loaded products.

This seems to be a huge distraction from the aim of moving to more sustainable ways of living, which does seem to be an urgent issue.
Perhaps for you it's *the* issue.
Well - much as government likes to claim, it is the overarching issue if we plan to be around in a few generations time in the sort of numbers we are now.

Perhaps. However, it is a broad set of issues with a broad range of choices of solution.

For me, it's *an* issue. That doesn't mean to say that it isn't important, but from my perspective needs to be factored in with everything else.
OK - a difference of perspective then, but as it determines our viability as a species, it strikes me as a bit more important than most of the others.

One also has to look at where the foci need to be achieve that while continuing to achieve everything else in the modern world. It is not very likely that people in most of the western world will be willing to resort to living in yurts.

On 2006-12-02 19:29:48 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
The only people to lose out would be the bureaucrats in the local authority who aren't adding any value in the first place. They should view it as an opportunity to find something gainful to do. That would be a benefit to them as well as to the population as a whole. Maybe in some instances, but I'm not convinced it's true in the general case. You haven't met many local authority employees, have you....? Loads as it happens. But my experience seems rather different to yours.
Maybe I have high expectations....
Maybe - or maybe you just can't acknowledge that good can come from anything that isn't the type of organisation that your ideology says it should be.

I can and do acknowledge achievement where it is made. Unlike a lot of people, I won't accept poor service and being promised A and having A - B delivered. This is why, as a nation, we are ripped off and then moan about things but are generally not willing to take action about them.
IME, both the private and the public sectors suffer from bad service malaise, but it is far more prevalent in the public sector.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:26:47 +0000, John Beardmore wrote:

The plastic is shipped to China.
Well - if our plastic didn't go there, presumably oil would. Which do you think has the lower net environmental impact ?

A non-sequitur.
Waste plastic going to China does not replace oil. I've seen photographs of PET bottles being burnt in China on open bonfires yielding acrid yellow smoke.
I am sure if PET could be shredded and included with pulverised fuel at British power stations it would be.

Waste paper (including Yellow Pages) can be put in a recycling box but Yellow Pages cannot be put in a waste paper collection station. The waste paper is driven to Kent and from there shipped to Sweden where it is reprocessed,
Really ? I though Kent had a lot of UK based paper mills ?

Why should Kent have a lot of paper mills?
Ever come across a Kentish Lumberjack?
"Leaping from tree to tree as they float down the mighty rivers of Thanet, with my best girl by my side! "
The Larch! The Pine! The Giant Redwood tree!
Working in Dover and Ramsgate and using the M2/A2 and M20, I've scarcely seen a Kentish tree let alone a sustainable forest.

the total energy cost is higher than using new wood pulp which the Swedes have a lot of and manage perfectly well.
Glass jars are OK, but glass drinking glasses are not. Much of the glass goes to landfill or overseas.
OK, and window glass, and pyrex, and toughened and laminated and lead glasses are also discouraged. This is disappointing, but you don't have to a rocket scientist, or even a process engineer in a glass works to guess why this might be.

It is all crushed for cullet, and there is no market for cullet in this country.

For composting, small branches are OK but dead woody matter isn't. How you tell the difference between a small branch (which is dead woody matter but allowed) and something which is dead woody matter and not allowed is interesting but could cost you a lot of money to get wrong.
In theory. How many are fined in practice ?

Sems to be about 1 per week, and the fines are not minor slaps on the wrist either. ISTR �400 for a single item of junk mail in with the waste paper.

Have you tried asking them which is which ?
Glass and Plastic bottles are supposed to be washed - which wastes water and energy.
Water is a renewable resource, at least for the time being.

Water usage is currently restricted in many parts of this country.

How much energy is used raising a moderate amount of water to say 55 degrees, (and the tail end of the washing up water will probably do !), as opposed to melting glass ?

Another non-sequitur, it still has to be melted.

Unsurprisingly this scheme is held up as a paragon of virtue by FOE and won an award.
Well - I guess the question is, can you prove that the impacts outweigh the benefits ? Because, of course there impacts - that's no surprise, it's just a question of magnitude.

Or, more to the point, "Does any of it make sense ?"
DG

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 20:24:09 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-02 19:42:46 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-02 18:52:22 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Well for a start they don't have much experience at marketing and advertising. Their history is in providing a service, not selling it. Therein lies one of the basic problems. They don't know how to run a business. Possibly because they aren't businesses.
As I said.. therein lies one of the basic problems. They are operating in a market protected environment with no notion of customer service because there are no negative consequences of a failure to perform.
Actually there are !
But there are also negative consequences to failing to meet recycling targets and failing to make other environmental improvements.
Fine. That's why I made the point about having basic levels of service as seen by the customer. What happens after that is the responsibility of the operator because that's what he is being paid to do. All of that is a given. If the operator wishes to offer a broader range of services then he should be able to do so.
What happens if/when ALL the operators decide to give up collecting

waste on the grounds that they can make more money doing something else instead? -- Frank Erskine

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-02 19:03:39 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-02 17:06:12 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
Only if you can't opt out, which in this case you can. No I can't, because I still have to pay. That is not the ability to opt out. Well - to be strictly accurate, you can opt out of using the service, but you can't opt out of paying for it. Just like education etc... Quite, and that is also wrong. Maybe - but a different debate.
Of course, but a symptom of the same malaise.

I'm not convinced. Universal state education was introduced for a reason. I'm not sure that withdrawing it would be a good thing.
Some sort of rebate for people using alternative provision might be fair though. But as I said - a separate debate.

Of course people can arrange their own waste collection agreements in exactly the same way that they buy food, gas, electricity, telecommunication and most other commodities. Not that most seem to want to. That is not a reason for not offering a choice. Well - I would have thought it should be a factor. Has the choice been offered? Most people don't seem to care.
In this area they do.

Not around here.

Personally I'm unconcerned that it hasn't.
I'm quite concerned that it hasn't. At present, this suggests only overpayment and inefficiency.

Or a system that is working fairly well despite increasing amounts of waste and legal requirements ?

At the point that costs escalate further and service is degraded, I will become very concerned.

If it does.

If the business model of the incumbent supplier is sound, he should have nothing to fear. That assumes that it is about protecting the incumbent supplier. might just be about efficiency of delivering the service. If the supplier is not being efficient about doing that, then he will lose money and ultimately go out of business. That is the advantage of a free market. No - as has been discussed, the very provision of multiple services to serve the same areas may well render the whole process less efficient, even if individual companies, vehicles, individuals etc are more efficient.
This depends on your definition of efficiency. I am referring to efficiency in providing the service wanted by the customer at the right price.

And I'm referring to environmental impact per unit waste disposed of.

There is no issue with bargaining power unless there is a monopoly as there is today. Guess we've done this one to death, but be it better or worse than a monopoly, it is an aspect of state behaviour that is more akin to 'bundling' than a monopoly. In effect you want to 'unbundle' waste disposal from the facilities we pay for out of taxes. Yep. That would be a good start, and an easier one than tackling the health service first. Not sure you'd get much support for that either... Not yet. Well, the political right has been arguing this one for years, and in US it seems to have held sway more. Not sure I'd like to live there though.
On that I would agree with you but not for this reason.

:)

However, I predict that there will be a general trend (probably over decades) to a 21st century model of delivery with less and less state involvement.
:) Predict what you like.
I often do. Surprisingly often I am right.

:) OK - I'm surprised !

It doesn't require a big bureaucracy to organise people's lives
? If you don't understand that...... I can understand it, but surely a big bureaucracy is worse ? And presumably what the bureaucracy does is also of some significance ? Exactly, and usually not a lot. Well, personally I am quite pleased at some of the environmental regulation coming out of the EU. I accept that it is a HUGE bureaucracy with mint and all the trimmings, but I don't see anything likely to result in comparable environmental progress emerging from any other institution.
Probably because the structure doesn't allow for it. While I am a supporter of a free trade environment within Europe, I am not a supporter of the EU as the means to achieve it or its interference in aspects such as this one.

I guessed, but if we are to live sustainably there is no evidence that this will be delivered by market forces on their own.

Inadequate though our progress has been in many areas, we have seen a huge difference of culture with respect to waste over the last decade, but some of the new stuff will probably piss you off even more !
I doubt it.
I especially like these: Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/CE - 21 April 2004) by 30th April 2007,
Directed at industrial operators who will become liable for damage caused. I have no issue with that concept.

Good !

and Directive 2005/32/EC on the Eco-design Requirements for Energy-using Products (EuPs).
No issue with this one either. If a product can be engineered to use less energy without affecting functionality and without increasing total cost of ownership then it makes sense to do that.

Excellent. The cost of ownership clause is interesting however.
My guess as somebody who has done some electronic design over the years is that it would be fairly trivial to get the power of equipment on standby down to mW levels, but there may be some trade off between life cycle environmental impacts and life cycle cash costs. No doubt we would differ over the weight they should be given.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-02 20:07:03 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 13:53:00 +0000, John Beardmore said:
It has nothing to do with emotion I don't know. The term monopoly has connotations which border on the criminal in many quarters.
This is hair splittingly close to it.
Well
a) it's established custom and practice

... and this makes it right?

and
b) it appears to be a statutory duty.

... including the method of implementation? Statutes can't be changed?

but freedom of choice over how services are bought by the individual, who is, after all, paying. The current arrangements do not provide a freedom of choice unless people pay twice. It is none other than a monopoly. Except in that you have the option of not using it.
Do I have the option of not paying?
No, but you do have the option of not using them.

Then it isn't a viable option.

If you consider the activity of the Competition Commission, this would qualify for its attention by any metre stick. Bring it to their attention then.
Funnily enough I have......
Good. What did they say ?

Nothing yet. Of course they have no competition and are a quango.

The points above list 4 characteristics of a monopoly. Undoubtedly there are more that one could add. Possibly, though some LAs do consult the public when tenders are evaluated.
Sigh... The LA should not be issuing and evaluating tenders where there is money involved. They don't understand the concept of value.
I see no evidence of that. What evidence do you have that this is generally the case ?

I do. One can look at almost every thing that the LA is supposed to be doing and find evidence of incompetence, duplication and waste.

The environmental performance aspect needs to be properly evaluated as well and cut down to what actually, really makes a difference and what does not.
Well yes, though it's likely that this will result in more and better separation and recycling I suspect.

Possibly. Once the technology to do this becomes available, they can install it.

Hmmm... That pretty much rules out all 'free at the point of use' state provided services. I'm not sure that's a good idea.
I am. The only exception that I can see as ultimately justifiable is defence. The concept of "free at the point of use" is a mid 20th century lie which is 50 years past its sell by date.
Well - a lot of people seem to like it as even the conservatives seem to have noticed.

Until people realise that the so-called choices aren't real.

and a poorly run one at that. In some respects. I guess to some extent this situation has perhaps arisen to address a need from an era when the private sector did not offer waste collection services, but imperfect though the present situation is, I'm not sure that having three providers working the same streets would be more efficient, reduce congestion, or otherwise be too smart.
I'd settle for 3 licensed operators with each having a different collection day on a given street. OK - by this implies that there will be a licensing process and tendering process to select the three. More bureaucracy. Nope. No tendering process because the local authority would not be in the commercial path between the customer and the supplier. So who enforces the three providers only rule, and who selects them ? To whom are they accountable ?
Licensing arrangement.
Administered how ?

A licensing authority, just as it is for most other things where it is deemed that a license is appropriate.

Accountability is to customers (as it always should be)
No legal accountability then ? So corporate responsibility ?

Of course there is. However, that is academic if they are not addressing customer requirements because said customers will go elsewhere.

and by renewal (or not) of license.
Administered how ?

As above.

Renewal would be based on meeting of *minimum* standards including minimum customer satisfaction scores.
And how would these minima be set ?

By statute as they are today.

Licensing would consist of a maximum price point to provide the minimum statutory requirement - and I mean the minimum, not some interpretation of it. Well somebody has to interpret it.
That needs to include the customer, since he is paying.
So it does get interpreted then !

Once again. All operators are required to offer the minimum level of service as defined by statute. Operators may offer more over and above that.
So if you want to use a contractor that uses hydrogen powered dust carts, you can in the same way that if I want one who will deal with any waste recycling requirements that I don't want to deal with I can do that

On 2006-12-02 20:35:33 +0000, Frank Erskine said:

What happens if/when ALL the operators decide to give up collecting waste on the grounds that they can make more money doing something else instead?

Academic. Where there's muck, there's brass.

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 19:04:33 +0000, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , The Central Authority writes On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:09:08 -0000, "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
Do many householders read enough newspapers to produce a large bundle in a few weeks?
We don't read any. That saves paper, ink, time and being told what to think.
At the cost of being "Uninformed".
There are plenty of other ways to get informed.

You are correct.
There is television.
DG

On 2006-12-02 20:36:26 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-02 19:03:39 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-02 17:06:12 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Only if you can't opt out, which in this case you can. No I can't, because I still have to pay. That is not the ability to opt out. Well - to be strictly accurate, you can opt out of using the service, but you can't opt out of paying for it. Just like education etc... Quite, and that is also wrong. Maybe - but a different debate.
Of course, but a symptom of the same malaise.
I'm not convinced. Universal state education was introduced for a reason. I'm not sure that withdrawing it would be a good thing.

I agree. Nobody said withdraw it.

Some sort of rebate for people using alternative provision might be fair though. But as I said - a separate debate.

Same principle. Freedom of choice. Yes there should be rebate or not having to pay if alternative services are used.

Personally I'm unconcerned that it hasn't.
I'm quite concerned that it hasn't. At present, this suggests only overpayment and inefficiency.
Or a system that is working fairly well despite increasing amounts of waste and legal requirements ?

Except that it isn't....

At the point that costs escalate further and service is degraded, I will become very concerned.
If it does.

It will if it follows past trends.

If the business model of the incumbent supplier is sound, he should have nothing to fear. That assumes that it is about protecting the incumbent supplier. might just be about efficiency of delivering the service. If the supplier is not being efficient about doing that, then he will lose money and ultimately go out of business. That is the advantage of a free market. No - as has been discussed, the very provision of multiple services to serve the same areas may well render the whole process less efficient, even if individual companies, vehicles, individuals etc are more efficient.
This depends on your definition of efficiency. I am referring to efficiency in providing the service wanted by the customer at the right price.
And I'm referring to environmental impact per unit waste disposed of.

Different discussion.

However, I predict that there will be a general trend (probably over decades) to a 21st century model of delivery with less and less state involvement.
:) Predict what you like.
I often do. Surprisingly often I am right.
:) OK - I'm surprised !

People often are. From a very tender age, I figured out that in general, betting is a mug's game and only bet on certainties (i.e. where I already knew what the outcome would be.

It doesn't require a big bureaucracy to organise people's lives ? If you don't understand that...... I can understand it, but surely a big bureaucracy is worse ? And presumably what the bureaucracy does is also of some significance ? Exactly, and usually not a lot. Well, personally I am quite pleased at some of the environmental regulation coming out of the EU. I accept that it is a HUGE bureaucracy with mint and all the trimmings, but I don't see anything likely to result in comparable environmental progress emerging from any other institution.
Probably because the structure doesn't allow for it. While I am a supporter of a free trade environment within Europe, I am not a supporter of the EU as the means to achieve it or its interference in aspects such as this one.
I guessed, but if we are to live sustainably there is no evidence that this will be delivered by market forces on their own.

Agreed, and it won't be by the perpetual issuance of Directives and signing up of yet more treaties either.

Inadequate though our progress has been in many areas, we have seen a huge difference of culture with respect to waste over the last decade, but some of the new stuff will probably piss you off even more !
I doubt it.
I especially like these: Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/CE - 21 April 2004) by 30th April 2007,
Directed at industrial operators who will become liable for damage caused. I have no issue with that concept.
Good !
and Directive 2005/32/EC on the Eco-design Requirements for Energy-using Products (EuPs).
No issue with this one either. If a product can be engineered to use less energy without affecting functionality and without increasing total cost of ownership then it makes sense to do that.
Excellent. The cost of ownership clause is interesting however.
My guess as somebody who has done some electronic design over the years is that it would be fairly trivial to get the power of equipment on standby down to mW levels, but there may be some trade off between life cycle environmental impacts and life cycle cash costs. No doubt we would differ over the weight they should be given.

You may be surprised there as well.
I would much rather a manufacturer package their product in biodegradable packaging that can just be chucked in together and not picked apart into bits of this and bits of that. It is possible to make packaging attractive without it needing a lot of different types of plastic and all the rest of it.
I have to be honest, though, and say that I won't make a product choice based on type of/lack of packaging.
I do, however, make product choices based on quality, maintainability and longevity and will pay a price premium for that. For example, in the field of DIY and associated crafts, I will go for products with service and spares backup rather than those with two and three year warranties and assumed disposal at the end of that time. In the field of energy use, I went for a high end condensing boiler before they were mandated.
This is why I say that there are many different ways to achieve objectives.
As far as product design is concerned, I have done some of that in the past where a product which needed a lot of energy when running had to be powered from a limited power source, although it was for military and not ecological reasons. This was some years ago. In general, for electronics, power consumption for a given product type of given speed reduces over time. However, the consumer wants the leading edge stuff, so in reality the reduction is not as marked.

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 16:47:49 +0000, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 20:22:55 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Then the question to ask is why wouldn't the LA do particularly well?
Well for a start they don't have much experience at marketing and advertising. Their history is in providing a service, not selling it.

Their history is in providing employment for their relatives and other unemployable's. Their history is in waste and employing far too many people to do far to little. Wasn't it a Birmingham LA employee who was picking up tens of thousands of pounds in "productivity bonuses" despite being "off sick" for several years? Don't they have cleaner of street lights on GBP90,000?
There isn't a LA you could hold up as a model of how to "provide a service".

Absolutely, and that's how it should be.
Only if making money for the markets is the ONLY thing that matters. But it isn't.

Indeed not - running an efficient, effective service would be a start, there isn't a single local authority in the UK which does that.
-- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/