Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Peter Parry writes

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:36:17 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
So - it seems to me that they had little choice.
We could always do what every other nation in the EU, and especially the French, do with directives they don't like which is imply ignore them.

:)
I can think of a few...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Peter Parry writes

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:04:30 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
No, but our local authority have. It showed the energy (and monetary) cost to be higher than that of producing paper from wood pulp. However it helped meet a recycling target and the fine for missing the target exceeded the cost of the process so it was "worthwhile".
Interesting. Where did they publish it ?
On paper, I found it in the local library months ago. Next time I'm down I'll see if I can get a reference/copy.

Thanks.

Of course not - but who is doing the life cycle analysis?
Increasingly LAs for a start.
Where is the data?
Don't know. Have you asked your LA for any ?
For broadly similar information in the past - "not available for reasons of commercial sensitivity"

Ha !!

Around here the driving force is solely the economics of meeting arbitrary political targets by whatever means possible.
The point is that where the LCA indicates some other approach is better, it should be published and rubbed in the faces of the powers that be to avoid blind stupidity.
That may be why the then nulabor council felt it was commercially sensitive :-)

Maybe.

I'd be the first to agree that the simplistic use of targets is unfortunate, but that tends to be the only way government can get the process started.
Having got it started they show no signs of using anything else but similar crude targets for the future.

Maybe, though as more LCA gets done, and the results get more widely known, I expect political pressure to refine the indicators and the processes will grow.
I don't think recycling is something we can sensibly do without, but I do think it may need a lot of refinement, both in terms of the processes and the development of markets for the materials.

They don't? Where is one with objective data on the subject?
Well - planet wide footprint calculations make pretty depressing reading,
Of course - they are designed to.

I don't think so. I think we are just too successful at what we do in industrialised countries to be able to do it [this way] for long.

You've no doubt seen reference to the WWF work from this news group ?
If WWF, Greenpeace, FoE or any of the other propaganda organisations declared it was raining I'd believe them only after I had had the liquid analysed. It would be hard to find a collection of people more thoroughly steeped in dishonesty and misrepresentation than that lot.

Hmmm. My take is a little less cynical.
FoE nationally seem to have some sensible things to say. Locally they seem to be more about theatre than science, at least around here.
Greenpeace may have some technical expertise somewhere, but I dumped them after Brent Spa, explaining why to them in great detail.
Superficially WWF are just another 'knit your own yoghurt' 'save the baby seals' group, but they do seemed to have commissioned some research which has withstood academic scrutiny. I have more time for them.
You can of course argue that 'he who pays the researcher gets what he wants to hear'. While I don't necessarily believe that in general, it's noticeable how few right wing think tanks seem to researching foot print, species loss etc. When they are, I'll be very interested in what they have to say too.

It seems pretty clear that things have to change massively in terms of resource efficiency and energy efficiency.
It isn't at all clear, it is certainly clear that we will need more energy but as the only practical solution to that is nuclear energy the propagandists won't have it mentioned.

Well - we'll mention it, but with the notable exception of getting fusion going, you may not get much support for it.

The enthusiasm with which greenwashers ditched their long time saint James Lovelock over the matter is illustrative of that.

I must confess I always thought Lovelock made a little of a lot.

What we are seeing with waste and building regulations is only the beginning. While I agree both are very blunt instruments that may result in unintended problems, if they are the only tool on offer I guess we have to tray and make them work as best we can.
That's the religious line, the "every little bit helps" fallacy.

I think it can be expressed mathematically.
I also think that the bigger the way you can help the better.

If every passenger on the Titanic had been handed a tea cup and told to start bailing they would all have been "doing their bit" but it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the final outcome.

Quite possibly, but I don't see anything wrong in delaying a bad outcome.
When considering the future of the human race,
'Getting it over with'
isn't high on my list of priorities !
If nothing else, reducing footprint reduces the magnitude of the problem that new technologies have to be able to solve, and delaying your 'final outcome', gives a better chance to get technologies like fusion off the ground before it becomes economically and socially impossible to continue their research. Also longer to extend the range and output of renewables which in the short to medium term seems like the best bet, and may yet be the only long term solution.

Research into the environment shouldn't be confused with EU law.
Nor, in many cases should it be confused with science.

There are certainly places where [academic] environmentalists would agree with you strongly. EU waste legislation for all the nice fluff about separation at source, which does seem sensible enough, virtually precludes the deployment of the set of ideas known as 'industrial ecology', simply by having such a crap and all embracing definition of waste !
WTF they didn't ask someone with a clue is beyond me !!
Silly f@$K$ !
This is certainly one the UK might have implemented mot before the fifth quarter of 3017 !

...FoEs methods were to harness the publics dread risk of new technology and dioxins, so rational numerate arguments about LCA, energy and emissions hardly got aired at all, and trying to have that numerate debate at public meetings didn't endear me to quite a large proportions of the green community in Derby.
Indeed, but that is the standard propaganda approach. Prevent or suppress discussion of facts (which might prove you wrong)

Certainly would have proved them wrong !
And the one opportunity I had for a public discussion with FoE in front of a sizeable audience was stomped on by a local councillor ! (Damn !)
Probably didn't want her cozy lunch time lecture ruined by the speaker and FoE failing to sing sweet harmonies off the same hymn sheet !

and concentrate on the "message" no matter whether it is true or not.

Quite so.

Play the man, not the ball and paint all you opponents as uncaring about the environment (and especially the "chilluns future").

Yup !! You got 'em ! OK - my take was only marginally less cynical...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Mary Fisher mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> writes "John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , sarah usenet@colddrake.co.uk> writes John Beardmore wrote:
I'd argue that sorting your own waste has an important psychological impact. It's *YOURS*.
Yes - but where do you draw the line ?

I haven't thought about it. Sorting your own rubbish (the stuff that goes into bins) is surely reasonable.

Do you want millions of people composting their own poo ?
I'd be happy with that as long as it were done efficiently.,

Yup.

There's the problem !

Perhaps like most things we're not looking for the place to draw a line, but rather painting subtle shades of grey across a wide area :-) The competent and concerned get to do more, the rest follow according to inclination, ability and legislation.
regards sarah


-- Think of it as evolution in action.

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-03 11:02:36 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
[-]
I'd argue that sorting your own waste has an important psychological impact.
ROTFL.... We'll be having therapists specialising in it next.

Well, some folk do have more money than sense!

It's *YOURS*. You (well, not you personally, John :-) bought the stuff, and you should have to deal with the results of your purchasing.
.. or pay someone else to do it.

OK. But only if you and those others who want that service pay for it *personally*. You can hire someone to come in and do it for you; you could do so tomorrow if you felt like it. The rest of us who prefer not to waste (ha) our money shouldn't have to pay anything towards provision of that service. I would work hard to vote out any of my representatives who suggested such a thing.

Alternatively, you have the option to select products based on the way that the manufacturer does the packaging. It's far better not to have the packaging disposal issue in the first place.

Quite. But until legislation forces it on the manufacturers, their marketing people, combined perhaps with a host of safety regs and transport requirements, and sheer laziness on the part of some consumers ensures the problem will persist.

If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess, you should certainly have to sort that out yourself.
Why? I pay for rubbish disposal.

And your rubbish is disposed of.

If the local authority wants it to be separated then they need to organise that.

If waste recycling were merely some whimsical initiative undertaken by UK local authorities, that would be fair. Unfortunately it's not. Recycling has been forced on them by EU directives which are in turn a function of general (you may be excluded if you wish) recognition that we're running short of sites for bulk waste disposal and that burying valuable resources or sending them up in smoke to generate heat and pollution is a Bad Thing.
regards sarah
-- Think of it as evolution in action.

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , sarah usenet@colddrake.co.uk> writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes
that only demonstrates British political naivety again. Basic political principles tell us that an open private market will deliver more efficiency.
That my be your basic political assumption, but I'm not sure it's universal truth.
North Herts has apparently concluded that the privatised bus services are effectively operating a cartel ;-/
Surely not ??? Shock ! Horror !!
Maybe they have a monopoly ? Oh no ! That cannot be !

If we're not careful, you'll corner the market for irony, cynicism and sarcasm. You'll be wealthy beyond your dreams, but only the favoured few will be able to afford these items essential for life in 21stC Britain. ^ intelligent
regards sarah
-- Think of it as evolution in action.

In message , Peter Parry writes

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:31:33 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message , Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> writes
Maybe, but I doubt it's common practice anywhere these days ?
Ever seen how many Jones's work for Cardiff Council? If that isn't irrefutable proof I don't know what is.

But this isn't exclusively a left wing trait.
Remember most fire engines made during Thatchers reign say "Denis" on the front in big letters.

Actually it is still common practice - in many places if you want to join the council work force (especially in particular depots) you need to know the right people to talk to.

And this despite employment guidelines in files an inch and a half thick !

His pay is made up of �71,000 basic pay, contractual overtime of �4,718 and stand-by payment of �15,686. All were paid while he was on long term sick leave and all are regarded as pensionable pay. The council's final salary pension scheme would allow an employee earning �91,000-a-year to retire after 35 years service with a lump sum payment in excess of �200,000 and an annual pension of about �30,000.
OK - seems a bit generous, especially the 71,000 basic which I find very hard to believe. What LA grade is that ?
No idea - he is a "lighting operative" whatever that is and a full time Trade Union official. Basically he is an electrician maintaining street lamps and changing bulbs.

Nice work if you can get it !

See above. The roadworking force qualifies for hefty bonuses, in many cases amounting to �6,000 a year, paid regardless of performance. One employee was paid �53,000 for painting white lines on the road while another, described as a bollard cleaner, was paid �37,000, including an �11,000 bonus. Three "gully emptiers" received �36,000.
Yes - but equally some department heads with multi million budgets seem to be on about 29k.
Yes, all of which proves my point about ingrained incompetence :-).

It shows inconsistencies in pay structure for sure. It doesn't make all LA staff fools.

Who determines what is the "public interest"?
Bloody good question, but it's not the same as shareholder interest.
Defining it might make a good starting point.

Possibly.
Community interest companies might be an interesting way forward here, but I don't know much about them yet.

As Andy has pointed out there are many far better alternatives. They are not on offer because they are prevented from being viable by the tax and service monopoly the local authorities have awarded themselves.
That they are better is his assertion, yours and most of the political right. Some of us here and most of the political left seem to disagree.
So try it and see. It isn't difficult. For instance with your favourite rubbish why not offer a basic service where the householder has to put the effort into sorting all the rubbish into various categories, an enhanced service where they put all recyclables into one bin and the binmen sort it and a super service where the householder does nothing and the binmen sort it all? The services could be priced according to the effort needed to segregate the rubbish.
It won't be done, not because it wouldn't be popular or practical but because it doesn't meet the political propaganda need for "changing attitudes" so that people become ever more supine and accepting of any tax labeled as "green" which will go to fuel the gravy train.

I hope it won't be done because it increases the over all impact of the waste disposal process.

If LA monopoly is the way to go and with the present enthusiasm for renewable energy would you support the LA's taking on responsibility for supplying and fitting all solar panels on buildings using their own workforce and extracting a tax from all households to pay for it?
Depends how many panels it gets on roofs I suspect. There is already considerable government intervention in the market through Clear Skies and the Low Carbon Buildings Program though.
Great success that has been - ask Windsave.

Indeed.

Do you think this would raise standards and lead to a more efficient delivery of a better service?
Well you tell me. Installer and supplier profits are sacrificed, but quite a few panels go on roofs that otherwise might not. There are pros and cons all around such schemes...
Well you would be out of a job for a start.

Probably not - we are already consultants, suppliers and installers to one such scheme.

There would be a standard fitting plan and a standard kit for all with a team of half trained overpaid monkeys fitting them. Oh, and a target of 20 installations a day.

I doubt it. By your reckoning we'd have a twenty man team of installers with a range of unnecessary but specialist skills, including a catering van and a mobile masseuse.

The panels would be put up on the most convenient roof (N, S E or W) and pipes smashed through ceilings and nailed to the wall. There would be no controller and the system would leak.

There would be a controller !! There has to be, but it would have to be made by Ferranti, located in the town hall, with a power consumption not exceeding 1kW each, and accessed over a BT POTS link during off peak hours.

It also wouldn't work. Remedial work would be carried out within 3 years.

:) I couldn't possibly comment !

Have you had any experience of central heating put in by council DLO's?

No. I've inspected some of their solar water heating systems though, and no, you needn't ask, you'd be right, and I couldn't possibly comment, in that order.

LAs also seem to be doing / supporting some very good evaluation work, e.g. demonstrating the limitations of small on roof turbines. That should raise standards...
One can but hope.

And I do !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , sarah writes

Andy Hall wrote:
Alternatively, you have the option to select products based on the way that the manufacturer does the packaging. It's far better not to have the packaging disposal issue in the first place.
Quite. But until legislation forces it on the manufacturers, their marketing people, combined perhaps with a host of safety regs and transport requirements, and sheer laziness on the part of some consumers ensures the problem will persist.

The Packaging (Essential Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2006...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , sarah writes

John Beardmore wrote:
Yes - but where do you draw the line ?
I haven't thought about it. Sorting your own rubbish (the stuff that goes into bins) is surely reasonable.

I think so.

Do you want millions of people composting their own poo ?
I'd be happy with that as long as it were done efficiently.,
Yup.
There's the problem !
Perhaps like most things we're not looking for the place to draw a line, but rather painting subtle shades of grey across a wide area :-) The competent and concerned get to do more, the rest follow according to inclination, ability and legislation.

Yes.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , sarah writes

John Beardmore wrote:
North Herts has apparently concluded that the privatised bus services are effectively operating a cartel ;-/
Surely not ??? Shock ! Horror !!
Maybe they have a monopoly ? Oh no ! That cannot be !
If we're not careful, you'll corner the market for irony, cynicism and sarcasm.

:) Too bad there isn't much market.

You'll be wealthy beyond your dreams,

Not according to my accountant who I can't afford any more...

but only the favoured few will be able to afford these items essential for life in 21stC Britain. ^ intelligent

Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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 wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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 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.

I'd rather have it spent by whoever will improve environmental performance rather than accept a bare minimum.

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.

Well - that assumes that there are places they want to go to where environmental protection isn't on the agenda. That narrows the scope a lot.
It also depends if those places afford the other opportunities these people look for.

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.

Yes - the key word here is 'minimum'.

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.

Certainly bits of it.

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.

Maybe. Without knowing the history of the interaction between you and your LA it's hard to know. Though I doubt you and your LA agree on what they should be doing. You may be breathing down their necks just because they doing what the law dictates.

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.

I'm not at all sure that industry demonstrates any clue about sustainable development either.

Not really. I'm far from idle. I simply want to spend my time 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....

:) You are pretty much welcome ! Shouldn't take long.

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.

Yes - a lot of truth in that - which is probably why a lot of silly town hall waste interpretations are ignored - but other things too.

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.

Only that ?

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.

I had in mind more that the EU is a significant stakeholder.

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 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.

Shouldn't be too much point getting other people to do it if you have the use of your hands !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

Hooray! The Subject was changed when the subject changed.
On uk.environment, in , "sarah" wrote:

John Beardmore wrote:
In message 1165078345.322377.5770@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, meow2222@care2.com writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message 1164800890.569168.242640@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, meow2222@care2.com writes
Owain wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free, when the companies that get the sorted goods should be responsible for this.
Hours ?!?
lets say 5 mins per person per week, x 65 million = 325 million minutes = 5.4 million manhours per week = 280 million manhours per year, at a value of 2 billion pounds, if we value it at �7/hr. Guess I should have said millions of hours.
Well OK, but if you want to aggregate things, have you looked at the cost and environmental impact of centralised waste separation ? You don't really have a decision to make until you've got both data sets.
I'd argue that sorting your own waste has an important psychological impact. It's *YOURS*. You (well, not you personally, John :-) bought the stuff, and you should have to deal with the results of your purchasing. If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess, you should certainly have to sort that out yourself. Like Andrew, our waste is sorted (by me) as it is generated. No problem.

And here we see one of the main reasons the so-called 'environmental movement' is a failure:
The 'environmentalists' spend their time discussing how to get rid of garbage that shouldn't exist in the first place.
Things produced locally with human power and that are actually _needed_ for a decent life, things that are actually Earth-friendly, don't have packaging.
But when you excessively consume things that are produced industrially in far away places, then you have a garbage problem.
And even producing the basics does far more environmental harm than is necessary.
But hey, that's better than having ugly industries in your neighborhood trashing _your_ environment, right?
So just make a ritual out of sorting your garbage, cleansing yourself of sin thereby (in your own mind, anyway) and then send it somewhere else. Wouldn't want to actually _live_ near where it ends up, would you?
NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard
The call of the psuedo-environmentalist.
Alan
-- http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor

Thanks for your kookfart, Beavis.
-- <article not downloaded:
Info about "Alan Connor"
Alan "The Usenet Beavis" Connor is a good friend of Bigfoot: http://tinyurl.com/23r3f
A couple of years ago he was kidnapped and raped by Xena, the Warrior Princess: http://tinyurl.com/2gjcy
Beavis believes that the MSBlast virus of yesteryear was explicitly targeting him, for some inexplicable reason: http://tinyurl.com/ifrt
Beavis belongs to a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/2hhdx Beavis's life in a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/24jqm Beavis knows all about network security: http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6 And he's also a search engine expert: http://tinyurl.com/9pjnt
"But if you must know, Alans' name is Bruce Burhans, and he lives in Bellingham WA. To his hippie friends he calls himself "Tom Littlefoot" **Google Tom Littlefoot, Bruce Burhans and "Wildwood"**.
Bruce has some serious mental problems and spends a lot of time as an in-patient at the big mental hospital in Bellingham, when he's not hospitalized, he posts to usenet. In every group he posts to he comes off as some sort of expert in the subject at hand, and when anyone disagrees (and they will, he sees to that) he starts in on his trollery.
Again, Bruce is a true Professional Usenet Troll. It is his entertainment and it's what he lives for."
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=MQ9uxRYAAAAX2tAp-itjMPAOxLgFwCc3_gRbb05PKyTO4L-MEqh3HQ&hl=en http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/ http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#CR http://www.gatago.com/authors_pgs/13650.html http://blog.bananasplit.info/?p=84 http://tinyurl.com/ifrt http://tinyurl.com/3h6a5 http://tinyurl.com/ys6z4
Also in the headers for alan to read.

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 20:13:46 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" wrote this:-

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.

It is interesting to note how normal the sorts of thing we have been discussing in this thread now are.
====================================================================
That well known organ of trendy lefty councils, "The Financial Times" has an article on wormeries at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a0bcf544-81aa-11db-864e-0000779e2340.html
One of the most thoughtful presents I have ever received came in a reused plastic apple juice bottle. It looked a little like apple juice but I was warned not to take a swig or even remove the screw top in the office.
Far more precious than fruit juice, though admittedly more smelly, the liquid gold was "compost tea", a concentrated plant food produced by an army of worms belonging to Sara Margetts, the head of the Financial Times' library and information service.
The worms have lived happily for a decade in a specially constructed bin under her kitchen sink, chomping their way through tea leaves, potato peelings and other assorted fruit and vegetable kitchen waste, as well as paper kitchen towels and torn-up cardboard egg boxes. The worms are discerning and particularly appreciate the FT. Sara has experimented by lining the bin with rival newspapers but this one has proved to be streets ahead in absorbency, as it is in so many other respects. [snip]
====================================================================
"The Herald" reports http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/75775.html
EIGHT out of 10 Scottish households are now recycling glass, paper, plastic or cans, according to figures released yesterday. [snip]
Shiona Baird, energy spokeswoman for the Scottish Green Party, said: "Progress on recycling is to be welcomed, but rates across the country vary considerably with some local authorities leading the way and others dragging their heels.
"Compared to other European countries where 50% or more of waste is recycled, the executive's target is clearly unambitious.
"Much more effort needs to go into reducing the amount of waste produced in the first place." [snip]
====================================================================
The same newspaper reports how easy it is to recycle http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/75776-print.shtml
LYNNE and Simon Inglis, from Newton Mearns, started recycling when their local authority brought in kerbside collections.
The couple, who have a two-year-old daughter, Amy, admit that before East Renfrewshire Council introduced the facilities in September 2003, most of their household waste was simply thrown away.
They now put paper, bottles, tins and glass into the boxes and bags provided which are collected every fortnight.
Mrs Inglis, 33, a secretary, said: "Most of our rubbish before now went into the main bin.
"We did dabble a bit by recycling paper, but I would end up driving around with newspapers in the boot of my car. I always found a way to avoid going to actually put them in the banks.
"Now it is a lot easier because it is all supplied. It means we do our part.
"Our bin used to be over-flowing when it was collected and we sometimes had to put out an additional black bag and hope they would pick it up.
"Now the household waste is only half full.
"We were wasting materials that could have been recycled.
It was just sheer laziness and lack of knowledge," she added.
====================================================================
"Scotland on Sunday" reports on problems with recycling http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1792222006
THOUSANDS of tonnes of household waste that should be recycled are being dumped in landfill sites because the refuse has become "contaminated", Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
Figures obtained from local councils show that up to 40,000 tonnes of recyclable waste - about 5% of the total collected throughout the country - had to be discarded last year.
Environmental campaigners and councils last night said the figures showed both the public and local authorities still had to get basic recycling right.
Contamination arises when homeowners - either unwittingly or deliberately - put the wrong kind of recyclable waste into recycling containers or the refuse becomes tainted while being transported to sorting centres. [snip]
Councils operating different collection systems were partly to blame, Gulland said. "If they sort at source, that is on the kerbside, then it is not usually a problem. But if they run a commingling system, as most councils do, then the potential for contamination is much greater. This means several types of recyclable item all going into one bin and, for instance, you get plastic bottles with liquid still in them in with newsprint." [snip]
Environment group Friends of the Earth Scotland said recycling rates had improved dramatically in Scotland - up from 8% in 2002 - but it was concerned that contamination was proving a difficult problem to crack.
"If we want to make sure that recycling works, we have to get the basics right," said chief executive Duncan McLaren. "That means ensuring as little contamination as possible. Some councils just allow people to put everything recyclable into one bin, but it can end up getting contaminated before being sorted. Then it's no use and has to be dumped." [snip]
====================================================================
That little lot also exposes some of the lies being told by the antis.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In message , Alan Connor writes

Hooray! The Subject was changed when the subject changed.
On uk.environment, in 1hprnll.zika54lknksjN%usenet@colddrake.co.uk>, "sarah" wrote:
John Beardmore wrote:
In message 1165078345.322377.5770@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, meow2222@care2.com writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message 1164800890.569168.242640@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, meow2222@care2.com writes
Owain wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free, when the companies that get the sorted goods should be responsible for this.
Hours ?!?
lets say 5 mins per person per week, x 65 million = 325 million minutes = 5.4 million manhours per week = 280 million manhours per year, at a value of 2 billion pounds, if we value it at �7/hr. Guess I should have said millions of hours.
Well OK, but if you want to aggregate things, have you looked at the cost and environmental impact of centralised waste separation ? You don't really have a decision to make until you've got both data sets.
I'd argue that sorting your own waste has an important psychological impact. It's *YOURS*. You (well, not you personally, John :-) bought the stuff, and you should have to deal with the results of your purchasing. If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess, you should certainly have to sort that out yourself. Like Andrew, our waste is sorted (by me) as it is generated. No problem.
And here we see one of the main reasons the so-called 'environmental movement' is a failure:
The 'environmentalists' spend their time discussing how to get rid of garbage that shouldn't exist in the first place.

That point has been made if you read the thread.

Things produced locally with human power and that are actually _needed_ for a decent life, things that are actually Earth-friendly, don't have packaging.

Quite so, but back on planet earth, better to restrict it than use more of it than you have to.

But when you excessively consume things that are produced industrially in far away places, then you have a garbage problem.
And even producing the basics does far more environmental harm than is necessary.
But hey, that's better than having ugly industries in your neighborhood trashing _your_ environment, right?

Well yes, but a lot of the problem is down to industry, not transport alone, and it is planning law not choice that obliges many of us to live away from work - a problem less likely to trouble the self employed.

So just make a ritual out of sorting your garbage, cleansing yourself of sin thereby (in your own mind, anyway)

Well - doing a bit of the stuff that you can. None of us are claiming it's the whole solution.

and then send it somewhere else. Wouldn't want to actually _live_ near where it ends up, would you?

Not especially, but I'm keen to contribute to the problem as little as possible, and have no guilt about that or where I live thanks.

NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard
The call of the psuedo-environmentalist.

Well yes. So ? It's not as if any of us are appealing to have waste facilities not put near us, so what's your point ?
J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 21:47:28 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

The 'environmentalists' spend their time discussing how to get rid of garbage that shouldn't exist in the first place.
That point has been made if you read the thread.

Indeed. It is also a point that has been made by environmentalists for well over a decade. Claims otherwise, at best, show a lack of knowledge of what environmentalists say and, at worst, show a deliberate misrepresentation of what environmentalists say.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54