Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-29 00:25:37 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 23:12:38 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
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
If what they have now is on offer as one of the available services, those wishing to stay with it can do so. But splitting delivery of the same service (shifting a mass of waste) is achieved with more competing vehicles, where is the environmental gain ?
The service isn't the same for each.

In total, the same amount of material is shifted. More people, equipment and road miles may be involved.

Who said anything about the total number of vehicles necessarily increasing? Who said that they would be the same size?

Who said their collective environmental impact would be less ? I didn't hear that undertaking. If I did, I might be little more enthusiastic.

In the meantime, other suppliers will be offering different services at different prices. Some will be lower and some higher. And all increase the aggregate environmental footprint of the exercise.
That is a nebulous term.

Not to people who know what it means.

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 ? The market will decide that. So that's a no then.
Given that the LAs would not be in the food chain, one substantial cost element is removed.

Except to license and police.

As far as pricing is concerned, the market will decide. One element of the market is price competition.

Well - the average consumer may feel they've been had if it does work out more expensive.

Since you already identified that current costs of waste collection are not given to the public, there is no direct comparison to make.

I've identified that you don't know them. I haven't asked.

I happen to think that service is extremely important and value it above price. Others may take the opposite view or rate them more equally. All can be accomodated. No. All can't. Only the price / service spectrum that you choose to identify. But you've already blown it on environmental impact.
I haven't "blown" anything. "Environmental impact" is a nebulous term that is open to individual interpretation.

No - it's pretty well defined. Oddly enough, people who write things like environmental impact assessments, or assess EMS processes know what one is. You don't have to know something personally for it to be known to mankind !

You can't accommodate me, and quite possible many others by taking an existing solution that is adequate, and replacing it with a range of choices that are worse.
You would be at liberty to choose a supplier who operates in the same way as your existing one.

Which guarantees nothing about the change to multiple providers as a whole.

The existing solution is only acceptable to the extent that individuals are not required to take any actions beyond putting all of their rubbish in one set of bags weekly.

This is certainly your view but there's no need to state it as though you speak for all people.

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 there is a market, it will be on offer. Apparently the 'as low as it is now' environmental impact for the delivery of the entire service is not on offer - from you.
I'm not offering anything. I already told you that I have no interest in collecting rubbish.

So when people have referred to whingers in this news group, they may have had a point.

I also told you that the term "environmental impact" is whatever the individual decides it is.

You may have told me that, but an MSc course in environmental decision making tells me otherwise.
Which do you think I'm going to believe ?

For example, I happen to think that solar panels on roofs and electricity generating windmills in the countryside have a huge environmental impact visually. Others may actually like them.

The meaning of environmental impact is well understood. The extent to which items with aesthetic consequences in the landscape have environmental impacts is indeed more debatable.
Other impacts, such as those arising from the handling of waste, are mostly easier to quantify however.

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 ? That depends on what you mean by "environmental foot print" Look it up.
No need. The definition is individual.

No it isn't. It's been understood for a long time, and has been refined somewhat over time, but broadly goes like this.
Environmental Footprint is an indicator of consumption. It is calculated in terms of the amount of area required to deliver the things we consume, in such a way that there is no net use of non-renewable resources.
If anything, Environmental Footprint estimates tend be conservative indicators of resource use because it is virtually impossible to build a complete list of all the things we use.
In the context of Environmental Footprint calculations, 'area' means biologically viable land or sea required to grow the required resources we live on, and to incorporate the waste produced as a consequence of their consumption back into that biological system.
The area units used are hectares with world average productivity. This area may be analysed in terms of requirements for cropland, grazing land, forest to grow raw materials, sea for fish and seafood production, land for housing, work and infrastructure, and land to fix carbon dioxide emissions arising from energy use.
Because the area of available land and sea habitats are known, this indicator enables comparison between the footprint areas required by individuals, populations, or processes, and that available locally or globally.
I'm sure you'll find better, more refined, definitions than that, but the upshot is that these things can be quantified, tend to be under estimates, and despite this, we still need a multiple of the area we have at out disposal.
While slightly different definitions used by different researchers may give rise to slightly different methodologies, as long as the same methodology is used when making comparisons, a fairly accurate relative measure can be obtained for individuals, populations, processes etc, and all methodologies give broadly similar results.
To say "The definition is individual" shows a pretty complete lack of understanding of the field.

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. That isn't what I have said at all. I haven't talked about betting anything or about political ideology. I haven't offered detailed plans or set out to do so regardless of how many times you have suggested that I do so. All that I have said is that there should be a choice of supplier and of service offering for waste collection and that I do not think that a one size fits all monopoly is the right model. It is very telling that you seem to believe that a monopolistic model delivered through the local authority with increasing onus on the customer to do particular things in a particular way with legal compulsion if the customer dares to disagree is the way forward. I think that not only is that a very dangerous state of affairs, but it illustrates a considerable insecurity about the true benefits of the various schemes being forced upon customers. It illustrates a significant concern that we do a lot of environmental damage that we can't individually see or measure.
That may be the case or it may not.

So are you really suggesting that it might be the case that there is no environmental damage that is not trivial to see or measure ?

If one takes that position, taken to its logical inclusion, one would do nothing that might have some impact or another.

No - all work to reduce environmental impact is done in the context of supporting life on the planet, ours included.
Protecting the environment is not about doing nothing, anymore than industry should be about rendering life on the planet impossible.
The point about sustainability is that it's about doing things in such a way that you can go on doing them, not that you do nothing, or bring about environmental catastrophe.

If you want to do a set of things that convince you that you are doing something good about that, then that's your choice, provided that you don't inflict them on others.

I don't inflict anything. I'm too busy delivering peoples various jobs and requests.

I prefer to see demonstrable evidence that something is being damaged and secondly that the proposed solutions, if any, do address it and not make something else, including the economic situation, worse.

Perfectly reasonable, but you are only like to get that if you study the subject. I won't be inflicting it on you. Are you willing to make any commitment to understanding the subject ?

As a result, if we want to start living in a [more] sustainable way quickly, we need to put good environmental practice ahead of market fashions unless there is a compelling case that the market driven, short termist, 'money talks' solution can better deliver the environmental improvements required.
Sorry, but I don't buy any of these points. Unless the sustainable ways proposed fit with the market environment, they won't happen to a sufficient extent to be worthwhile.

:) We'll see.

For example, the United States is not signing up for Kyoto because they believe that to do so would damage their economy. The Chinese are not stopping building power stations, presumably for similar reasons.

Quite so, but none of this means we should do nothing.
The fact that much of the solution is not trivially delivered does not mean that the problem that needs addressing has gone away.
By all means try and find better ways to deal with the situation, but I don't buy it that 'business as usual' is the answer.

The environmental lobby needs to go away and learn some economic realities and then come with solutions that will allow sustainable economies.

This isn't some problem owned by environmentalists for their amusement.
It's a problem owned by all of us that all of us have contributed to.

Those will get the support that actually matters. Otherwise all of this is just pissing in the wind.

Wind and piss aside, I don't see that the scale of the problem absolves us from responsibility for our individual contributions to it.

Now we've got that clear, would you mind standing at our next local council elections so I can not vote for you please ? I think that what you may have got clear in your mind is what you would like to believe I have said. However, that bears no relation to what actually was said. Specifically please ?
Already covered in detail.

Well - if you thing there is a specific misunderstanding, feel free to share it, otherwise it is likely to persist.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-03 22:33:51 +0000, John Beardmore said:

The service isn't the same for each.
In total, the same amount of material is shifted. More people, equipment and road miles may be involved.

They may not.

Who said anything about the total number of vehicles necessarily increasing? Who said that they would be the same size?
Who said their collective environmental impact would be less ?

Nobody.

In the meantime, other suppliers will be offering different services at different prices. Some will be lower and some higher. And all increase the aggregate environmental footprint of the exercise.
That is a nebulous term.
Not to people who know what it means.

Please provide your definition and I will see whether it coincides with mine.

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 ? The market will decide that. So that's a no then.
Given that the LAs would not be in the food chain, one substantial cost element is removed.
Except to license and police.

Possibly. They are but one way to license.

As far as pricing is concerned, the market will decide. One element of the market is price competition.
Well - the average consumer may feel they've been had if it does work out more expensive.

You made a big issue about there being no way to compare, so this is a null comment.

Since you already identified that current costs of waste collection are not given to the public, there is no direct comparison to make.
I've identified that you don't know them. I haven't asked.

Then it's pointless for you to raise the issue, isn't it? My comments were based purely on the overstaffing that I have seen in LAs and the use of outside consultants.

I happen to think that service is extremely important and value it above price. Others may take the opposite view or rate them more equally. All can be accomodated. No. All can't. Only the price / service spectrum that you choose to identify. But you've already blown it on environmental impact.
I haven't "blown" anything. "Environmental impact" is a nebulous term that is open to individual interpretation.
No - it's pretty well defined.

It may be for you. I make my own decisions about that.

Oddly enough, people who write things like environmental impact assessments, or assess EMS processes know what one is. You don't have to know something personally for it to be known to mankind !

Absolutely true, but I am also perfectly capable of making my own value judgments.

You can't accommodate me, and quite possible many others by taking an existing solution that is adequate, and replacing it with a range of choices that are worse.
You would be at liberty to choose a supplier who operates in the same way as your existing one.
Which guarantees nothing about the change to multiple providers as a whole.

It guarantees freedom of choice and freedom to negotiate the most suitable product. Nobody said that you had to choose one other than your existing one.

The existing solution is only acceptable to the extent that individuals are not required to take any actions beyond putting all of their rubbish in one set of bags weekly.
This is certainly your view but there's no need to state it as though you speak for all people.

I haven't to any greater extent than you have.

I'm not offering anything. I already told you that I have no interest in collecting rubbish.
So when people have referred to whingers in this news group, they may have had a point.

Not really. You had hoped that I would set out to offer a comprehensive set of solutions. I told you at the outset that I was not going to do that. The essence of what I have said remains unchanged in terms of taking LAs out of the commercial path between customer and provider and giving the customer the freedom to choose the service most appropriate for him.

I also told you that the term "environmental impact" is whatever the individual decides it is.
You may have told me that, but an MSc course in environmental decision making tells me otherwise.

I imagine that it would do. Did it also teach you mantra, chapter and verse to repeat verbatim on every conceivable occasion?

Which do you think I'm going to believe ?

I really don't care what you want to believe.

For example, I happen to think that solar panels on roofs and electricity generating windmills in the countryside have a huge environmental impact visually. Others may actually like them.
The meaning of environmental impact is well understood.

... and open to discussion, debate and interpretation.

The extent to which items with aesthetic consequences in the landscape have environmental impacts is indeed more debatable.
Other impacts, such as those arising from the handling of waste, are mostly easier to quantify however.

There are a broad range of choices there in terms of what is worthwhile and what is not.

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 ? That depends on what you mean by "environmental foot print" Look it up.
No need. The definition is individual.
No it isn't.

Yes it is.

To say "The definition is individual" shows a pretty complete lack of understanding of the field.

No it doesn't - it simply indicates an unwillingness to swallow every item of green BS that is proposed without questioning it.

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. That isn't what I have said at all. I haven't talked about betting anything or about political ideology. I haven't offered detailed plans or set out to do so regardless of how many times you have suggested that I do so. All that I have said is that there should be a choice of supplier and of service offering for waste collection and that I do not think that a one size fits all monopoly is the right model. It is very telling that you seem to believe that a monopolistic model delivered through the local authority with increasing onus on the customer to do particular things in a particular way with legal compulsion if the customer dares to disagree is the way forward. I think that not only is that a very dangerous state of affairs, but it illustrates a considerable insecurity about the true benefits of the various schemes being forced upon customers. It illustrates a significant concern that we do a lot of environmental damage that we can't individually see or measure.
That may be the case or it may not.
So are you really suggesting that it might be the case that there is no environmental damage that is not trivial to see or measure ?

I am saying that I don't accept things without reasonable evidence provided by disinterested sources.

If one takes that position, taken to its logical inclusion, one would do nothing that might have some impact or another.
No - all work to reduce environmental impact is done in the context of supporting life on the planet, ours included.
Protecting the environment is not about doing nothing, anymore than industry should be about rendering life on the planet impossible.

Neither is it about doing every possible thing that might conceivably be enviromentally beneficial without considering the economic consequences.

I prefer to see demonstrable evidence that something is being damaged and secondly that the proposed solutions, if any, do address it and not make something else, including the economic situation, worse.
Perfectly reasonable, but you are only like to get that if you study the subject. I won't be inflicting it on you. Are you willing to make any commitment to understanding the subject ?

I will make the level of commitment that I deem necessary in relation to the value that I perceive.

As a result, if we want to start living in a [more] sustainable way quickly, we need to put good environmental practice ahead of market fashions unless there is a compelling case that the market driven, short termist, 'money talks' solution can better deliver the environmental improvements required.
Sorry, but I don't buy any of these points. Unless the sustainable ways proposed fit with the market environment, they won't happen to a sufficient extent to be worthwhile.
:) We'll see.

We already are.

For example, the United States is not signing up for Kyoto because they believe that to do so would damage their economy. The Chinese are not stopping building power stations, presumably for similar reasons.
Quite so, but none of this means we should do nothing.

No, but it does mean that the focus should be on dealing with the things that make the largest difference first rather than titting around with things that might make a tiny difference but not affect the outcome.

The fact that much of the solution is not trivially delivered does not mean that the problem that needs addressing has gone away.
By all means try and find better ways to deal with the situation, but I don't buy it that 'business as usual' is the answer.

How do you propose to explain that to the Chinese?

The environmental lobby needs to go away and learn some economic realities and then come with solutions that will allow sustainable economies.
This isn't some problem owned by environmentalists for their amusement.
It's a problem owned by all of us that all of us have contributed to.

Again, how do you plan to address that with the Chinese?

Those will get the support that actually matters. Otherwise all of this is just pissing in the wind.
Wind and piss aside, I don't see that the scale of the problem absolves us from responsibility for our individual contributions to it.

We should look at the range of things that need to be done globally to deal with global problems and address those first.

Now we've got that clear, would you mind standing at our next local council elections so I can not vote for you please ? I think that what you may have got clear in your mind is what you would like to believe I have said. However, that bears no relation to what actually was said. Specifically please ?
Already covered in detail.
Well - if you thing there is a specific misunderstanding, feel free to share it, otherwise it is likely to persist.

I think that you are becoming ever more confused about what was actually said.

On 2006-12-03 11:49:36 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 11:30:42 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
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. If the local authority wants it to be separated then they need to organise that.
As has been explained more than once the desire is driven by the Westminster government and EU. Most councils undoubtedly just wanted to continue in the way they had been doing in the past.

I'm sure. It was a big enough gravy train before, and now even more wagons have been added.

On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:

Andy Hall wrote:
.. or pay someone else to do it.
OK. But only if you and those others who want that service pay for it *personally*.

I have no problem with that and made that clear from the outset.

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.

The whole premise was to have a range of services from a range of providers so that people can choose what they want and with local authorities taken out of the financial path between customer and supplier. If you want to continue as you are then that is accomodated.

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.

There already is huge over-regulation in these areas. Adding more is unlikely to alter the behaviour of consumers who want to buy a) on price and b) on the attractiveness of the packaging.

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.

Then I'm happy. I am not happy if I am expected to do part of the supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price or they do the work.

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.

If the total effect of each recycling procedure is positive (including the whole lifetime of the product), then it may be worthwhile. I am not convinced that there are very many actual cases where this applies.

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-11-29 00:25:37 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 23:12:38 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
If what they have now is on offer as one of the available services, those wishing to stay with it can do so.
But splitting delivery of the same service (shifting a mass of waste) is achieved with more competing vehicles, where is the environmental gain ?
Several companies will have opportunities to find and implement environmental gains, and this will be one of the points of competition for business. One only need look at existing freeish markets to see that.
2ndly, you seem to assume there will be multiple vehicles consuming multiple times the energy. There are a few things wrong with this view.
1. Private companies are much more likely to have the number of staff on wagons needed, and no more. This cuts energy use per ton of rubbish collected. Why leaner staff? Because the most successful competitors win. Why less energy? You've got 2 peoples lives to pay for, with all thiere energy consumption, not 3. Why excess staff? Because managers wish to advance up the chain by showing how many employees they have managed and thus can manage.

Maybe. And union tradition ?

Also because there is no incentive for efficiency.

Don't know if their might also be health and safety issues ?

all this money & energy is explained in the thread you didnt read http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6888

Vaguely correlated at best.

2. If say 2 companies are collecting in an area, they will be using smaller vehicles and/or less vehicles.

Or the available vehicles.

Smaller vehicle means less fuel use.

Generally.

They will also spend less time each in the vicinity. One can not at all assume this means more energy use.

Not per trip, but quite possibly in total to move the same amount of waste.

3. If for whatever reason single vehicle only collection turns out to be a better bet, a lot of areas will pick single vehicle collection. Minority operators in that area will have higher prices and not get as much custom, and soon pull out of those places.

So users are left with a single service again. So much for your precious choice.

4. Finally competition and improving efficiency isnt in anyones interest with the present system, because no-one inside the system will profit from it.

Not sure that's true.

There is no incentive to develop or take any financial risk, because the only posible outcomes are either no consequence or a blot on ones record.

Possibly true - at least in some LAs.

In a free market, theres a lot of money to be made by new developments in efficiency, hence theres plenty of motivation for them. ....

There is little motivation for this with LAs, and progress is at a snail's pace. If the LAs had a monopoly on computers we'd still be using the 286.

So how much innovation have we seen in industrial sector waste handling ?

I prefer to see demonstrable evidence that something is being damaged and secondly that the proposed solutions, if any, do address it and not make something else, including the economic situation, worse.
And it is very hard indeed to conclude that choice of rubbish collection has much to do with either CO2 emission or anything else ecological.

Depends entirely on how it's done.

As a result, if we want to start living in a [more] sustainable way quickly, we need to put good environmental practice ahead of market fashions unless there is a compelling case that the market driven, short termist, 'money talks' solution can better deliver the environmental improvements required.
of course it does. But you'd need to understand the money-energy connection to see that.

I understand what you think, but can see that the correlation is weak and why.

A free market does not guarantee solutions, no system does, but it makes it possible for people that come up with solutions to offer them, plus it gives them an incentive to do so. Neither of those exist in the present system.

Indeed, but it can't guarantee to operate (shift the same amount of garbage) with lower environmental footprint. Unless it does, I remain unconvinced.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:

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.

It would be if the waste operator reduced the price of the service. They do not. Alternatively, with a choice of operator, some could choose to offer a separation service (where it is worth doing at all) at extra cost. Customer chooses.
My objection is about being forced into carrying out certain actions behind which the benefits are highly questionable and having no economic choice to address them in a different way.

On 2006-12-03 19:16:19 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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.

Have you actually been to Brussels and seen the machinery of the EU at work? It made me physically sick to see the waste of time, effort and money that goes on there.

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.

I was referring to your comments about profligate lifestyles, not environmental protection.

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'.

Again, those who would like to buy services over and above the minimum or go sorting through rubbish as a Sunday afternoon outing are at liberty to do so.

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 am sure that the law doesn't dictate that they need to bring in firms of management consultants to do the work that their own staff should be doing. One or the other should be dispensed with.

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.

Have you looked?

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.

It may not take me long, I can't speak for how long you'd take.

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.

Hardly a situation in which to encourage co-operation from people is it?

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 ?

No, but I think it's the most important, provided that the requirements for the outcomes are met in one way or another.

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.

??

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-29 01:17:13 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes
Absolutely. I would like to buy (or rather continue to buy) a service where the supplier deals with this stuff. I don't want to spend my time on it. If you would like to buy something which involves you in sorting through every item and putting into different places and tracking where it goes, be my guest. You could set up in business, and I would happily be your first customer. That doesn't deal with the notion that sorting at source is the 'least resource' way of getting things sorted.
Then you would be welcome to visit and sort through my dustbin each week.

It would still be more efficient for you to do it.

If I provide you with the service, I introduce overheads like getting your rubbish and me in the same place.
You could walk or use your bike.

From Derbyshire ??
It would still be more efficient for you to do it.

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 ? All the sacks are the same as far as I am concerned. Then concerned is the one thing you are not. At least not beyond a rather self centred agenda.
I already explained to you that I am quite happy for separation of rubbish to take place, although I am far from convinced of the need and value for all of the different types being done. I am even willing to pay for that to happen - as I already do.

Not sure that you do in fact, but the whole issue is somewhat opaque, at least until you ask for figures which you may or may not get.

I am not willing to spend my time sorting through all kinds of different plastics, metals, paper and all the rest of it.
I object to being told that there is only one way that all of this can possibly happen and that I shouldn't have a choice of supplier and the ability to agree my own commercial arrangement with them.

I'm sure there are many ways it could happen, but there seems to be one clear winner in terms of environmental performance.

I think that both notions are bogus. If something relies on only being effective if there is no choice and a specific procedure has to be followed, it is highly questionable and in my view a very dangerous road to be traveling down.

:) This is a bit like saying there ought be a choice about ohms law or the ideal gas equation.
I think sometimes you have to admit that from an environmental perspective there is a clear winner, that it involves a bit of input from you, and that you can't be arsed or want to argue.

In answer to your other point... no I don'f think that that is a self centred position to take at all; rather the boot is on the other foot.

Well I sort my waste. That doesn't feel too self centred here.
The point is - I can't make you do it, but I can say why I think it's a good idea, and am free to point out when I think your 'reasons' for not doing it are bogus.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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 wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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 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.

Not sure about 'orthogonal'.

Democracy, in terms of current use in western Europe is much more closely aligned with freedom to choose.

:) Really ?
I thought it was about things being done in your name within (?) reasonable limits ?

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.

Well that's too bad there's a lot of it about.
I suppose again it's one of those things that's not perfect, but the best tool we have for that particular job.
There are 'soft' problems that are not well served by solving differential equations.

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.

Well - you do seem to be concerned with the (?) monopoly and bundling aspects of the problem much more than the waste or environmental issues.

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

Environmental decisions are made to support people and the things on which they depend.
You can't support people in a modern society by provision of global commons alone - that is pretty much the Alan Connor model as far as I can see.
You may have noticed the expression 'triple bottom line' ?
You may have notices that two of them are not about the environment !
Or not...

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.

Possibly. One for LCA rather than prejudice though.

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.

So deal with the best tool we have then.

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.

Well yes and no. Depending on your experience, and clearly ours differ, you may be inclined to default one way or the other. But both of us should be amenable to an accurate numeric case with a defined 'system of interest'. The decision may still be complex, with multiple interacting issues and subjective criteria, but that's too bad. At least LCA gets you off to a quantitative start.

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.

Nor is it necessarily lower aggregate footprint.
It may not duplicate services in the same sense that tow bus companies operating on the same route do not duplicate services, but it may travel more road miles and use more man hours even with fewer people on each trip than existing services.

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

Unless you are willing to learn about it, it is arguable that having strong opinions about it is rather pointless !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-30 02:20:16 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-29 00:33:29 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
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. I'd rather the views of the consumer be heard. That doesn't always involve imposing a market on them. So would I. The most effective way for that to be measured is by where they choose to spend their money. Well - for the time being I choose to spend mine as I have been in the past, and would rather resources were not wasted duplicating that provision.
That's fine. However, provision is not being duplicated (because of different services) and if there are more vehicles required likely to be smaller ones anyway.

Not convinced. See other posts for details.

Obviously, one would hope that you wouldn't seek to reduce the choice of others who do not have the same order of priorities in terms of the impact of additional choices of supplier.

I think there should be a debate about it. Many of our choices are curtailed in the interests of others. I don't think waste disposal is so precious an issue that it should be out of the question that a democratically elected state make that choice. YMMV.

If you would like to introduce a social transaction element into your agreement, then hopefully you can find a supplier to include it. Quite what that would be - who knows.? There is one there already I think. That you have no sense of it comes as little surprise.
Oh I do. For the moment, the supplier is offering the service that I want (although his choice is limited) to one thing which is not good). Secondly, I would prefer to negotiate my own deal rather than letting the LA do so for me and applying its markup.

:) Your life really must lack important things to worry about !!
Not sure about the notion of 'mark up' here.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On uk.environment, in , "John Beardmore" wrote:
<article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
Sorry, John. You still can't tell the difference between reason and rationalization.
That's what you get for beieving stupid things like "anything's possible" and "nobody knows for sure" and "it's all relative".
They strip you of intellectual integrity.
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 Sun, 3 Dec 2006 23:35:37 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Have you actually been to Brussels and seen the machinery of the EU at work? It made me physically sick to see the waste of time, effort and money that goes on there.

Really. What did you throw up over? A Eurocrat?

-- 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

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-11-29 00:25:37 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 23:12:38 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
1. Private companies are much more likely to have the number of staff on wagons needed, and no more. This cuts energy use per ton of rubbish collected. Why leaner staff? Because the most successful competitors win. Why less energy? You've got 2 peoples lives to pay for, with all thiere energy consumption, not 3. Why excess staff? Because managers wish to advance up the chain by showing how many employees they have managed and thus can manage.
Maybe. And union tradition ?

theyre not the deciders

Also because there is no incentive for efficiency.
Don't know if their might also be health and safety issues ?

i said the number of staff on wagons needed, and no more, i didnt say less than needed.

all this money & energy is explained in the thread you didnt read http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6888
Vaguely correlated at best.

no, several posts explaining it directly, mainly on pages 1,2,10 iirc

2. If say 2 companies are collecting in an area, they will be using smaller vehicles and/or less vehicles.
Or the available vehicles.

companies will use and purchase whatever vehicles they need, obviously

They will also spend less time each in the vicinity. One can not at all assume this means more energy use.
Not per trip, but quite possibly in total to move the same amount of waste.

think

3. If for whatever reason single vehicle only collection turns out to be a better bet, a lot of areas will pick single vehicle collection. Minority operators in that area will have higher prices and not get as much custom, and soon pull out of those places.
So users are left with a single service again. So much for your precious choice.

nonsense. That isnt what happens in any other free market sector either.

4. Finally competition and improving efficiency isnt in anyones interest with the present system, because no-one inside the system will profit from it.
Not sure that's true.

who in your LA stands to benefit then? And who in any one other LA? Since no-one in these LAs makes a profit based on what they do, the answer is plainly no-one.

There is no incentive to develop or take any financial risk, because the only posible outcomes are either no consequence or a blot on ones record.
Possibly true - at least in some LAs.

You have examples of where taking risk was rewarded in an LA? There is no personal reward in LAs, so it cant be.

In a free market, theres a lot of money to be made by new developments in efficiency, hence theres plenty of motivation for them. ...
There is little motivation for this with LAs, and progress is at a snail's pace. If the LAs had a monopoly on computers we'd still be using the 286.
So how much innovation have we seen in industrial sector waste handling ?

The answer is TDP, which looks like a biggie. If it takes off it could revolutionise the garbage business. Naturally this important innovation was taken to market in the private sector, the public sector has shown no involvement.
As for your question, how much, ie what quantity, that depends on technological change. The difference is simply that in the private sector there is incentive to implement it, hence implementation occurs much more frequently.

I prefer to see demonstrable evidence that something is being damaged and secondly that the proposed solutions, if any, do address it and not make something else, including the economic situation, worse.
And it is very hard indeed to conclude that choice of rubbish collection has much to do with either CO2 emission or anything else ecological.
Depends entirely on how it's done.

No John, the quantity of CO2 involved in garbage disposal isnt even a drop in the ocean. There isnt any way its going to affect climate change.

As a result, if we want to start living in a [more] sustainable way quickly, we need to put good environmental practice ahead of market fashions unless there is a compelling case that the market driven, short termist, 'money talks' solution can better deliver the environmental improvements required.
of course it does. But you'd need to understand the money-energy connection to see that.
I understand what you think, but can see that the correlation is weak and why.

Its not perfect, but correlation is high, and the best we have. There is no more accurate method.

A free market does not guarantee solutions, no system does, but it makes it possible for people that come up with solutions to offer them, plus it gives them an incentive to do so. Neither of those exist in the present system.
Indeed, but it can't guarantee to operate (shift the same amount of garbage) with lower environmental footprint. Unless it does, I remain unconvinced.

No market system is guaranteed to do anything, present one included. It would be naive to imagine it would. We need pick the best contender.
Your personal 'convincement' is not that important, its only a 60 millionth of the matter. The info is gradually getting out thanks to the net, and people will decide for themselves as they see the info presented. Most people are already aware that private business means more competition and innovation than public.
NT

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
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.
It would be if the waste operator reduced the price of the service. They do not. Alternatively, with a choice of operator, some could choose to offer a separation service (where it is worth doing at all) at extra cost. Customer chooses.
My objection is about being forced into carrying out certain actions behind which the benefits are highly questionable and having no economic choice to address them in a different way.

These points are covered in my reply to another message of yours in a separate sub-thread.
regards sarah
-- Think of it as evolution in action.