Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-16 22:45:01 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
So would I. It should be based on these principles: - short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't done properly, there will be no long term Good...
- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's not. Or at least redeploying them.
Only provided that the positions to which they are redeployed are viable and are beneficial to the business.

The what ?

If not, then they have to go.

Well yes ultimately.

Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business.
They should operate on business principles but don't. Probably because they don't know how to do so.

Again, this assumes that they are businesses.

Seems to me that the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the same in good times and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.
True. However, if one company does not do a good job and loses customers, its market share will decline. If that isn't corrected, the consequences are obvious.

Yes - we mover back to a single provider solution and will have wasted a huge amount of effort implementing your scheme.

This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the business under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is not good at doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding the inefficiency. And again assumes that they are businesses that have a variable demand on their services.
They should operate as businesses.

Says who ?

Do you think we need less government during an economic down turn ? If so, why ?
Absolutely. We always need less government.

But not particularly in an economic downturn then.

This is even more true during an economic downturn because effort should be directed towards making money for the economy rather than spending it.

But the bins still need to be emptied.

- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones. The occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should result in change of management. But while LAs should be efficient, they should not be about making a profit.
It is possible for an organisation to run on business principles and for profit to be engineered to zero.

I'm not suggesting that it be "engineered to zero", but that it "should not be about making a profit".

There is, however, nothing wrong with making a profit.

Nothing wrong with delivering a service as your primary objective either.

- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service that the customer is willing to buy. Broadly.
This does not mean minimal provision or minimal environmental standards. Well, unfettered capitalism would probably opt to provide the thing that providers can make most profit out of, and ignore the environment utterly.
Nobody said anything about unfettered capitalism other than you.

Nor have all your assertions about capitalism and markets specified any particular fetters.

I am not aware of any significant environmental progress that has not been driven by legislation. Are you ?
This isn't particularly relevant to the subject.

Nor does the whole discussion have much to do with "Siting of panels for solar water heating".
But my point stands - unfettered capitalism takes pretty much no account of global commons and environmental performance. Minimum standards of safety, health and environmental legislation have been imposed, which on the whole, industry has not wanted, and there is little reason to expect much more than minimum levels of compliance from industry, if indeed that.

Customers should be able to buy the service appropriate to them and for the best price. In many situations, yes.
In almost all situations unless there is a very good reason why not. Waste collection isn't one of them.

But protection of the environment is.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-16 23:04:23 +0000, John Beardmore said:
The axiom 'if you don't measure it, you can't manage it' has much virtue.
Used appropriately.

Well indeed !

What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small part. So presumably you either don't plan to measure any aspects of the scheme, or you only plan to quantify the ones that you think people will want to hear ?
Wrong on both counts.

So why don't you quantify all the bits that people want know about ?
Embarrassment ?

It seems to me that the 'picture' is made up of many facets, but that most of them are amenable to numeric specification and description. If you're going to try and sell your scheme on the basis of inumerate spin and an emotional appeal to choice, I don't think you'll get a lot of takers.
There's nothing emotional. It's a simple matter of customers being able to choose the type of service appropriate to their requirements.

Well yes - so why are you trying to tell us that re number of vehicles, road miles, and therefore congestion etc, "There is no point in measuring it either way" ? What do you have to hide ? Are there any other truths you'd like to be economical with ?
If you take numbers out of the picture, what is left but your emotional rants about local authorities and markets ?
If you take some of the numbers out of the picture, but cloud the very transparency you have claimed that capitalist enterprise offers.
How are consumers to know that the scheme you foist upon them, never mind any individual provider they might select, is a benefit to them or to the environment ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 02:48:21 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-05 08:10:40 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
Consider increasing transport costs at a time of what is laughably termed 'energy insecurity'. I don't accept that the approach does result in increased transport costs. Not have you made any case to support the notion that it wouldn't.
I didn't set out to do so.

OK then, so you accept that there may well be increased transport costs then ?
If not, why not ?
And presumably road miles, congestion etc ?

Rather you have denied it rather unconvincingly and hidden behind the notion that you 'weren't really making a proposal at all' when pushed...
I wasn't pushed on anything. I told you at the outset that this was not an area of particular interest. However, I do make the point that increasing choice does not automatically mean an increase in road miles for collection.

You have failed to indicate any means by which it wouldn't !

Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling half way around the planet does. So stick in the LCA and measure the outcomes.
Why don't you do that?

Because it's your proposal. I've got better things to do with my time.

However, do you believe you could do so on a disinterested basis.?

No more than you.
Any calculations should be open to scrutiny.

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. Mind you, despite murder being a bad thing for society in general I think I could make a case for it to be legalised in some circumstances. Never mind about "society". It's a bit of a problem for the victim as well.
:) Yes, but 'society' has so much longer to dwell on it !
If society existed.

Well - we thing we do. YMMV.

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. You're not thinking it through. Yes I am. I suppose that from your PoV, you are. You are wedded to the outdated notion that competition on the free market <spit> always results in the best of all possible worlds. Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time. Seems to be wanting in a number of areas, particularly around environmental exploitation, degradation and equity.
Sigh.... the old chestnuts.

They are old because capitalism has never dealt with them well.

Get used to it, because it won't change. Millennia of human development have amply demonstrated that market distortion never ultimately works.

Indeed, but causing ecosystems to fail isn't too smart for human development either.

Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will find a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive. And unregulated ones do what's cheapest and 'hang the consequences'. So what's the right compromise ?
Freedom of choice fo rthe customer.

With no restrictions ?

But stop proselytising the free market <spit .. are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?
:) You started it !
Don't think so...

4563f493@nt1.hall.gl seemed to start the attack on local authorities and rubbish collection surveys, then "I would rather pay the same, directly to a choice of two or perhaps three companies, and not have the overhead of the local authority at all - they are not adding value and cost a lot". Until then, I think we were mostly about the siting of panels for solar water heating.

while at the same time demanding that the publicly-funded local authority supply your chosen service at no extra charge (as quoted above "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.") At the moment they do provide the service that I am paying for, although not particularly well. At the point that they wish to reduce it by requiring an additional action on my part and not on theirs, it is a reduction in service. Or an additional activity, depending on your perspective. In the sense that sorting is a requirement that is imposed neither by you or the LA, neither of you is trying to reduce the service provided by the other - this argument is just emotional fluff.
Paying twice for a service that doesn't deliver what the customer wants isn't emotional fluff when it is your money that is being spent.

Indeed, but that issue only arises when you buy in an additional services, which while it's something you personally want, may be judged to have an unacceptable environmental impact if widely imposed. Making a market more free is not the only worthy objective.

If you want to deal with the imposition, take yourself off to the EU and exercise your democratic right. Rather, one of you is being asked, and may ultimately be required, to sort waste, and this is generally held to be something that is least resource intensive when done at source.
That is certainly fluff when there are alternative solutions and customers are being forced into a one size fits all.

Depends how well it fits.
In my experience, most people are fairly happy.

It is ultimately up to you and the LA to decide how this might be accomplished, but either way, you will pay, by the commitment of time or money, if, or perhaps when it becomes a legal requirement.
If it ever does, it is reasonable for the customer to have the choice of how it is achieved.

As long as the aim of the legislation, reduced environmental impact, is not defeated by your providing high environmental ways of sorting waste.

For example, my car needs to be serviced periodically. I could do it myself - I have the ability and most of the tools required. However, I don't like titting around with cars, so I pay the garage to do it.
Rubbish disposal should be the same as that. It is state involvement that results in the restriction of choice of service based on very wooly arguments and that is why I believe it to be unacceptable.

Well - get a consensus and change the law then, though unless you can show that there are real wins for the end user, without causing significant environmental impacts, including increases in road miles, fuel consumption, emissions and congestion, I won't be voting for you.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-17 13:13:27 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-16 22:45:01 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
So would I. It should be based on these principles: - short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't done properly, there will be no long term Good...
- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's not. Or at least redeploying them.
Only provided that the positions to which they are redeployed are viable and are beneficial to the business.
The what ?

The business.

If not, then they have to go.
Well yes ultimately.

Sooner rather than later.
The Micawber principle seldom works.

Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business.
They should operate on business principles but don't. Probably because they don't know how to do so.
Again, this assumes that they are businesses.

Operating on business principles ensures the best return on investment for the capital employed. Since council tax payers are funding all of this, they are entitled to the best return. That means the minimum cost to achieve the objectives required.

Seems to me that the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the same in good times and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.
True. However, if one company does not do a good job and loses customers, its market share will decline. If that isn't corrected, the consequences are obvious.
Yes - we mover back to a single provider solution and will have wasted a huge amount of effort implementing your scheme.

Nope. N-1 does not equal 1 unless N was 2 beforehand.

This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the business under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is not good at doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding the inefficiency. And again assumes that they are businesses that have a variable demand on their services.
They should operate as businesses.
Says who ?
Do you think we need less government during an economic down turn ? If so, why ?
Absolutely. We always need less government.
But not particularly in an economic downturn then.

That's especially when it is needed. Reduction of the tax burden is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy. That means reducing public sector costs. The most effective way of doing that is to reduce head count.

This is even more true during an economic downturn because effort should be directed towards making money for the economy rather than spending it.
But the bins still need to be emptied.

Of course. However, this does not require public sector involvement.

- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones. The occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should result in change of management. But while LAs should be efficient, they should not be about making a profit.
It is possible for an organisation to run on business principles and for profit to be engineered to zero.
I'm not suggesting that it be "engineered to zero", but that it "should not be about making a profit".

Therein lies the rub. If the mentality is that there will always be more funding to cover the incompetences and wastage, then there is never an incentive for improvement. Unless the tools of carrot and stick are available, that doesn't happen. Every organisation should be run on this basis - extras for over-performance, dismissal for persistent under-performance. It's perfectly simple to run an operation on a profit basis and reinvest the profits or to distribute as a staff incentive.

There is, however, nothing wrong with making a profit.
Nothing wrong with delivering a service as your primary objective either.

Only provided that people want to buy what you have to sell and accept the price to be reasonable.

- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service that the customer is willing to buy. Broadly.
This does not mean minimal provision or minimal environmental standards. Well, unfettered capitalism would probably opt to provide the thing that providers can make most profit out of, and ignore the environment utterly.
Nobody said anything about unfettered capitalism other than you.
Nor have all your assertions about capitalism and markets specified any particular fetters.

They have all the way along. Several times I have said that the service products offered would have to achieve a minimum level but that providers may wish to offer more for a higher price.

I am not aware of any significant environmental progress that has not been driven by legislation. Are you ?
This isn't particularly relevant to the subject.
Nor does the whole discussion have much to do with "Siting of panels for solar water heating".
But my point stands - unfettered capitalism takes pretty much no account of global commons and environmental performance.

Nobody proposed unfettered capitalism.

Minimum standards of safety, health and environmental legislation have been imposed, which on the whole, industry has not wanted, and there is little reason to expect much more than minimum levels of compliance from industry, if indeed that.

It's quite possible to set the standards required by legislation. If those aren't adequate, then the requirements can be altered to take account of that.

Customers should be able to buy the service appropriate to them and for the best price. In many situations, yes.
In almost all situations unless there is a very good reason why not. Waste collection isn't one of them.
But protection of the environment is.

No it isn't.

On 2006-12-17 13:28:04 +0000, John Beardmore said:

What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small part. So presumably you either don't plan to measure any aspects of the scheme, or you only plan to quantify the ones that you think people will want to hear ?
Wrong on both counts.
So why don't you quantify all the bits that people want know about ?
Embarrassment ?

Nope. I haven't set out to detail a comprehensive set of schemes, just a principle.

Well yes - so why are you trying to tell us that re number of vehicles, road miles, and therefore congestion etc, "There is no point in measuring it either way" ? What do you have to hide ? Are there any other truths you'd like to be economical with ?

There's nothing to hide at all. Measurement of road miles may be one criterion. Aggregation of rubbish and movement between waste transfer stations or half way around the world another. This is all before one looks at the lifetime environmental cost of products. Finally, what is important is the total picture - not one small piece of it.

If you take numbers out of the picture, what is left but your emotional rants about local authorities and markets ?

There's nothing emotional, just simple economics and freedom of choice. One doesn't need detailed numbers in order to understand the basic economics of the situation.

If you take some of the numbers out of the picture, but cloud the very transparency you have claimed that capitalist enterprise offers.

There's no clouding in free enterprise. If you run your business well and provide what customers are willing to buy then you stay in business. If you don't then you go out of business. That is quite crystal clear.
On the other hand, if one examines the behaviour of the environmental lobby, one sees obfuscation, political correctness and lack of clear justification for actions, while at the same time plenty of pushing for yet more legislation.

How are consumers to know that the scheme you foist upon them, never mind any individual provider they might select, is a benefit to them or to the environment ?

People are more intelligent than I think you give them credit for. My suggestion is the exact opposite of foisting something on people - that is the situation we have today because of public sector involvement.

On 2006-12-17 15:12:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:

OK then, so you accept that there may well be increased transport costs then ?

There may or there may not be. The volume of rubbish remains the same in either scenario
Transport cost would be a factor for each provider to work out and to decide on the most cost efficient solution.

Rather you have denied it rather unconvincingly and hidden behind the notion that you 'weren't really making a proposal at all' when pushed...
I wasn't pushed on anything. I told you at the outset that this was not an area of particular interest. However, I do make the point that increasing choice does not automatically mean an increase in road miles for collection.
You have failed to indicate any means by which it wouldn't !

I made the point that what actually matters is the total impact of a situation and not just one aspect of it.

Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling half way around the planet does. So stick in the LCA and measure the outcomes.
Why don't you do that?
Because it's your proposal. I've got better things to do with my time.

But you were claiming to have a degree in the subject, so I naturally assumed that you would have the required set of skills.

However, do you believe you could do so on a disinterested basis.?
No more than you.
Any calculations should be open to scrutiny.

Ah, that's OK then. It would certainly make a difference to the current situation where all this goes on behind the scenes and the customer gets a bill which he is forced to pay.

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. Mind you, despite murder being a bad thing for society in general I think I could make a case for it to be legalised in some circumstances. Never mind about "society". It's a bit of a problem for the victim as well.
:) Yes, but 'society' has so much longer to dwell on it !
If society existed.
Well - we thing we do. YMMV.

Oh it does.......

Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time. Seems to be wanting in a number of areas, particularly around environmental exploitation, degradation and equity.
Sigh.... the old chestnuts.
They are old because capitalism has never dealt with them well.

There isn't any viable alternative. Given that situation, the correct approach is to achieve what is wanted by creating a win rather than a loss situation such that there is incentive to take a course of action as opposed to a penalty for not.

Get used to it, because it won't change. Millennia of human development have amply demonstrated that market distortion never ultimately works.
Indeed, but causing ecosystems to fail isn't too smart for human development either.

That depends on the extent to which you believe that human behaviour influences ecosystems. Undoubtedly it does to some extent, the question is the degree and indeed whether a course of corrective action will actually make a difference.

Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will find a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive. And unregulated ones do what's cheapest and 'hang the consequences'. So what's the right compromise ?
Freedom of choice fo rthe customer.
With no restrictions ?

Refer to first point. If people find restrictions too intrusive, they will find a way around them.

But stop proselytising the free market <spit .. are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?
:) You started it !
Don't think so...
4563f493@nt1.hall.gl seemed to start the attack on local authorities and rubbish collection surveys, then "I would rather pay the same, directly to a choice of two or perhaps three companies, and not have the overhead of the local authority at all - they are not adding value and cost a lot". Until then, I think we were mostly about the siting of panels for solar water heating.

You need to look more carefully.

Paying twice for a service that doesn't deliver what the customer wants isn't emotional fluff when it is your money that is being spent.
Indeed, but that issue only arises when you buy in an additional services, which while it's something you personally want, may be judged to have an unacceptable environmental impact if widely imposed. Making a market more free is not the only worthy objective.

It's the only one that ultimately works.....

If you want to deal with the imposition, take yourself off to the EU and exercise your democratic right. Rather, one of you is being asked, and may ultimately be required, to sort waste, and this is generally held to be something that is least resource intensive when done at source.
That is certainly fluff when there are alternative solutions and customers are being forced into a one size fits all.
Depends how well it fits.
In my experience, most people are fairly happy.

Have they been asked the question or offered choice? Most people would assume that the LA will continue to arrange rubbish collection and therefore from thinking inside this restriction have no comparison. Advancement happens from thinking outside the box and not accepting the status quo.

It is ultimately up to you and the LA to decide how this might be accomplished, but either way, you will pay, by the commitment of time or money, if, or perhaps when it becomes a legal requirement.
If it ever does, it is reasonable for the customer to have the choice of how it is achieved.
As long as the aim of the legislation, reduced environmental impact, is not defeated by your providing high environmental ways of sorting waste.

If you remember, there were several points made about use of technology to sort and process waste.
Nonetheless, there is much discredit around recycling with numerous scams going on in order to meet artificial targets. Until there is more honesty about that, there is little point in discussing environmental impact of measuring one detail vs. another.

For example, my car needs to be serviced periodically. I could do it myself - I have the ability and most of the tools required. However, I don't like titting around with cars, so I pay the garage to do it.
Rubbish disposal should be the same as that. It is state involvement that results in the restriction of choice of service based on very wooly arguments and that is why I believe it to be unacceptable.
Well - get a consensus and change the law then, though unless you can show that there are real wins for the end user, without causing significant environmental impacts, including increases in road miles, fuel consumption, emissions and congestion, I won't be voting for you.

I wasn't seeking votes....

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 02:59:15 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , meow2222@care2.com writes sarah wrote:
Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. That sounds ideal at first sight, but the question is, whose opinion do we take on what is most beneficial? Nannying legislation means taking the decision out of the hands of business managers that know their business, And don't have any market incentive to improve environmental practice.
So it should be made incentive and not penalty.

How did you have in mind ?

This is another illustration of how and why the public sector mentality doesn't work well.

I don't think so.

and putting it into the hands of a government body that as often as not really doesnt. Yes - here's the rub. The 'happy quango' may well know b.all() about the industrial processes. The knack is gluing the two together.
The knack is not having the quango at all but people who know what they are doing and are in touch with economic reality.

I see you make no mention of environmental reality.

Then to take it further, this failed policy is not repealed but continued! A policy that wastes energy and costs money is continued. Not totally convinced it has failed...
It is focus on the irrelevant. In a typical house, lighting accounts for 2% of energy consumption.

I seriously doubt that's true, at least unless they use low energy light bulbs, heat electric, cook electric and have TIG welding as a hobby.
Care to cite a source ?

Thats nannying. Now we can blame the customer if wanted, but in a freeish market it would be immediately realised that the solution was to develop fittings the customers liked. So do the regulations require that the fittings be butt ugly ?
Poor technology implementation and something that people don't really want.

So the market is free to make fittings that people would like then. They just have a no incentive to, and would rather not bother if not doing so increases the sale of fittings in the long run.

Lets compare what happens with failed policies in the private business sector. Either the business corrects it, and they try to, or they cease being a service provider, and those that come closer to what the buyer wants stay in business. The motivation to do well is much larger there, as the individual either prospers or loses it all. Which is great in those areas that markets address well. The environment has generally not been one of them.
Then those wishing to promote its maintenance need to go away and think about how to make that marketable rather than immediately falling on the easy way out of forcing unnatural behaviour.

I'm not sure that living sustainably is unnatural, but it's not something capitalism has been good at.
Either marketing or legislation might contribute to getting the job done. I'm not fussed which, and up to a point happy with both, though marketing does seem to be the art of selling illusions. Not sure that makes it the most appropriate tool.
Education about environmental issues, in as quantitative a way as possible seems to be the better long term strategy, and that is something I'm happy to invest effort in.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-17 18:10:31 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-15 02:59:15 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , meow2222@care2.com writes sarah wrote:
Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. That sounds ideal at first sight, but the question is, whose opinion do we take on what is most beneficial? Nannying legislation means taking the decision out of the hands of business managers that know their business, And don't have any market incentive to improve environmental practice.
So it should be made incentive and not penalty.
How did you have in mind ?

There are plenty. Reductions in corporation tax for businesses implementing a relevant environmental policy would be but one.

and putting it into the hands of a government body that as often as not really doesnt. Yes - here's the rub. The 'happy quango' may well know b.all() about the industrial processes. The knack is gluing the two together.
The knack is not having the quango at all but people who know what they are doing and are in touch with economic reality.
I see you make no mention of environmental reality.

Improvement in environmental reality won't happen to any worthwhile degree until and unless the economic realities are addressed. Hence the point about incentive rather than bullying.

Then to take it further, this failed policy is not repealed but continued! A policy that wastes energy and costs money is continued. Not totally convinced it has failed...
It is focus on the irrelevant. In a typical house, lighting accounts for 2% of energy consumption.
I seriously doubt that's true, at least unless they use low energy light bulbs, heat electric, cook electric and have TIG welding as a hobby.
Care to cite a source ?

I said energy consumption, not electricity consumption.
It's really very simple. Add up the number of incandescent bulbs required in a house with their ratings. Work out the usage pattern. Calculate the amount of electricity used in kWh averaged over a year. Then look at the energy bills.

Thats nannying. Now we can blame the customer if wanted, but in a freeish market it would be immediately realised that the solution was to develop fittings the customers liked. So do the regulations require that the fittings be butt ugly ?
Poor technology implementation and something that people don't really want.
So the market is free to make fittings that people would like then.

It is but doesn't because interest is limited.

They just have a no incentive to, and would rather not bother if not doing so increases the sale of fittings in the long run.

Exactly. People don't want this stuff and are voting with their money.

Lets compare what happens with failed policies in the private business sector. Either the business corrects it, and they try to, or they cease being a service provider, and those that come closer to what the buyer wants stay in business. The motivation to do well is much larger there, as the individual either prospers or loses it all. Which is great in those areas that markets address well. The environment has generally not been one of them.
Then those wishing to promote its maintenance need to go away and think about how to make that marketable rather than immediately falling on the easy way out of forcing unnatural behaviour.
I'm not sure that living sustainably is unnatural, but it's not something capitalism has been good at.

That's just broad brushed nonsense

Either marketing or legislation might contribute to getting the job done. I'm not fussed which, and up to a point happy with both, though marketing does seem to be the art of selling illusions.
Not sure that makes it the most appropriate tool.

Legislation certainly isn't. Marketing is very effective and produces sustained results if done honestly and competently. This is something that the green lobby has attempted to do and has been found out on the first and failed on the second.

Education about environmental issues, in as quantitative a way as possible seems to be the better long term strategy, and that is something I'm happy to invest effort in.

That is reasonable, provided that it is even handed and facts are separated from guesses and agendas.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-17 13:28:04 +0000, John Beardmore said:
What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small part. So presumably you either don't plan to measure any aspects of the scheme, or you only plan to quantify the ones that you think people will want to hear ? Wrong on both counts. So why don't you quantify all the bits that people want know about ? Embarrassment ?
Nope. I haven't set out to detail a comprehensive set of schemes, just a principle.

Well - without the detail it amounts to little more than a tirade about LAs and markets.

Well yes - so why are you trying to tell us that re number of vehicles, road miles, and therefore congestion etc, "There is no point in measuring it either way" ? What do you have to hide ? Are there any other truths you'd like to be economical with ?
There's nothing to hide at all. Measurement of road miles may be one criterion. Aggregation of rubbish and movement between waste transfer stations or half way around the world another.

Indeed.

This is all before one looks at the lifetime environmental cost of products. Finally, what is important is the total picture - not one small piece of it.

I think we'd agree on that, though if you want to influence product design to reduce waste, it'll probably tale some pretty invasive government.

If you take numbers out of the picture, what is left but your emotional rants about local authorities and markets ?
There's nothing emotional, just simple economics and freedom of choice. One doesn't need detailed numbers in order to understand the basic economics of the situation.

Well as things stand, our assumptions seem to differ so widely that there is very little common ground in the conclusions we seem likely to come to.
In such circumstances I suggest that we need more numbers than the 'none at all' the discussion seems to be based on.

If you take some of the numbers out of the picture, but cloud the very transparency you have claimed that capitalist enterprise offers.
There's no clouding in free enterprise. If you run your business well and provide what customers are willing to buy then you stay in business. If you don't then you go out of business. That is quite crystal clear.

Indeed, but earlier you seemed to be suggesting that private enterprise offered greater transparency of data about environmental impacts etc.
This I very much doubt.

On the other hand, if one examines the behaviour of the environmental lobby, one sees obfuscation,

Occasionally. I'm not sure this is too common though.

political correctness

Gets everywhere I'm afraid ! Not unique to the environmental sector.

and lack of clear justification for actions,

I'm not convinced. Any half way decent analysis of the resources available to us or the land area required to maintain our present rate of consumption suggests that we have clear problems that are not being addressed by market forces. Your reluctance to find out about the work that has been done in no way diminishes it.
And if you examine business, there seems to be obfuscation, inability to see things in other than market oriented terms, and clear motivation to 'follow the money'. Doesn't strike me as a very pretty, or flexible picture.

while at the same time plenty of pushing for yet more legislation.

Well - if it gets the job done...

How are consumers to know that the scheme you foist upon them, never mind any individual provider they might select, is a benefit to them or to the environment ?
People are more intelligent than I think you give them credit for.

Indeed, but if they can't get hold of the data, including that which you've said need not be quantified, how are they to choose ?

My suggestion is the exact opposite of foisting something on people - that is the situation we have today because of public sector involvement.

No - you just want to foist something on them which you happen to prefer. It's different, and it might be closer to a free market, but there's no guarantee of anything very much, including that it will actually be cheaper, that most people will prefer any of the choices on offer, or that the aggregate environmental impact / footprint will be lower.
No matter how much you talk it up, it really does sound thoroughly underwhelming.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-17 15:12:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:
OK then, so you accept that there may well be increased transport costs then ?
There may or there may not be. The volume of rubbish remains the same in either scenario
Transport cost would be a factor for each provider to work out and to decide on the most cost efficient solution.

Well - unless they all share the same collection trips, it's pretty hard to see how the number of road miles won't increase isn't it ?

Rather you have denied it rather unconvincingly and hidden behind the notion that you 'weren't really making a proposal at all' when pushed... I wasn't pushed on anything. I told you at the outset that this was not an area of particular interest. However, I do make the point that increasing choice does not automatically mean an increase miles for collection. You have failed to indicate any means by which it wouldn't !
I made the point that what actually matters is the total impact of a situation and not just one aspect of it.

Well yes, but you've also

Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling half way around the planet does. So stick in the LCA and measure the outcomes. Why don't you do that? Because it's your proposal. I've got better things to do with my time.
But you were claiming to have a degree in the subject, so I naturally assumed that you would have the required set of skills.

Indeed I do, but

However, do you believe you could do so on a disinterested basis.? No more than you. Any calculations should be open to scrutiny.
Ah, that's OK then. It would certainly make a difference to the current situation where all this goes on behind the scenes and the customer gets a bill which he is forced to pay.

Well yes. That's usually the way industry goes about things, and the civil service too.

Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time. Seems to be wanting in a number of areas, particularly around environmental exploitation, degradation and equity. Sigh.... the old chestnuts. They are old because capitalism has never dealt with them well.
There isn't any viable alternative.

Well there is. Environmental legislation has been a great success in the areas it has reached, and it reaches more month by month.

Given that situation, the correct approach is to achieve what is wanted by creating a win rather than a loss situation such that there is incentive to take a course of action as opposed to a penalty for not.

That requires people to take a long view, and that requires them to be familiar with the issues, and that takes time and a desire to act responsibly. In many respects our problems may be too urgent for that. If legislation is the least worst option, let them legislate.

Get used to it, because it won't change. Millennia of human development have amply demonstrated that market distortion never ultimately works. Indeed, but causing ecosystems to fail isn't too smart for human development either.
That depends on the extent to which you believe that human behaviour influences ecosystems. Undoubtedly it does to some extent, the question is the degree

Yes.

and indeed whether a course of corrective action will actually make a difference.

Indeed.

Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will find a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive. And unregulated ones do what's cheapest and 'hang the consequences'. So what's the right compromise ? Freedom of choice fo rthe customer. With no restrictions ?
Refer to first point. If people find restrictions too intrusive, they will find a way around them.

Possibly. I'll worry about that when it becomes a major problem.

But stop proselytising the free market <spit .. are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?
:) You started it ! Don't think so... 4563f493@nt1.hall.gl seemed to start the attack on local authorities and rubbish collection surveys, then "I would rather pay the same, directly to a choice of two or perhaps three companies, and not have the overhead of the local authority at all - they are not adding value and cost a lot". Until then, I think we were mostly about the siting of panels for solar water heating.
You need to look more carefully.

Well whatever - that message certainly had the content I quoted. If you'd gone off on one before then, I apologise for not noticing.

Paying twice for a service that doesn't deliver what the customer wants isn't emotional fluff when it is your money that is being spent. Indeed, but that issue only arises when you buy in an additional services, which while it's something you personally want, may be judged to have an unacceptable environmental impact if widely imposed. Making a market more free is not the only worthy objective.
It's the only one that ultimately works.....

Oh I don't know. Legislation seems to be effective in many areas.

If you want to deal with the imposition, take yourself off to the and exercise your democratic right. Rather, one of you is being asked, and may ultimately be required, to sort waste, and this is generally held to be something that is least resource intensive when done at source. That is certainly fluff when there are alternative solutions and customers are being forced into a one size fits all. Depends how well it fits. In my experience, most people are fairly happy.
Have they been asked the question or offered choice? Most people would assume that the LA will continue to arrange rubbish collection and therefore from thinking inside this restriction have no comparison. Advancement happens from thinking outside the box and not accepting the status quo.

First you have to convince people that it is an advance at all.

It is ultimately up to you and the LA to decide how this might be accomplished, but either way, you will pay, by the commitment of time or money, if, or perhaps when it becomes a legal requirement. If it ever does, it is reasonable for the customer to have the choice of how it is achieved. As long as the aim of the legislation, reduced environmental impact, is not defeated by your providing high environmental ways of sorting waste.
If you remember, there were several points made about use of technology to sort and process waste.

On both sides...

Nonetheless, there is much discredit around recycling with numerous scams going on in order to meet artificial targets. Until there is more honesty about that, there is little point in discussing environmental impact of measuring one detail vs. another.

Nonsense - it's only by measurement that you can get to the bottom of what is worthwhile and what is scam or futile consequence of overzealous legislation.

For example, my car needs to be serviced periodically. I could do it myself - I have the ability and most of the tools required. However, I don't like titting around with cars, so I pay the garage to do it. Rubbish disposal should be the same as that. It is state involvement that results in the restriction of choice of service based on very wooly arguments and that is why I believe it to be unacceptable. Well - get a consensus and change the law then, though unless you can show that there are real wins for the end user, without causing significant environmental impacts, including increases in road miles, fuel consumption, emissions and congestion, I won't be voting for you.
I wasn't seeking votes....

Happy to hear it !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-18 00:15:54 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Nope. I haven't set out to detail a comprehensive set of schemes, just a principle.
Well - without the detail it amounts to little more than a tirade about LAs and markets.

No it doesn't, it amounts to a statement of the principle of (paying) customer choice.

This is all before one looks at the lifetime environmental cost of products. Finally, what is important is the total picture - not one small piece of it.
I think we'd agree on that, though if you want to influence product design to reduce waste, it'll probably tale some pretty invasive government.

I disagree. In order to make any significant progress in this whole area, we have to move away from the notion that governments and the public sector need to wield a big stick. All that is required is to provide the (positive) incentives in a particular direction (usually financial incentives) and to focus on that rather than on legislation, interference and penalties.

If you take numbers out of the picture, what is left but your emotional rants about local authorities and markets ?
There's nothing emotional, just simple economics and freedom of choice. One doesn't need detailed numbers in order to understand the basic economics of the situation.
Well as things stand, our assumptions seem to differ so widely that there is very little common ground in the conclusions we seem likely to come to.

That could be.

In such circumstances I suggest that we need more numbers than the 'none at all' the discussion seems to be based on.

You may need numbers. I would look at numbers as one piece of the overall picture. What is far more important is the principle of the way to go about things and to look at the big picture of what is to be achieved. For example, if by incentives and having a choice of services to match customer requirements the overall environmental outcome is more positive than the opposite approach of limiting choice and encouraging people to find a way around what they don't want to do, then it makes sense to provide choice. If it makes some measured parameters worse but still results in an overall improvement, then it still makes sense.

If you take some of the numbers out of the picture, but cloud the very transparency you have claimed that capitalist enterprise offers.
There's no clouding in free enterprise. If you run your business well and provide what customers are willing to buy then you stay in business. If you don't then you go out of business. That is quite crystal clear.
Indeed, but earlier you seemed to be suggesting that private enterprise offered greater transparency of data about environmental impacts etc.
This I very much doubt.

I don't. All that is required is to incentivise companies to do that.

On the other hand, if one examines the behaviour of the environmental lobby, one sees obfuscation,
Occasionally. I'm not sure this is too common though.

Oh come on. The whole thing is riddled with it.

and lack of clear justification for actions,
I'm not convinced. Any half way decent analysis of the resources available to us or the land area required to maintain our present rate of consumption suggests that we have clear problems that are not being addressed by market forces. Your reluctance to find out about the work that has been done in no way diminishes it.

There's no reluctance. One only has to look at the headline figures to realise that small incrementalism has little value beyond salving the consciences of those who to choose to do small incremental things.

And if you examine business, there seems to be obfuscation, inability to see things in other than market oriented terms, and clear motivation to 'follow the money'. Doesn't strike me as a very pretty, or flexible picture.

There's no inability to see things other than in market oriented terms. The point is that it is a precursor to other things that one might find desirable. Unless the economics and incentives are right, the exercise becomes a pointless one of pushing peas up hill.

while at the same time plenty of pushing for yet more legislation.
Well - if it gets the job done...

The problem is that overlegislation promotes exactly the opposite to the desired effect.

How are consumers to know that the scheme you foist upon them, never mind any individual provider they might select, is a benefit to them or to the environment ?
People are more intelligent than I think you give them credit for.
Indeed, but if they can't get hold of the data, including that which you've said need not be quantified, how are they to choose ?

At the point of implementation, and in the period leading up to it, the providers would do a pretty good job of explaining their offerings.

My suggestion is the exact opposite of foisting something on people - that is the situation we have today because of public sector involvement.
No - you just want to foist something on them which you happen to prefer.

You're losing the plot here. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand your position to be maintenance of the status quo and ideally more compulsion on the individual to personally handle more of the rubbish disposal process. I have suggested an alternative to that where the outcome is the same (more material is sensibly, not dogmatically recycled) but where the customer has a choice of how that is done. I would probably choose a service where the operator deals with the disposal and I pay more for that. You might choose one where the procedure is as you think it should be. So if anybody is foisting anything, I would put it to you that you are because you want to continue with the customer being allowed no economically viable choice.

It's different, and it might be closer to a free market, but there's no guarantee of anything very much, including that it will actually be cheaper, that most people will prefer any of the choices on offer, or that the aggregate environmental impact / footprint will be lower.

Welcome to the real world. Here is where considered risks are taken in order to have the upside of possible success rather than failure through never having tried.

No matter how much you talk it up, it really does sound thoroughly underwhelming.

I suppose it would do if you are not used to thinking outside the box and looking for opportunity. >

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-17 18:10:31 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-15 02:59:15 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
In message , meow2222@care2.com writes sarah wrote:
Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. That sounds ideal at first sight, but the question is, whose opinion do we take on what is most beneficial? Nannying legislation means taking the decision out of the hands of business managers that know their business, And don't have any market incentive to improve environmental practice. So it should be made incentive and not penalty. How did you have in mind ?
There are plenty. Reductions in corporation tax for businesses implementing a relevant environmental policy would be but one.

OK - a start, though this is hardly a market force. More of a 'financial instrument applied'.

and putting it into the hands of a government body that as often as not really doesnt. Yes - here's the rub. The 'happy quango' may well know b.all() about the industrial processes. The knack is gluing the two together. The knack is not having the quango at all but people who know what they are doing and are in touch with economic reality. I see you make no mention of environmental reality.
Improvement in environmental reality won't happen to any worthwhile degree until and unless the economic realities are addressed. Hence the point about incentive rather than bullying.

Hmmm... There will always be a sense in which the prolong absence of a carrot will be seen as a stick.
I'm not sure that these things can always be 'happiness led'.

Then to take it further, this failed policy is not repealed but continued! A policy that wastes energy and costs money is continued. Not totally convinced it has failed... It is focus on the irrelevant. In a typical house, lighting accounts for 2% of energy consumption. I seriously doubt that's true, at least unless they use low energy light bulbs, heat electric, cook electric and have TIG welding as a hobby. Care to cite a source ?
I said energy consumption, not electricity consumption.

Even so, I'm not at all sure it's right, and as for every kW of electricity we use, Drax et al push 2 kW up a chimney as 'waste' heat, consumption at the point of use is a pretty silly way to look at it. Deal with the PRIMARY energy used to make that electricity.

It's really very simple. Add up the number of incandescent bulbs required in a house with their ratings. Work out the usage pattern. Calculate the amount of electricity used in kWh averaged over a year. Then look at the energy bills.

Yes. I suspect it comes out to more than 2% though.

Thats nannying. Now we can blame the customer if wanted, but in a freeish market it would be immediately realised that the solution was to develop fittings the customers liked. So do the regulations require that the fittings be butt ugly ? Poor technology implementation and something that people don't really want. So the market is free to make fittings that people would like then.
It is but doesn't because interest is limited.
They just have a no incentive to, and would rather not bother if not doing so increases the sale of fittings in the long run.
Exactly. People don't want this stuff and are voting with their money.

OK - a little cynical, but I would expect no less.

Lets compare what happens with failed policies in the private business sector. Either the business corrects it, and they try to, or they cease being a service provider, and those that come closer to what the buyer wants stay in business. The motivation to do well is much larger there, as the individual either prospers or loses it all. Which is great in those areas that markets address well. The environment has generally not been one of them. Then those wishing to promote its maintenance need to go away and think about how to make that marketable rather than immediately falling on the easy way out of forcing unnatural behaviour. I'm not sure that living sustainably is unnatural, but it's not something capitalism has been good at.
That's just broad brushed nonsense

It's broad brush, but I can't think of a lot of major environmental improvements led by industry off the top of my head.
You ?

Either marketing or legislation might contribute to getting the job done. I'm not fussed which, and up to a point happy with both, though marketing does seem to be the art of selling illusions.
Not sure that makes it the most appropriate tool.
Legislation certainly isn't. Marketing is very effective and produces sustained results if done honestly and competently.

Where it's done honestly and competently, it's little different from education. But how often is that ?
Look at government advertising on energy consumption. Terrifyingly naff !

This is something that the green lobby has attempted to do and has been found out on the first and failed on the second.

Well there are one or two thinks like Brent Spa where there has been clear misinformation given. I suspect that such cases are rare, and other state owned companies like BNFL have hardly been squeaky clean in this area. The asbestos industry lies for the best part of a hundred years. I don't think industry can lecture the environmental movement on corporate responsibility !

Education about environmental issues, in as quantitative a way as possible seems to be the better long term strategy, and that is something I'm happy to invest effort in.
That is reasonable, provided that it is even handed and facts are separated from guesses and agendas.

Nobody is free of agenda, and there are significant errors likely to be embedded in current climate models, environmental predictions and economic predictions of all kinds.
A large part of education is learning to react sensibly to uncertainty, while at the same time trying to establish a more rigorous understanding of complex systems.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 02:32:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-04 10:29:24 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
Andy Hall wrote: 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. That's *your* premise, not mine. Making a range of services from a range of providers available means no one can apply economies of scale Yes they can, because there is the potential to cover larger geographical areas. Road miles...
Vehicle size....

Yes - size is important, but if you don't know what market share you'll have if your tender succeeds, what vehicle size will you get ? Or will you get small vehicles now, then more or bigger ones later ?
And what happens to the fleet of the previous incumbent ?

(and someone will have to regulate and inspect the suppliers, but that's another issue, sorry, set of costs). That can be aggregated and outsourced as well To consultants... :) Or cheap dweebs. Maybe the LA should inspect the outsourced inspectors and make sure they inspect all the things that ought to be inspected ? But seriously, what does aggregation mean here ?
Economy of scale.

Maybe if done at a national level. Is this what you have in mind ?

If there are three companies to inspect, you still have to inspect three companies. Unless 'aggregation' means that somehow you don't. Or do you mean that only some statistical indicators get inspected rather than the practices of individual companies ?
Measurement criteria have to be defined. However the LA (or licensing authority) would not need to provide the "customer service" role that it does today. Mine has an army of people taking phone calls from people who haven't had their bins emptied that day. All of that can be taken away. People can deal with their chosen waste collector and if not satisfied, take their business elswhere.

Somebody still has to answer the phone though.

I'm perfectly happy to have essential services provided by a single supplier ultimately responsible to me (the electorate). Fine. I'm not. Your choice is a subset of mine. And your point is ?
You could choose your supplier and I could choose mine. I am not seeking to restrict your choice. Of your LA wished to stay in the rubbish collection market, you could buy from them if you wanted to do so.

The issue is one of how their environmental performance would change if two thirds of the tonnage were to go else where.

No one sorted refuse in the past: you're requiring them to do additional work. I haven't asked them to do anything. They are doing so as a result of attempting to meet questionable political targets. And attempting to deliver better environmental performance.
Demonstrated by what

Environmental footprint or LCA would be a good start.

and by whom?

Anyone who cares to read it, though particularly the licensing body I guess.

Nope, I'm afraid that if you don't want to sort your refuse yourself, the only effective solution is for you to hire someone to sort yours before you put it out. Exactly. This is a service that a supplier could offer or could do it at a central depot. I don't care how they do it - I pay them to do a job. And I care about the environmental impact of how the job is done.
So do I, but that is in part the responsibility of the contractor. I am paying him to do that. The question really amounts to whether I want to do a larger part of the job and pay him less or to do less and pay him more. I would choose the latter.

Yes - though it's also about the standards that they achieve after the waste is sorted that concerns me.
Are circumstances obliging them to have too large a fleet of too large vehicles for example ?

I'd rather my council tax paid for library books, thanks. So would I, which is why I suggested taking local authorities out of the financial path between supplier and customer. They add little no value. Well as ever - get numerate then we can form our own opinions when we've heard both sides of the story.
It's perfectly simple. If you employ X+Y people to do something when X would be enough, then the cost will be higher.

But if a companies pay X people to do something, pay them bugger all, and charge a lot for their services who is better off ?

And they're bound by the regulations anyway, so neither their opinions nor yours will influence the outcome. Regulations can be interpreted and they can be changed. Indeed, but you may not like the direction in which they are changing.
Provided there is a choice in regard to execution and that the changes are justified I see no problem.
If either of those criteria are not met, there will be a big problem.

Well some existing legislation is already quite flawed...

There is no need to slavishly follow every dotted i and crossed t emanating from Brussels unless your name is Blair, of course.
:) In one or two respects, 'I wish' !
have they let him out of the cells yet? I heard that he was being questioned by the police.

He probably should be, but maybe for putting civilians at risk while bombing other countries rather than dishing out Ks to donors ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 02:05:27 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
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. But if you want to continue having your waste collected with an environmental impact / footprint that as small as it is now, you may not be, and indeed, there is no guarantee that your existing service provision would be offered.
That would be reasonable

It doesn't seem likely that the existing equipment would be appropriately sized under the new regime.

if the cost is substantially reduced.

You don't even know what it is at the moment !

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.
:) Oh I don't know...
I do.

Well - I've not got much sympathy for consumers who buy on the attractiveness of the packaging.

If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid
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.
:) Oh there there !!
Are you happy to go on paying ever more for ever less?

I didn't say that, but I don't see LAs as doing that.

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. Well - this is indeed the big one ! Is there any centralised reporting and analysis of LCA data broken down by region ? That could certainly inform a more systematic approach.
Perhaps there's a project for you there.

:) Got enough on already thanks !

Could you do it dispassionately though?

I think the only sensible way to do this stuff is with complete transparency. I don't particularly care who that might embarrass. If people go into it in an honest and open way, nobody need be embarrassed anyway, and if we learn that some things can be done better, that's good.
If we learn that a lot of things can be done better, that's excellent !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
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.
But if you want to continue having your waste collected with an environmental impact / footprint that as small as it is now, you may not be, and indeed, there is no guarantee that your existing service provision would be offered.
a tired argument thats been routed over and over.

You may have tried to dismiss it. That does not automatically make you correct.

Well - this is indeed the big one ! Is there any centralised reporting and analysis of LCA data broken down by region ? That could certainly inform a more systematic approach.
what, you mean you dont have the detailed data either?

Who does ? But before making a [major] change, I would suggest getting some !

In principle you could do LCAs for each option if you wished, but there is one problem, in that you dont appear to have fully grasped the variety of options open in the freeish marketplace, so would likely be LCAing only one not especially competitive option.

If you mean that business can't / won't assess the environmental consequences of the services that it might or might not offer, that doesn't surprise me at all !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore