It's often how you tell it

Battling for recycling -

A long time ago I had a very good client. Respected him a lot. Once, in the course of a discussion I had cause to say 'you are misunderstanding me'. He replied: 'No, you just haven't be clear enough to make your case enough to persuade me'.

So this miffed me. Whether it was the sanctimony, the lack of acceptance of other views or the arrogance that having a major medium sounding board to spout from confers, but I was not a happy bunny. Or, maybe, it was just that, instead of trying harder to convince a tricky audience, she retreated to a comfort zone to wallow in a whinge with those who share her values. Not that it worked. You can't always blame those you bring your message to for not responding.

I wasn't at the debate, so I can only go on what you choose to share. A perk of those who control the medium. Noting also that debates can often serve an agenda by how the panel is structured. Who set this one up? Anyway kudos at least to the nay-sayer (though he sounds by your account a bit bonkers, which is another good technique in panel composition to help the cause), as a 3-to-one set-up on a chattering class 'issue' is worthy of a BBC 'debate'. Mind you, I could find little to empathise with in his stance. Though he is welcome not to believe in climate change (or at least man-made climate change, which IS different), because, as yet, neither am I. I am sold on the possibility of man-worsened climate change as reason enough to act now on reduction and saving wherever we can as sensible precautions, if handled sensibly. Hence saving anything, including water, can only be good.

So to the point that '... just because the logistics of recycling were currently flawed, this didn’t make the task pointless.' it rather depends, doesn't it, on what the point is?

I have little sympathy with any who can't see value in a bit of minor effort to save all sorts of [choose nouns here: money, planet, etc] but then also get a tad worried about some rallying cries to counter this from the 'anything green must be good and all naysayers are 'deniers'' brigade, especially in full flounce mode.

Quite a lot of recycling can be pointless if one views taking part in some initiatives in light if the imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions as a matter of priority. Because the interests of many protagonists involved are not often clear or explicable or as 'green' as they might be, from bonus-driven quango directors to supermarket-opening eco luvvies with a book deal, to London-centric, cherry-cause-picking journos (Prius - good, Air travel - bad, unless it's to review an eco-resort in the Rockies 'cos the snow is so poor in Verbier this year) to target-rewarded LAs and EU-fine-phobic ministers.

So I for one, get a bit offside when I see bazillions wasted on recycling initiatives and comms budgets that generate hardly any value that I can see in terms of enviROI+.

Maybe the - harrumphing like a rhinoceros (no agenda stereotype there) - enviro manager knew some things you didn't? Or choose/chose to avoid considering?

Or is it just much easier to be yet another yummie green goddess, go with the eco-flow and not on occasion challenge the vast eco-industry that exists, simply to make sure all the vast number of things that can and should be done are done for the right reasons, in the right way and with the aim of making things better for all of us, especially future generations?

Our local kerbside system is great, but still doesn't take plastic. And like all else collected if it did I'd want to know how the 2l volumes of 99% fresh air are disposed of to ensure it's to help my kids' futures and not just to tick a box before I started sanctimoniously doing down all who may be thinking about it more deeply.

Others may simply be confused or antagonised by ill-conceived, poorly-communicated schemes that are too often shown to be designed less for the reasons they thought and were on board with, and more as a bodge or patch job to make some quick money or dig a pol out of a landfill hole. We need coordinated systems that are proven to work and shared in a way that all see benefit because they GET benefit.

The odd thing here is that I may agree with what you say - of course well considered recycling is not a waste of anything - but by heavens I don't have to agree that the way you choose to say it... or that it is all right.

And in a democracy you might wonder why the audience in front of you seemed to be less than enthused with your (three of you) viewpoint. How did this group come to be in the room, and were they or were they not representative? (audience choices are another good way to set the tone as desired). Or maybe it was the way it was expressed? I am getting a little tired of being lectured by a self-appointed media elite whose lifestyles don't quite equate to the majority. Most of us don't get a VIP invite to the green room of the latest green love-in event, or the opportunity to pop off (as I recently read in another broadsheet column) on Eurostar (like, totally offset, yah) to commune for a week with their eco-guru in the South of France.

But at least you can go some way to correcting things to how they 'should' be, after the event, here in your piece. But I for one would have preferred to have been there to stand a chance of getting close to something approaching what happened... and the facts.