I sometimes wonder if I am getting too jaded by the system.
In passing, I added a few blogs past a link to an ITV recycling expose with little comment as I was not terribly surprised. I have long known, and been disgusted by the fact that recycling collection targets are based on amounts that tick boxes rather than actual value of recyclate. So big fat bonuses and careers are forged on the acquisition of a spurious 'thing' that makes bureaucrats wet themselves but serve the environment little. And yet it happens so often, in so many places, I cease to bat an eye.
But then I happened to read a blog post from some others who, it is safe to say, care, and until this point had some faith in the system. I still care, a lot, but as to faith in the system...
A Rubbish Service TV programme on ITV1
Addendum - It may be viewed for a period here*
Their sense of anguish and frustration was... is frankly palpable. And little wonder.
With all we know. And all that is being said, and claimed, and claimed to be done, and spent, and even after the exact same thing being brought out by the BBC (remember the Grosvenor situation? Though the Fred Pearce book (reviewed here) does have an extra insight into some aspects) years ago, the general public gets shown this.
How on earth will any group cohesion be possible on a national level when we are exposed to fines and abuses in the name of green at one end, and such rampant disarray (being charitable) at the other?).
It seems to me it is only by letting the will, and good will of the people to blossom will anything sensible take shape. Almost all the pols, LAs, consultants, advisors, officers, research and myriad of other 'eco-posts' are but expensive, distracting, 'jobs for the boys' drains on actually doing what's right and proper for our kids' futures.
My only concern is that the main way I can try and effect change, through my vote, will be ineffective these days as I simply cannot pin down, and hence target those who are responsible and give them the career and financial kicking they deserve. And so the rumbling ship of.. in a state will simply plough on, regardless. What a waste of a country.
Newsnight -
Last night ITV ran an expose of the state of our national recycling policies and systems, whereby an OAP seems eligible to be sent to Elba for popping an extra cabbage leaf to their bin, yet the person in charge of such a policy at their LA has no clue where container loads of 'recycling' (note: the tonnages box-ticked are only on what it is (might be); nor whether it is any use to man nor beast) goes, but for sure will be ready first in line to get their bonus for an all round sterling job.
http://www.itv.com/News/tonight/episodes/Arubbishservice/default.html
I am minded of a BBC expose back in Dec 2005 that covered pretty much the same thing.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2005/12/tiger-in-turkey-hut-more-like.html
What, if anything, has changed, bar the bonus structures on an index-linked basis, plus what's shaping up as a terrific 'guilty 'til proven still guilty' revenue-collection system?
Maybe when our convoy of governance has got back from its outing to trying to run the country again without more wheels falling off, maybe one of the succession of environment Ministers (past and present... maybe even Mr. Milliband?) might be invited to waffl... comment on how we have come so... er.. far.
I really don't see much point in all these stories if they are not followed up and the protagonists held to account.
* I have now watched the programme - first up the usual quango talking heads waffling and promising investigation and action. Heard that before? What amazes me is that this still goes on and those involved (inc. pols, LAs, etc) seem to think that they are immune from the consequences. But on such evidence, maybe they are right.
It is good that there are such programmes, but I have to wonder what the follow-up will be.. after the last one. But at least this time the point was made about the level of penalties we are being subjected to in the UK on a personal level, and maybe if enough of us get miffed enough at such rampant inequality and hypocrisy we may decide to get angry enough to react.
I did/do have to wonder how it came to be that the UK waste processor seemed to accept some highly contaminated waste quite stocially and simply passed it on as 'damaged goods'. Surely they should fire it straight back as rejected? Money talks, surely?
These highly paid government servants and fat cats cannot be allowed to weasel out of this based simply on a huge number of 'don't knows'. One agrees the public may feel 'let down', but suggests we continue recycling. That's all well and fine (note that word). But there are people accountable, and they should be held to it.
Junkk.com promotes fun, reward-based e-practices, sharing oodles of info in objective, balanced ways. But we do have personal opinions, too! Hence this slightly ‘off of site, top of mind' blog by Junkk Male Peter. Hopefully still more ‘concerned mates’ than 'do this... or else' nannies, with critiques seen as constructive or of a more eyebrow-twitching ‘Oh, really?!' variety. Little that’s green can be viewed only in black and white.
Showing posts with label CO-MINGLED WASTE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CO-MINGLED WASTE. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Glass act
Just watched a BBC News item on recycling.
Very interesting. Basically the trend is now away from collecting via skips (and, one presumes, kerbsides, which I know is the case in my area*) and on to what they call 'co-mingled waste', which is basically all in one and let a central station sort it all out.
Trouble is, this system means that while lost of stuff is collected, most of the resultant recyclate is useless, especially when it comes to such as glass.
And as a sign off, the reporter says that when it comes to recycling, 'we' are no longer any good.
Now I know some aspects of these collection systems will encourage greater numbers, but what use if the stuff you collect is of less value.
I have written..
You're talking at and pointing to the wrong folk with the 'we' when referring to how this is not very good environmentally.
Consumers are much less to blame than incoherent, uncoordinated national policy, and an obsession with meeting targets that rewards process more than sensible result.
*Addendum: I have written to my local paper:
The issue of waste collection and, with luck, sensible recycling as a consequence is a hugely worthwhile, but still very complex one.
There are EU fines looming, consequent national pressures and of course regional and local variations 'in the mix'.
There can be no doubt of course that Ross' RE-Box scheme has been ahead of its time, and shining example across the board, not just as a recycling initiative, but also as a social enterprise and, perhaps more than anything, as a catalyst for individual and community cooperation and participation in the cause of environmental good practice.
But there are other issues at play, and these need to be understood and appreciated in assessing what is proposed for the future as part of bigger pictures.
With this in mind, I have noted a very interesting story on the national news this week. Mirroring our local experience the trend is apparently now away from collecting via skips, bottle/can banks (and, evidently, kerbsides) and on to what they call 'co-mingled waste' collections, which is basically all in one bag from our bins, and then on to let a central station sort it all out.
Trouble is, it seems that while this system means that perhaps more 'stuff' is collected, most of the resultant recyclate is of much less use than before, especially when it comes to such as glass.
Now I can see the advantages of these collection systems working with perhaps 'less co-operative' human nature (but certainly not around here, evidenced by the RE-Box success) will encourage greater numbers, but what use is this to the 'bigger picture' of carbon footprints/CO2 release if the stuff you collect is of less or no value?
RE-Box has shown that when engaged with in a sensible way, consumers are much less to blame than incoherent, uncoordinated national policy, and I just hope what we are not seeing is more an obsession with meeting targets that rewards process more than sensible result.
Oh, and just saw an amplified BBC report. Seems it stays as 'we' who are no longer as green as we shoudl be.
Very interesting. Basically the trend is now away from collecting via skips (and, one presumes, kerbsides, which I know is the case in my area*) and on to what they call 'co-mingled waste', which is basically all in one and let a central station sort it all out.
Trouble is, this system means that while lost of stuff is collected, most of the resultant recyclate is useless, especially when it comes to such as glass.
And as a sign off, the reporter says that when it comes to recycling, 'we' are no longer any good.
Now I know some aspects of these collection systems will encourage greater numbers, but what use if the stuff you collect is of less value.
I have written..
You're talking at and pointing to the wrong folk with the 'we' when referring to how this is not very good environmentally.
Consumers are much less to blame than incoherent, uncoordinated national policy, and an obsession with meeting targets that rewards process more than sensible result.
*Addendum: I have written to my local paper:
The issue of waste collection and, with luck, sensible recycling as a consequence is a hugely worthwhile, but still very complex one.
There are EU fines looming, consequent national pressures and of course regional and local variations 'in the mix'.
There can be no doubt of course that Ross' RE-Box scheme has been ahead of its time, and shining example across the board, not just as a recycling initiative, but also as a social enterprise and, perhaps more than anything, as a catalyst for individual and community cooperation and participation in the cause of environmental good practice.
But there are other issues at play, and these need to be understood and appreciated in assessing what is proposed for the future as part of bigger pictures.
With this in mind, I have noted a very interesting story on the national news this week. Mirroring our local experience the trend is apparently now away from collecting via skips, bottle/can banks (and, evidently, kerbsides) and on to what they call 'co-mingled waste' collections, which is basically all in one bag from our bins, and then on to let a central station sort it all out.
Trouble is, it seems that while this system means that perhaps more 'stuff' is collected, most of the resultant recyclate is of much less use than before, especially when it comes to such as glass.
Now I can see the advantages of these collection systems working with perhaps 'less co-operative' human nature (but certainly not around here, evidenced by the RE-Box success) will encourage greater numbers, but what use is this to the 'bigger picture' of carbon footprints/CO2 release if the stuff you collect is of less or no value?
RE-Box has shown that when engaged with in a sensible way, consumers are much less to blame than incoherent, uncoordinated national policy, and I just hope what we are not seeing is more an obsession with meeting targets that rewards process more than sensible result.
Oh, and just saw an amplified BBC report. Seems it stays as 'we' who are no longer as green as we shoudl be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)