You gotta larf, eh?

Ch 4 - FactCheck: has rubbish tax been binned?

So now we know... what we don't know. Or do we?

'See no weevils, hear no weevils, speak not of...' anything that might pin one down, apparently.

Yet for all that, at each turn it all comes back like a boomerang, and a barge full of night soil hits the wind farm.

No way to run a country. Or anything, for that matter.

Quote of the day - Don't build it, and we'll just come and take over

A nice chap in an earlier discussion about our woeful national coordination of anything to prevent waste sent me a discussion piece.

I just want to share this from its midst, as I'd heard of it before and now see it in all it's... unfortunate... glory:

"Toyota are now using the knowledge gained through their production system to deliver more sustainable(higher quality) corporate facilities at zero extra cost.

In 1984 the DTI arranged a ‘mission to Japan’ and asked why they let us look at their factories, the Japanese said “because you are already ten years behind and anyway we know you won’t do it!’

Just how did this country get Great again?

As Oedipus would say, 'Everything is relative'

This from (DEFRA) - Tougher targets for packaging waste

Always a tad dubious about the suffix 'er', as that sets you off on the trail of 'in comparison to what'? But it's the right direction , I guess.

I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, 'would be' might infer in the great can/could/might scheme of PR, though. Enjoy:

More packaging would be recovered and recycled under proposals set out in a consultation published by Environment Minister Joan Ruddock today.

New business targets would come into effect in January 2008 to help the UK meet its obligations under the EC Packaging Directive. Higher targets are proposed for 2009 and beyond to increase the level of recovery and recycling.

After 2008 it is at the discretion of Member States to set targets beyond the minimum required by the Packaging Directive and the UK has made clear that its aim is to continue to improve performance on packaging waste because of the environmental benefits this brings.

Joan Ruddock said:

"Since the introduction of the UK Packaging Regulations packaging recycling has improved significantly, from just 27% in 1997 to over 57% last year. But there is much more to be done. Further cuts in packaging waste are an essential part of reducing our reliance on landfill and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

"The higher targets can also act as a driver to help design out unnecessary packaging in future."

The EU minimum recycling and recovery targets are 55% and 60% respectively. The Government's preferred option would increase the recycling target to 55.7% in 2008, 56.8% in 2009 and 58.4% in 2010, and the recovery target to 60.6%, 61.8% and 63.4% in the same years.

Recycling packaging reduces CO2 emissions because less energy is used to extract and process recycled materials than virgin ones, particularly materials like aluminium.

As well as the environmental benefits of cutting CO2 emissions and reducing reliance on landfill, the proposals have cost benefits of around £1.1m - the difference between the estimated costs to producers of £7.7m, and carbon savings estimated at £8.8m.

The proposals are consistent with the Government's 'polluter pays' principal, and the aims of the new Waste Strategy for England which was published in May.

The consultation is published here

The target system applies to businesses that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year and with an annual turnover of over £2m. It encourages producers to reduce their packaging levels because this reduces the cost to them of recycling and recovering their waste.

Proposed targets (weeeee!) of the Government's preferred option:

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Paper 67.5% 68.5% 69.5% 70.5% 71.5%
Glass 78.5% 80.0% 81.0% 82% 84%
Aluminium 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 41% 42%
Steel 68.0% 68.5% 69.0% 70% 71%
Plastic 26.0% 27.0% 29.0% 31% 33%
Wood 20.5% 21.0% 22.0% 23% 24%
Recovery 69.0% 70.0% 71.0% 73% 75%

What's a Boy or Girl to think?

We have lately had a spate of people telling us not only what we should (with any useful info on how being noticeable in the absence) think but, apparently with magical telepathic powers, what we are thinking.

From government to local authorities to the media, our opinions are being shaped, it seems, by telling us that what were thinking is in fact not what we are thinking. I guess that having seen the error of our ways by it coming from such trusted sources we will immediately revise them. Not.

So we have on the BBC this morning a report about the state of our rubbish laws.

What was most striking to me was a piece featuring some residents in Oxford (one of the more enlightened councils, I'd always thought) who were a bit fed up being told that there was no problem with bi-weekly collections, when in fact, by the evidence of all their senses (especially olfactory), there was. Seems they had not read the research or press releases thoroughly enough.

And so we arrive at the fact (well...) that this brainwave to force us to recycle more (nothing to do with saving money, oh, no) is, in fact, not working out: MPs: Fortnightly bin collections are an unworkable mess

Now, in my new capacity as Scoop Male, I have gone off and sourced this report. Well, I googled and clicked two links. Bernstein and Woodward look out!

I feel I must... should... as the quotes from the report writers made... gasp... a lot of sense, and were all the more refreshing by being from 'in-house' taboot, it being a Labour MP who headed it all.

Thing is, it is now in a list of several I have yet to read. Ho hum.

But things like this make it look worth the effort:

"In the long term there should be a move towards a national strategy to encourage householders and retailers to cut down on food waste. At present a third of all food bought is subsequently thrown away, wasting households on average £400 a year and adding to refuse collection costs."

“We would like the Government come up with a core definition of what householders should expect from their refuse collection. This should include no complicated rules, rubbish collected when the council says it will be and schemes to suit every household from the largest rural home to the most crowded urban area.

“What we do not want is, as Ben Bradshaw, then the Minister for Waste, put it, local authorities “blundering” into AWC before proper consideration and consultation has taken place as to whether this is the best system for that area.”

Or, let the BBC show what it is good at: MPs criticise bin collection plan Plus report. 63 b****y pages! Maybe later.

Guardian - Q&A: Rubbish collections
Guardian - Fortnightly collections not always the answer, say MPs

May is so over

I just read a short, but interesting piece in the Indy.

And without apology, but due accreditation, print it fullishly here, with a few highlights of my own:

All goods may be labelled with 'carbon footprint'

A new eco label may show the environmental damage done goods and services in shops. The Government has begun a "carbon footprint" project to work out how to count emissions from everything from crisps to flights [Let us pray the enviROI derived is genuine, and that we, the public, are able to get to grips with it such that it is not just another vast, money-sucking box-ticking exercise].

The scheme, which could be the first step towards an international standard [like all previous efforts at local - we seem to have two health standards already, so the packs are going to get pretty crowed with this guff - and global cooperation have been successful so far. No reason not to try, but I do trust the basis is not so much to line consultants' pockets in the effort as to actually move policies] for measuring the greenhouse effect, will [well, that's more positive] be used on packaging to allow consumers to weigh up [so it's back to us doing the tricky stuff again, is it? And doubtless fined if we don't do it right. What about a bit more effort on what goes into the system at the front end????!] the climate change impact [please.... make it an effective measure!] of different products [I... we... are going to stand there, assessing - if we are able - every item going into our baskets. This is asking us to weigh apples vs. oranges, literally]

The Carbon Trust, a government body briefed to create a low carbon economy [with how much money to be blown on salaries and comms, with almost no ROI and/or enviROI that is publicly accountable to an effective degree?] is developing the scheme with companies such as [why these guys? Are they enough? Are they being funded or helping out for free...if so big up to them. If not... hmnnn.] Tesco, Boots, B&Q, Marks & Spencer and BT. A panel of technical experts will take around 18 months [Dome. Olympics. NHS. Air traffic. Need I infer more?] to finalise the measurement of stages such as production and transport.

Announcing the plan yesterday, the Environment Minister, Ian Pearson, said: "Businesses are looking for ways [Looking's good. Finding is better. Committing the best] to reduce their impact on the environment. To help them achieve that we need a consistent way [Just like the health standards, eh?] to measure these impacts that businesses recognise, trust and understand." [Let's not forget the consumer recognising, trusting, understanding... and being able to engage with in a meaningful way, as well]

That's an awful lot of doubts I have raised from just a few paras. I wonder why? Maybe it is because this consumer doesn't recognise much so far in this area that has made sense, trusts little these protagonists do to actually have my kids' future enviROI at heart, or ever get shared in a way that is understandable of capable of rational engagement.

But we can hope this time it will be different. Here's hoping the mainstream media stay on their case (packaging pun intended).

Guardian - Carbon labels to help shoppers save planet

Treehugger - Carbon Footprint Labels for UK Produce

In the piece I read, in the Independent, the announcement was littered with words like 'may' and 'could', which usually presages a lot of money getting spent on a bunch of consultants, and then sod all of any use happening once the requisite boxes have been ticked.

There is also the small matter of what happened with the health composition labelling. In some places we get a traffic light system, and in others a row of figures that look like the periodic table.

It's going to get pretty crowded on the side of each pack, and I have my doubts anyone will have the slightest clue what they are looking at, much less be able to make a coherent decision based on it. I for one have not bothered to scrutinise each item I select. For start, what am I comparing? Apples and oranges? Well, of course a Spanish orange may be better than a South African apple, but who on earth is going to get into that????!

If there is any serious intent to make a difference here, it needs to be at the in-point, not throwing it on the poor blooming consumer to try and sort out the fudge government and industry are trying to shuffle around.

So do I feel my kids' future is being protected by this? Well, may... be... not.

Oh, what a waste of...?

I was an odd youngster. Where others were wearing their hair long and their politics left, I was usually considered a touch on the Tory side. Which annoyed me a lot, and actually such labels still do bug me for their all-encompassing nature, as it seldom adequately described where I was coming from, which was trying to assemble personal best from the policies that all sides were espousing.

But one thing was sure, when it came out, I really didn't see the problem with Poll Tax. While a few others most certainly did. Riotously so. Maggie outingly so. I can't recall exactly when it was now, but it may have had something to do with me owning my first flat and sharing it with a mate, and our paying on where it was and not what we used had something to do with it.

Hence I find myself with odd, and conflicted feelings about all that surrounds the newly-announced Waste Strategy and all the media surrounding it, a small sample of which (noting how the leanings of some are evidenced by the spin they put on the same facts) can be surveyed here:

Telegraph - England's rubbish crisis -
Telegraph - Cash carrot to curb the family's rubbish -
Telegraph - Miliband offers recycling carrot -
Telegraph - Households to face £30 recycling fines -
Times - Waste Not, Want Not -
Times - Pay-as-you-throw scheme for waste ‘penalises householders’ - 'Recycling volumes will rise most quickly if the Government smooths the path of those who make a living from reuse and reclamation. There is no place yet for fining or taxing those individuals yet to appreciate the benefits of an afterlife for their rubbish.'
Times - Councils ‘need money to meet costly targets’ -
Mail - Now you'll have to pay to take your rubbish to the tip - But if they try to avoid these charges by driving their domestic refuse to the tip, they will have to pay anyway.
Express - DUSTBINS: NOW WE FACE FINES AND TAXES - Lower-income households receiving council tax benefit - often families with young children - could also be exempt, despite generating relatively large quantities of waste with nappies and other trash - er, excuse me...?
Indy - Cash rewards to reduce rubbish disposal - Every household in the country could have at least five bins in the future to allow separate collections for glass, paper, cans, plastics and food waste, though not garden refuse - tell that to Elsie in her flat opposite!
Indy - Legislation to tackle excess packaging - I still await how 'excess' is defined any better than 'necessary' without also clamping down on every other aspect of consumer culture, from advertising to fashion.
BBC - Bin charges 'to boost recycling'

By any measure, I should be up there waving from the rooftops. It seems to be exactly what the young me was in favour of, and how the old me lives. But...

There is an odd unease in the land of Martin at the logic behind it, the competence of those who would put it into effect, and the actual enviROI that is going to be derived vs. the social divisions, public rejection and possible 'targets rather than tangibles' measures to be imposed.

I choose to be optimistic, as there is a lot of talk of reward and incentive, but this has to be complemented by the mechanisms to do the right thing easily and conveniently. People are starting to wake up to the fact that much of what is out there is a big fine waiting if you do not work for free for councils who you pay, and who pay contractors big money already. I don't mind doing my bit, but certainly want it appreciated and acknowledged. I do not like being forced to act in support of overpaid and inefficient systems, especially under threat. On a personal level, but also as a matter of logic, if segregated recyclable materials are a resource, why would I be penalised for bringing them to a collection centre? Should I quickly throw out all I have collected over the last few years into one massive, mixed black plastic bin liner and simply drop it outside. How on earth does that serve the environment????!

There is also the not so small matter of what is actually being done, and what is seen to be done. A few too many of the proposed initiatives smack of populist window dressing, tackling high-profile but irrelevant targets at the expense of real ones. There still seems a typical, massive, and hugely wasteful focus on trying to deal with the end point problem by using those who have little control over it all as scapegoats, when so much more could, and should be done (and a heck of lot more transparently in a financial sense) as things go into the consumer system before they become disposable.

For my kids' futures, I expect substance, and not window dressing, and if they can't find a way to sell it to the public with their existing methods, maybe they need to change. Or be changed.

Here it is: DEFRA