20 2 mins 14 yrs

The hypocrisy of the government’s approach to recycling is laid bare in the news that household rubbish put out for recycling is being dumped in landfill sites or sent to incinerators by three out of four councils!

“Up to 200,000 tonnes of recyclable waste was dumped last year with some councils failing to recycle over 10 per cent of glass, paper, plastic and other materials left out by conscientious homeowners. The amount dumped this year is expected to rise sharply as councils struggle to sell recyclable waste during the economic downturn. The disclosure will anger millions of British families, many of whom are being forced to sort their waste into five different waste bins – including new “food slop” containers – to allow it to be recycled. Over the Christmas period families will generate more recycling waste from wrapping paper, bottles and cardboard packaging than at any other time of year. But with prices for recycled material falling, increasing volumes will end up dumped or destroyed. Under the Labour Government, councils have adopted increasingly controversial tactics to meet waste disposal guidelines, with half scrapping weekly bin collections to force people to recycle more. The Government is also pressing ahead with trials for new bin taxes in the Spring which will see fines levied on households which throw out too much rubbish.”

So, to summarise, we are taxed more and more and forced to recycle, then, once the waste is collected by local government, 75% of it is not recycled but put straight into landfill. What a waste!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

20 thoughts on “WHAT A WASTE!

  1. Then the government will probably start fining councils for using too much landfill and the councils will in turn raise local taxes and so the fleecing of the public continues..

  2. David, how can you write an opinion regarding the mess our rubbish collection mechanism is in without even mentioning the evil influence of the EU?

  3. It is very disheartening to hear this. People who honestly think they are doing their bit to make this planet a bit better for the future will be wondering what’s the point. Perhaps incineration is a possible way to go as it would provide heat and power, however, the eco wackos would not want this due to the "pollution" incineration causes. I would like to ask is landfill not a form of pollution too?

    Why is the EU not cracking down on manufacturers who seem obsessed with too much packaging in the first place?

  4. I feel so guilty at times that I don’t put more effort into recycling.Now it seems that any efforts that I have been making could have been for nothing.

    Not ammused!!!

  5. I haven’t recycled a thing in my life and have no intention of ever doing so.

    Imagine how dumb some people will feel when they discover that recycling often uses more resources than just replacing old with new.

  6. I haven’t recycled a thing in my life and have no intention of ever doing so.

    There speaks the true voice of the don’t-care polluter.

    Throwing rubbish into landfill ultimately threatens water supplies as toxic substances leach into the groundwater, which is why we are at last trying to wean ourselves off that filthy habit.

  7. David: I think you got the numbers a bit awry. The quote is as follows, ‘more than 75 per cent [of councils] admitted to sending at least some of their recyclable waste to landfill sites or incinerators.’

    The worst offenders say about 10% of recyclable waste is dumped. Most dump little or none of it. There will obviously be some inefficiency as the service expands. It actually seems quite efficient.

    ‘Imagine how dumb some people will feel when they discover that recycling often uses more resources than just replacing old with new.’ It may use more energy, but that, in the future will be renewable, but it certainly does not use more resources, bar that.

    This is quite good, though she is a bit annoying: http://www.storyofstuff.com/

  8. Peter –

    Steady on there. I didn’t say I pollute (I don’t) I said I don’t recycle. I don’t recycle because it’s a scam which often costs money and uses more natural resources than recycling.

    Now clearly we’re not trying to wean ourselves from landfill. When we’re supposed to be recycling, we find that councils are flogging it to Chinese power stations. When they’re not making money from our rubbish, it turns out they’re burying the stuff here when all along you thought your tin cans were being turned into something else.

    A chap often pops in here to remind us all that the state is not your friend.

    He’s right you know.

  9. Guba –

    Yes, I’m afraid recycling often uses more natural resources than just buying new.

    It’s also expensive. Financially, compared to landfill, it’s brainless. But then governments can screw us much more easily over recycling than by being sensible.

  10. Pete Moore

    We have to start somewhere, and even if not everything recycled is correctly dealt with by our local authorities it is still better than the alternative.

    Your uber-cynical attitude simply delays a desirable switch away from landfill. But it’s typical of many of your political persuasion. You pay lip service to the idea of a clean planet but oppose every single action taken to try to make it a reality.

  11. As to the cost argument, it would obviously be cheaper for industry if we abolished all anti-pollution regulations, which would make manufactured goods cheaper to buy. Would you support that?

  12. Peter –

    Why do ‘we have to start somewhere’? You live your own life and let others live their own.

    There is no reason at all to switch away from landfill. It’s by far the cheapest method of disposal and we already excavate more space for aggregates than we can fill.

    We only recycle because our illegitimate masters in Brussels order us to do so, no other reason.

    You pay lip service to the idea of a clean planet but oppose every single action taken to try to make it a reality.

    If you will excuse me, this is where you go off into complete tosh. The cleanest property anywhere is private property. The dirtiest land, most unsustainable ways are always where land is commonly owned.

    No need to quibble, history and experience demonstrates that. It’s people of my political persuasion who are held back by the authoritarian collectivists, not the other way around.

    Of course I would support the destruction of all anti-pollution regulations. We do not need them. If I pollute your property you are free to resort to the courts for an action against me.

    Do you think technology will advance quicker by the State burdening individuals and firms with heavy taxes and regulations or not?

    If you think heavy taxes will bring forward new technologies sooner, what then pays for R&D?

  13. ‘When we’re supposed to be recycling, we find that councils are flogging it to Chinese power stations.’

    Evidently not, if you read the above article, you will find that the vast majority of recyclable waste is recycled.

    ‘I’m afraid recycling often uses more natural resources than just buying new’

    Really? bar the use of fossil fuels for energy, when does recycling use more natural resources than buying new?

    Expensive? It would be cheaper for us all if we started crapping in the street rather than paying for plumping and sewage. Just because it is cheaper, does not mean that it is better.

    Pete, i think we are talking about a different type of ‘clean’. A nuclear power station is very clean, but is it good for the biosphere?

    A neat housing estate may be cleaner than a marsh, but, in reality, it is not.

  14. Pete

    You really are going off the rails.

    Keeping your property clean does not excuse you for throwing toxic substances into landfill with the subsequent threat to water supplies. If you change your engine oil, do you pour just it down the drain rather than bringing it to be disposed of safely?

    As you oppose all restrictions on pollution, presumably you would be in favour of a return to lead in petrol and the abolition of smokeless zones in our cities. Oh for the old London smog, which killed thousands, but at least you had the freedom to burn smokey coal in your grate. In your mad world, the relatives of the dead should presumably have sued the coal-burners. That would have been preferable to the nanny state bringing in the Clean Air Act.

  15. I completely support recycling efforts and want to see them expanded.

    In San Francisco, they do creative things like taking leftover paint, mixing it into large batches, and then giving it to the poor in California and in Mexico.

    That keeps stuff out of the landfill and fills a need.

    Some of the benefits of recycling won’t be measured by the town – ie when you recycle aluminum or steel, the process requires far less electricity or coal energy than when you make it from raw ore, and results in less emissions of all kinds and does not require mining and the resulting environmental degradation to get at the ore. Smart recycling has all kinds of benefits.

  16. Peter,

    "In your mad world, the relatives of the dead should presumably have sued the coal-burners. "

    It does seem so.

    And the result would be a shrieking campaign of denial of the facts, too. pollution is a hoax! it’s not really pollution! pollution is 0.0…0% of the atmosphere! coal burning is good for you! coal sometimes burns naturally so it never hurt anyone!

  17. Peter –

    Why do you assume that all that stands between us and Hell is the benevolent hand of the State?

    Keeping your property clean does not excuse you for throwing toxic substances into landfill with the subsequent threat to water supplies.

    Well no, and I didn’t say it did.

    If you change your engine oil, do you pour just it down the drain rather than bringing it to be disposed of safely?

    I pour it down the drain, along with my leftover paint and caustic soda.

    Calm down darling, I’m only joking. You may need laws and regulations to condition your behaviour. I, however, do not.

    As you oppose all restrictions on pollution, presumably you would be in favour of a return to lead in petrol and the abolition of smokeless zones in our cities.

    Presumably nothing. That’s a statement about as sensible as "As you are in favour of government power and laws regulating our lives you are in favour of lebensraum and the Holocaust."

    Stupid, eh?

    Oh for the old London smog, which killed thousands, but at least you had the freedom to burn smokey coal in your grate.

    And atmospheric. Unfortunately we have to go to Africa now to see the like. Let’s hope the free market doesn’t deliver them clean technology otherwise those cute little ethnic fires will be lost for good!

    In your mad world, the relatives of the dead should presumably have sued the coal-burners. That would have been preferable to the nanny state bringing in the Clean Air Act.

    No. Stop being so emotional.

  18. Frank

    LOL!

    But you make a serious point. These guys claim to be anti-pollution, but in practice they oppose all steps to restrict pollution, either on the grounds of cost or the divine right of the individual to do as he pleases. That makes them polluters in practice.

Comments are closed.