Report abuse

Let’s test out your (I believe, false) claim that there are many issues supported by the Green Party, with which you agree.

Here are our 6 flagship policies:

1) Free insulation for every home that needs it.
2) Free school meals for all state school pupils
3) Safer streets (20 mph limit in residential urban areas, including villages)
4) Living wages for all workers
5) Affordable Homes
6) Green Energy for all (low cost loans for renewable energy)

Which of these do you agree with? Perhaps you (in contrast to the Heartland Institute) share our opposition to the disastrous Iraq War?

The thing is, rather like your contradictory claims about recycling, incineration and Global Warming, I don’t believe you.

So which of our policies do you support, Ken?

Report abuse

I had previously made a comment that there were many issues supported by the Green Party with which I agreed. You had questioned that comment; I was merely explaining there were many policies of the Green Party which did not concern the environment, or your “ideological” attachment to recycling.

Do you wish for me to list those polices with which I agree?

Chap2 and 5 Wrong! Misquoting!

I came across a Friends of the Earth file yesterday which sort of encapsulates your objections to Energy Recovery, the line (I paraphrase) was; “ re-branding of incineration should be resisted at all times because it will divert funds from recycling.”

I mention “energy recovery” you immediately translate that to “incineration”

The problem is we do not have a recycling infrastructure in this country, if we did we would not see waste piling up as it is. The further problem is instead of actually facing the central predicament head on you want to go round the houses and get us to live by your rules. The difference is that I am prepared to look at any and all suggestions that will meet the requirements of reducing emissions from landfill, you are just using it as an excuse to roll out your own ideological hobby horse.

If we have a problem let us solve it the best way possible, and that way will probably be a combination of measures including, shrinking the total amount of waste, recycling, reuse, composting and energy recovery and NO I DO NOT MEAN INCINERATION. Although that might be better than sending it to the other side of the world. As it stands at the moment recycling is not working, so we desperately need to look at alternatives and preferably without any ideology getting in the way.

You make my point perfectly “our window to do something about it is closing rapidly” whose method of dealing with the threat is going to meet the needs of reducing emissions from landfill, your “ideological” attachment to recycling, I do not think so, we can already witness the results of relying on that.

You will have noticed that I have refrained from mentioning Peter Jones the government advisor who this week hit the headlines when he said;

“We’ve got to urgently get a grip on how this material is flowing through the (Recylcing) system; whether we’re actually adding to or reducing the overall impact in terms of global warming potential in this process.”

He made a half hearted attempt at a retraction when the complaints from the usual quarters started to come in, but he cannot deny his position because his own company says “recycling processes themselves use energy without guaranteed revenue from the recovered materials” of course his own company is called Waste2Tricty which is described by its name.
You see you are sort of denying there is any overall impact in terms of global warming potential in recycling, which might be true if the loop between collection and reuse was closed, but there in lies the problem because it is far from being closed and until and unless it is, we will not know that recycling is saving the planet it could just be a very expensive waste of time and money. And remember the severity of Global Warming and our window to do something about it is closing rapidly.

Report abuse

Maybe it is my lack of expertise, compared to you, but I don’t understand your first paragraph.

Could you explain it again with specific examples of which policies are ‘idiotically’, so that I can comment on them on a case by case basis?

In your 2nd and 5th paragraph, you even deny that INCREASING RECYCLING will REDUCE LANDFILL.

Yet another mis-representation!

Who is being idiotically now?

Remember the Germans and the Dutch already recycle twice what we do.

Remember also that Cotswolds-based recycling entrepreneur, Leigh Astley, from soldierf’s video-link said

‘We need to have a recycling infrastructure in this country capable of recycling EVERYTHING (my capitals) that we produce as waste.’

Leigh Astley didn’t seem to be that keen on incineration.

Nor do the people of Telford or Shrewsbury ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/12/03/mps-survey-reveals-79-against-burner/ ).

The Independent’s ‘Made in Britain dumped in China’ highlights important international treaties like the 1989 Basel Convention, which bans the export of toxic rubbish from developed countries to poorer ones.

The Independent, as far as I can understand their campaign with my limited expertise, is doing an excellent job exposing an ILLEGAL TRADE in toxic waste exports from Britain to China, and highlighting the fact that the UK is contravening international law.

The Independent is also campaigning against excessive packaging; Greens have been doing this for years.

Where in their campaign does the Independent say that we should be burning our waste, and that Greens’ idiotically attempts to recycle more in this country should be fought tooth and nail by all true patriots?

I don’t need to believe James Hansen and Al Gore’s warnings about the severity of climate change, the consensus is overwhelming ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/01/20/everyone-will-pay-for-airport/ #21 ), sceptics cannot name a SINGLE scientific institution which disputes this consensus, and our window to do something about it is closing rapidly.

The more I learn about the corporate-sponsored think-tanks you rely on for your information, Ken, and the industry front groups disguised as concerned environmentalists like soldierf’s greenspirit.com(#67) the more I want to expose the truth of the situation to readers, who might be taken in.

‘Global Spin’ (Green books, 1997) by Sharon Beder is an excellent starting point to understanding exactly what the biggest corporations in the world are doing to undermine the environmental movement.

Report abuse

Thus the figures assume a closed the loop where none exists, because of that all the figures actually show is the percentage of waste that is counted as recycled, they do not show what happens to the waste after it has been counted as recycled sorted stored and sent on to various other destinations.

The end result we can see on our television screens are piles of waste being stored incinerated or sent to landfill. We are actually witnessing a failure of the recycling system to deal with the problem.

The percentage figures therefore have no meaning and are a distraction, because they hide the fact that we do not have a recycling infrastructure in this country capable of recycling everything that we produce as waste.

The fact that we need to expand the recycling infrastructure in this country is obvious (and by the way I have not opposed that) but the expansion needs to be at the other end, not the collection and counting end of the chain if we are ever going to close the loop.

Increasing the level of collection is only adding to the problem and adding to the potential negative environmental and economic effects of an incomplete recycling loop i.e. the cost of collection transport storage and the eventual disposal.

Report abuse

If I was as pessimistic as you, and felt that everything was futile, I would not feel moved to write at such length.

I am optimistic and feel that my activism, along with the activism of other people, will definitely make a difference.

You say, ‘for any remote chance for recycling to work, the waste must be collected locally, recycled locally and then the loop must be closed by people buying the goods. Unfortunately very little of this is being achieved.’

I say, OK let’s build up our recycling infrastructure.

Let’s be positive and ambitious.

I watched your video-link to Sky News and found it clearly unfair that Chinese people are dealing with waste that WE have produced.

The key is, surely, to expand our recycling infrastructure here in the UK.

At the end of the report there is an interview with Leigh Astley, who owns a recycling business in the Cotswolds.

He says something, which I have consistently argued throughout this debate:

Leigh Astley: ‘We need to have a recycling infrastructure in this country capable of recycling everything that we produce as waste. (And we are producing more and more waste each year.)’

My argument is that we need to SHRINK the amount of waste we are producing each year, through education about reducing, re-using, recycling and composting and introducing zero-waste policies in businesses, schools and other institutions.

And like Leigh Astley, I believe we need to EXPAND the recycling infrastructure in this country, which you, Tony Lewis and Ken Adams are so against.

Incineration will UNDERMINE recycling, because it will remove the widely understood ecological imperative to conserve resources and undo all the positive educational work that is going on.

Researching this, I discovered from the Recycle Now website that Cotswold district council, where Leigh Astley is based, achieved a 51.78% recycling rate for April to June 2007.

This is much higher than the rest of the country, showing that when the local infrastructure is there, people recycle more, because they know that local businesses are benefitting.

The county of Gloucestershire is pushing for residents to have the capability of recycling 70% of their waste.

Here in Shrewsbury Veolia, which favours incineration, aims to increase recycling only to 50% by 2012.

Report abuse

Sorry you are still omitting to face up to the point that we the taxpayers of this country are being forced to pay to reduce methane emission from landfill sites that is the problem.

Your ideological belief about recycling has nothing to do with that, so from that perspective I do not give a monkeys that creating power from waste breaks the circle of your important idea of wealth being re-formulated to be re-used.

That is not the important idea! The important idea is to reduce emission from landfill! That is what we are paying for we are not paying to make you feel good about the world.

Why are you more interested in our lifestyles than actually doing something that will solve the problem, you tell us will destroy the planet, your argument is simply not coherent. Why is recycling more important than reducing landfill, why is the misery cause by mining any more than that caused to a community in China which exists to sort though our rubbish. Look at Made in Britain dumped in China on independent.co.uk

If you really believed Dr. James Hansen`s and Al Gore`s dire warnings on global warming, you really would want to do something to save the planet, you would then really want to reduce methane emissions from landfill and you would not be concerned at the methods used achieve the reduction that would be needed to save the planet.

That is where your argument is lacking and that is why you have to descend into attempting to insult instead of holding up your end of the debate with reasoned argument.

Report abuse

‘I had a look at the Green party site and found it amazing on how may issues we agree and issues that prompted me to start Blogging in the first place.’

Yet another mis-representation!

This is impossible to believe, when it was clear from this debate ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/10/11/writer-fails-to-note-evidence/ ) that you were unable to even concede that Al Gore’s excellent wake-up call ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was ‘broadly accurate’.

In fact I find it amazing on how many issues we viscerally DISAGREE.

In #66 you said (-again your chutzpah is truly extraordinary-) that wanting ‘to do what is best for the planet and for the environment’ is an ‘ideology’.

I think most parents teaching their children to respect the world around them and care for their environment would give you short shrift if you started lecturing them that they were being ‘ideological’.

Just because we don’t fall for the mis-information that you disseminate does NOT mean that we are ‘ideological’.

It means that we have learnt INTELLECTUAL SELF-DEFENCE.

We have learnt to see things clearly and understand what scientists like David Attenborough, are truly saying through the fog of mis-information disseminated by dodgy think-tanks in Washington like the Heartland Institute, PR agencies or front groups for big corporations.

You say that incineration will complement recycling.

It won’t.

It will UNDERMINE recycling, because it undermines the important idea that wealth is being re-formulated to be re-used.

Burning it may create a bit of energy, but the resources burnt are destroyed for ever and the CIRCLE IS BROKEN.

You finished by saying, ‘It has been said that “enviomentalism is socialism’s Trojan horse”’

Yes that has been said.

The last time I dealt with this particular argument I was debating with a bunch of BNP activists. (See http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/03/13/leave-the-politics-out-of-debate/ #23 + 24).

I don’t see ANY common ground between us, Mr Adams, because I find that your indifference to ecological breakdown and the misery this is causing in the poorest parts of the world, is one of the strongest reasons for me to be active and to encourage others to become active.

Report abuse

I was merely sharing some of the problems facing businesses especially with the economic downturn – and hoped you may have some suggestions.

If I don’t defend and support the business I run then it may close down…..putting myself and staff out of work. It seems to me that you might like that ….. sort of ’schadenfreude’ attitude. Pity.

But you forget. When businesses close down then everybody is affected.

Every month I collect taxes (at my expense) from customers (14%)and from staff (30% income tax). I also pay tax on all my supplies, tax on the rent, hydro and gas I use.

Where do the taxes go?

The bulk … about three-quarters… to medicare and education.

Without the business community generating the tax base these two public services would have a very hard time.

Or maybe you think you can survive without us!

Can you imagine a school without books or paper?

Or without the support of businesses that donate time, supplies, and money to schools.

And business people who give their time to improve literacy, help with sports programmes and teach music.

You accuse us of merely defending our own industries …..!

Humbug.

Report abuse

Report abuse

For me to argue that I lack any belief system would be silly, but I do not have an ideological attachment to any political party or political vision or in fact any particular vision. I do however believe in democracy and all that entails. I believe those who make our laws should be accountable to the people and the people should be the final arbiters of the law.

I suppose you could call that an ideological position if you wished. But then democracy itself does not impose any particular creed on people but allows them to the freedom to choose. They can choose recycling if they wish or they could chooses incineration, or landfill for that matter.

I do not understand your ideology as you describe it- it seems totally unconvincing; you say you are for more recycling and you oppose incineration; if that were your position then you need to ask yourself one question – WHY?

If it is, as your general arguments seem to indicate, you really want to do what is best for the planet and for the environment, then that is your real ideology. If that is the case then your attachment to recycling is misplaced if it will not solve the problems of us producing too much waste.

You say you are against incineration why when if attached to energy production it can compliment recycling and create an alternative method of meeting our energy demands. There are of course other methods of producing energy from waste, and other sustainable systems.

It has been said that “enviomentalism is socialism’s Trojan horse” are you sure your attachment is not just to saving the world but is more concerned with imposing a socialist vision. One where society becomes king at the expense of the individual and individual freedoms must be dispensed with in order to advance socialist sate control. I only ask because your party does not on the surface seem to aspire to such beliefs.

Report abuse

Thanks Colin Friedlos for admitting that you work in the waste industry.

Thanks also to Tony Lewis for confirming that you are defending your industry with your contributions.

At least we have got the vested interests aspect of this debate out in the open now, and readers can understand what motivates

a) me to push for more recycling and to oppose incineration

b) Tony and Colin to defend their industries

c) Ken to pursue his line on the evils of the European Union

Now that this is transparent for all, I am sure the debate will be better for being more honest and open.

Report abuse

Please note that in #43 I explained that the UK manufacturers of newsprint (there are three) use post-consumer waste and produce 40% of Britain’s requirements. Therefore 100% of newsprint MANUFACTURED in the UK is from post-consumer waste.

According to various stats on UK imports of newsprint pulp, 60% is imported…. this is also quoted on the Alesford site. I don’t know the quantities for Britain’s other print requirements…do you have these..?

One of the problems with waste in this industry is the US system of imperial measurements which causes more waste than the metric system. The US produces about 60% of the world’s paper requirements. We also use imperial measurements…. however, crown corporations such as the postal service use metric…..for size and weight…. presenting the industry with tremendous problems and even more waste.

Our city is no longer collecting recyclable products such as paper and there is no private company doing this. This is of course due to the general downturn in the economy. To store this waste will, of course, cost companies money, and there would also be a big bill if and when they do eventually restart the recycling programme… May.. if we are lucky.

The general downturn puts pressure on business and we already have a hard time paying staff… taking waste to the dump would ease the pressure and, perhaps, put more food on the table for employees.

What would you do?

Some of my staff work periodically in the forest industry (sometimes working 80 hours a week to make ends meet) .. what do you say to people who may lose their jobs due to the increasing use of post-consumer materials.

Hard luck mate??

Report abuse

Report abuse

I do not suppose you would argue that all planes should be grounded but you cannot see the logical link between on the one hand the government’s commitments to reducing C02 levels and an expansion of the aviation industry, that really Huw is my argument encapsulated. I want my government to be consistent. If my government tells me that the World as we know it will end if we do not do something drastic to reduce global warming gasses and do it quickly, I would not expect them to them to ignore that basic imperative either by introducing measure that will not meet the objectives or worse in the case of the runway going in the opposite direction.

You argue other benefits for recycling, there might well be benefits, but they do not have a place in the landfill problem, by arguing the other benefits you are doing exactly what the EU and the government are doing and that is problem displacement.

Problem: Traditional landfill methods produce methane – methane is bad for the environment.

Suggested main answer to problem – Increase the level of recycling as much as possible and create a market for the recycled goods.

I am therefore not interested in the other benefits of recycling, I am only interested in its effects on reducing the problem because that is what as a tax payer I am paying for.

We the people of this country are being forced to pay extra taxes by this government because we are told that Landfill emissions are a problem for the environment. They have not said we must recycle because it will reduce mining with all its dreadful impacts on the local populations.

You say there is nothing remotely deceitful about gearing the fiscal system to prioritize recycling and reject disposal systems like incineration, which waste valuable resources.

Well that might or might not be true, (see below) but there is a lot deceitful in doing that for the express purpose of preventing emissions from landfill sites if they will not reduce emissions from landfill sites. There is a lot deceitful in displacing the problem with the solution especially a solution that will not ever on its own be able to solve the problem.

Recycling and incineration with heat recovery can co-exist. A prime example is Denmark, which has a much better recycling record than the UK but also incinerates, with heat recovery, much more waste than the UK.

Thank you for the mention of my little Blog, though I should correct you if I may, it is not called ANGRY EUREALIST just eurealist.

I had a look at the Green party site and found it amazing on how may issues we agree and issues that prompted me to start Blogging in the first place.

Report abuse

They might be interested in knowing -as recycling reduces energy consumption, waste and resource consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and environmentally damaging mining and timber activity- why ’soldiers’, anonymous bloggers and people with ‘vastly more complex lives’ than them are telling them that it’s a waste of time and we should just burn it.

They might also be wondering why people with lots of expertise and experience like Ken and immensely complex lives like you, Tony, are lecturing their generation not to be concerned about sustainability or climate change.

Thanks for adding the point that the younger generation, who have to live with the consequences of our current wasteful habits, have more to lose, Tony, old friend.

If any younger readers want to know what ‘vested interests’ are, just let me know and I’ll make an attempt at a definition.

Report abuse

In #47, you said, ‘Huw, I most certainly conceded that 100% of newsprint manufactured in the UK was produced from post-consumer waste.’

No you didn’t.

If you did, can you point out where you made this concession?

You then said, ‘This is 40% of Britain’s newsprint requirements the rest being imported, using mostly virgin fibres.’

Could you explain, then, how this can possibly be the case, when according to page 2 of my newspaper ‘NEWSPAPERS SUPPORT RECYCLING. Recycling made up 79% of the raw material for newspapers in 2006.’

Is the recommended tactic in your industry to leave an outrageous distortion, disappear when challenged and then reappear with more mis-representations, when the heat is off?

Report abuse

It has been my objective in joining this debate to show that

a) there is nothing remotely deceitful about encouraging everyone to reduce what they throw away and to reuse, recycle or compost where they can.

b) there is nothing remotely deceitful about gearing the fiscal system to prioritize recycling and reject disposal systems like incineration, which waste valuable resources

c) it IS deceitful to attempt to persuade people not to sort their recycling (#6) and say there is no point in recycling, when other EU countries recycle over TWICE as much as we do (UK barely recycles 30%; Germany recycles over 60%)

d) to show that increasing recycling not only saves energy, but that it reduces the need to mine, with all its dreadful impacts on the local populations ( see Canadian NGO, Mining Watch, miningwatch.ca or, if in a hurry, the video about Coltan mining in Congo)

e) in a world of scams it is bizarre for Ken Adams to claim, on the one hand, to be interested in ‘scams’ and honesty in public life to then (i) propagate information, which the Royal Society calls ‘mis-information’, and (ii) to be so indifferent to the biggest scam in history (Madoff)

f) Ken Adams, as can be seen from his angry EUREALIST site, is just as partial (or ‘ideological’) as myself.

Report abuse

In spite of your claims I know that it does not always work, especially when the market for my recyclable products is flat… which is right at the moment.

In regards to confrontation – it is, indeed not I who is attempting to influence others on the global warming issue. I encourage people to recycle – and have been doing this for over 50 years. But if I was trying to coerce people into the global warming club I’d use more honey and less vinegar. Just a bit of grandfatherly advice.

On one’s world view… let’s opt for a better word ” Weltanschauuing” …
A man’s philosophy is the culmination of his life’s experiences…. the translation is something like that isn’t it Huw?

So why not listen to those of us who have had much longer and vastly more complex lives than you have…..you may learn something.

Then again you may not!

Report abuse

For a specific example of this, see the Camden council website.

Camden Council ‘manages more than 134,000 tonnes of municipal waste each year, around 85,000 tonnes of which is household waste and the rest, around 49,000 tonnes, is commercial waste.’

(http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/press/2007/february/council-says-lets-talk-rubbish-with-tough-new-waste-targets.en;jsessionid=AE82EAF2C2B0D9F91E8A29F39E99AC56.node2 )

Report abuse