You Will Have Kerb-side Re-cycling

[Albert Tatlock]

No supermarket forces you to buy their wares at gunpoint. You, as a consumer, can make the choice. It's amusing that you bleat about regulation forcing pubs to ban smoking, but are perfectly happy for supermarkets to be regulated.

That's a very tenuous link.

 

My point is that we should be placing this effort on supermarkets that generate the waste, not Joe Public, and, yes, as consumers we have the right to insist that we are not inconvenienced or penalised by them. If countries are to be fined £millions for not meeting EU recycling targets, then the blame should be placed where it actually belongs IMO.

 

We should also be looking at company sorting-technologies such as this - designed to sort and process waste - which could be an expansion on the current incinerator.

[Dudley Butt]

I don’t come on the forums to preach, so please forgive me, but this is a great chance to give out some facts. And dog collars are quite smart, in the right context…

 

Costs – Not yet finalised - £500,000 is a very broad estimate for a start up, which will require the purchase of specialist vehicles. This is all subject to finance being approved by Tynwald. If that happens, there will be Government funded kerbside recycling for Douglas, Braddan and Onchan for three years. In that time we need to find a way to finance kerbside Island wide. With proper economies and co-operation from Local Authorities, it is possible, just, to add kerbside collection to ordinary waste collection at little extra cost. That is still to be sorted out.

 

A Waste Warden? No. Carrot rather than stick is better – we aim to make kerbside recycling as simple as easy as possible to get a greater take up. A good percentage recycle automatically, we need the rest to be converted. There will always be a small hardcore who won’t make the effort. The simpler it is, the more likely they will make that effort.

 

Incinerator – None, repeat none, of the present recyclate you put in the bring banks goes in the incinerator. The paper goes to Shotton in North Wales, where it is recycled, and comes back on a wagon to provide newsprint for IOM Newspapers. A closed loop of recycling, the best possible. Usually that is cost neutral, and for the last few weeks, a very small profit has been made.

 

Aluminium cans are recycled, with cost benefit. Glass is taken to Corletts at Peel, where it is recycled – as “sand” for paving blocks and as “ecosand” for paviour bedding. Not the best way to recycle glass, but better than nothing. There is value in glass if sorted into colours, and that is the aim.

 

Taking glass and cans out of the incinerator stream will actually increase the calorific value of the rest of the waste going through the plant.

 

UK Waste Standards - No pressure on us here from those, in fact we are ahead of the game, as their pressure is heavy fines, increasing each year for using Landfill. We stopped using landfill for domestic waste once the Energy From Waste plant was opened We are ahead in that area, but behind in kerbside recycling.

 

We are doing it because it is the right thing to do and it is time we caught up with the rest of the world.

 

Methods – There is no set method yet sorted out – it will depend on the type of street, type of housing, routes, etc. There is no perfect way, but it is not rocket science and works with varying success nearly everywhere else in the world. Kerbside sort by operatives is the preferred way, but may not be possible in every street. Douglas, Onchan and Braddan are working together with us to find out the best routes and methods.

 

After three years we hope to roll it out to most of the rest of the Island, and as time goes on, to increase the types of waste that can be recycled. We also need to build up an infrastructure to deal with what is collected, and ethical destinations to send it to.

 

We need to re-use more, and waste less. Kerbside collection will be a constant reminder of that to us.

 

It needs money, but with efficiencies, it should cost less than £25 per household per year. I think that is a price worth paying.

 

\dog collar off

[ai_Droid]

We need to re-use more, and waste less. Kerbside collection will be a constant reminder of that to us.

It needs money, but with efficiencies, it should cost less than £25 per household per year. I think that is a price worth paying.

\dog collar off

 

Fully agree, and well done. What can we do to support the budgeting for this, will any letter writing to mhk's help?

[ai_Droid]

That's a very tenuous link.

 

My point is that we should be placing this effort on supermarkets that generate the waste, not Joe Public, and, yes, as consumers we have the right to insist that we are not inconvenienced or penalised by them. If countries are to be fined £millions for not meeting EU recycling targets, then the blame should be placed where it actually belongs IMO.

 

We should also be looking at company sorting-technologies such as this - designed to sort and process waste - which could be an expansion on the current incinerator.

 

Once again putting the responsibility with the creators of the waste:

 

- reduces their waste

- influences their buying

- is cheaper

- is more environmentally frendly

 

This is by far the best way.

[Dudley Butt]

Before I go and deal with the excitement that is the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Amendment) Bill, can I just agree with Albert.

 

Albert’s point about food waste – very valid. Our “bin research” shows that 24% of our domestic waste is unused food. Blame “two for one” supermarket offers, or too strict adherence to sell-by dates, whatever, it seems to be the result of our affluence. Apparently we can afford to throw away an awful lot of uneaten and uncooked food.

 

Whoever invented the refrigerator has a lot to answer for.

[mama]

\dog collar off

 

if I were a member of the Government ,I'd avoid all mention of a dog collar in case somebody neutered me.

 

Now there's a thought. Where to the vets send those bits to be disposed off?

[Mission]

I think the kerbside collection is a great idea and one that I would fully support. That said, being a Ramsey resident, I'd rather not wait another 3 years to start recycling everything. If kerbside can't be implemented any sooner for the rest of the island, is it not at the very least feasable for all of the recycling options to be available at the various static sites around the island (IE Shoprite carpark, Ramsey). You can recycle paper and glass there but not plastics or compostable waste.

[VinnieK]

Similarly, technology exists for sorting waste at the sorting/collection plant

 

Technology exists for sorting waste, but the procedure is sufficiently complicated to necessitate a dedicated facility. You can purpose build a combined recovery and recycling plant, but it's much more difficult to convert a standard recycling plant into one that also sorts waste. In either case, the expense, both in construction and maintenance is considerable, so the consumer is still going to "pay", albeit this way through tax hikes instead of simply having to remember to throw different kinds of rubbish into different bins.

 

as for washing tin cans - FFS! how much energy is that going to waste across the island?

 

They're still going to have to be washed prior to the recycling process, either at home, or in bulk at the plant, so that energy is going to be used up by the same job one way or another. Also, it requires another link in the chain of processes carried out at the plant, which makes it more expensive.

 

There really is no technological excuse for unnecessary and non-biodegradable packaging these days, it's all down to lazy business and passing the problem (and work) onto Joe Public.

 

It's more or less true that there's no technological excuse for non-biodegradable packaging, and I agree that more should be done to encourage businesses to use it more, but that's too simple an argument, as is the idea that it's all down to "lazy business". Biodegradable packaging is typically more expensive than current methods, and often less effective at providing a long term barrier against moisture and air. The result of rolling out such packaging (which is still being developed) will be increased costs and volume of spoilage for the company, which necessarily translates as higher prices being passed on to the consumer. In short, the problem is stilled passed onto Joe Public, albeit in a different form.

[Mr. Sausages]

Whoever invented the refrigerator has a lot to answer for.

 

Refridgerators are the cause of the breakdown in our society. If nobody had fridges then people would have to go food shopping every day. The local communities & economies would flourish, with housewives having daily meetings at the local butchers. The family would have to sit down and eat together every night. The divorce and crime rates would plummet. There'd be no chavs. It's all because of the cursed fridge.

[Albert Tatlock]

Technology exists for sorting waste, but the procedure is sufficiently complicated to necessitate a dedicated facility. You can purpose build a combined recovery and recycling plant, but it's much more difficult to convert a standard recycling plant into one that also sorts waste. In either case, the expense, both in construction and maintenance is considerable, so the consumer is still going to "pay", albeit this way through tax hikes instead of simply having to remember to throw different kinds of rubbish into different bins.

I'd like to see them go the machine route. Regardless of what people think, there will always be people who 'can't be bothered' or make mistakes, and, by their actions, will pollute the 'sorted' waste anyway. So some sorting will inevitably still have to take place. Personally, I'd rather this be done by a machine rather than by me wasting my time washing tins and bottles etc. and having to wade through my rubbish. Plastics and other materials that arrive for recycling at a recycling plant still have to go through a process that removes all of the impurities anyway.

They're still going to have to be washed prior to the recycling process, either at home, or in bulk at the plant, so that energy is going to be used up by the same job one way or another. Also, it requires another link in the chain of processes carried out at the plant, which makes it more expensive.

It is more efficient to 'wash' in bulk than it is for individual households to do it. Also the water can be filtered, cycled, and used again in the plant - and heated by the plant.

It's more or less true that there's no technological excuse for non-biodegradable packaging, and I agree that more should be done to encourage businesses to use it more, but that's too simple an argument, as is the idea that it's all down to "lazy business". Biodegradable packaging is typically more expensive than current methods, and often less effective at providing a long term barrier against moisture and air. The result of rolling out such packaging (which is still being developed) will be increased costs and volume of spoilage for the company, which necessarily translates as higher prices being passed on to the consumer. In short, the problem is stilled passed onto Joe Public, albeit in a different form.

The problem will always be passed onto Joe Public. Though I'd rather my '£25 a year' went on a machine, and that the difference to pay for such a machine was made up by taxing non-biodegradable packaged products - allowing consumers the pressure to vote with their feet - thus encouraging supermarkets to respond and change more quickly. No-one is forcing supermarkets to change fast enough at present.

 

With current material science it is perfectly possible to change to perfectly functional bio-degradable packaging for all current supermarket products. However, this requires investment, which the supermarkets and suppliers are not yet doing fast enough, and no one is pushing them to do so strongly enough. These supermarkets have made billions from Joe Public, and it's about time they were held to account for this problem (which they have created the bulk of) which affects us all - and they should be made to change.

 

Introducing these collection schemes just puts this off from happening and is a temporary smoke screen to satisfy those environmentalists who want something to happen now - instead of looking at the real issues and how this should be dealt with in the long term. When you look at most of the packaging, major percentages of it can't be recycled anyway.

 

Personally, I would support any supermarket that insists on a bio-degradable approach. I would happily pay £25 or more a year just as long as I didn't need to delve in a two day old stinking-bin, just because I forgot I'd dumped a milk bottle in there by mistake.

 

Things go in a bin for a reason, usually a potentially smelly and/or unhealthy reason. Hmmmm....MRSA and other superbugs can be found in rubbish bins - now there's a study that might show some interesting results and a potential correllation between the domestic sorting of rubbish (kerbside sorting and 'hands in bins') and MRSA infection rates - I'd bet:

 

[spock]

A good percentage recycle automatically, we need the rest to be converted. There will always be a small hardcore who won't make the effort.

 

So there we have it, in all the plans nothing is proposed as a sanction if you don't sort for re-cycling - clearly it hasn't yet registered that observation shows for the most part humanity works on greed and self benefit - i.e. "what is in it for me?" - I don't see what's in it for those who sort (its going to cost some £25 per household per year) and without a financial penalty it won't matter if you don't sort.

Hasn't Mr Butt learnt that during his years in law enforcement what the purpose of fines are?

[Albert Tatlock]

I don't see what's in it for those who sort (its going to cost some £25 per household per year) and without a financial penalty it won't matter if you don't sort.

Well I'm all for dumping it all in space - plenty of room there. Perhaps you could advise us Mr Spock - you must have done plenty of dumps in space.

[Moghrey Mie]

No supermarket forces you to buy their wares at gunpoint. You, as a consumer, can make the choice. It's amusing that you bleat about regulation forcing pubs to ban smoking, but are perfectly happy for supermarkets to be regulated.

That's a very tenuous link.

 

My point is that we should be placing this effort on supermarkets that generate the waste, not Joe Public, and, yes, as consumers we have the right to insist that we are not inconvenienced or penalised by them. If countries are to be fined £millions for not meeting EU recycling targets, then the blame should be placed where it actually belongs IMO.

 

We should also be looking at company sorting-technologies such as this - designed to sort and process waste - which could be an expansion on the current incinerator.

 

 

There's no point in mixing things together if you are going to separate them later.

Why not keep them separate from the beginning?

Most people can tell the difference between plastic, metals and glass.

[cheeky boy]

I have lately taken to leaving packaging at the checkout, not everything, just some of the more annoying ones

 

Particularly those thick plastic blister packs which are ten times bigger than the object inside

[Albert Tatlock]

I have lately taken to leaving packaging at the checkout, not everything, just some of the more annoying ones

 

Particularly those thick plastic blister packs which are ten times bigger than the object inside

...and the reaction was?