Two-lane Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 46 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: because no one has bothered to spend five seconds to tie a knot in the top of the bag. Because the bin bags are so full it is not possible to tie a knot at the top. Answer - use more plastic bags. Result - more use of plastic. Answer - use paper bags. Result - more trees get cut down. Answer - ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 minute ago, Two-lane said: Because the bin bags are so full it is not possible to tie a knot at the top. Answer - use more plastic bags. Result - more use of plastic. Answer - use paper bags. Result - more trees get cut down. Answer - ... No, just make sure you recycle everything you can, tie a knot in the top of the bin bag and use another one if need be. It really isn't hard, but people are making 'a stand' on what they see as a matter of principle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Two-lane said: 56 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: because no one has bothered to spend five seconds to tie a knot in the top of the bag. Because the bin bags are so full it is not possible to tie a knot at the top. Answer - use more plastic bags. Result - more use of plastic. Answer - use paper bags. Result - more trees get cut down. Answer - ... Because if you don’t close the bag, there’s more chance of the contents spilling out and blowing around. Result - better photographs for posting on social media; and more to complain about, also on social media. Trebles all round! Edited January 1, 2023 by Jarndyce Punctuation 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 minute ago, Two-lane said: Because the bin bags are so full it is not possible to tie a knot at the top. Answer - use more plastic bags. Result - more use of plastic. Answer - use paper bags. Result - more trees get cut down. Answer - ... Don't be silly. The extra amount of plastic used as a result of in filling a bin bag 90% rather than 110% is minimal. Not to mention the fact that bag probably contains 100 times the weight of plastic as the bag is. The way that plastic bags are fetishised as the ultimate evil while ignoring all other forms of plastic packaging is one of the dafter forms of greenwash virtue-signalling. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steady Eddie Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 2 hours ago, Happier diner said: Maybe the staff at the efw plant will snap these up and turn the waste into electricity instead of seeing it blown all over the island and out to sea. I’m guessing that the real reason (not this fake recycling reason) that it doesn’t go to the EFW plant as rubbish is simply the EFW gate fees. Which is all this seems to be about and little else. For example I lent my van to a mate who had a load of cardboard to go to the tip the other day. He got to the tip and the cardboard recycler was full so the tip guy said just throw it into the burnables pile as they won’t be emptying the recycling bin until the new year. So so far rather than just taking his rubbish away and burning it this top class “recycling” initiative has resulted in my mate driving from Douglas to Braddan in his car to pick up my van, to burn diesel driving my van back to his own house, to pick up a load of cardboard that he drove to the tip that ended up being burned. So that he could then drive back to my house and then drive home again. It does really make you wonder what element of effective recycling was achieved by any of the above. 1 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, Steady Eddie said: I’m guessing that the real reason (not this fake recycling reason) that it doesn’t go to the EFW plant as rubbish is simply the EFW gate fees. Which is all this seems to be about and little else. For example I lent my van to a mate who had a load of cardboard to go to the tip the other day. He got to the tip and the cardboard recycler was full so the tip guy said just throw it into the burnables pile as they won’t be emptying the recycling bin until the new year. So so far rather than just taking his rubbish away and burning it this top class “recycling” initiative has resulted in my mate driving from Douglas to Braddan in his car to pick up my van, to burn diesel driving my van back to his own house, to pick up a load of cardboard that he drove to the tip that ended up being burned. So that he could then drive back to my house and then drive home again. It does really make you wonder what element of effective recycling was achieved by any of the above. Perhaps it is both. Others have said the EFW contract should be reviewed. If it is generating 10% of the island's electricy you have to wonder why the gate fees are so high. You would think there would be no fee for the right (high calorific value and dry) rubbish and a charge made for the not so good rubbish. Do we know the various calorific values of recyclables? Glass and tin you can't burn, but plastic and paper/cardboard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steady Eddie Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 43 minutes ago, Gladys said: Perhaps it is both. Others have said the EFW contract should be reviewed. If it is generating 10% of the island's electricy you have to wonder why the gate fees are so high. That gate fees are so high as it probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 minute ago, Steady Eddie said: That gate fees are so high as it probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place. We have to work with what we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steady Eddie Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 Just now, Gladys said: We have to work with what we have. So now you're totally changing your argument. It’s either about gate fees or it isn’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 54 minutes ago, Gladys said: Do we know the various calorific values of recyclables? Glass and tin you can't burn, but plastic and paper/cardboard? Do they? I'd imagine that calorific values is the last thing on their minds. Steadward Edward has a point. I've heard that the gate fees are extortionate. Maybe the service could be reviewed, but then what? What's in the contract, does anyone know? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 Just now, quilp said: Do they? I'd imagine that calorific values is the last thing on their minds. Steadward Edward has a point. I've heard that the gate fees are extortionate. Maybe the service could be reviewed, but then what? What's in the contract, does anyone know? They're still paying for building and maintaining the damn thing...as well as all the ongoing staff costs. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 8 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said: So now you're totally changing your argument. It’s either about gate fees or it isn’t. No, I can see it being about both. Whether or not the incinerator should be there is irrelevant. It is, so we have to deal with it. I can see one reason being to reduce gate fees (but you have to question why they are so high) and if given the choice of paying £X per ton to burn stuff, whereas getting £Y per ton to recycle, on pure maths the answer is clear. When you add that to a desire to increase recycling for environmental reasons (reducing the need to extract more and more petroleum) than it seems like a no-brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 minute ago, quilp said: Do they? I'd imagine that calorific values is the last thing on their minds. Steadward Edward has a point. I've heard that the gate fees are extortionate. Maybe the service could be reviewed, but then what? What's in the contract, does anyone know? It will be just like the gas, our clowns will have agreed to certain levels of profit. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 3 minutes ago, quilp said: Do they? I'd imagine that calorific values is the last thing on their minds. Steadward Edward has a point. I've heard that the gate fees are extortionate. Maybe the service could be reviewed, but then what? What's in the contract, does anyone know? I agree, but the argument seems to be the recycling is driven either by reducing the gate fees paid or due to an environmental desire and it cannot be both. I think, very easily, it can be both. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 minute ago, Gladys said: I agree, but the argument seems to be the recycling is driven either by reducing the gate fees paid or due to an environmental desire and it cannot be both. I think, very easily, it can be both. It probably could be...but only if we had something like 3 times the current population. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.