Jump to content

More uselessness from DBC


Newsdesk

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, manxfisherman said:

They landfill the glass? That's mental. I've used the 'eco sand' for block paving, it's good for that job, holds the blocks really well, deals with water better than sand, saves quarrying. I'm really surprised to hear it.

I wouldn't believe everything some random on a forum says.

The statistics on island recycling are readily available should you choose to look.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Raffles said:

You're wrong.

Reducing bin collections has been shown over and over again to increase recycling. That's why councils all over the UK have done it and why DBC are following suit.

https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/less-rubbish-collection-means-more-recycling-shows-research/

Over 40% of the waste burned in the EFWP is recyclable, including a lot of aluminium and other materials that are valuable. 

DBC sell the recycling and save on EFWP fees, meaning it's win win for ratepayers. 

What you've posted is quite significant there. Does that mean the motivation is financial rather than environmental ? Would it be better to advertise it as "saving money for ratepayers" rather than "saving the planet" then?

As you'd expect, giving people no other option does increase recycling. You'll note that I didn't say that it wouldn't increase it. I highlighted that it also increases negative behaviour such as fly-tipping and open waste burning, as studies have shown, so it has downsides too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Raffles said:

I wouldn't believe everything some random on a forum says.

The statistics on island recycling are readily available should you choose to look.

Hi raffles, why don't you pop to the quarry for a look? If you don't believe me.  X 

P.s recycling is my business.  Not so random. 😁

Edited by Turtleish
Extra bit
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raffles said:

Ridiculous comment. Guided carefully? I just googled Douglas bin collections and found all the information within seconds. I don't even live in Douglas but know all about the reduction in bin collections because it's been all over the news.

Ignoring the fact that as a non-resident you're not looking for the same information (ie how it affects your particular street), you're making the same error as we've had, for example, in discussions about road signage.  Even if your assessment of the information is correct[1], not everyone will have the initiative, access, intelligence, literacy skills, confidence or whatever to do the same.  Public information shouldn't be aimed at the most aware part of the population or even at the 'average' person, it should produced so that 99% (or at least high nineties) of people can understand and use it.

[1]  And let's face it we had enough people absolutely certain about how, say, the roundels should be negotiated, who then disagreed violently with each other about what the 'obvious' solution was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Bastard said:

I'd agree, the information is readily available. But I'm not sure that this is non-adult behaviour. A weekly bin collection is not unreasonable for a local authority - indeed it's one of the main reasons that residents pay rates to the local authority, and one of its main functions.

I'm an advocate for environmentalism, but also a realist. The recycling dynamic doesn't work in the way you think. People work on least-effort where they're not adequately motivated, which is why centralised recycling schemes work better. A fair number of residents will now be either burning their waste (recyclables and all), fly-tipping it, dumping it in other people's bins, or taking it down to the civic amenity site, which is simply moving the problem, rather than resolving it. Making it difficult to dispose of your waste doesn't simply encourage people to recycle, it encourages them to find a way to solve the problem, and that might not be an ethical, green way. Waste should be incinerated at the incinerator, with the filters to manage the toxic emissions, rather than being dumped out of chimneys and in galvanised B&Q Incinerators around Douglas.

A bin collection round is far more fuel-efficient and generates lower emissions than hundreds of residents making trips to the amenity site, where the waste is amalgamated and moved to the incinerator in a similar way to the bin collections.

Although the "recycle now" site makes bold assertions about  "saving the planet" as a motivation, it's not clear how this is to be done. The UK as a whole makes up just over 1% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and the IOM a tiny fraction of that. Political pressure is being applied by various groups to force the IOM to adhere to a reduced carbon dioxide "budget", but even if the IOM reduced its carbon dioxide emissions to zero, the net effect on global temperature rise would also be zero. This isn't "saving the planet".

Recycling on a small island is not as efficient as you think. According to the "recycle now" pages, the only local recycling is for glass, which is ground up for road surfacing. everything else is shipped to the UK, and transported by road to various operators around the UK from where it disappears into a supply chain.

A recent experiment in the UK tracked soft plastics that were given to a reputable recycling scheme run by Tesco. The "recycled" items passed through a number of handlers and dealers and made long journeys over Europe. One of the tracked plastic items ended up in Poland, where it was incinerated for heat generation at a cement plant. Another item was shipped to Turkey, where it was dumped in an illegal landfill. It would be interesting to run a similar experiment with IOM recyclables.  

And add to that vehicle tyres and some oils.... most of which are shipped to Turkey also for heat generation in cement plants.

I have long said that we should be putting as much as is combustible in the EfW plant. Having recycling & an EfW makes no sense. In fact it's bonkers.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has taken three years for that Professor to come to the conclusion we were not doing enough to battle climate years….now he has retired and no doubt some other bearded wonder will be appointed to form a committee to come up with a cunning stunt for us to lead the world climate change wise.   Meanwhile Australia is opening up coal mines, China is cracking on polluting as is India etc, etc.    The 42 million quid is disappearing more rapidly than any iceberg and we will end up so cold this Winter the polar bears could be accommodated in the Wild Life Park.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very  little of that 42 mil has been spent, perhaps that is not the best use of the fund??? It is much easier for a Govt employee to be critical after leaving the \govt, just like any employee public or private!!!

I think there is a re-think of the fund and it's goals underway???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kopek said:

Very  little of that 42 mil has been spent, perhaps that is not the best use of the fund??? It is much easier for a Govt employee to be critical after leaving the \govt, just like any employee public or private!!!

I think there is a re-think of the fund and it's goals underway???

whats left should be spend on healthcare , none of this waste of time green shit

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...