|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 30158
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 3:18 pm Post subject: |
 
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
If I just looked at our waste it would show supermarkets are even less of a problem that they probably are, so that's why I want some unbiased national numbers to decide what should be done nationally.
|
You mean, other than the analysis of the amount of waste per basket of shopping, you mean, the one that demonstrated considerably more from supermarkets than elsewhere? Other than the evidence given, you want other evidence that shows something else to prove an unrelated point before you'll accept the evidence given? |
|
|
|
 |
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 19588
Location: In the pond with the frogs
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
| cab wrote: |
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
If I just looked at our waste it would show supermarkets are even less of a problem that they probably are, so that's why I want some unbiased national numbers to decide what should be done nationally.
|
You mean, other than the analysis of the amount of waste per basket of shopping, you mean, the one that demonstrated considerably more from supermarkets than elsewhere? Other than the evidence given, you want other evidence that shows something else to prove an unrelated point before you'll accept the evidence given? |
We are not talking about a basket of shopping but total household rubbish. The article you originally posted, did that refer only to shopping waste or all household rubbish? |
|
|
|
|
Hairyloon
Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 2073
Location: Today I are mostly being in Sheffield.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| I posted up 11% of domestic waste is plastics. |
11% by weight I presume.
Metal and glass are generally heavier for the same size container.
How much of the rest is junk mail? |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 19588
Location: In the pond with the frogs
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
| Hairyloon wrote: |
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| I posted up 11% of domestic waste is plastics. |
11% by weight I presume.
Metal and glass are generally heavier for the same size container.
How much of the rest is junk mail? |
Yes the numbers were by weight and were domestic landfill. The Guardian article refers to total domestic rubbish so to my numbers you would also need to include all the items recycled so more paper, glass, metal etc therefore the % of plastic would go down a fair bit. It's all rather confusing. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 16788
Location: York
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Starting with a few people running supermarkets (and similar retail establishments) seems sensible to me- if the people shopping don't have the poor choice (which is itself a mis-representation- it's not like supermarkets give you a clear choice between products with more or less packaging) then they won't make the poor choice. |
More organic matter ends up in landfill than all types of plastic. That is down to people not shops |
It would be nice if you were right.
That 11% plastic also has a longer lasting effect than compostables in landfill (are those figures based on dry matter or gross weight?).
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
More paper and card, that could at least be recycled, ends up in landfill than plastic. By only talking supermarkets is ignoring the majority of the rubbish.
Yes supermarkets can help reduce waste, and I bet I could dig out plenty of examples where they are, but all I've asked is what do you do about the rest. |
I'm not ignoring other rubbish, you just asked why start with supermarkets, and I'm trying to answer;
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| Why single out supermarkets? We use them and hardly have any packaging from them. Round here you're far more likely to get a plastic bag from a farm shop or market stall than the supermarkets. |
My experience is different- yes, customers need to be able to make that choice. In most shops you can refuse to take a plastic bag home but if I take the cream cake out of the plastic box and put it on the conveyor, they would have something to say about it- the only choice you get is to not buy that item. Same with fruit & veg- in the grocers we can choose to pop the lemons in a paper bag, or a plastic bag, when they're in the supermarket you have either a poly tray with cling film, a plastic net bag or some loose. Fine if the loose ones are of the quality you require, but what if the best ones are in the poly tray?
Supermarkets have amazing influence over what we buy and eat in this country, doesn't Tesco take something like £1 in 7 or something like that? And that's only one company. People do need to make that choice but 1) that choice needs to exist in the first place and 2) supermarket buying/selling power puts them in prime position to drive that change. |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 19588
Location: In the pond with the frogs
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
| That 11% plastic also has a longer lasting effect than compostables in landfill (are those figures based on dry matter or gross weight?). |
Yes most of the plastics will stay in the ground longer but the organic matter will produce methane, thus adding to the greenhouse gasses and possibly ensuring we don't need to worry about the plastic as we won't be here.
I still don't understand what supermarkets have to do with the rest (majority) of our waste, unless you are expecting them to teach people how to run their lives. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 16788
Location: York
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| That 11% plastic also has a longer lasting effect than compostables in landfill (are those figures based on dry matter or gross weight?). |
Yes most of the plastics will stay in the ground longer but the organic matter will produce methane, thus adding to the greenhouse gasses and possibly ensuring we don't need to worry about the plastic as we won't be here.
I still don't understand what supermarkets have to do with the rest (majority) of our waste, unless you are expecting them to teach people how to run their lives. |
I'll take it then that it is based upon gross weight- which makes the 11% more.
Teach people how to run their lives? Yes, and they do it very well so lets capitalise upon that influence. |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 19588
Location: In the pond with the frogs
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
I'll take it then that it is based upon gross weight- which makes the 11% more.
Teach people how to run their lives? Yes, and they do it very well so lets capitalise upon that influence. |
You've lost me on the weight comment. At least I understand where you're coming from about the supermarkets now. I'll agree to disagree on it as I'm not convinced that passing responsibility for education to supermarkets rather than government or, preferably, to people is the right thing to do. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 16788
Location: York
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
I'll take it then that it is based upon gross weight- which makes the 11% more.
Teach people how to run their lives? Yes, and they do it very well so lets capitalise upon that influence. |
You've lost me on the weight comment. At least I understand where you're coming from about the supermarkets now. I'll agree to disagree on it as I'm not convinced that passing responsibility for education to supermarkets rather than government or, preferably, to people is the right thing to do. |
I've lost you on the supermarkets bit too, it has nothing to do with passing responsibility (just as it has nothing to do with absolving responsibility) and everything to do with what they are good at, and making the most of that. It has nothing to do with 'supermarket bashing' either.
The weight comment is to do with dry matter- what isn't dry matter is water. A lot of food waste is water whereas very little of glass, plastic, cardboard etc is water. I was just curious whether the figures took account of this or not. |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 19588
Location: In the pond with the frogs
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
I'll take it then that it is based upon gross weight- which makes the 11% more.
Teach people how to run their lives? Yes, and they do it very well so lets capitalise upon that influence. |
You've lost me on the weight comment. At least I understand where you're coming from about the supermarkets now. I'll agree to disagree on it as I'm not convinced that passing responsibility for education to supermarkets rather than government or, preferably, to people is the right thing to do. |
I've lost you on the supermarkets bit too, it has nothing to do with passing responsibility (just as it has nothing to do with absolving responsibility) and everything to do with what they are good at, and making the most of that. It has nothing to do with 'supermarket bashing' either.
The weight comment is to do with dry matter- what isn't dry matter is water. A lot of food waste is water whereas very little of glass, plastic, cardboard etc is water. I was just curious whether the figures took account of this or not. |
Then we go back to my question of what percentage of domestic rubbish is from supermarkets and what do you do about the rest? Something like pay per throw covers all domestic waste. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 16788
Location: York
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
I'll take it then that it is based upon gross weight- which makes the 11% more.
Teach people how to run their lives? Yes, and they do it very well so lets capitalise upon that influence. |
You've lost me on the weight comment. At least I understand where you're coming from about the supermarkets now. I'll agree to disagree on it as I'm not convinced that passing responsibility for education to supermarkets rather than government or, preferably, to people is the right thing to do. |
I've lost you on the supermarkets bit too, it has nothing to do with passing responsibility (just as it has nothing to do with absolving responsibility) and everything to do with what they are good at, and making the most of that. It has nothing to do with 'supermarket bashing' either.
The weight comment is to do with dry matter- what isn't dry matter is water. A lot of food waste is water whereas very little of glass, plastic, cardboard etc is water. I was just curious whether the figures took account of this or not. |
Then we go back to my question of what percentage of domestic rubbish is from supermarkets and what do you do about the rest? Something like pay per throw covers all domestic waste. |
10.7 million tonnes of packaging [40% is 4.28 million tonnes] versus 28 million tonnes total waste, just over half of which goes to landfill, which leaves about 10 million tonnes, so what's that, about 30% of landfill is non-recyclables from supermarkets?
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1896708 |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 30158
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
| Nick wrote: |
No idea how old that article is, but the production companies are claiming that RFID tags can now be considered biodegradable. Sure, there are barriers, but certainly there's a future for such labels in tracability. |
Biodegradable is not the same as recyclable; I was talking to a chap who has been working on printable RFID for some time about the constituents therein only yesterday, and it was his view that the cost of recycling plastic wrappers incorporating such RFID tags would be prohibitive, and that the presence of such inks on paper and card would seriously restrict what those materials could be recycled for. |
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 30158
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
We are not talking about a basket of shopping but total household rubbish. The article you originally posted, did that refer only to shopping waste or all household rubbish? |
No, with regard to supermarkets we're talking about finding a good place to start in reducing the amount of domestic refuse produced, not the total amount of domestic waste. Again, you're asking for data supporting a point that no one has sought to make, and which is not relevant to points that people have made. |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 19588
Location: In the pond with the frogs
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
10.7 million tonnes of packaging [40% is 4.28 million tonnes] versus 28 million tonnes total waste, just over half of which goes to landfill, which leaves about 10 million tonnes, so what's that, about 30% of landfill is non-recyclables from supermarkets?
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1896708 |
You link doesn't show that. It says "28 million tonnes of waste a year, just over half of which is sent to landfill" and "40% of supermarket packaging cannot be easily recycled" but you have wrongly assumed the 28 million is all produced by supermarkets.
You have assumed the 10.7 million tonnes of packaging is all from supermarkets, it appears it's a total amount from all sources.
Even so, your calculations show the majority, 70%, of domestic rubbish isn't non-recyclables from supermarkets. So, again, what do you propose to do about that?
Your link does show that supermarkets are tackling the problem though. Which seems to be more than councils and people are doing. |
|
|
|
|
Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 19588
Location: In the pond with the frogs
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
| cab wrote: |
| Treacodactyl wrote: |
We are not talking about a basket of shopping but total household rubbish. The article you originally posted, did that refer only to shopping waste or all household rubbish? |
No, with regard to supermarkets we're talking about finding a good place to start in reducing the amount of domestic refuse produced, not the total amount of domestic waste. Again, you're asking for data supporting a point that no one has sought to make, and which is not relevant to points that people have made. |
So you agree the article you posted to start the thread is refering to total domestic waste? Yes.
I have agreed that you can talk to supermarkets, and as I'm sure you'd agree this is already being done.
But as the article refers to total domestic waste it is logical to want to know where that waste comes from before reaching conclusions, don't you think that is wise?
What you have failed to say is what do you propose to do about all the waste not produced by supermarkets or waste that is down to people, i.e. food waste. What do you propose? |
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts