Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
cab

1 in 3 spent on waste

OF every 3 of council tax collected, alledgedly 1 goes on collection, disposal and recycling.

Story here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/11/council-tax-spending-rubbish

Seems to me that the attitude remains crazy; we concentrate on 'recycle' and ignore 'reduce, reuse'.
Treacodactyl

So that's 1 in 12 the councils have to spend, as most of their money doesn't come from council tax. Even so are the numbers correct as it doesn't seem to match up at all with the literature we get sent from our council? They say 18% so how do they get 1:3, isn't that 1:5?

I've always thought the refuse costs were too cheap to reflect what happens to the waste.
bagpuss

I guess the key would be government intiatives to encourage reuse

How difficult would it be to convince say wine makers to only use 3 or 4 different bottles so they could be returned (for a small monetary reward) and reused

Similarly how difficult would it be to get supermarkets to allow dry goods to be put into brought in containers rather than selling them in plastic bags
RichardW

Recycle does not need large changes to how we live, reduce & reuse does. Its that simple.

People WONT change till forced to do so.
bagpuss

RichardW wrote:
Recycle does not need large changes to how we live, reduce & reuse does. Its that simple.

People WONT change till forced to do so.


Which of course means the government and the supermarkets need to force change
12Bore

bagpuss wrote:
I guess the key would be government intiatives to encourage reuse

How difficult would it be to convince say wine makers to only use 3 or 4 different bottles so they could be returned (for a small monetary reward) and reused

Similarly how difficult would it be to get supermarkets to allow dry goods to be put into brought in containers rather than selling them in plastic bags


Nothing to do with "greeness", but I believe that certain supermarkets are leaning on wine producers to use more 500ml bottles, so that they can sell them a 3 for 10 and make more profit!
sean

bagpuss wrote:


How difficult would it be to convince say wine makers to only use 3 or 4 different bottles so they could be returned (for a small monetary reward) and reused



Errm, quite difficult. You can't put an AC/DOC/DOCG/any other Quality Wine Produced in a Specific Area label on the bottle unless it's bottled at source. So you'd have to ship all the empties back to wherever.
bagpuss

sean wrote:
bagpuss wrote:


How difficult would it be to convince say wine makers to only use 3 or 4 different bottles so they could be returned (for a small monetary reward) and reused



Errm, quite difficult. You can't put an AC/DOC/DOCG/any other Quality Wine Produced in a Specific Area label on the bottle unless it's bottled at source. So you'd have to ship all the empties back to wherever.


Ah, didn't know that, guess it makes sense though

I guess if all wine companies used the same bottles though presumably there could be a certain amount of reuse inside a country and getting wine bottles from the UK to at least France or Spain surely wouldn't be that expensive or carbon hungry
Behemoth

Week five of the binmen's strike - the public start to appreciate the service......

...it's getting a bit ripe and the rats are getting bolder. Lovely. No need to travel to Yorvik for the old world experience.
Treacodactyl

bagpuss wrote:
RichardW wrote:
Recycle does not need large changes to how we live, reduce & reuse does. Its that simple.

People WONT change till forced to do so.


Which of course means the government and the supermarkets need to force change


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. I also notice from the report Cambridge City Council spent the most on waste and I thought Cambridge was particularly blessed with local shops and markets.

I think it's mainly down to people and I think if you charged for waste collection directly that would do the most. That's why I was very surprised by the numbers in the report, it suggests you could slash over 500 from the average council tax bills and then charge a fair bit per bag or bin of rubbish. When I looked at our council the number was under 100.
bagpuss

Treacodactyl wrote:

Why single out supermarkets?



I think at least 50% of our non compostable/non reusable waste comes from supermarket bought food

Quote:

I think it's mainly down to people and I think if you charged for waste collection directly that would do the most. That's why I was very surprised by the numbers in the report, it suggests you could slash over 500 from the average council tax bills and then charge a fair bit per bag or bin of rubbish. When I looked at our council the number was under 100.


The problem you would need to solve if you started charging people per quanity (be it weight or volume) is how to ensure people don't fly tip and pay for their own waste and not anyone elses and neither of these are easier problems

If you started at the other end, ie where at least a significant amount of the waste starts then it might be easier to reduce the output
cab

bagpuss wrote:

Ah, didn't know that, guess it makes sense though

I guess if all wine companies used the same bottles though presumably there could be a certain amount of reuse inside a country and getting wine bottles from the UK to at least France or Spain surely wouldn't be that expensive or carbon hungry


Or just dumping the whole 'bottled at source' fiasco as the wasteful and inefficient process that it is. But, yes, less sorts of bottles and jars for easy re-use is bleeding obvious, yet it doesn't happen.
Nick

bagpuss wrote:


The problem you would need to solve if you started charging people per quanity (be it weight or volume) is how to ensure people don't fly tip and pay for their own waste and not anyone elses and neither of these are easier problems

If you started at the other end, ie where at least a significant amount of the waste starts then it might be easier to reduce the output


RFID tags printed in the wrappers, and linked to card purchases could solve almost all of this at a swipe, for almost no cost. You can link a package to a card holder.
sean

cab wrote:


Or just dumping the whole 'bottled at source' fiasco as the wasteful and inefficient process that it is.


It could probably be changed/replaced by some other tracking method nowadays. At the time it made a big difference to making sure that bottles contained what they said they did. Hence the collapse of the North African wine industry.
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:

Why single out supermarkets?


Because they dominate British retail in an unmatched and unprecedented way, hence their packaging overwhelming dominates refuse.

Quote:
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. I also notice from the report Cambridge City Council spent the most on waste and I thought Cambridge was particularly blessed with local shops and markets.


Its not particularly blessed, but it does have good provision. I often notice good local produce in many towns that I visit, even those where people complain that there isn't any.

Cambridge spends a lot on waste because its up near the top (if not at the top) of authorities in the UK for recycling, where it has invested heavily. Nothing wrong with recycling, but it needs to be more widely understood that to recycle is the third best option, behind reduce and reuse. My main criticism of Cambridge is that it heavily invests in recycling without even publicising or discussing reducing or reusing.
Treacodactyl

bagpuss wrote:
I think at least 50% of our non compostable/non reusable waste comes from supermarket bought food


Do you have a link for that, just doesn't sound right if you think about what people throw away.

As for the problems with charging there doesn't seem to be anything that's not been done elsewhere or that couldn't be solved with some of the money saved.
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:

As for the problems with charging there doesn't seem to be anything that's not been done elsewhere or that couldn't be solved with some of the money saved.


How would you spend a proportion of that money to combat problems with fly tipping?
cab

sean wrote:

It could probably be changed/replaced by some other tracking method nowadays. At the time it made a big difference to making sure that bottles contained what they said they did. Hence the collapse of the North African wine industry.


Should be relatively straight forward to prevent such fraud these days.

I strongly suspect it won't happen because of simple protectionism in wine producing countries/regions.
bagpuss

Treacodactyl wrote:
bagpuss wrote:
I think at least 50% of our non compostable/non reusable waste comes from supermarket bought food


Do you have a link for that, just doesn't sound right if you think about what people throw away.


No thats a number I pulled from a guess based on what we throw away at home hence me saying our waste

We probably put out between 1 and 2 bags of rubbish a week and the majority of that is from the kitchen which means the majority of the waste comes from the supermarket. I decided on 50% as probably one a month we do a big tidy which results in 2 or 3 bags of rubbish from elsewhere in the house which is less likely to be from the supermarket
Treacodactyl

bagpuss wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:
bagpuss wrote:
I think at least 50% of our non compostable/non reusable waste comes from supermarket bought food


Do you have a link for that, just doesn't sound right if you think about what people throw away.


No thats a number I pulled from a guess based on what we throw away at home hence me saying our waste

We probably put out between 1 and 2 bags of rubbish a week and the majority of that is from the kitchen which means the majority of the waste comes from the supermarket. I decided on 50% as probably one a month we do a big tidy which results in 2 or 3 bags of rubbish from elsewhere in the house which is less likely to be from the supermarket


I think that proves my point then. We use supermarkets but probably only have one small carrier bag every two weeks of rubbish packaging from them. So, it's down to what people buy, from whereever, rather than the shops.
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:

I think that proves my point then. We use supermarkets but probably only have one small carrier bag every two weeks of rubbish packaging from them. So, it's down to what people buy, from whereever, rather than the shops.


And where people buy from is overwhelmingly from supermarkets, meaning that concentrating on supermarkets is sensible.
bagpuss

cab wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:

I think that proves my point then. We use supermarkets but probably only have one small carrier bag every two weeks of rubbish packaging from them. So, it's down to what people buy, from whereever, rather than the shops.


And where people buy from is overwhelmingly from supermarkets, meaning that concentrating on supermarkets is sensible.


Exactly my point

Most people buy most of their food from supermarkets.

If the government and supermarkets worked together with manufacturers to reduce packaging and increase the reusablity of package then people would reduce the amount the wasted without even thinking about it
cab

bagpuss wrote:

If the government and supermarkets worked together with manufacturers to reduce packaging and increase the reusablity of package then people would reduce the amount the wasted without even thinking about it


Although because people aren't thinking about it it remains a low priority, hence compliance with reusing or recycling may remain low. Its a bit of a catch 22 situation.

I agree that supermarkets should be a prime target, but I suspect that we'll struggle to solve our waste problems while we remain tied to the supermarkets as our prime retailers. For as long as people buy oven chips (the second most evil food oxymoron, closely behind 'low fat mayonnaise!) rather than potatoes, they'll be hurling away thick plastic bags. For as long as they buy anything resembling a 'ready meal' they'll have a layer or two layers of hard to recycle packaging, with no chance at all of re-use.

I'd argue that the very model of supermarket distribution and retailing is at odds with a low waste society

But, all of that said, for the moment the supermarkets are a good place to start!
bagpuss

cab wrote:

I agree that supermarkets should be a prime target, but I suspect that we'll struggle to solve our waste problems while we remain tied to the supermarkets as our prime retailers. For as long as people buy oven chips (the second most evil food oxymoron, closely behind 'low fat mayonnaise!) rather than potatoes, they'll be hurling away thick plastic bags. For as long as they buy anything resembling a 'ready meal' they'll have a layer or two layers of hard to recycle packaging, with no chance at all of re-use.

I'd argue that the very model of supermarket distribution and retailing is at odds with a low waste society

But, all of that said, for the moment the supermarkets are a good place to start!


I think thats kind of right but if we moved back towards an old grocer shop style getting things by weight at least for staples even much of the frozen food people buy could be done that way. It also potentially makes things less wasteful as they buy what they need rather than what the nearest pack size is

Unfortunately that style of retailing will probably be difficult to convince the supermarkets to do
Treacodactyl

bagpuss wrote:
cab wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:

I think that proves my point then. We use supermarkets but probably only have one small carrier bag every two weeks of rubbish packaging from them. So, it's down to what people buy, from whereever, rather than the shops.


And where people buy from is overwhelmingly from supermarkets, meaning that concentrating on supermarkets is sensible.


Exactly my point

Most people buy most of their food from supermarkets.

If the government and supermarkets worked together with manufacturers to reduce packaging and increase the reusablity of package then people would reduce the amount the wasted without even thinking about it


But you could buy stuff with less packaging but you choose not to. I would also like to know what percentage of total landfill is non-recyclable packaging from supermarkets, probably only a 1% or 2% (happy to be wrong if someone knows the figures), so concentrating on supermarket bashing won't do much good.

I also think that supermarkets have reduced packaging a fair bit, has this lead to less landfill or is it just a red herring?
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:

But you could buy stuff with less packaging but you choose not to.


Yes, a lot of people do fail to make that choice. Which is why Bagpuss's pont about starting with the supermarkets makes sense, it isn't a limitation of her argument, its the whole point.

Quote:
I would also like to know what percentage of total landfill is non-recyclable packaging from supermarkets, probably only a 1% or 2% (happy to be wrong if someone knows the figures), so concentrating on supermarket bashing won't do much good.

I also think that supermarkets have reduced packaging a fair bit, has this lead to less landfill or is it just a red herring?


Anything up to 40% of is bought is not recyclable:

http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=316&listitemid=9317

5% of what is in a shopping basket is packaging, thats roughly 700-800g. There is more from supermarkets and less of it is recyclable. And the supermarkets overwhelmingly dominate retail, so they are the most sensible place to target. There is no basis for any argument against this based on other retailers being responsible for more packaging, more non-recyclable packaging, or a higher content of packaging in a shopping basket.
Treacodactyl

As that does nothing to answer my question I assume you don't know what percentage of total landfill is non-recyclable packaging from supermarkets?
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:
As that does nothing to answer my question I assume you don't know what percentage of total landfill is non-recyclable packaging from supermarkets?


You mean, despite supermarkets producing more packaging than other retailers (posted fact you haven't disputed), and although you don't dispute the goal of reducing packaging going to waste, and although you haven't disputed the fact that more supermarket waste than from other retailers is unrecyclable, and despite not disputing that supermarkets massively dominate food retail, you're not happy unless you have someone else look up precisely what proportion of landfill is food waste from supermarkets?

The point is proven beyond reasonable dispute; if you require further investigation then feel free to look further.
Treacodactyl

cab wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:
As that does nothing to answer my question I assume you don't know what percentage of total landfill is non-recyclable packaging from supermarkets?


You mean, despite supermarkets producing more packaging than other retailers (posted fact you haven't disputed), and although you don't dispute the goal of reducing packaging going to waste, and although you haven't disputed the fact that more supermarket waste than from other retailers is unrecyclable, and despite not disputing that supermarkets massively dominate food retail, you're not happy unless you have someone else look up precisely what proportion of landfill is food waste from supermarkets?

The point is proven beyond reasonable dispute; if you require further investigation then feel free to look further.


If you read my simple question I don't mention anything to do with food waste.

What I'm questioning is the percentage of total landfill that's non-recyclable packaging from supermarkets. You are insisting on concentrating supermarkets on but you don't have any idea what the number is, i.e. if it's the main thing to concentrate on or not. Sorry if I'm the type of person who wants to look at the facts before reaching a conclusion, less just blame the supermarkets and not actually consider if you should try and encourage people to think for themselves.
Rob R

Treacodactyl wrote:
bagpuss wrote:
RichardW wrote:
Recycle does not need large changes to how we live, reduce & reuse does. Its that simple.

People WONT change till forced to do so.


Which of course means the government and the supermarkets need to force change


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.


It's not just front of store where the packaging is disposed of, as much waste tends to come out of the back as is given to customers.
Treacodactyl

Rob R wrote:
It's not just front of store where the packaging is disposed of, as much waste tends to come out of the back as is given to customers.


I know, I've worked in similar places, and I know far more waste is produced during the manufacturing stage as well. But the article specifically related to domestic waste.

I've dug up some numbers and far more organic matter (20%) and paper and card (22%) than plastics (11% and that's not just packaging but all rubbish) is put in dustbins, so even if you dramatically reduce what packaging all shops produce (which I think they should) you still will need to get people to reduce their waste and to recycle it properly.
bagpuss

Treacodactyl wrote:
less just blame the supermarkets and not actually consider if you should try and encourage people to think for themselves.


In an ideal world everyone would of recognised how the amount of waste we produce is one of the contributing factors causing problems at the moment and would voluntarily start making sure they reduced waste where ever possible

In the real world the majority people don't make such changes unless minimal effort is required or they are forced to.

Getting the primary retailer for most peoples food (which much create a significant minority of peoples waste if not more) to reduce the amount of extraneous packaging they use would be a easy way to achieve this aim. We only have to look at how the plastic bag has become much less used to see how good the supermarkets can be at changing peoples behaviours

If we think about what other things people throw out regularly (ie every week)

magazines/newspapers
toiletries (possible not that frequent)
paper/other stationary

I am struggling to think of things which won't be sourced by a lot of people from the supermarket

Of course electrical goods etc. do also cause a lot of waste and are arguably a more damaging waste.

There are already government incentives to try and reduce this but maybe the government also needs to encourage manufacturers to return to a time when things could be fixed rather than replaced

I am trying to think of what other waste households generate
Treacodactyl

bagpuss wrote:
I am trying to think of what other waste households generate


As we still have to use bin bags and there's plenty of foxes you often get to see what people throw out. One surprising thing I've notices is brand new items still in their packaging being thrown out.

The most obvious thing is stuff that should be recycled or not wasted such as food, garden compostables, paper, card, etc (pretty much matches up with the numbers I've dug up). You can do whatever you want to force supermarkets to reduce packaging but it doesn't seem that will reduce the waste by much.

If, well when, supermarkets do change what do you propose to do to reduce the majority of the domestic waste?
Rob R

Treacodactyl wrote:
you still will need to get people to reduce their waste and to recycle it properly.


Agreed. I don't know what kind of supermarkets (or independents) you have around you but here the choice available in supermarkets would be severely limited if I went solely for reduced packaging, small businesses seem much more responsive to this (and I know how they feel- the main driver for packaging here is what the EHO agrees to).
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:

If you read my simple question I don't mention anything to do with food waste.


And if you read my response you'll note that I said 'food waste' while discussing food packaging.

Quote:

What I'm questioning is the percentage of total landfill that's non-recyclable packaging from supermarkets. You are insisting on concentrating supermarkets


No I'm not. I'm saying start with supermarkets, those being demonstrably a good place to start. You've been given data supporting that. Do you want more? Then give a reasoned criticism of the data you've got before demanding more.
Treacodactyl

cab wrote:
No I'm not. I'm saying start with supermarkets, those being demonstrably a good place to start. You've been given data supporting that. Do you want more? Then give a reasoned criticism of the data you've got before demanding more.


And I've found data that gives an overall picture that suggests supermarkets aren't the main problem.

You can start with supermarkets, or rather they can carry on their work they've been doing for a few years now, but what do you propose to do with the majority of the rest of the waste?
bagpuss

Okay you say that paper is one of the big waste items

Can we encourage people to use less paper,

the paperless office never really worked

people perhaps need to be encouraged to use the backs of things they have printed or even print out less

As with what we have said about supermarkets most people don't change unless there is a carrot or a stick and I can't personally see how you manage either for paper
Nick

Tax ink cartridges and ink. Heavily. Almost nothing needs printing, and most of what is printed is printed on one side.
Treacodactyl

bagpuss wrote:
As with what we have said about supermarkets most people don't change unless there is a carrot or a stick and I can't personally see how you manage either for paper


As I said at the start, the only way I can see the problem being tackled is to charge people for rubbish collection so people realise what it costs. They can either change or the costs can be high enough to process the waste.

Yes there would be problems but not insurmountable ones. The main problem I thought there would be would be costs but if people will pay 800 less on their council tax (a number I don't agree with but basing it on the Guardian link) there seems to be plenty of cash to sort it.
Behemoth

Yes (guilty as charged) in the old days we have one copy of a report which was circulated and read. Relevant bits copied or noted. Now we get everything instantly and no time to do anything with it.
bagpuss

Treacodactyl wrote:

Yes there would be problems but not insurmountable ones. The main problem I thought there would be would be costs but if people will pay 800 less on their council tax (a number I don't agree with but basing it on the Guardian link) there seems to be plenty of cash to sort it.


Unfortunately I don't see how you surmount the fly tipping problem.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try of course but it will be very difficult and maybe other carrots and sticks would have a greater success
bagpuss

Nick wrote:
Tax ink cartridges and ink. Heavily. Almost nothing needs printing, and most of what is printed is printed on one side.


Do you think people would accept not getting a printed receipt for purchases using electronic currency?
Nick

bagpuss wrote:
Nick wrote:
Tax ink cartridges and ink. Heavily. Almost nothing needs printing, and most of what is printed is printed on one side.


Do you think people would accept not getting a printed receipt for purchases using electronic currency?


No, they wouldn't, because neither would the tax man. But do you get a receipt? Or, do you get two, or three (and the shop keeps one)? But I'd imagine till receipts make up a small proportion of printed material.

As for fly tipping, I did suggest a solution for it, but it got lost, I think, in the Noise From The Boys (TM).
bagpuss

Nick wrote:

As for fly tipping, I did suggest a solution for it, but it got lost, I think, in the Noise From The Boys (TM).


I did see your rfid or similar solution,

I should of responded to it.

It would work for packaging I guess though uniqueness and the security of such associations would need to be investigated

For paper would be more difficult I guess though
Treacodactyl

bagpuss wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:

Yes there would be problems but not insurmountable ones. The main problem I thought there would be would be costs but if people will pay 800 less on their council tax (a number I don't agree with but basing it on the Guardian link) there seems to be plenty of cash to sort it.


Unfortunately I don't see how you surmount the fly tipping problem.


I think the majority of landfill is already charged, many builders for example have to pay for their waste disposal. Yes there's some fly-tipping but the vast majority don't.

With so much money to be saved much more could be spent on reducing fly-tipping and even reducing what you currently see.

I'd actually like to see the current laws tightened up immediately.
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:

And I've found data that gives an overall picture that suggests supermarkets aren't the main problem.


Cite it please.
cab

bagpuss wrote:
Nick wrote:

As for fly tipping, I did suggest a solution for it, but it got lost, I think, in the Noise From The Boys (TM).


I did see your rfid or similar solution,


So did I, but I assumed it was meant in jest.

You're serious, Nick?
Treacodactyl

cab wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:

And I've found data that gives an overall picture that suggests supermarkets aren't the main problem.


Cite it please.


That's why I asked you to post the data as anything I knew anything I would find won't be suitable. If you go back and answer my original questions then I bet they will show the same thing. Please post the breakdown of what's in domestic land fill and where it all comes from.
Nick

cab wrote:
bagpuss wrote:
Nick wrote:

As for fly tipping, I did suggest a solution for it, but it got lost, I think, in the Noise From The Boys (TM).


I did see your rfid or similar solution,


So did I, but I assumed it was meant in jest.

You're serious, Nick?


Yep, at almost no cost now, unique RFID tags can be printed like labels. Have them incorporated into packaging, it's linked to card purchases and you know who owns what coffee jar/TV box/Stella can. When it's found in a hedge, nick them. When bin bags full are found in laybys, nick them.

The technology exists. Clearly, it'll add to the cost of an item, but minimally, it may only be suitable for more expensive goods, and the tax payer may have to subsidise it (less fly tipping, tho). And not all purchases are paid for by card and trackable, but ask Snowball. How many till purchases a day go through, and what percentage are plastic?

Very serious.

http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/3397/

Two and a half years ago.
Rob R

They have the technology to make all meat traceable back to the farm it was born on, and they make us pay for it, but the information gap stops at the supermarket store. I suspect there is similar reasoning behind why it doesn't happen with packaging too.
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:

That's why I asked you to post the data as anything I knew anything I would find won't be suitable. If you go back and answer my original questions then I bet they will show the same thing. Please post the breakdown of what's in domestic land fill and where it all comes from.


The data you've asked for is verging on meaningless, and is not relevant to the point of the discussion; domestic refuse is collection is paid for by council and other taxes, and a large part of it is wrapping, packaging etc. as thats a large proportion of what people throw away. Commercial waste collection is not paid for the same way, the full breakdown of whats in landfill is not relevant to whether or not the best way to reduce domestic waste volume and cost is to target the retail outlets that pass most of this on to the consumer.

Your have not only ignored the supporting data for this point, but you've insisted on unrelated data being supplied for you to support a spurious, unrelated point.
cab

Nick wrote:

Yep, at almost no cost now, unique RFID tags can be printed like labels.


Making the item more or less un-recyclable (I'd assumed that this was widely understood).

See, for example:
http://www.tutorial-reports.com/wireless/rfid/environment/recycling.php

You've either got to somehow remove the tags or make them somehow magically vanish in the recycling process; you increase the cost of the packaging both in manufacture (pitch this to TetraPak and they'll tell you that increasing the cost by a fraction of a penny on, say, a milk carton, is too much) and recycling.

Restrict it to more expensive items and you're not really solving the problem; okay, you're stopping people fly tipping maybe obsolete electrical equipment, and that may well be worthwhile, but its not 'the' answer.
Rob R

Rob R wrote:
I suspect there is similar reasoning behind why it doesn't happen with packaging too.


Or perhaps not...

...but at least I got my rant in. Laughing
Treacodactyl

cab wrote:
The data you've asked for is verging on meaningless, and is not relevant to the point of the discussion; domestic refuse is collection is paid for by council and other taxes, and a large part of it is wrapping, packaging etc. as thats a large proportion of what people throw away.


No it's not meaningless asking about what goes into landfill is the basis of such a debate. Education of people for example could reduce domestic and commercial waste, controls on shops could reduce domestic and commercial waste.

As you state of domestic refuse "large part of it is wrapping, packaging etc" and you seem to be solely concentrating on supermarkets please give me the amounts of supermarket packaging in domestic refuse that you are basing your argument on.

It's clearly a small proportion and I want to know what you plan to do with the majority of the domestic refuse when you've finished bashing supermarkets.
beean

Fly tipping, and people who throw rubbish out of car windows (WHY?? WHY??) will be almost impossible to stop by relatively small fines the 1% of the time someone is caught.
So why not just shoot people who throw rubbish from car windows. You won't catch everyone who does it, but it would (a) work as a great deterrant, and (b) make me feel less annoyed.
Rob R

beean wrote:
Fly tipping, and people who throw rubbish out of car windows (WHY?? WHY??)


The ones that get me are those who travel specifically down the lane to dump leaves in the dyke Mad All that organic matter and instead of doing something of mutual benefit with it they block up local drainage. I personally think the punishment should be that you are locked up, with your rubbish, and are not let out until you've eaten it all.
boisdevie1

Nick wrote:
Tax ink cartridges and ink. Heavily. Almost nothing needs printing, and most of what is printed is printed on one side.


Exactly. My bank had a poster on the wall a few months back saying they'll print on both sides of the paper. Have they done this? No. And so much of the paper they do print is unecessary. If I do a bank transfer they give me 3 sheets of paper even though I can see the confirmation online. Then they send me in the post another confirmation of what I already know. Idiots.
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:

No it's not meaningless asking about what goes into landfill is the basis of such a debate.


No it isn't. Read the first post.
Treacodactyl

cab wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:

No it's not meaningless asking about what goes into landfill is the basis of such a debate.


No it isn't. Read the first post.


I have and it doesn't or answer my question.

As you refuse to answer my question I'll make an educated assumption of about 10% of household rubbish is unnecessary packaging from supermarkets (personally I think that's too much). So what are your proposals for the other 90% of household rubbish?
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:
cab wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:

No it's not meaningless asking about what goes into landfill is the basis of such a debate.


No it isn't. Read the first post.


I have and it doesn't or answer my question.


Your irrelevent question.

The topic was posted about the cost of dealing with domestic waste, which is paid for via taxation (council tax and other taxation).

You're not confused about who pays for commercial waste collection and disposal, but you are confused in that you think that this topic was raised to address what the absolute content of all landfill is. It wasn't, nor is such relevant.

You may make whatever assumptions you wish, the point that supermarkets are a good place to start when trying to reduce the flow of waste from homes is proven beyond reasonable dispute.
Treacodactyl

I have asked you to state the percentage of household rubbish that is unnecessary packaging. You can't and you can't come up with any relevant numbers (despite insisting I cite my sources).

You have not proven at all that supermarkets would be a good place to start as, quite simply, most of the domestic rubbish does not come from their packaging and you have not proved it does. You have failed to come up with any idea of what to do about the majority of domestic waste.

By the way I have not been confused at all, the article you posted is confused (it talks about domestic and commercial waste) and I raised that in my first post which you have also ignored.
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:
I have asked you to state the percentage of household rubbish that is unnecessary packaging.


(further cut unread)

I don't really care what you're asking me now, sorry. Happy to leave this for anyone else draw conclusions from now; I have stated clearly why your request is irrelevent, and have no desire to repeat myself.
Treacodactyl

cab wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:
I have asked you to state the percentage of household rubbish that is unnecessary packaging.


(further cut unread)

I don't really care what you're asking me now, sorry. Happy to leave this for anyone else draw conclusions from now; I have stated clearly why your request is irrelevent, and have no desire to repeat myself.


So you have no evidence and no ideas other than bashing supermarkets? Fair enough.

I still think charging for pay per throw is the only thing that can tackle all sources of the waste, it's just a shame I don't think the financial numbers suggested in your link are correct.
Rob R

I couldn't care less what figures either of you can produce, the figures that matter most to me are the ones I directly influence (ie my bin), which happens to support the view that supermarkets are the bigger contributors and still make it harder to make the better choices.

It's also reminded me that I must put the bags in the car, rather than cursing myself for forgetting them again next time I'm in town. Embarassed
Nick

Rob R wrote:


It's also reminded me that I must put the bags in the car, rather than cursing myself for forgetting them again next time I'm in town. Embarassed


You bad man.

I, on the other hand, must remember to take bags out of the car when I go into the shops. Just a habit...
Rob R

Nick wrote:
Rob R wrote:


It's also reminded me that I must put the bags in the car, rather than cursing myself for forgetting them again next time I'm in town. Embarassed


You bad man.

I, on the other hand, must remember to take bags out of the car when I go into the shops. Just a habit...


Perhaps we both should have them sewn into our jackets to avoid such catastrophes?
Treacodactyl

Rob R wrote:
I couldn't care less what figures either of you can produce, the figures that matter most to me are the ones I directly influence (ie my bin), which happens to support the view that supermarkets are the bigger contributors and still make it harder to make the better choices.


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.

I can't deny that having the a large chunk of 800 back as we tend to produce far less waste than average wouldn't be very useful though. Very Happy
Nick

Rob R wrote:
Nick wrote:
Rob R wrote:


It's also reminded me that I must put the bags in the car, rather than cursing myself for forgetting them again next time I'm in town. Embarassed


You bad man.

I, on the other hand, must remember to take bags out of the car when I go into the shops. Just a habit...


Perhaps we both should have them sewn into our jackets to avoid such catastrophes?


Rob, you're a genius. You've just invented the pocket...
Rob R

Treacodactyl wrote:
I can't deny that having the a large chunk of 800 back as we tend to produce far less waste than average wouldn't be very useful though. Very Happy


Really? Shocked Wink
Rob R

Nick wrote:
Rob, you're a genius. You've just invented the pocket...


Blimey, you must have big pockets. Laughing
Rob R

Treacodactyl wrote:
Rob R wrote:
I couldn't care less what figures either of you can produce, the figures that matter most to me are the ones I directly influence (ie my bin), which happens to support the view that supermarkets are the bigger contributors and still make it harder to make the better choices.


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.


I was referring to what cab said about people making their own minds up. Presumably because there is no way of tracking rubbish (one transparent plastic tray looks much like another) once it hits the bin, then there won't be detailed figures from that end, and anyone approaching (and funding) data collection before sale is likely to have a bias, either way. dontknow
Treacodactyl

Rob R wrote:
Presumably because there is no way of tracking rubbish (one transparent plastic tray looks much like another) once it hits the bin, then there won't be detailed figures from that end, and anyone approaching (and funding) data collection before sale is likely to have a bias, either way. dontknow


There is data out there only it doesn't show what people seem to want it to show. For example, I posted up 11% of domestic waste is plastics. Even if you assume that's all from supermarkets (which it clearly isn't as other shops produce plastic packaging, take aways do and there's plenty of non-packaging plastic) it still leaves 89% which isn't plastic packaging.
Rob R

Treacodactyl wrote:
Rob R wrote:
Presumably because there is no way of tracking rubbish (one transparent plastic tray looks much like another) once it hits the bin, then there won't be detailed figures from that end, and anyone approaching (and funding) data collection before sale is likely to have a bias, either way. dontknow


There is data out there only it doesn't show what people seem to want it to show. For example, I posted up 11% of domestic waste is plastics. Even if you assume that's all from supermarkets (which it clearly isn't as other shops produce plastic packaging, take aways do and there's plenty of non-packaging plastic) it still leaves 89% which isn't plastic packaging.


OK, looking back you said:

Treacodactyl wrote:

But you could buy stuff with less packaging but you choose not to.


And cab responded;

cab wrote:
Yes, a lot of people do fail to make that choice. Which is why Bagpuss's pont about starting with the supermarkets makes sense, it isn't a limitation of her argument, its the whole point.


Individuals have to make decisions, and influencing those decisions costs money. If you start with the fewest people who contribute the most (ie those in charge of the supermarkets) you get the best value from your resources.

Treacodactyl wrote:

If you read my simple question I don't mention anything to do with food waste.


You did- you can't isolate 11% as a figure because it is directly proportion to the other 89%.

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.
Nick

cab wrote:
Nick wrote:

Yep, at almost no cost now, unique RFID tags can be printed like labels.


Making the item more or less un-recyclable (I'd assumed that this was widely understood).

See, for example:
http://www.tutorial-reports.com/wireless/rfid/environment/recycling.php


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.
Treacodactyl

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.


But why are you ignoring the majority of the domestic rubbish? More organic matter ends up in landfill than all types of plastic. That is down to people not shops (although I bet people can blame supermarkets for throwing lawn clippings in the landfill bin Rolling Eyes ). 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.
cab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:

So you agree the article you posted to start the thread is refering to total domestic waste? Yes.

(remainder cut unread)

You seem to be entirely intent on side-tracking this discussion into being a 'but you're just interested in bashing the supermarkets'. Why?
Treacodactyl

cab wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:

So you agree the article you posted to start the thread is refering to total domestic waste? Yes.

(remainder cut unread)

You seem to be entirely intent on side-tracking this discussion into being a 'but you're just interested in bashing the supermarkets'. Why?


Because that is what you are doing.

You seem to be concentrating on a bit of a "straw supermarket" argument when the article you posted up is about total domestic rubbish not just stuff produced by supermarkets. Why?

Why won't you produce any numbers to back up your argument, why won't you answer questions about what you propose to do about the rest of the waste?
Rob R

If you really want figures go out and look for those which suit your points, talk about people not being bothered. Rolling Eyes

You asked why concentrate on supermarkets, you got an answer, several. The point I have made is that it is reduce, reuse, recycle, and supermarkets still give you limited choice in this area. They have made progress, but as I just said, their power & influence upon the UK grocery (and other consumer goods) market puts them in prime position to influence change and reduce the 50% of domestic waste that they (the top five) are directly responsible for, as well as influencing the rest of the UK retail market, which they are increasingly moving into. Using that influence (and responsibility) is not supermarket bashing, it's being practical in tackling the source of the problem, as opposed to dealing with it primarily at the recycling stage.

I'm not making an alternative proposal to those available for alternative waste, you can do if you like.
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:


Because that is what you are doing.


No, I'm not, and no one is.

Supermarkets produce more weight of packaging waste per typical bag of shopping; fact. You haven't disputed it.

All that was stated was that this makes the supermarkets a good place to start when reducing domestic refuse.

You have demanded various bizarre pieces of evidence as justificaiton for entirely different points that no one has sought to make. And until someone else does the legwork and gathers the data that doesn't support their arguments, you refuse to accept the evidence that does.

Why?
Treacodactyl

Rob R wrote:
If you really want figures go out and look for those which suit your points, talk about people not being bothered. Rolling Eyes

You asked why concentrate on supermarkets, you got an answer, several. The point I have made is that it is reduce, reuse, recycle, and supermarkets still give you limited choice in this area. They have made progress, but as I just said, their power & influence upon the UK grocery (and other consumer goods) market puts them in prime position to influence change and reduce the 50% of domestic waste that they (the top five) are directly responsible for, as well as influencing the rest of the UK retail market, which they are increasingly moving into. Using that influence (and responsibility) is not supermarket bashing, it's being practical in tackling the source of the problem, as opposed to dealing with it primarily at the recycling stage.

I'm not making an alternative proposal to those available for alternative waste, you can do if you like.


No, I'm happy for any figures to be posted up. Any I've seen support what I'm saying, including the ones you've posted and wrongly interpreted.

Again you are concentrating on just one part of the problem. We seem to agree that supermarkets can carry on reducing their packaging but you have not covered the majority of the waste.

Even if supermarkets reduced waste by half over, say 5 years, we'd still be left with 75% of the waste using you numbers.
Treacodactyl

cab wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:


Because that is what you are doing.


No, I'm not, and no one is.

Supermarkets produce more weight of packaging waste per typical bag of shopping; fact. You haven't disputed it.

All that was stated was that this makes the supermarkets a good place to start when reducing domestic refuse.

You have demanded various bizarre pieces of evidence as justificaiton for entirely different points that no one has sought to make. And until someone else does the legwork and gathers the data that doesn't support their arguments, you refuse to accept the evidence that does.

Why?


Asking for a break down of where the domestic waste comes from isn't a bizarre piece of evidence but the most essential fact if you're are going to tackle waste at source. I can't see how you can disagree with that.

I have produced evidence and you refuse to accept it, so I've asked you to produce evidence which you refuse, probably because you know it will prove my point.
cab

Treacodactyl wrote:

Asking for a break down of where the domestic waste comes from isn't a bizarre piece of evidence


Yes, it is, because its not evidence that is in any way linked to anything that people claimed in support of targetting the supermarkets as a starting point.
Treacodactyl

cab wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:

Asking for a break down of where the domestic waste comes from isn't a bizarre piece of evidence


Yes, it is, because its not evidence that is in any way linked to anything that people claimed in support of targetting the supermarkets as a starting point.


No it's not and you know it. It relates directly to your article. It relates to supermarkets because if that is everyone's only suggestion it fails to tackle the majority of the waste (which you don't disagree with). As other possible solutions could cover all domestic waste you might not need to tackle supermarkets at all, consumers could drive what they do. I'll say again I'm happy for them to carry on their work to reduce packaging of course.

I'll try and leave it there, if anyone has any ideas about what is done with the rest of the waste I'd be interested to hear. One thing I found interesting when digging up facts was Germany landfills only 1% of it's waste.
Rob R

Treacodactyl wrote:
No, I'm happy for any figures to be posted up. Any I've seen support what I'm saying, including the ones you've posted and wrongly interpreted.


And they don't go against what I, for one, am saying. Differently interpreted; I haven't really the time nor inclination to anlayse figures for you to juggle with, it doesn't alter the reasoning.

Nothing you have posted supports the notion that this is 'supermarket bashing'.

Treacodactyl wrote:
Even if supermarkets reduced waste by half over, say 5 years, we'd still be left with 75% of the waste using you numbers.


Are you saying that 50% is an insignificant number to start to tackle? As I've said & you've chosen to ignore, the decisions regarding that 50% are in the hands of fewer people than the other 50%, so tackling that first is the logical thing to do. That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle the other 50%, just that the most significant has greater power over the overall market and is more easy to tackle, or get on side, than millions of customers, as a starting point.
ros

IF the supermarkets are on side they are a powerful advertising/education force, almost subliminal advertising

if Tesburys say less packaging is good and they can manage to charge less and not more in the process they'll need to use it in their advertising to get customers on board - so surely that's a good thing?
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Home Array Home Home Home