Monday, 8 July 2013
Terminology, is it a waste?
A question has been asked recently, about the relationship between language and activity. The question centres around whether or not the the word describing what we discard (in this case waste) supports the activity (recovery of resource) and does it justice in the modern context.
This has turned out, not just to be an academic exercise in linguistic evolution and the history of waste, it has opened up the wider issue of how we define a more complex system and draw defining lines that can be clearly understood by all.
The debate has been stimulated by a need to move waste up the hierarchy, taking it full circle from cradle back to cradle. There are however, a number subtexts too, with the language around co-mingled collections for sorting and waste collected at source having evolved their own terminologies, which is not helpful.
I see it thus:
If paper be paper, wherever it sits in it's life cycle, then just maybe, it needs to be recovered separately at source. The same would apply to any other rejected material that seeks rehabilitation back into the language of use.
This is what the revised Waste Framework Directive appears to require, so in regulatory terms, the regulation is on the right track! The only minor fly in the ointment being, that everything that is discarded, is legally classified as waste for the purposes of implementing regulation.
So for me, I can see that people will still regard their recycling collection (especially mixed dry recyclable material in a wheelie bin), as something more akin to waste, than to its constituent materials.. This is most likely because it is collected co-mingled and sorted away from the eyes of the producer. This loss of connection could be a critical factor in reconciling both the value and responsibility represented by the waste, to the holder (producer) in relation the valuation and effort that is put into pre-cleaning and sorting of that waste.
Kerbside sorting can offer a better connection, especially if residents can observe their waste being placed into separate compartments as paper,metals, plastics etc.
There have recently been a spate of name changes, by companies, consultancies and collectives, where the term waste has just been supplanted by the term resource. This probably only serves to confuse people and does not do justice to the processes involved. If material is being collected for onward treatment, then we should at least try to describe that step, as it will help indicate that a process of transformation is being undertaken. If we are happy to to call thermal treatment (in its many guises) Energy from Waste (EfW), why can we not describe Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF's) and Mechanical Biological Treatment plant (MBT), as Waste to Resource facilities (WtR)?
I'm sure that the public would understand these terms and relate them to a process akin to rehabilitation of their discarded resources. I do not believe that an over simplification of the language helps the cause, in fact it could even lead people to be suspicious that something is being hidden from them.
Monday, 10 June 2013
Is Rome already alight?
On a climate change theme today!
It seems quite incredible to me that governments appear happy to leave the issue of climate warming and sea level rise on the back burner, whilst continuing to exploit fossil fuels at an increasing rate.
I have highlighted a couple articles that sum up the predicament quite clearly, I can't believe that we have all voted to mandate procrastination on such an important issue!
First up from 350.org a US map showing 16 cities at serious risk from sea
level rise and climate enhanced storm surges.
Even the IEA have spoken out about the current impasse on reaching
political agreement for a replacement to Kyoto.
They say that with current trends in energy production and emissions, this
puts us on a path to a catastrophic 5oC rise in global
temperatures.
And all this on a day when the Guardian reports that the UK is looking
maximise UK North Sea oil production #greenestgovernmentever
There is absolutely no point in growth at all costs if the cost becomes catastrophic climate change!
Monday, 20 May 2013
So what if we left the EU?
This the second of my 'what if' blogs, where I examine topical events and ask a few what ifs?
I'll take an alternative view wherever possible to stimulate some debate and possibly actions to counter what might be perceived as injustices or just plain greed and stupidity!
Of course there are two sides to every story and there may well benefits to leaving the EU, however I do not believe that they would emerge in a short enough time frame to be of any practical benefit. In fact I believe that anti European sentiment is driven by anachronistic dogma and greed. The greed being on the part of the wealthy elite, who would stand to benefit from a reduction in legislative protection for workers and the environment (two of the pillars of sustainability).
On the other hand, the impacts of leaving the EU could be quite severe and impact with almost immediate effect. It's worth taking a little time to look at some of the potential impacts , as most UK citizens stand to be affected in some respect.
I have outlined some of the main arguments, in the hope that it should become evident that we would be much more vulnerable outside the EU.
Some politicians have said that if we leave we would not be paying into the EU pot, but that we would still have all the free trade agreements, which would allow us access to our biggest market. This might well be true, for a while at least |(until we are slowly written out of various agreements), however the Americans seemed to make it quite clear during Cameron's visit to the White House, that we would be foolish to leave and that it would direct impact investment into the UK.
It would also be true that in order to trade within the single market, we would still have to meet all the EU production standards (as do Norway and Switzerland) which would entail cost, but with no representation in the making of those standards. What's more, we would still pay tariffs, which would affect our competitiveness.
So what about jobs? It has been widely argued that EU regulations have been a brake on our SME's, which make up a large part of our economy and only a fraction of which, trade within the EU. There is an element of truth in this, but surely there is room for negotiation on such issues, the EU has already recognised this and is taking very similar measures to those that we have proposed.
So by coming out of Europe we could create nearly a million new jobs in the UK, however that is only one side to the story and the fact is that we are likely to lose millions of jobs, as large production sites move in to mainland Europe (Airbus/cars manufacturers, etc.). This would have a very detrimental impact as these are high end earners for the UK and many SME's depend upon them for their orders.
As well as these issues, we would have fewer rights in the EU than we do now, which would make it much harder to retire to other EU member states or buy property there.We would also lose much of power at the negotiating table by not being in Paris, Berlin and Brussels, this could see us increasingly marginalised by the US, China and Russia for example. None of this would be good for either our trade or status which is an invisible benefit.
The cost of being in the EU, whilst it is a big number, doesn't look so big when put alongside the trade figures, as our exports are just over 50% into the EU, which is a much bigger figure!
Don't forget also, that many EU laws benefit the environment, social well being and human rights, we have come to rely on these and changing them would cause an imbalance and could lead to many UK citizens losing out, with fewer protections.
At the end of the day, the case for leaving the EU just seems to be a charter for large corporations and wealthy industrialist to prey on UK workers by pushing down wages, restricting recourse to the courts and generally lowering everyone's standard of living. It is somewhat ironic that some of these corporations are those that don't pay their share of UK tax, something the EU has been trying to sort out!
For me there would be no point in having a vote without all of this being discussed openly and with access to information on the expected impacts. In such circumstances, I would not expect the vote to be a foregone conclusion!
I'll take an alternative view wherever possible to stimulate some debate and possibly actions to counter what might be perceived as injustices or just plain greed and stupidity!
Of course there are two sides to every story and there may well benefits to leaving the EU, however I do not believe that they would emerge in a short enough time frame to be of any practical benefit. In fact I believe that anti European sentiment is driven by anachronistic dogma and greed. The greed being on the part of the wealthy elite, who would stand to benefit from a reduction in legislative protection for workers and the environment (two of the pillars of sustainability).
On the other hand, the impacts of leaving the EU could be quite severe and impact with almost immediate effect. It's worth taking a little time to look at some of the potential impacts , as most UK citizens stand to be affected in some respect.
I have outlined some of the main arguments, in the hope that it should become evident that we would be much more vulnerable outside the EU.
Some politicians have said that if we leave we would not be paying into the EU pot, but that we would still have all the free trade agreements, which would allow us access to our biggest market. This might well be true, for a while at least |(until we are slowly written out of various agreements), however the Americans seemed to make it quite clear during Cameron's visit to the White House, that we would be foolish to leave and that it would direct impact investment into the UK.
It would also be true that in order to trade within the single market, we would still have to meet all the EU production standards (as do Norway and Switzerland) which would entail cost, but with no representation in the making of those standards. What's more, we would still pay tariffs, which would affect our competitiveness.
So what about jobs? It has been widely argued that EU regulations have been a brake on our SME's, which make up a large part of our economy and only a fraction of which, trade within the EU. There is an element of truth in this, but surely there is room for negotiation on such issues, the EU has already recognised this and is taking very similar measures to those that we have proposed.
So by coming out of Europe we could create nearly a million new jobs in the UK, however that is only one side to the story and the fact is that we are likely to lose millions of jobs, as large production sites move in to mainland Europe (Airbus/cars manufacturers, etc.). This would have a very detrimental impact as these are high end earners for the UK and many SME's depend upon them for their orders.
As well as these issues, we would have fewer rights in the EU than we do now, which would make it much harder to retire to other EU member states or buy property there.We would also lose much of power at the negotiating table by not being in Paris, Berlin and Brussels, this could see us increasingly marginalised by the US, China and Russia for example. None of this would be good for either our trade or status which is an invisible benefit.
The cost of being in the EU, whilst it is a big number, doesn't look so big when put alongside the trade figures, as our exports are just over 50% into the EU, which is a much bigger figure!
Don't forget also, that many EU laws benefit the environment, social well being and human rights, we have come to rely on these and changing them would cause an imbalance and could lead to many UK citizens losing out, with fewer protections.
At the end of the day, the case for leaving the EU just seems to be a charter for large corporations and wealthy industrialist to prey on UK workers by pushing down wages, restricting recourse to the courts and generally lowering everyone's standard of living. It is somewhat ironic that some of these corporations are those that don't pay their share of UK tax, something the EU has been trying to sort out!
For me there would be no point in having a vote without all of this being discussed openly and with access to information on the expected impacts. In such circumstances, I would not expect the vote to be a foregone conclusion!
Saturday, 11 May 2013
What if?
I wanted to put some ideas out there about various aspects of our everyday lives, aspects that maybe we take for granted, but which could disintegrate before our eyes, or render us helpless to determine our own destiny. I hope to make this a mini series of questions about currently topical subjects to provoke thought around alternatives and what the World might look like, when you are stood looking back at the box!
The first 'what if' that occurred to me, has been the eerily quite aftermath of the Cypriot bail out! There are many ways that you could look at this, but in a basic form, didn't the Cypriot Government steal money from savers to leverage more borrowing from the EU banking stability fund (i.e. Germany, Austria, Sweden Finland etc.). When you look at it in this way, it all seems a bit imperialist rather than a cosy democracy!
Is Cyprus now any better off? Well not really it's limping along with several holes below the waterline, no one really wants to invest, expenditure will continue to creep back up again. either as benefits increase or attempted growth measures. In the meantime, tax revenues continue to stagnate or fall and eventually this beautiful island will find the economic buffers again! I would suggest that when this happens, a second round of account dipping will not be an option!
The 'what if' comes in two parts, they take the form of; what if it happened to us and what if we weren't prepared to sit idly by and accept it?
In the case of Cyprus the statements were all well prepared and rehearsed, because the governments and the bankers have the figures in front of them a long time before we do. We were told that the Cypriot economy was small and vulnerable to the global recession, that they had a burgeoning bureaucracy and that they had failed to move with the economic drumbeat, which is all pretty well true, as it is of many established democracies! We were also told lots of those horrible rich Russians were hiding their money in accounts there and that it would serve them right (but not as nasty as Mubarak and some other despotic leaders to whom, we pander for their wedge!). So in essence, they were pretty poor excuses for stealing money from the vast majority of honest, hard working and law abiding citizens!
As I said, Cyprus in not alone in this particular basket, Ireland is still there, more or less flat lining, as is Spain, Portugal and probably Italy too. We can't be sure about Belgium, because no one seems to have been in charge for some time and Slovenia has just asked if it can try the basket for size as well! In each case, all of these countries have sworn that they will not do the same as happened in Cyprus, but now that it has happened and a precedent has been set, hands up all those who believe them!
If you've got your hand up, you may be excused, you probably don 't need the money or you are already a politician!
And so, the second part of the question, are you prepared to step outside of the comfort zone? Rather than wait for things to get worse and for politicians to mess up and greedy banks to start snatching money that isn't theirs (as opposed to just inventing it against a future that can't pay), why not be a little pre-emptive?
There's never been a better time, with interest rates that low that saving is relatively pointless and banks piling on spurious charges to keep up their income! What if everyone started to pull their money out of all the large banks and place it in safes or small local building societies.
Banks have made it so convenient to spend money, one of the ways they get us to rack up debt in the name of growth, however in doing so we are totally losing control of OUR money! You know, the stuff that you work 40 hours for every week. What happens if they turn off the terminals and the ATM's, it might be your money, but you can't have it!!
Once you have regained control of your money, you will probably say to yourself, Hmmm, I a bit open to fraud, robbery and this is less convenient (which at this moment is true, but doesn't stop a lot of our population from still dealing in cash). You are somehow made to feel like a Luddite if you use real money, almost as if it is socially unacceptable, I wonder why?
Once enough of us have control of our money, there's a deal to be done! With the Internet at our disposal, why not set up as your own personal bank and/or form co-operatives with your friends? This is already happening with the likes of Paypal and EBAY, but it could be so much more, if were open, legally founded and operated for the benefit of you, as opposed to greedy fat cat CEO's and shareholders.
What of the banks? Well would you care, if you didn't need one?!! They only support their rich friends and dodgy politicians, so it might even help clean up our democracy, double bubble, and its mine all mine (although I might put some of it to a socially just use)!
The first 'what if' that occurred to me, has been the eerily quite aftermath of the Cypriot bail out! There are many ways that you could look at this, but in a basic form, didn't the Cypriot Government steal money from savers to leverage more borrowing from the EU banking stability fund (i.e. Germany, Austria, Sweden Finland etc.). When you look at it in this way, it all seems a bit imperialist rather than a cosy democracy!
Is Cyprus now any better off? Well not really it's limping along with several holes below the waterline, no one really wants to invest, expenditure will continue to creep back up again. either as benefits increase or attempted growth measures. In the meantime, tax revenues continue to stagnate or fall and eventually this beautiful island will find the economic buffers again! I would suggest that when this happens, a second round of account dipping will not be an option!
The 'what if' comes in two parts, they take the form of; what if it happened to us and what if we weren't prepared to sit idly by and accept it?
In the case of Cyprus the statements were all well prepared and rehearsed, because the governments and the bankers have the figures in front of them a long time before we do. We were told that the Cypriot economy was small and vulnerable to the global recession, that they had a burgeoning bureaucracy and that they had failed to move with the economic drumbeat, which is all pretty well true, as it is of many established democracies! We were also told lots of those horrible rich Russians were hiding their money in accounts there and that it would serve them right (but not as nasty as Mubarak and some other despotic leaders to whom, we pander for their wedge!). So in essence, they were pretty poor excuses for stealing money from the vast majority of honest, hard working and law abiding citizens!
As I said, Cyprus in not alone in this particular basket, Ireland is still there, more or less flat lining, as is Spain, Portugal and probably Italy too. We can't be sure about Belgium, because no one seems to have been in charge for some time and Slovenia has just asked if it can try the basket for size as well! In each case, all of these countries have sworn that they will not do the same as happened in Cyprus, but now that it has happened and a precedent has been set, hands up all those who believe them!
If you've got your hand up, you may be excused, you probably don 't need the money or you are already a politician!
And so, the second part of the question, are you prepared to step outside of the comfort zone? Rather than wait for things to get worse and for politicians to mess up and greedy banks to start snatching money that isn't theirs (as opposed to just inventing it against a future that can't pay), why not be a little pre-emptive?
There's never been a better time, with interest rates that low that saving is relatively pointless and banks piling on spurious charges to keep up their income! What if everyone started to pull their money out of all the large banks and place it in safes or small local building societies.
Banks have made it so convenient to spend money, one of the ways they get us to rack up debt in the name of growth, however in doing so we are totally losing control of OUR money! You know, the stuff that you work 40 hours for every week. What happens if they turn off the terminals and the ATM's, it might be your money, but you can't have it!!
Once you have regained control of your money, you will probably say to yourself, Hmmm, I a bit open to fraud, robbery and this is less convenient (which at this moment is true, but doesn't stop a lot of our population from still dealing in cash). You are somehow made to feel like a Luddite if you use real money, almost as if it is socially unacceptable, I wonder why?
Once enough of us have control of our money, there's a deal to be done! With the Internet at our disposal, why not set up as your own personal bank and/or form co-operatives with your friends? This is already happening with the likes of Paypal and EBAY, but it could be so much more, if were open, legally founded and operated for the benefit of you, as opposed to greedy fat cat CEO's and shareholders.
What of the banks? Well would you care, if you didn't need one?!! They only support their rich friends and dodgy politicians, so it might even help clean up our democracy, double bubble, and its mine all mine (although I might put some of it to a socially just use)!
Thursday, 4 April 2013
Is capitalism efficient?
There has been a lot said recently about growth and the need for it!!! At the same time we have heard a lot about the need for the efficient use of resource in an increasingly resource constrained World, where population and expectation are both growing at an unsustainable pace.
The current neo-liberal capitalist mantra requires that growth is an essential aspect of wealth creation and in turn provides a return on investment to continue the cycle. Most people would probably assume because it is so globally adopted, that it would be an efficient model, but if you stop to ask some questions, the case is not proven. And this is a very important concern for us all.
If you were to think of a plant, an animal or even an eco-system, you can see how through evolution, it has developed a great efficiency. In order to function properly a human needs around 1500 calories per day, however we use many times that amount of energy to support our industries, transport and lifestyles.
This lust for energy, more than any other single commodity is starting to expose the lie of efficiency and highlight the divergence between social well being, environment and economy. This is borne out time and again by protests against extraction of gas, oil and coal, where it causes environmental damage to a locality, but is justified as being for the greater good (i.e. growth), Protesters are becoming more frequent and fractious globally, with examples like the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, coal terminals in Australia and numerous other mines and fracking sites.
Instead of aiming for unsustainable continuous growth, we should instead look at what natural capital we have and how we could use it to support our growing global population. In this way we should aim for sustainable use of natural capital, not exploitation in pursuit of growth (wealth accretion). In turn there would still be trade, as the current distribution of natural capital is very uneven. But by working together in this way, we build stronger ties between communities by replacing competition with exchange and collaboration.
Over time we would come to realise the true value of our natural assets and come to the conclusion that their conservation is tied to maintaining sustainable use as opposed to exploitation and degradation. I would suggest that this is a more efficient economy!
The current neo-liberal capitalist mantra requires that growth is an essential aspect of wealth creation and in turn provides a return on investment to continue the cycle. Most people would probably assume because it is so globally adopted, that it would be an efficient model, but if you stop to ask some questions, the case is not proven. And this is a very important concern for us all.
If you were to think of a plant, an animal or even an eco-system, you can see how through evolution, it has developed a great efficiency. In order to function properly a human needs around 1500 calories per day, however we use many times that amount of energy to support our industries, transport and lifestyles.
This lust for energy, more than any other single commodity is starting to expose the lie of efficiency and highlight the divergence between social well being, environment and economy. This is borne out time and again by protests against extraction of gas, oil and coal, where it causes environmental damage to a locality, but is justified as being for the greater good (i.e. growth), Protesters are becoming more frequent and fractious globally, with examples like the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, coal terminals in Australia and numerous other mines and fracking sites.
Instead of aiming for unsustainable continuous growth, we should instead look at what natural capital we have and how we could use it to support our growing global population. In this way we should aim for sustainable use of natural capital, not exploitation in pursuit of growth (wealth accretion). In turn there would still be trade, as the current distribution of natural capital is very uneven. But by working together in this way, we build stronger ties between communities by replacing competition with exchange and collaboration.
Over time we would come to realise the true value of our natural assets and come to the conclusion that their conservation is tied to maintaining sustainable use as opposed to exploitation and degradation. I would suggest that this is a more efficient economy!
Saturday, 23 February 2013
Quick fire rant!
Today is really cold here!
So I've had a trip out and got back to a nice tea and warmed up. The TV is dire, so it's a great time time for a rant! No long winded diatribe on a single issue, a quick fire, what's in my head instead!!
Let's go nuclear for a minute, if you've read any of my other posts, you will know that I'm not keen. Not without goof reason I would say, especially as they are catching tuna off the West Coast of the US with high levels of radiation, two years after the event!!
And what a bout the power plant in Washington? seems they are losing irradiated cooling fluid from the bottom of the storage tanks!!!! Let's face it, if your car was dropping oil in this day and age, you wouldn't be happy!!
What about our AAA rating here in the UK? Capt. clueless is sailing our economy up iceberg alley for an ideological laugh, oooh I nearly wet myself!!!! When he gets to the top end, does he expect his doting tax payers to buy him a new paddle? By the end of his term, our debt could be 1.3 trillion, which would be significantly more than he inherited from the last administration!!!
Last, but by no means least, scientists have announced that we could be on the brink of a tipping point for the melting of the permafrost. They say that a rise in average temperatures of 1.5 degrees could be enough to start a runaway process that could release millions upon millions of tonnes of methane every year. It is unlikely that in such circumstances that we would any longer, be masters of our own destiny!!
Well I feel better for that, but I haven't worked out quite exactly what I want to can do about it all. Together, we might be able to shout loud enough to get heard, that would be a start!
So I've had a trip out and got back to a nice tea and warmed up. The TV is dire, so it's a great time time for a rant! No long winded diatribe on a single issue, a quick fire, what's in my head instead!!
Let's go nuclear for a minute, if you've read any of my other posts, you will know that I'm not keen. Not without goof reason I would say, especially as they are catching tuna off the West Coast of the US with high levels of radiation, two years after the event!!
And what a bout the power plant in Washington? seems they are losing irradiated cooling fluid from the bottom of the storage tanks!!!! Let's face it, if your car was dropping oil in this day and age, you wouldn't be happy!!
What about our AAA rating here in the UK? Capt. clueless is sailing our economy up iceberg alley for an ideological laugh, oooh I nearly wet myself!!!! When he gets to the top end, does he expect his doting tax payers to buy him a new paddle? By the end of his term, our debt could be 1.3 trillion, which would be significantly more than he inherited from the last administration!!!
Last, but by no means least, scientists have announced that we could be on the brink of a tipping point for the melting of the permafrost. They say that a rise in average temperatures of 1.5 degrees could be enough to start a runaway process that could release millions upon millions of tonnes of methane every year. It is unlikely that in such circumstances that we would any longer, be masters of our own destiny!!
Well I feel better for that, but I haven't worked out quite exactly what I want to can do about it all. Together, we might be able to shout loud enough to get heard, that would be a start!
Friday, 8 February 2013
Where's my Waste Hierarchy?
Recently there has been quite a bit of discussion around the Waste Hierarchy, introduced into UK statute following transposition of the revised Waste Framework Directive.
People are starting to question how it might be properly implemented and enforced, quite reasonable questions, I would say!
Currently it seems to be struggling for recognition, for the important element of regulation that it is. The Waste Hierarchy is a mainstay of the prime objectives of the Environmental Action Plan and for sustainability in the waste and resource management sector.
There are a number of reasons for this, not least that the Waste Hierarchy is seen as being self regulating, however a lesson learnt from a very similar roll out of the Duty of Care over 20 years ago, informs us that this wasn't entirely successful!
There are also a number of other reasons why it been difficult to implement, I have outlined some of these below. The solutions to these are not particularly simple, but could be tackled with a proper strategy and some resource.
Briefly these area:
People are starting to question how it might be properly implemented and enforced, quite reasonable questions, I would say!
Currently it seems to be struggling for recognition, for the important element of regulation that it is. The Waste Hierarchy is a mainstay of the prime objectives of the Environmental Action Plan and for sustainability in the waste and resource management sector.
There are a number of reasons for this, not least that the Waste Hierarchy is seen as being self regulating, however a lesson learnt from a very similar roll out of the Duty of Care over 20 years ago, informs us that this wasn't entirely successful!
There are also a number of other reasons why it been difficult to implement, I have outlined some of these below. The solutions to these are not particularly simple, but could be tackled with a proper strategy and some resource.
Briefly these area:
- Current behaviours in C & I waste collection, whereby the contractors take on all the responsibility (or maybe not). This is mainly why the tick box exists on the DoC WTN.
- Lack of clear policy on waste planning. In turn this leads to lack of, or inappropriate investment in handling and treatment technologies. Most of the money is currently following EfW because of the potential for ROC's/RHI, this conflicts with the Waste Hierarchy to some extent.
- Slow drafting and implementation of End of Waste criteria is hampering the the quality assurance that is needed to underpin recyclate markets. Volatility leads to more waste being exported (often illegally), incinerated or landfilled.
- Similar (or better) incentives need to be put in place to encourage re-use.
- Waste reduction, and avoidance needs clear policy leads and should sit with one department and have a much higher profile than it has currently
All companies with Environmental Management Systems should now be looking at how they can comply with the requirements of the Waste Hierarchy and it should become a regular feature of CSR reporting, that would be a start!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)