ï¿½1 in ï¿½3 spent on waste

Latest Articles

ï¿½1 in ï¿½3 spent on waste
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Author

Message

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 10:52 am Post subject:

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
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 10:55 am Post subject:

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

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 11:01 am Post subject:

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

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

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 11:06 am Post subject:

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
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 11:08 am Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

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

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
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 11:11 am Post subject:

cab wrote:

Treacodactyl wrote:

Because that is what you are doing.

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

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 11:14 am Post subject:

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
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 11:25 am Post subject:

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

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 12:05 pm Post subject:

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

Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 2469
Location: Beds

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 12:12 pm Post subject:
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?

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 12:16 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

Are you saying that 50% is an insignificant number to start to tackle?

Bluntly yes as far as I understand the problem landfill will run out quite soon. Looking at the packaging numbers posted of supermarkets vs shops you're talking a small percentage reduction to get them in step which is no where near enough.

What also surprises me is if you don't like how supermarkets act how you can leave such an important problem in their hands.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 12:18 pm Post subject:

ros wrote:

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?

Yes it is. Will it work as much as is required, is there time to try and let it work, I don't think there is.

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 12:20 pm Post subject:

Treacodactyl wrote:

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.

Oh, well thats me told then

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 09 2:45 pm Post subject:

Treacodactyl wrote:

What also surprises me is if you don't like how supermarkets act how you can leave such an important problem in their hands.

What surprises me is that you haven't actually read what I've said if you think the above statement is in any way accurate.

tinyclanger

Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 190
Location: in the kitchen, baking

Posted: Sat Nov 21, 09 9:26 pm Post subject:

Hi,
if you read the article it says that District Councils spend ï¿½1 in every ï¿½3 on waste...... what the article fails to point out is that District Councils collect the councils tax, hand most of it to the County Council and the Police and keep on average 10% of what they collected from you. So its actually ï¿½1 in ï¿½3 of 10% of the concil tax you pay to the district council that is spent on all waste services not just kerbside refuse and recycling collections.
Waste collection and disposal in the UK costs approximatley ï¿½75 per household per year and that includes all kerbside recycling and refuse collection services, bring sites, waste treatment/sorting etc. Personally I think that is pretty good value for money when if you want to hire a skip it will cost you over ï¿½100 per load. But then, I guess the truth is not so "controvertial" is it?

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Reduce, Reuse, Recycle	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 7 of 8

View Latest Posts