Protecting the Environment
Discussion
I can already see how this thread will go as it is about protecting the environment, but seriously, how far should we go in the other direction?
After reading this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/16/...
So yes, it may be a bit sensationalist, but it's got me worried.
Especially such things as:
The need for waste management plans for construction sites will be scrapped.
This is not really a burden,but has seen a great improvement in how the industry helps improve where everybody lives.
What I don't get with these measures is that we live in 'the environment', it affects our health and society as a whole. I remember someone posting on here a few weeks ago that 'we can just get the DNA of endangered species and regrow them in a lab in the future'. Is that really how people think?
What good can possibly come from scrapping the need to protect wildlife habitats, apart from making a few housebuilders (and the politician friends) richer?
After reading this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/16/...
So yes, it may be a bit sensationalist, but it's got me worried.
Especially such things as:
The need for waste management plans for construction sites will be scrapped.
This is not really a burden,but has seen a great improvement in how the industry helps improve where everybody lives.
What I don't get with these measures is that we live in 'the environment', it affects our health and society as a whole. I remember someone posting on here a few weeks ago that 'we can just get the DNA of endangered species and regrow them in a lab in the future'. Is that really how people think?
What good can possibly come from scrapping the need to protect wildlife habitats, apart from making a few housebuilders (and the politician friends) richer?
I think the assumption that regulations some how protect things is wrong. What they do is complicate things, and thus make things more expensive. My hope would be that getting rid of the regulations will make it easier for people to build one house, as and where they need it, and reduce the advantage that the regulations give to huge developers with in-house legal and planning consultants who can ensure that they get the go ahead to build 1,000 identical boxes.
AJS- said:
I think the assumption that regulations some how protect things is wrong. What they do is complicate things, and thus make things more expensive. My hope would be that getting rid of the regulations will make it easier for people to build one house, as and where they need it, and reduce the advantage that the regulations give to huge developers with in-house legal and planning consultants who can ensure that they get the go ahead to build 1,000 identical boxes.
Environmental regulations are needed to force people who build things to actually take into account the environment. Blame identical boxes on Architects, a lot of schemes now are very sympathetic to the environment, which is a win-win for everyone - better places to live in, and a better environment for all. I note they also want to scrap the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. I am not sure how that is lessening red tape either.
As someone who works in the industry I can tell you these waste management plans are useless.
They do not make the environment cleaner at all, as like with most things, they are not enforced, and easily worked around.
Most of all recycling (that includes residential, etc) goes to a landfill anyway.
The increased performance in the industry is not as a result of these waste management plans, but more as a result of the increase cost of taking waste away from site.... Hence it being in the construction companies benefit to reduce it's on site waste.
They do not make the environment cleaner at all, as like with most things, they are not enforced, and easily worked around.
Most of all recycling (that includes residential, etc) goes to a landfill anyway.
The increased performance in the industry is not as a result of these waste management plans, but more as a result of the increase cost of taking waste away from site.... Hence it being in the construction companies benefit to reduce it's on site waste.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
The increased performance in the industry is not as a result of these waste management plans, but more as a result of the increase cost of taking waste away from site.... Hence it being in the construction companies benefit to reduce it's on site waste.
Exactly, it's driven innovation in the industry to improve itself (i.e. a big stick) which has turned out to be beneficial to the environment, which was its purpose - otherwise nothing would change and there would be no improvement.I am not sure how that is a bad thing? (I am 'in the industry' too).
vonuber said:
Exactly, it's driven innovation in the industry to improve itself (i.e. a big stick) which has turned out to be beneficial to the environment, which was its purpose - otherwise nothing would change and there would be no improvement.
I am not sure how that is a bad thing? (I am 'in the industry' too).
It has nothing to do with the waste management plan though.I am not sure how that is a bad thing? (I am 'in the industry' too).
That is just more useless red tape that only increases admin and hassle for the construction companies.
The increased efficiency is purely cost driven, and that is based on the increased levies imposed on waste companies, etc for getting rid of the waste. That and fuel costs which have pushed up all logistical prices, but that is something that is not specific to the construction industry....that is something everyone is having to deal with.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
It has nothing to do with the waste management plan though.
That is just more useless red tape that only increases admin and hassle for the construction companies.
The increased efficiency is purely cost driven, and that is based on the increased levies imposed on waste companies, etc for getting rid of the waste. That and fuel costs which have pushed up all logistical prices, but that is something that is not specific to the construction industry....that is something everyone is having to deal with.
No, but the plan means that companies have to consider what waste they are generating and how to deal with it, which focuses on the reduction.That is just more useless red tape that only increases admin and hassle for the construction companies.
The increased efficiency is purely cost driven, and that is based on the increased levies imposed on waste companies, etc for getting rid of the waste. That and fuel costs which have pushed up all logistical prices, but that is something that is not specific to the construction industry....that is something everyone is having to deal with.
Agreed that it is cost driven, but then that seems to be the only way to drive change that is beneficial to the environment; otherwise the cheapest solution will be implemented with no regard to impact. See the 1960s and 70s for that
.vonuber said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
It has nothing to do with the waste management plan though.
That is just more useless red tape that only increases admin and hassle for the construction companies.
The increased efficiency is purely cost driven, and that is based on the increased levies imposed on waste companies, etc for getting rid of the waste. That and fuel costs which have pushed up all logistical prices, but that is something that is not specific to the construction industry....that is something everyone is having to deal with.
No, but the plan means that companies have to consider what waste they are generating and how to deal with it, which focuses on the reduction.That is just more useless red tape that only increases admin and hassle for the construction companies.
The increased efficiency is purely cost driven, and that is based on the increased levies imposed on waste companies, etc for getting rid of the waste. That and fuel costs which have pushed up all logistical prices, but that is something that is not specific to the construction industry....that is something everyone is having to deal with.
Agreed that it is cost driven, but then that seems to be the only way to drive change that is beneficial to the environment; otherwise the cheapest solution will be implemented with no regard to impact. See the 1960s and 70s for that
.vonuber said:
No, but the plan means that companies have to consider what waste they are generating and how to deal with it, which focuses on the reduction.
Agreed that it is cost driven, but then that seems to be the only way to drive change that is beneficial to the environment; otherwise the cheapest solution will be implemented with no regard to impact. See the 1960s and 70s for that.
Since it's inception we have Never once looked at the waste management plans.Agreed that it is cost driven, but then that seems to be the only way to drive change that is beneficial to the environment; otherwise the cheapest solution will be implemented with no regard to impact. See the 1960s and 70s for that
.We get them produced for each of our sites each month. They are produced by the waste companies we use, so no idea how accurate they are (apparently 95% of our waste is recycled if you believe that).
We have them on site because if we don't we could get fined 50,000 if someone was to come round and check we had one on and there wasn't one.
To this date, not once has anyone ever come round to check.
It's a load of beaurocratical nonsense thought up by people who really have no idea how the real world works.
What we do do, is check how many Muckaways & skips we've used over a project, how much it COST us, and then we look at ways we can be more efficient to reduce those costs. Trying to quantify how protective of the environment we have been never factors into it at all.
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Saturday 17th March 15:29
vonuber said:
AJS- said:
I think the assumption that regulations some how protect things is wrong. What they do is complicate things, and thus make things more expensive. My hope would be that getting rid of the regulations will make it easier for people to build one house, as and where they need it, and reduce the advantage that the regulations give to huge developers with in-house legal and planning consultants who can ensure that they get the go ahead to build 1,000 identical boxes.
Environmental regulations are needed to force people who build things to actually take into account the environment. Blame identical boxes on Architects, a lot of schemes now are very sympathetic to the environment, which is a win-win for everyone - better places to live in, and a better environment for all. I note they also want to scrap the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. I am not sure how that is lessening red tape either.
Finally, what's the use in having nice empty houses with carbon offset trees, quadruple glazing and a pedestrian crossing for frogs, if no-one can afford to buy them and everyone ends up living in knackered old 19th century houses converted in bedsits.
A law saying you can't dump waste at the side of the road is good, fair and reasonable, easy to follow and a genuine improvement over the alternative. These massively prescriptive laws and planning procedures don't achieve anything of the sort, and simply make housing expensive and complicated. For instance I know of someone who had to have triple glazing on an outside porch area that they never intended to heat to start with FFS! This sort of thing is just utterly pointless and rightly ought to be scrapped.
mybrainhurts said:
vonuber said:
Environmental regulations are needed to force people who build things to actually take into account the environment.
How did we go on before regulations, then? My dad built a house in 1949 and I don't remember him assaulting the environment in the process.Those who make the regs, do you think they 'really' do it for your environmental benefit?
How much dosh can be made is paramount, environment hardly comes into the equation apart from the word itself.
I'm old enough to remember we really did more for the environment - as far back as in the 50s and 60s... the rag and bone man took away all your junk (and sometimes paid you!) which in essence was recycling though not in name, the Corona (if you don't know what that is then google it) van took away all your empties, you took your other empties back for a return (cash), the milkman (the who?) took your gold top bottles away each day, litter actually went into bins, I could go on... and on.
Today? I only have to look at the front page of my local rag in Cameron's constituency...
Rats (rodent kind!) are prevalent and a real problem because of the litter and rubbish everywhere...
The environment? Waste 'management'? They don't give a toss. Only for what they can make (dosh again!) out of it. Or what they are forced by the EU to implement.
Edited by dandarez on Sunday 18th March 01:52
vonuber said:
No, but the plan means that companies have to consider what waste they are generating and how to deal with it, which focuses on the reduction.
Removing waste costs money - so it's something that businesses have already worked hard to make sure there is as little waste in the first place. You don't need a plan when it costs 100 per ton of waste you generate - the 100 per ton is enough for any business to find a way of reducing the waste. It's a simple cost exercise.(100 is estimated, sure it's far more).
mybrainhurts said:
vonuber said:
Environmental regulations are needed to force people who build things to actually take into account the environment.
How did we go on before regulations, then? My dad built a house in 1949 and I don't remember him assaulting the environment in the process.mybrainhurts said:
vonuber said:
Environmental regulations are needed to force people who build things to actually take into account the environment.
How did we go on before regulations, then? My dad built a house in 1949 and I don't remember him assaulting the environment in the process.
2) Can you remember what all the materials he used were and do you know where they all came from and what happened to all the waste?
Eric Mc said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonuber said:
Environmental regulations are needed to force people who build things to actually take into account the environment.
How did we go on before regulations, then? My dad built a house in 1949 and I don't remember him assaulting the environment in the process.Today, asbestos is not in use, so not relevant to this topic.
mybrainhurts said:
Today, asbestos is not in use, so not relevant to this topic.
I'd say it is very important to this topic. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin In 1990 or so I decided to replace the asbestos guttering around my house. In those days, you took it down carefully, rang the Council. and they sent a bloke round to take it away to dispose of it "properly"
Some years ago SWMBO decided to replace the asbestos guttering on the house she still owns elsewhere. On enquiring, she was told that whoever took it down needed to be "suited up," it needed securley wrapping afterwards, and then it was to be taken by appointment to a waste disposal company who specialised in the material.
Suffice to say the bloody stuff is still up there and, if it ever gets taken down by somebody else in the future, there is a far higher likelihood of it ending up in a ditch somewhere than used to be the case before the regs were "improved"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff