Protecting the Environment
Discussion
Law for this, licence for that. The extra hassle that comes with having licences for running a scrapyard is b
ks. Competitors get around it because they are working for the police (nice kick back) or an agency. It's just like most other things, a scam to squeeze more money out of small businesses and to finish them off for good.
ks. Competitors get around it because they are working for the police (nice kick back) or an agency. It's just like most other things, a scam to squeeze more money out of small businesses and to finish them off for good.vonuber said:
Thing is, it's not just waste management. they are planning on watering down or removing a whole host of other regs, like clean air, noise, protection of habitats.
How is this a good thing?
Because regulation has gone futher than is necessary. At this point, it becomes a pain in the arse for anyone involved.How is this a good thing?
Spiritual_Beggar said:
As someone who works in the industry...
Most of all recycling (that includes residential, etc) goes to a landfill anyway.
I'd be interested to know what evidence you have for this. I too work in the industry and whilst 'some' recycling ends up in landfill, this is usually down to excessive contamination rather than just wanton disposal.Most of all recycling (that includes residential, etc) goes to a landfill anyway.
I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary and given that market prices for most recyclable materials is high, I can't see the logic in anybody paying 80 to throw away 2,000 worth of PET.
vonuber said:
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?
It's indicative of the level of intelligence of some who post on here. Probably the same guy who suggested that oil would never run out because it is still being formed 
JDRoest said:
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).
Randy Winkman said:
JDRoest said:
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).
Halb said:
Devil2575 said:
It's indicative of the level of intelligence of some who post on here. Probably the same guy who suggested that oil would never run out because it is still being formed
Isn't it?Millions of years ago any dead carbon based life form would under the pressure caused by the mass above it turn into other forms of carbon, such as coal, oil and gas. Now whilst there are billions of tons of carbon based life forms dying everyday where they used to float to the bottom of the oceans (for example) and begin their transformation into oily goodness now, due mainly to the invention of plate tectonics and SUVs, they turn immediately to co2. And it's all your fault!!!
However by paying more tax it's thought this can be reversed.
This is the intelligent view, apparently.
rs1952 said:
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" 
I think our local tip has a corner where you can unload your own asbestos. None of the staff go near this area and some contractor collects it once a month or so. As long as you don't break it you are not at any risk. Some buildings have had it taken out with no replacement, I used to work in an office that was freezing for this reason.One stupid thing the councils have done round here for the environment around here is closing the tip one day a week. How many people are going to turn up, find it shut, then just dump the car load of stuff in a field nearby?
Am I going mad? I am sure there was a response to something I had posted where I was asked to point out where the legislation was being watered down because it wasn't - it seems to have disappeared?
Anyway, my main point really is this - if we don't have the legislation (or the threat of a stick) people will tend to take the cheapest and least hassle option - which historically, meant just dumping it wherever. Maybe there is too much red tape (god knows the hoops I have to jump through at work) BUT the overall message of 'it's your and your children's environment - don't muck it up' is a good one.
I am not sure relaxing standards and targets is the best way about. By all means simplify reports/forms etc, but generally forcing companies to not dump their waste into the nearest watercourse but dispose of it properly is a good thing.
As is reducing air pollution, noise etc (although I do understand that most of PHers live in gated mansions in unspoilt countryside, protected by the legislation..).
Anyway, my main point really is this - if we don't have the legislation (or the threat of a stick) people will tend to take the cheapest and least hassle option - which historically, meant just dumping it wherever. Maybe there is too much red tape (god knows the hoops I have to jump through at work) BUT the overall message of 'it's your and your children's environment - don't muck it up' is a good one.
I am not sure relaxing standards and targets is the best way about. By all means simplify reports/forms etc, but generally forcing companies to not dump their waste into the nearest watercourse but dispose of it properly is a good thing.
As is reducing air pollution, noise etc (although I do understand that most of PHers live in gated mansions in unspoilt countryside, protected by the legislation..).
vonuber said:
Anyway, my main point really is this - if we don't have the legislation (or the threat of a stick) people will tend to take the cheapest and least hassle option - which historically, meant just dumping it wherever.
I think you missed my pictures above. Dumped on the moors because of red tape and charges for disposal.vonuber said:
mybrainhurts said:
I think you missed my pictures above. Dumped on the moors because of red tape and charges for disposal.
No, I saw that - but here is the thing. Who pays for the disposal of it? The Council? Then who pays the Council costs?Spiritual_Beggar said:
There was a lot less fly tipping when landfill costs, and fuel costs were lot lower.....because despite what you think, people would rather not 'S**t where they eat' so to speak.
If it was not costly to take rubbish to a landfill/ recycling center......that's what people would do.
If it was not costly to take rubbish to a landfill/ recycling center......that's what people would do.
And a key element of the basis for the increased costs is...fairytales.
Try and burn the stuff and similar fairytales are brought out to play.
The point is you just can't send stuff to landfill anymore though, that's the point. It already costs a fortune to remediate the old ones (sealing leachates off from groundwater etc), and where would you propose the new ones to be? How would you ensure that they are corrctly sealed and mainatained so they don't damage the envirnment? We haven't managed it before - I spent work experince years ago when I was doing my Uni course on the remediation of a landfill site - the crap that was dug up was amazing (and very lethal). And that was a relatively small one.
As for burning waste, I'm all for it for power generation - as long as they trap the nasties given off during the burning process using carbon filters or whatnot.
As for burning waste, I'm all for it for power generation - as long as they trap the nasties given off during the burning process using carbon filters or whatnot.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff