BBC Blog Network

User Profile

jo_mojobanana

Listed below are comments made by jo_mojobanana between Friday, 8th August 2008 and Tuesday, 26th August 2008.

«Newer
Older»

Soleful 2:18pm on 26 Aug 2008 #54 johnhcrf

"You have managed to disrespect, attack and belittle everyone in the blog that had a different opinion." - hydroscooby

Absolutely. There are intelligent, articulate, informed and responsible individuals taking place in this debate and all you can do is try to demonise them, ignore their well-written, well-referenced responses highlighting the concerns we all have with your attitude towards waste.

If anyone dares to disagree with your approach you immediately jump to attack them as wasteful and unconcerned with the environment. That they are somehow trying to perpetuate your myth that the plastics industry (and any other packaging material manufacturer) is inherently wasteful and, indeed, revels in this. This highlights your insecurity in your ideas, perhaps?

I will say, as many others have, your approach is commendable, but mis-informed and completely without insight into the wider picture. In fact, I find your attitude borders on bullying.
Pop goes my drinks choice 1:29pm on 15 Aug 2008 #26 - green_bob

Absolutely couldn't agree with you more. I did read something about thinktank recently, as co-ordinating the councils is proving tougher due to funding etc. I'm not making excuses, that's just how it's progressing at the moment.

I've always thought a joined-up, strategic approach to kerbside collection is key in getting 'refuseniks' to recycle. Also, in European cities they have big bins for daily waste disposal that are emptied every day (they also allow separation of waste). I would suggest this for areas with lots of flats, but no doubt someone would come along to empty them all over the street before the rubbish truck comes along.
Pop goes my drinks choice 12:02pm on 15 Aug 2008 #21 - stj-stp-green

Tetrapak recycling is done in the UK, just not particularly widely. Recycling points are popping up all the time, my nearest is in the carpark of my local supermarket.

Someone mentioned DRIVING to deposit a used carton/bottle etc, which then is transported and processed and recycled, then manufactured. Well, in order to make that container again from scratch, the raw material would have to be transported, processed and manufactured, so why not expend that energy on reusing a material that already is there, rather than landfilling it, which is just saying the material is worthless and throwing it away. This is why I and a few others keep banging on about life cycle analysis. It's this tool which helps to show where the two possibilities differ and which one is cumulatively 'better'.

For example, adding recycled glass (known as cullet) to a furnace to remake bottles reduces the energy requirement hugely and stops that material from clogging up landfill. It also reduces the demand for the raw material, so reducing energy requirements there, and transportation required. Similarly with aluminium, it takes 2 tonnes of bauxite to make 1 tonne of aluminium so gathering used material reduces energy requirement in manufacture, transport, etc.

You have to consider the whole life cycle, provenance, energy requirements and EVERY stage. Improved recycling facilities are key to sustainable life cycles, for plastics even moreso than most materials.
Pop goes my drinks choice 11:51am on 15 Aug 2008 #17 - fisher85

Yes the water in Birmingham is great, I loved it. But then it does come from Wales!
Pop goes my drinks choice 5:09pm on 14 Aug 2008 I'm with ajs_dy on the thermos, and you can get stainless steel ones quite cheaply in a well known supermarket.

Tough for the water though - it's difficult to find one in the shops that isn't in a plastic bottle and the cups at water coolers are usually plastic.
Toothy grin? 2:23pm on 12 Aug 2008 I think there are two separate issues regarding packaging here:

The first is that a material, whether it be plastic or glass or green fur with spots on, may be selected after extensive study of the life cycle, supply chain and disposal routes to produce a piece of packaging. It will be of the optimum thickness and placed where most appropriate according to where research and experience has shown it to be of benefit. However, this optimal material will end up in people's homes and need to be disposed of, by whatever means, having fulfilled its function.

The second is that some people prefer not to have to deal with this material, so would prefer heavier secondary (outer) packaging meaning no packaging to dispose of in the home. This means that potentially in the supply chain is higher levels of waste or greater overall weight of packaging (I'm talking secondary/outer packaging).

This is where the assumptions come in regarding 'glass better than plastic because it can be recycled' and this may be a perfectly valid point in some cases. But plastic is better than glass because breakages don't result in sharp shards of glass, it's lighter, pliable and IS recyclable. It's the facilities that are sketchy at best.

Instead of making packaging the scapegoat, I would encourage people to question their local authorities and government on why there is no national strategy on recycling facilities. Why I, in Milton Keynes, can recycle pretty much anything, including some plastics, but my parents, in Wales, can recycle newspaper, but not cardboard, which has a much higher virgin material content, therefore much more valuable in paper recycling.

What I don't want to see is an abandonment of the fundamentals of packaging in favour of using only materials which have previously been abandoned because a lighter and more efficient alternative has been found.
Toothy grin? 11:05pm on 11 Aug 2008 #13 - idontmuchbut

I agree. The concept of life cycle analysis, energy consumption and carbon footprinting of products seems to be completely ignored by many in favour of misled conceptions of 'environmentally friendliness' based purely on impression

We will not start to halt global warming by using a wooden toothbrush. We will do so by questioning the very use of many products, their production, sourcing, transportation, associated emissions and end of life disposal methods. I suspect plastic and its myriad uses are an easy and emotive target as well as being a very visible medium for attack.
Bin there 10:21pm on 08 Aug 2008 #86

you're right, you can wash and reuse a cotton bag. But you can also do that with plastic bags, indeed most reusable plastic bags supplied by the supermarkets are plastic.

Agree with you on the consumerism though. I've been trying my best to avoid buying cheap, low-grade material products. I was very pleased recently when I was able to buy spare part and repair my vacuum cleaner as I'd feared I'd need a new one.
Nappies: A messy situation 5:59pm on 08 Aug 2008 #93 - nastynoonoo

"Will all you green minded mucky people stop washing poo, paper and all sorts of chemicals (yes soda powder is a chemical - duh!) down your loos and drains - I'd like to take a paddle in the local river this afternoon - NOT!... where the devil do you 'think' (obviously the wrong word) all this stuff ends up?"

Actually, I think you'll find it ends up in a sewage treatment plant, before being discharged into rivers when it has been CLEANED.

Or other ideas are so ridiculous I'm going to put you down as an escaped convict from the dark ages. Honestly, if you're going to engage in debate you may want to educate yourself first.
One week in 4:22pm on 08 Aug 2008 So it's ok to consume as long as there's a way to get rid of the waste? Just keep consuming, but it's ok, because we can recycle the waste. Well that's ok then...

The recycling can only take place when there's an end use for the material. Otherwise you end up with barrel-loads of material you've recycled for no purpose, expending energy and resources in the process. If all you care about is whether something's recyclable or not, and then one day it all is, we're going to end up with too much material in the marketplace and no reuse for it.

Your approach is laughable. My approach is to think carefully about purchases, about the actual product that's being bought. Is it really necessary? Can I live without it? Will this product enhance my ability to reduce energy consumption, resource consumption? Is the product durable or have replaceable spare parts meaning I need not replace the entire thing? Will the product remain fresh until it's all used?

You're trying to paint me as a self-interested, plastic loving scourge of the environment. I can tell you, you couldn't be further from the truth. I object to the amount of 'stuff' in the world, to food waste, to unnecessary suffering and I do everything in my power to not be part of these activities. all you care about is landfill and there is a BIGGER picture you're being very ignorant about.

You can witter on about landfill if you would like, I'm fed up of repeating myself and will not respond to your comments any further.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

jo_mojobanana