« Stress Test | Main | Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony Video »

Does Iain Gulland Know The Cost And Result Of His Proposal

Scotland seeks to improve recycling record with pioneering 'carbon metric' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Councils in Scotland are to dramatically reorganise their recycling schemes by targeting materials that cause the most damage to the climate, such as food waste, textiles and plastics.
From 2013, councils and householders will be asked to recycle far more of the waste that has a "high carbon impact" and is more environmentally damaging, under a new "carbon metric". Materials with lower carbon benefits from recycling, such as paper, will become less important.
Iain Gulland, the director of Zero Waste Scotland, said this new system was "the next leap" in recycling and that using tonnage was not as environmentally sensitive and sustainable as it should be.
"This is where Scotland is going to lead," he said. "It's all about climate change.

I have spent the time and read the proposal and supporting documentation.
Their ideas of "peer review" and "detailed workings" aren't mine and in the acres of carbon jargon I am sure I have missed some things. But I can't see anywhere what the costs will be, either in real money or the forced use of household labour, nor can I see what the result will be in terms of how much climate change will be prevented.
I think I will have to ask:

To iain.gulland@zerowastescotland.org.uk.

I am excited to see the new plans you have announced for using a carbon metric for prioritising waste collection in Scotland.

I have read the documentation on your website - http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/latest_news/carbon_metric_launch.html but I have failed to grasp a couple of key points.
Please could you help me out.

You say it is "all about climate change". How many degrees of warming will this scheme prevent?

Segregating waste obviously has a cost to householders, this time can be conservatively costed at the national minimum wage. What are your detailed costings for the time it will take individual to comply, and how many people will be subject to the new rules? This can easily be then costed.

Many thanks

I look forward to the answer.


"I look forward to the answer."

Best of luck with that!

Why don't they simply evict everyone in Scotland and put up blocks of empty athletes' villages instead?

That way NOTHING will have to be recycled.

"Segregating waste obviously has a cost to householders, this time can be conservatively costed at the national minimum wage. What are your detailed costings for the time it will take individual to comply, and how many people will be subject to the new rules? This can easily be then costed."

Make it all too complicated and cumbersome for the public and - hey presto! Officials will be puzzled by a sudden unaccountable rise in illegal tipping throughout the Scottish countryside.

Are they going to have a site for the recycling of jobsworths? This idiot you mention is obviously the first candidate for the trials of the system. "It is all about climate change", no it isn't, it is about empire building and stealing taxpayers money. The climate will continue to do what it does best, change, get used to it.

By the time you get a reply I can guarantee that most of Scotland will be tropical rain forest and the majority of Holland will be under 10 metres of water.

"I look forward to the answer."

Bully for you!

Or should that be: Haggis for you?!

When our local authority replaced the 1 x 'normal' bin (collected weekly) with 2 x bins ( 1x 'normal' & 1 x recyclable) each collected every other week. The crafty buggers reduced by 30% the volume of the 'normal' bin.

[So the total volume we can dispose of per fortnight was unilaterally reduced by 15%]

The unintended consequences are lengthy queues of CO2-producing cars driven to the 'Dump'; and, increases in flytipping which has to be expensively collected by ....... the local authority.

"I look forward to the answer."

Except we already know exactly what the answer will be: a bland brush-off.

Recycling is a good idea up to a certain level dependent on quite complicated cost benefit analyses. However doing it under the guise of the new religion of AGW is on a par with making sacrifices to the gods both in terms of cause and effect. Don't hold your breath whilst waiting for definitive answers on the reduced number of degrees in warming or on proper detailed costing. We have of course entertained much greater folly with the UK Climate Change Act. In that case no one at Westminster bothered to estimate how much it would cost the UK to decarbonise 80% of its economy by 2050 nor indeed did anyone consider how it could possibly be achieved. However in our democracy of elected (and presumably wise) elders very few MPs asked any questions or voted against this most expensive piece of legislation in the history of the world. Compared to this the Scottish Councils have proposed a relatively sensible idea.

QUOTE "Using the IPCC’s own figures, such a total shut-down of all man-made CO2 in Australia would reduce global temperature in 2050 by just 0.0154° C below what it would have otherwise been. And the sea level may be 2mm lower." UNQUOTE

Kind of puts recycling into perspective, doesn't it?


You would think that a few degrees of Global Warming would be a good idea for Scotland. Especially after this past winter, and possibly winters ahead, since the old planet seems to be on a cooling phase. I can see the future headlines - throw all your rubbish in a heap to stop the next ice age!

A bit off topic, but I read that Oxford City Council has a Climate Change jobsworth who gets paid £44,000 a year. How many other councils in England support such waste of money? What is the national bill for Climate Change personnel? If you employ people for these jobs they will want to hang on to their salaries and go along with any nonsense proposed by Westminster. They don't care how much the taxpayer suffers any more than Marie Antoinette did. Bring on the guillotines.

Post a comment