Comments on: We need practical greenery, not more taxes. http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/ Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today's issues and tomorrow's problems Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:05:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: Rob Whittle http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/#comment-4834 Rob Whittle Sun, 31 May 2009 10:52:00 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1197#comment-4834 I concur with many of Herbert Asquith's sentiments on Practical Green as well as John's historical wisdom concerning technology and better, more efficient practices. My area has been waste. This says it all where wasting is poor practice and inefficient. Currently landfill and incineration (skyfilling spun as Energy from Waste EfW or Combined Heat and Power, only 27-29% efficiencies) are both inefficient means to dispose to a Narnia land called "Away". We can do better it a multilayered technology/efficient collection/closed loop direction. Alternative Weekly Collection is the most efficient and practical collection method that realises both maximum recycling and understands residual black bag waste as a reality. On top of this we need weekly food waste collections (just like historically the C19th collections to pigs), but this is converted into Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and compost back to the farmers via the latest Anaerobic Digesters (70% energy efficiencies..one of the few things Defra have got right- but limited incentives for a national rollout). DailyMail/Dorreta crew should wiseup a little from the reterograde bug paranoic back to weekly wasting scarmongering, to campaign positively for an efficient weekly food waste collection, especially in Urban/Suburban councils where densities make small vehicle collections viable and nippy. Going back to an extra collection of rubbish will cost the council tax payer a likely £20-35 a year on their existingly high council tax bills, and double the landfill/burner requirements and gate fees for dealing with guilt edge service wasting! Secondly, there are practically about 20-30% of materials that can't be recycled, can't be recycled easily or not viable or practical to undertake closed loop recycling (often ignored or denied by Zero Waste zealots with non practical agendas/alternative idealogies). We have to look at maximised recycling and composting next after affective minimisation, 400Kg> total waste/head is a realistic minimisation figure prior to recycling with 70% recycling levels also attainable. 30% left as projected by Wales. What to do with it? The short to medium term solution is technological for this difficult residual and composite. Long term redesign /streamlining/end of life designing are the solution but this required decades of change globally from producers/consumers/recyclers. Currently we have a number of fully proven volume reducing and recovery technologies such as mechanical sorting with either biological or steam action (MBT/MHT), allow with energy recovery/gas conversion technologies following these mechanical recovery routes. AD or Anaerobic Digestion is the best CHP (Best Available Technique) for food waste/farm organics, In-vessel composting for garden waste; plasma gasification/gasplasma (60-65% energy efficiency..more if gas goes to H2 fuel cells) for plastics/composite residual waste. With plasma gasifiers or plasma converters we are talking treatment of 10% of total waste; not the 40-50% of waste now earmarked for wasteful inefficient incinerators now threatening proliferation nationally (30 large scale..see UKWIN website and map) Where are the landfills or CHP incinerators, are they needed? No! Well neither are needed as recycling and modern CHP with mechanical layered technology has substituted for them, more energy efficiently, more practical, less wasteful, cheaper, more revenue output, less subsidy, less residue to landfil, more gas and saleable closed loop product with less carbon and physical footprints relative to population centres, scmaller modularised scales. Thus more acceptable to local people who have to accomodate such facilities. I concur with many of Herbert Asquith's sentiments on Practical Green as well as John's historical wisdom concerning technology and better, more efficient practices.

My area has been waste. This says it all where wasting is poor practice and inefficient.

Currently landfill and incineration (skyfilling spun as Energy from Waste EfW or Combined Heat and Power, only 27-29% efficiencies) are both inefficient means to dispose to a Narnia land called "Away". We can do better it a multilayered technology/efficient collection/closed loop direction.

Alternative Weekly Collection is the most efficient and practical collection method that realises both maximum recycling and understands residual black bag waste as a reality. On top of this we need weekly food waste collections (just like historically the C19th collections to pigs), but this is converted into Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and compost back to the farmers via the latest Anaerobic Digesters (70% energy efficiencies..one of the few things Defra have got right- but limited incentives for a national rollout). DailyMail/Dorreta crew should wiseup a little from the reterograde bug paranoic back to weekly wasting scarmongering, to campaign positively for an efficient weekly food waste collection, especially in Urban/Suburban councils where densities make small vehicle collections viable and nippy. Going back to an extra collection of rubbish will cost the council tax payer a likely £20-35 a year on their existingly high council tax bills, and double the landfill/burner requirements and gate fees for dealing with guilt edge service wasting!

Secondly, there are practically about 20-30% of materials that can't be recycled, can't be recycled easily or not viable or practical to undertake closed loop recycling (often ignored or denied by Zero Waste zealots with non practical agendas/alternative idealogies). We have to look at maximised recycling and composting next after affective minimisation, 400Kg> total waste/head is a realistic minimisation figure prior to recycling with 70% recycling levels also attainable. 30% left as projected by Wales. What to do with it?

The short to medium term solution is technological for this difficult residual and composite. Long term redesign /streamlining/end of life designing are the solution but this required decades of change globally from producers/consumers/recyclers.

Currently we have a number of fully proven volume reducing and recovery technologies such as mechanical sorting with either biological or steam action (MBT/MHT), allow with energy recovery/gas conversion technologies following these mechanical recovery routes. AD or Anaerobic Digestion is the best CHP (Best Available Technique) for food waste/farm organics, In-vessel composting for garden waste; plasma gasification/gasplasma (60-65% energy efficiency..more if gas goes to H2 fuel cells) for plastics/composite residual waste. With plasma gasifiers or plasma converters we are talking treatment of 10% of total waste; not the 40-50% of waste now earmarked for wasteful inefficient incinerators now threatening proliferation nationally (30 large scale..see UKWIN website and map)

Where are the landfills or CHP incinerators, are they needed? No!

Well neither are needed as recycling and modern CHP with mechanical layered technology has substituted for them, more energy efficiently, more practical, less wasteful, cheaper, more revenue output, less subsidy, less residue to landfil, more gas and saleable closed loop product with less carbon and physical footprints relative to population centres, scmaller modularised scales. Thus more acceptable to local people who have to accomodate such facilities.

]]> By: Neil Craig http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/#comment-4833 Neil Craig Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:31:39 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1197#comment-4833 As Michael says the future potential of the human race must include space development. As Arthur C Clarke said - if humanity is to survive, for most of the race's existence the word "ship" must mean a spaceship not a seagoing vessel. The way to achieve permanent space development is to make it financially sustainable & the way to do that is to introduce commercial standards. Government is good at throwing money at exploration but that is not settlement. What is needed is a cheap way to orbit which the shuttle definitely is not. The way government can do this is by putting up an X-Prize, to encourage the sort of enterprise government is not good at. As Dr Pournelle said for " 1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks." This is nothing compared to what NASA spends, indeed it is only what we give to ESA over 3 years & absolutely nothing compared to the £100 billion Brown wants to spend on windmills, yet it would be remembered for as long as the human race endures, quite literally. It would also put the UK economy at the technological cutting edge. In the unlikely event that it didn't work, not awarding prizes costs nothing. It shows the lack of vision among Britain's & indeed the world's politicians that this was not done years ago, while there is unlimited money to finance Ludditsm. nannying regulations & false eco-scares. Dr Pournelle's proposals in full <a href="http://jerrypournelle.com/topics/gettospace.html" rel="nofollow">http://jerrypournelle.com/topics/gettospace.html</a> As Michael says the future potential of the human race must include space development. As Arthur C Clarke said – if humanity is to survive, for most of the race's existence the word "ship" must mean a spaceship not a seagoing vessel. The way to achieve permanent space development is to make it financially sustainable & the way to do that is to introduce commercial standards. Government is good at throwing money at exploration but that is not settlement.

What is needed is a cheap way to orbit which the shuttle definitely is not. The way government can do this is by putting up an X-Prize, to encourage the sort of enterprise government is not good at. As Dr Pournelle said for

" 1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks."

This is nothing compared to what NASA spends, indeed it is only what we give to ESA over 3 years & absolutely nothing compared to the £100 billion Brown wants to spend on windmills, yet it would be remembered for as long as the human race endures, quite literally.

It would also put the UK economy at the technological cutting edge. In the unlikely event that it didn't work, not awarding prizes costs nothing.

It shows the lack of vision among Britain's & indeed the world's politicians that this was not done years ago, while there is unlimited money to finance Ludditsm. nannying regulations & false eco-scares.

Dr Pournelle's proposals in full http://jerrypournelle.com/topics/gettospace.html

]]> By: Michae Martin-Smith http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/#comment-4832 Michae Martin-Smith Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:01:54 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1197#comment-4832 My suggestion that "The Choice is up to us" is meant as a philosophical view of the evolutionary choice presently facing Human civilisation , even perhaps Humanity itself , as a mindful species. This is a somewhat Stapledonian view, I know- but the fact that most people have not come across Olaf Stapledon's classic "First and Last Men" is itself an indication of the superficiality of our culture and our ways of looking at things...written in 1930, such a work could scarcely be conceived today, and yet it has much to tell us! Britain COULD make a contribution to an open cosmic future, as I propose- NOT by throwing wads of money at huge Government space programmes (although that would actually be better than throwing it at ever more onerous regulation and nannying of a subject people as at present- if only by denial of funds to bureaucratic cliques with a vested interest in the machinery of tyranny). Government space programmes produce, at the very least, major cultural and inspirational enhancements ( Hubble, Cassini, Astrobiology, etc)- unlike the growing apparatus of supervison and control. Our culture needs a dramatic shift towards the valuation of science as an expression of curiosity, engineering, and exploration- upon which the values of Liberty, and wealth generation ultimately depend. We sorely need to look up from our navel-gazing and look out into the wider universe, if we are ever to build a meaningful place in it. They also help us in the real task posed by current environmental concerns- our ongoing task of informed stewardship of this planet. It is time to put Britons back into Space- by encouraging and unshackling those few who are trying to do just that- just as once we "ruled the waves". Until we do so, Britain will never find her true path of pre-eminence in exploration and enterprise. Insofar as Mr Redwood's ideas lead in this direction , he deserves our widest support. It is truly shaming that the nation which produced Drake, Cabot, Newton Darwin, Brunel, Faraday and Shackleton is the ONLY First World country ( including Israel!!)_without an astronaut corps! I would back John Redwood over most other politicians to right this humiliating error. My suggestion that "The Choice is up to us" is meant as a philosophical view of the evolutionary choice presently facing Human civilisation , even perhaps Humanity itself , as a mindful species. This is a somewhat Stapledonian view, I know- but the fact that most people have not come across Olaf Stapledon's classic "First and Last Men" is itself an indication of the superficiality of our culture and our ways of looking at things…written in 1930, such a work could scarcely be conceived today, and yet it has much to tell us!

Britain COULD make a contribution to an open cosmic future, as I propose- NOT by throwing wads of money at huge Government space programmes (although that would actually be better than throwing it at ever more onerous regulation and nannying of a subject people as at present- if only by denial of funds to bureaucratic cliques with a vested interest in the machinery of tyranny).

Government space programmes produce, at the very least, major cultural and inspirational enhancements ( Hubble, Cassini, Astrobiology, etc)- unlike the growing apparatus of supervison and control. Our culture needs a dramatic shift towards the valuation of science as an expression of curiosity, engineering, and exploration- upon which the values of Liberty, and wealth generation ultimately depend. We sorely need to look up from our navel-gazing and look out into the wider universe, if we are ever to build a meaningful place in it.
They also help us in the real task posed by current environmental concerns- our ongoing task of informed stewardship of this planet.

It is time to put Britons back into Space- by encouraging and unshackling those few who are trying to do just that- just as once we "ruled the waves". Until we do so, Britain will never find her true path of pre-eminence in exploration and enterprise.
Insofar as Mr Redwood's ideas lead in this direction , he deserves our widest support.

It is truly shaming that the nation which produced Drake, Cabot, Newton Darwin, Brunel, Faraday and Shackleton is the ONLY First World country ( including Israel!!)_without an astronaut corps! I would back John Redwood over most other politicians to right this humiliating error.

]]> By: Derek W. Buxton http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/#comment-4831 Derek W. Buxton Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:34:35 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1197#comment-4831 Unfortunately the choice is not up to us, but to the the toy parliament in Westminster, a subservient entity to the real government in Brussels. In practice our parliament does not function as it should, to calm the egos of the executive. The "green" story is the scam to end all scams. It will not reduce costs but inflate them as it is doing at present with food and electricity. Without the large subsidy no company would build wind farms on land let alone at sea. The costs are immense for a dodgy source of power which will be even more expensive to maintain. There is no logic in these farms just an ego trip and extra profit for the energy companies. Someone referred to the growing economies of China and India, China- what is it, 2 coal fired power station a week, dirty ones at that. This Country contributes a mere 2% of carbon emmisions, not a lot, but we are to pay billions to meet targets set on the basis of a myth. The lunatics are really in charge of the asylum. Unfortunately the choice is not up to us, but to the the toy parliament in Westminster, a subservient entity to the real government in Brussels. In practice our parliament does not function as it should, to calm the egos of the executive. The "green" story is the scam to end all scams. It will not reduce costs but inflate them as it is doing at present with food and electricity. Without the large subsidy no company would build wind farms on land let alone at sea. The costs are immense for a dodgy source of power which will be even more expensive to maintain. There is no logic in these farms just an ego trip and extra profit for the energy companies. Someone referred to the growing economies of China and India, China- what is it, 2 coal fired power station a week, dirty ones at that.
This Country contributes a mere 2% of carbon emmisions, not a lot, but we are to pay billions to meet targets set on the basis of a myth. The lunatics are really in charge of the asylum.

]]> By: Michae Martin-Smith http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/#comment-4830 Michae Martin-Smith Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:27:05 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1197#comment-4830 We should not overlook the true danger of Anthropogenic Global Warming- namely the growing drift towards totalitarian aspirations on the part of those who espouse the theory. Extreme Greens now openly call for a reversal of the Enlightenment values- freedom of thought , inquiry, and aspiration, upon which our scientific and democratic culture are built- in order to "Save the Planet"- a classic fraud au Dr Goebbels. AGW does not threaten the 4.55 billion year old Mother Earth- but activcely endangers the fragile 3 centuries old Enlightened scientific cuilture of the West! In a direct challenge to Humanism, Green orthodoxy hankers for absolutist and police state methods which are certain to kill far more people than any climate change we can imagine. IF AGW theorists ever build an ideological police state ( as advocated by some) the results- as proven by history- begin with lies, and culminate inexorably after thought suppression, corruption and rapacity on an epic scale , in mass murder- in this case, presumably by artifical famine, as pioneerd by Mao Zedong. As for Malthus, and other hazards - these threaten Human(e) civilisation ONLY if we remain confined to one planet- surely an unnecessary and preposterous notion! Only one part in two billion of the energy emitted by our Sun ever reaches Earth, while only one ironically named Aten class asteroid ( asteroid Amun!) contains 30 times as much iron as Humanity has mined in its entire history. All thought of Limits to Growth are born solely of myopia.. We can build an open, cosmic future- or succumb to a mix of neo-Malthusian based totalitarian tyranny in which mere extinction would seem a blessed release. The choice is up to us! We should not overlook the true danger of Anthropogenic Global Warming- namely the growing drift towards totalitarian aspirations on the part of those who espouse the theory.

Extreme Greens now openly call for a reversal of the Enlightenment values- freedom of thought , inquiry, and aspiration, upon which our scientific and democratic culture are built- in order to "Save the Planet"- a classic fraud au Dr Goebbels.

AGW does not threaten the 4.55 billion year old Mother Earth- but activcely endangers the fragile 3 centuries old Enlightened scientific cuilture of the West!
In a direct challenge to Humanism, Green orthodoxy hankers for absolutist and police state methods which are certain to kill far more people than any climate change we can imagine.

IF AGW theorists ever build an ideological police state ( as advocated by some) the results- as proven by history- begin with lies, and culminate inexorably after thought suppression, corruption and rapacity on an epic scale , in mass murder- in this case, presumably by artifical famine, as pioneerd by Mao Zedong.

As for Malthus, and other hazards – these threaten Human(e) civilisation ONLY if we remain confined to one planet- surely an unnecessary and preposterous notion!

Only one part in two billion of the energy emitted by our Sun ever reaches Earth, while only one ironically named Aten class asteroid ( asteroid Amun!) contains 30 times as much iron as Humanity has mined in its entire history. All thought of Limits to Growth are born solely of myopia..

We can build an open, cosmic future- or succumb to a mix of neo-Malthusian based totalitarian tyranny in which mere extinction would seem a blessed release.
The choice is up to us!

]]> By: adam http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/#comment-4829 adam Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:59:42 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1197#comment-4829 There is a piece in the FT called 'Band-Aids wont save Britain.' I have been getting significant abuse from the left when i claim Britain is dying, they really believe bad things are just made up to fill the pages of the daily mail. But now if the chattering media classes are talking about it at dinner partys thats a real change. The country needs to be saved somehow not thrown to the frothing mouths of the greenie meanies. There is a piece in the FT called 'Band-Aids wont save Britain.'

I have been getting significant abuse from the left when i claim Britain is dying, they really believe bad things are just made up to fill the pages of the daily mail.
But now if the chattering media classes are talking about it at dinner partys thats a real change.

The country needs to be saved somehow not thrown to the frothing mouths of the greenie meanies.

]]> By: mikestallard http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/#comment-4828 mikestallard Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:49:31 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1197#comment-4828 "Green" is a rather loaded word. To me it conjures up a lot of lefties who neither wash nor shave much. They also do drugs and leave a lot of litter all over the place. To my horror, I am completely green! 1. I love composting things. 2. I thoroughly enjoy filling our four different bins with appropriate materials. 3. I cut back on electricity and heating by turning things off and going without if I possibly can. 4. I loathe wastage in every form. 5. Whenever possible, I repair things until they have to be thrown away. It's because I was a boy in the time after the 2nd WW when we were poor! "Green" is a rather loaded word. To me it conjures up a lot of lefties who neither wash nor shave much. They also do drugs and leave a lot of litter all over the place.

To my horror, I am completely green!
1. I love composting things.
2. I thoroughly enjoy filling our four different bins with appropriate materials.
3. I cut back on electricity and heating by turning things off and going without if I possibly can.
4. I loathe wastage in every form.
5. Whenever possible, I repair things until they have to be thrown away.
It's because I was a boy in the time after the 2nd WW when we were poor!

]]> By: adam http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/#comment-4827 adam Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:32:39 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1197#comment-4827 Overpopulation, Herbert? The subtle agenda that runs through the core of the sustdev movement. Just what is a sustainable population level? Overpopulation, Herbert?

The subtle agenda that runs through the core of the sustdev movement. Just what is a sustainable population level?

]]> By: Matthew Reynolds http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/#comment-4835 Matthew Reynolds Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:02:14 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1197#comment-4835 One could always cut VAT on domestic appliances that use very little electricity and reduce it on fuel efficient cars - from 17.5% to 5%. VAT could rise to 17.5% on domestic fuel & power and the winter fuel allowance be axed so that OAP's would have some of their energy brought for them free of charge by the state from a green supplier. Getting a growing share of the population to use green energy providers would help alot I think .More drilling for oil in the South of England and greater usage of clean coal technology and new nuclear power stations would make us less reliant on volatile places for fuel & power . As the UK economy only adds 2% p/a to the global carbon footprint the main aim should be to cut energy usage and develop our own domestic provision so that we can operate an effective 21st Century economy without fear of higher oil prices causing a recession and the lights going out causing mayhem . A mixture of tax & technology is the key . In the short term a 15p a litre in road fuel duty is wise to limit the tax burden & inflation - but in the long term the North Sea Oil surcharge needs to go to encourage more domestic oil supply ( of which we will need less I hope long term ) rather than rely on Russia , Middle East and South America. One could always cut VAT on domestic appliances that use very little electricity and reduce it on fuel efficient cars – from 17.5% to 5%. VAT could rise to 17.5% on domestic fuel & power and the winter fuel allowance be axed so that OAP's would have some of their energy brought for them free of charge by the state from a green supplier. Getting a growing share of the population to use green energy providers would help alot I think .More drilling for oil in the South of England and greater usage of clean coal technology and new nuclear power stations would make us less reliant on volatile places for fuel & power . As the UK economy only adds 2% p/a to the global carbon footprint the main aim should be to cut energy usage and develop our own domestic provision so that we can operate an effective 21st Century economy without fear of higher oil prices causing a recession and the lights going out causing mayhem . A mixture of tax & technology is the key . In the short term a 15p a litre in road fuel duty is wise to limit the tax burden & inflation – but in the long term the North Sea Oil surcharge needs to go to encourage more domestic oil supply ( of which we will need less I hope long term ) rather than rely on Russia , Middle East and South America.

]]> By: Ken Stevens http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/07/20/we-need-practical-greenery-not-more-taxes/#comment-4826 Ken Stevens Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:34:43 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1197#comment-4826 Fully agree (to show that I don't just pounce when you have a go at English Democrats!). Reasonable ecological and economic measures (and, securitywise, to minimize dependence on fuels from unstable overseas territories) are eminently sensible. But global warming hysteria? Harrumphhhhh! Mind you, as regards your leaded/unleaded fuel analogy, I don't trust governments. Isn't diesel cheaper to produce? And wasn't it cheaper to buy? So why is it considerably more expensive, now that many people have switched? Fully agree (to show that I don't just pounce when you have a go at English Democrats!).

Reasonable ecological and economic measures (and, securitywise, to minimize dependence on fuels from unstable overseas territories) are eminently sensible.

But global warming hysteria? Harrumphhhhh!

Mind you, as regards your leaded/unleaded fuel analogy, I don't trust governments. Isn't diesel cheaper to produce? And wasn't it cheaper to buy? So why is it considerably more expensive, now that many people have switched?

]]>