Yes, yes, I know I bang on about it but Booker is quite right here.
What has thrown all this into chaos has been the imposition of a wholly different EU policy which seeks to eliminate landfilling (originally because some countries, such as Holland and Denmark were running out of land to fill). The EU puts recycling at the top of its priority list, followed by incineration. Only then can what remains be buried.
To conform with the Euro-model, we have therefore been required to discourage landfilling by closing down our rubbish tips and imposing ever higher "landfill taxes", to build hugely expensive incinerators and to collect far more waste for "recycling" than we can actually recycle.
Instead of all this being admitted, it has become shrouded in propagandist humbug.
We are repeatedly told we are "running out of sites for landfill", when every year we quarry out 110 million cubic metres of soil and rock, more than the refuse we produce. We are told that incineration is cheaper than landfill, when in fact it can cost as much as £190 a ton, as opposed to a maximum landfill cost of only £62.
Not all that surprising that I agree for of course Imake the same points myself.
But the really enraging thing is that the recycling system doesn\’t in fact save resources. It doesn\’t do what its promoters claim it does.
There is some discrete amount of time that a household must take to organise and prepare items for recycling. The only estimate for this time that I\’ve seen (and yes, I have asked DoE as was what was their estimate and they said they didn\’t have one) came from a study in Seattle: 15 minutes per week for a simple system, 45 minutes for food and garden waste inclusive ones.
Tot that time up over the nation and the year and we\’ve some 900 million hours of labour being used. Yes, labour is a resource, yes, it does have a value and yes, it is in total worth more than the entire waste disposal system itself.
Recycling destroys resources, not saves them.
The only way to deny that is to claim that people\’s time has no value: a concept that is so idiotic only a Green could possibly advance it.