Recycling Plastic Bottles - Yakult?
Ranec
for recycling.
There is a caveat though: bottles only.
They've underlined this quite a lot.
If it's plastic and shaped like a bottle then it's fine.
Today the bin men came, emptied *most* of my plastic bin, leaving the
Yakult bottles behind!
The question, then, is: is a Yakult bottle "enough" of a bottle for me
to rightly expect the South Cambs bin men to take it to be recycled?
Obviously I think it is. I think the essential difference between a pot
and a bottle is a narrow neck. Yakult bottles have narrow necks.
I mention pots only because I'm guessing the bin men have been "trained"
to reject yoghurt pots.
Now the four of us consume a bottle of Yakult a day and I've just
weighed 3 empty ones and together they were 10g. So for a year that's
1.217Kg of plastic per person that could be recycled. The 2001 census
puts the South Cambridge population at 130108 people. Lets suggest that
10% do like me and partake daily of Yakult. That's a probable annual
plastic mountain of 15.83 metric tonnes deliberately not being recycled!
I'm not happy.
R
Brian L Johnson
What's the triangular recycle symbol on the bottom of Yakult bottles? 1?
2?
--
-blj-
Duncan Wood
Because they've not taken your yakult bottle away or you've calculated it
won't make any difference?
Roland Perry
Oct 2008, Ranec <ra...@cemery.org.uk> remarked:
>The question, then, is: is a Yakult bottle "enough" of a bottle for me
>to rightly expect the South Cambs bin men to take it to be recycled?
>
>Obviously I think it is. I think the essential difference between a pot
>and a bottle is a narrow neck. Yakult bottles have narrow necks.
>
>I mention pots only because I'm guessing the bin men have been "trained"
>to reject yoghurt pots.
This is a question worthy of a VAT Tribunal (see Jaffa Cakes), if only
the rate of VAT were currently different on yoghurt delivered in pots
versus bottles...
--
Roland Perry
Paul Oldham
> So South Cambs have given me a bin into which I'm allowed to put plastic
> for recycling.
> There is a caveat though: bottles only.
> They've underlined this quite a lot.
> If it's plastic and shaped like a bottle then it's fine.
>
> Today the bin men came, emptied *most* of my plastic bin, leaving the
> Yakult bottles behind![...]
>
> I'm not happy.
So what are you going to do about it?
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying"
Aly
news:op.ui14ocrj0v1caa@thedell...
>
> What's the triangular recycle symbol on the bottom of Yakult bottles? 1?
> 2?
>
I don't know. I haven't received my legally approved health & safety
certificate, enabling me to sort rubbish.
This is all getting quite daft though. Surely it would be a whole lot
easier if they just collected ALL of the rubbish, and sorted it out
themselves. Instead of snooping through people's bins at 11pm, having
campaigns, printing out millions of leaflets, employing God knows untold,
and all of that.
I'm not trained to do this. Well, it's what they say if you ask them to do
anything...
Ranec
> On 15/10/08 09:25, Ranec wrote:
>
>> So South Cambs have given me a bin into which I'm allowed to put plastic
>> for recycling.
>> There is a caveat though: bottles only.
>> They've underlined this quite a lot.
>> If it's plastic and shaped like a bottle then it's fine.
>>
>> Today the bin men came, emptied *most* of my plastic bin, leaving the
>> Yakult bottles behind![...]
>>
>> I'm not happy.
>
> So what are you going to do about it?
Write to ref...@scambs.gov.uk and ask them to explain and/or reconsider.
R
Ranec
6
R
M.A.
Perhaps you could consider buying a single larger bottle/pot of
probiotic yoghurt. The amount of waste becomes less of an issue then.
I bet the number of people drinking a yakult every day is way less
than 10% though.
Mary Ann
Paul Oldham
Well done.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"If you think there is good in everybody, you haven't met everybody."
Brian L Johnson
> Brian L Johnson wrote:
>> Ranec <ra...@cemery.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Today the bin men came, emptied *most* of my plastic bin, leaving the
>>> Yakult bottles behind!
>>>
>>
>> What's the triangular recycle symbol on the bottom of Yakult bottles?
>> 1? 2?
>>
>
> 6
There's your answer. It's polystyrene and not (easily recyclable)
polyethylene.
AIUI, when they come to melt everything down, they'll probably get a great
soup of melted polyethylene with a few Yakult bottles bobbing about in it.
:)
--
-blj-
magwitch
recycling record in UK). Two bins black and blue and the blue one is for
recycled.
magwitch
It's catching on. Lots of older people drink it (or similar) as the
number of 'good' bacteria in the gut declines after the age of 55.
Roland Perry
fwiw, all the district Councils in Nottinghamshire have got together and
built one recycling "facility" and co-ordinated what they'll accept.
Plastics are essentially "bottles only" (they specifically say *don't*
look at the symbols) including:
Drink bottles
Ketchup bottles
Toiletry bottles
Cleaning product bottles
Margarine/butter tubs
Yoghourt pots
and...
"Friendly bacteria" drink bottles
--
Roland Perry
Michael Kilpatrick
> So South Cambs have given me a bin into which I'm allowed to put plastic
> for recycling.
> There is a caveat though: bottles only.
> They've underlined this quite a lot.
> If it's plastic and shaped like a bottle then it's fine.
>
This what I got from S Cambs via my district councillor a few weeks ago
when I asked about the recycling of "food trays" and wondering whether
the clear plastic two-part trays that strawberries etc come in were
accepted or not. It again suggests that anything "bottle shape" is
taken, so it's all a bit wishy-washy and unhelpful:
"The term 'mixed plastics' refers to all non-bottle plastic packaging, I
will arrange for the website to be amended to clarify this.
The type of plastic collected for recycling is directly influenced by
the processing facilities available and unfortunately there are no cost
effective recycling facilities available locally at this time for mixed
plastics such as yoghurt pots, food trays (including fruit trays) and
plastic film. Plastic bottles only, regardless of 'type' (e.g. 1, 2, 3
etc) are accepted by our processors and this has similarly always been
the acceptance criteria for our plastic banks and signs on the banks
highlight this. Non-bottle plastic containers (i.e. food trays (inc
fruit trays) pot and tubs) are not accepted in the plastic banks.
With over 50 types of plastic we have avoided referring to plastic
polymer types i.e. Type 1,2,3, 4 etc) to minimise confusion. We have
intentionally included in all communications the message that if its
'plastic and bottle shaped' it can be placed in the green box which is a
simple and clear message.
Within two years the County Council's waste treatment contractor
Donarbon will be bringing on stream its mechanical biological treatment
(MBT) facility to treat all black bin rubbish meaning that even plastic
packaging such as yoghurt pots, cling film and food trays that we cannot
recycle at present can be recovered and kept out of landfill."
Brian L Johnson
You'd be better off writing and asking why type 1 & 2 polyethylene food
trays (which are vastly more numerous than Yakult bottles) aren't
collected along with type 1 & 2 polyethylene bottles.
(Hmmm... Unless it's because the trays are -- topologically-speaking --
flat sheets and milk bottles are doughnuts? Nah. Water bottles are flat
sheets as well, aren't they? Oh well.)
--
-blj-
Brian L Johnson
> With over 50 types of plastic we have avoided referring to plastic
> polymer types i.e. Type 1,2,3, 4 etc) to minimise confusion.
Ludicrous. Why bother mandating that recycle symbols are stamped on
products if no one is going to use them?
What could be simpler than asking people to put only type 1 2 or 3 in
their blue bin? The bins could even have a "1, 2 or 3" stamped in a big
triangle on the bin's side in big friendly letters.
--
-blj-
Emily Rodgers
"Ranec" <ra...@cemery.org.uk> wrote in message
news:UtiJk.136867$zj5.1...@newsfe12.ams2...
> Paul Oldham wrote:
>> On 15/10/08 09:25, Ranec wrote:
>>> I'm not happy.
Me neither, but not about them not collecting yakult bottles. I was really
pleased when I heard that they were *finally* going to be collecting
plastics for recycling, but really really cross when I read that it was only
bottles.
My parents live in Wokingham, and for about 10 years their council has been
collecting plastics - and not just bottles. They take most plastic
packaging. I was really hoping for something similar.
>> So what are you going to do about it?
>
> Write to ref...@scambs.gov.uk and ask them to explain and/or reconsider.
I think I may very well be doing that too. I want to know when South Cambs
are finally going to catch up. I thought this area was supposed to be good
for recycling.
Roland Perry
Brian L Johnson <no.e...@address.invalid> remarked:
>You'd be better off writing and asking why type 1 & 2 polyethylene food
>trays (which are vastly more numerous than Yakult bottles) aren't
>collected along with type 1 & 2 polyethylene bottles.
Because they might contain raw food and be rejected under
BSE/FootandMouth-type rules?
--
Roland Perry
Brian L Johnson
Doubtful. Everything gets 'washed' anyway or we'd be having the taste of
old milk or bleach or deodourant making its way into our just-bought Evian
bottles.
--
-blj-
Dave Holland
>Me neither, but not about them not collecting yakult bottles. I was really
>pleased when I heard that they were *finally* going to be collecting
>plastics for recycling, but really really cross when I read that it was only
>bottles.
I was disappointed too. Bottles are the small minority of our
household's plastic waste - it's mostly food trays, yoghurt pots or
packaging film. We'll be lucky to produce one or two bottles a
fortnight.
Tetrapaks would be another good candidate for collection.
>I think I may very well be doing that too. I want to know when South Cambs
>are finally going to catch up. I thought this area was supposed to be good
>for recycling.
To be fair, I think they're quite good at some things. Friends in other
parts of the country are only just getting kerbside metal or glass
collections, which SCDC have been doing for years. And SCDC emptied my
bin in between collection days when it got missed due to a builder's
lorry being parked in front of it.
Dave
Ranec
> Emily Rodgers <em...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Me neither, but not about them not collecting yakult bottles. I was really
>> pleased when I heard that they were *finally* going to be collecting
>> plastics for recycling, but really really cross when I read that it was only
>> bottles.
>
> I was disappointed too. Bottles are the small minority of our
> household's plastic waste - it's mostly food trays, yoghurt pots or
> packaging film. We'll be lucky to produce one or two bottles a
> fortnight.
I do agree that it's a step in the right direction, no matter how
debatable the size of said step. ;-)
> Tetrapaks would be another good candidate for collection.
>
>> I think I may very well be doing that too. I want to know when South Cambs
>> are finally going to catch up. I thought this area was supposed to be good
>> for recycling.
>
> To be fair, I think they're quite good at some things. Friends in other
> parts of the country are only just getting kerbside metal or glass
> collections, which SCDC have been doing for years. And SCDC emptied my
> bin in between collection days when it got missed due to a builder's
> lorry being parked in front of it.
>
> Dave
So having written to them I got this reply:
> Good Morning
>
> Thank you for your email I have forwarded it onto the Recycling Officer
> Kylie Kavanagh and asked her to contact you direct
>
> Liz
>
> Environmental Services
> Waterbeach
R
Roland Perry
2008, Dave Holland <da...@biff.org.uk> remarked:
>Tetrapaks would be another good candidate for collection.
Assuming they can be usefully recycled, which I'm not convinced about.
The official tetrapak recycling site was extremely light on facts and
figures last time I looked.
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Johnson) wrote:
10%?! I rather doubt that.
> > I'm not happy.
>
> What's the triangular recycle symbol on the bottom of Yakult
> bottles? 1? 2?
or 3?
The reason why only bottles are collected for plastics recycling is
because they are all made from those three polymers so the recyclate is
usable. Add other plastics, especially polystyrene (from which yoghurt
pots amongst other things are made) and the recyclate has little or no
value.
Tip: You can tell polystyrene from any other plastic because if you drop
it onto a hard surface it sounds metallic. No other plastics do that.
NALOPKT!
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Ranec
I confess that number was very much a "wet finger" guess.
So I called the sales department of Yakult UK! :-)
They claim they sell 210,000 bottles across the UK each day.
I couldn't find a decent figure in the 2001 census for the UK population.
IIRC It's about 54,000,000.
So that's 0.39%! Over an order of magnitude smaller than my figure.
Oops. :-$
So 0.39% of South Cambridge over a year ended up being 618Kg!
I guess my storm in a tea-cup just got downgraded to a brief shower. :-(
Jules
> This is all getting quite daft though. Surely it would be a whole lot
> easier if they just collected ALL of the rubbish, and sorted it out
> themselves.
That's what they do around here - plastics, glass and cans all go in one
skip. They do ask for 'heavy' cardboard in another, and paper in
a third. Windowed envelopes seem to pose no problem, nor do labels on cans
- although they do ask for bottle/container caps to be removed.
Maybe that just doesn't scale to Cambridge-area population levels though.
Mark T.B. Carroll
> Assuming they can be usefully recycled, which I'm not convinced about.
> The official tetrapak recycling site was extremely light on facts and
> figures last time I looked.
For what it's worth, our local recycling here (i.e. not Britain!)
accepts `bottles and jugs' (without caps) with the 1 and 2 markings,
though it doesn't suggest it accepts other-shaped plastic, and it also
accepts things that look very much like tetrapaks in the picture, where
it gives `milk and juice' cartons as examples.
Mark
Brian L Johnson
Re: Types 1, 2 & 3 plastics
> The reason why only bottles are collected for plastics recycling is
> because they are all made from those three polymers so the recyclate is
> usable. Add other plastics, especially polystyrene (from which yoghurt
> pots amongst other things are made) and the recyclate has little or no
> value.
So, because some non-bottles things may be made from types other than 1, 2
or 3 the recycling company only wants bottles.
Even the squeezy bottle of Heinz Salad Cream (which has no recycle symbol
on it at all) is acceptable?
--
-blj-
magwitch
Brian L Johnson
> Brian L Johnson wrote:
>> Even the squeezy bottle of Heinz Salad Cream (which has no recycle
>> symbol on it at all) is acceptable?
>>
> As someone who makes her own mayonnaise, Heinz will never acceptable.
<g> My daughter can't abide mayo.
She's away at the moment and I'm taking the opportunity to clear out one
of her half-empty salad cream bottles. She acquired the taste at Uni,
where salad-cream sandwiches were de rigeur amongst the smart set. :)
--
-blj-
foolsrushin
> rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <op.ui14ocrj0v1caa@thedell>, no.em...@address.invalid (Brian L
> > NALOPKT!.
Aly made a good point: let them recycle it for themselves! I say it's
a good point because an American guy told me that there was a sort of
conveyor belt solution for processing and separting refuse in his
county, in his State. It was at a cocktail party, so the Cocktail
Party Effect (No. 2!) in this case means I don't remember where it
was! Does anyone know? I do what I can, but there is no policy,
procedure, means for dealing with refuse that I am aware of! Tokenist
stabs at the problem.
Nobody argues that we should not look after our parks and other public
areas, and there seems to be enough money to do it decently. On the
whole, they are a delight.
Recycling? It's a mess!
--
foolsrushin.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Johnson) wrote:
> Ranec <ra...@cemery.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Brian L Johnson wrote:
> >> Ranec <ra...@cemery.org.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Today the bin men came, emptied *most* of my plastic bin, leaving
> >>> the Yakult bottles behind!
> >>>
> >>
> >> What's the triangular recycle symbol on the bottom of Yakult bottles?
> >> 1? 2?
> >
> > 6
>
> There's your answer. It's polystyrene and not (easily recyclable)
> polyethylene.
or PET (1) or PVC (3). HDPE is 2 and LDPE (not used for bottles) is 4.
Details at
http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/Plastics.htm#_Typ
es_of_plastic or http://snipurl.com/4e7jz.
> AIUI, when they come to melt everything down, they'll probably get
> a great soup of melted polyethylene with a few Yakult bottles
> bobbing about in it. :)
Polystyrene is poison to plastics recycling.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Ranec) wrote:
> >>> Now the four of us consume a bottle of Yakult a day and I've just
> >>> weighed 3 empty ones and together they were 10g. So for a year
> >>> that's 1.217Kg of plastic per person that could be recycled. The
> >>> 2001 census puts the South Cambridge population at 130108 people.
> >>> Lets suggest that 10% do like me and partake daily of Yakult.
> >>> That's a probable annual plastic mountain of 15.83 metric tonnes
> >>> deliberately not being
> >
> > 10%?! I rather doubt that.
>
> I confess that number was very much a "wet finger" guess.
> So I called the sales department of Yakult UK! :-)
> They claim they sell 210,000 bottles across the UK each day.
> I couldn't find a decent figure in the 2001 census for the UK
> population.
> IIRC It's about 54,000,000.
> So that's 0.39%! Over an order of magnitude smaller than my figure.
> Oops. :-$
> So 0.39% of South Cambridge over a year ended up being 618Kg!
> I guess my storm in a tea-cup just got downgraded to a brief
> shower. :-(
0.39% is lower than I would have guessed but I was right that you were an
order of magnitude out.
Hell, I once studied fluid mechanics where a hypothesis is held to be a
good one if it predicts observed results within two orders of magnitude!
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Johnson) wrote:
The problem is with the people willing to take the recycle from the
councils. They say "bottles only" so bottles it is. Otherwise no doubt
you'd be complaining they were sending the plastics to China next.
Fortunately this is a fast developing area and we hope that a wider range
of plastics will be accepted RSN.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Johnson) wrote:
The real need is to avoid polystyrene, AIUI.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Emily Rodgers) wrote:
> "Ranec" <ra...@cemery.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:UtiJk.136867$zj5.1...@newsfe12.ams2...
> > Paul Oldham wrote:
> >> On 15/10/08 09:25, Ranec wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >>> I'm not happy.
>
> Me neither, but not about them not collecting yakult bottles. I was
> really pleased when I heard that they were *finally* going to be
> collecting plastics for recycling, but really really cross when I
> read that it was only bottles.
>
> My parents live in Wokingham, and for about 10 years their council
> has been collecting plastics - and not just bottles. They take most
> plastic packaging. I was really hoping for something similar.
Guessing that they have commingled recycling collections which are sorted
at a recycling centre, the big question is do they collect glass?
> >> So what are you going to do about it?
> >
> > Write to ref...@scambs.gov.uk and ask them to explain and/or
> > reconsider.
>
> I think I may very well be doing that too. I want to know when
> South Cambs are finally going to catch up. I thought this area was
> supposed to be good for recycling.
The trouble with plastics is that it's not heavy and if you put it in
landfill it's inert so doesn't give rise to greenhouse gases like other
stuff does which should be a higher priority for recycling. South Cambs,
like the City, doesn't have a recycling centre to sort waste at, so it is
sticking to plastics that can be passed on to recycling processors easily.
The City went down the same road in 2005. It was in response to very
strong public demand but is expensive for what is collected and was
strongly attacked by the opposition Labour group on that ground.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Duncan Wood
> The trouble with plastics is that it's not heavy and if you put it in
> landfill it's inert so doesn't give rise to greenhouse gases like other
> stuff does which should be a higher priority for recycling.
Surely that's an advantage?
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<d20426d5-fd70-4a33...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
dolo...@hotmail.com (foolsrushin) wrote:
> Aly made a good point: let them recycle it for themselves! I say it's
> a good point because an American guy told me that there was a sort of
> conveyor belt solution for processing and separting refuse in his
> county, in his State. It was at a cocktail party, so the Cocktail
> Party Effect (No. 2!) in this case means I don't remember where it
> was! Does anyone know? I do what I can, but there is no policy,
> procedure, means for dealing with refuse that I am aware of! Tokenist
> stabs at the problem.
You seem to be overlooking that the USians have a lot more spare land on
which to establish such facilities. There are none in or near Cambridge
but one is planned at Peterborough.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Dave {Reply address in.sig}
> On 15/10/08 09:25, Ranec wrote:
>
>> for recycling.
>> There is a caveat though: bottles only.
>> They've underlined this quite a lot.
>> If it's plastic and shaped like a bottle then it's fine.
>>
>>
>> I'm not happy.
>
>
pointing out that they're bottle shaped.
--
Dave
dav e...@llondel.org (without the space)
Logic is what you use when you run out of ideas
Roland Perry
on Wed, 15 Oct 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>>an American guy told me that there was a sort of
>> conveyor belt solution for processing and separting refuse in his
>> county, in his State.
There are several such facilities in the UK - they feature regularly on
TV.
>You seem to be overlooking that the USians have a lot more spare land on
>which to establish such facilities. There are none in or near Cambridge
>but one is planned at Peterborough.
Last time this subject cropped up, I thought you said something was
being built at Waterbeach.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>> has been collecting plastics - and not just bottles. They take most
>> plastic packaging. I was really hoping for something similar.
>
>Guessing that they have commingled recycling collections which are sorted
>at a recycling centre, the big question is do they collect glass?
They don't collect glass in Nottingum (in the mixed recyclables), as
they say it's not possible (safe?) to sort it. So we have to take it to
a bottle-bank, but to be fair there are plenty of them to choose from.
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:21:49 +0100,
> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The trouble with plastics is that it's not heavy and if you put it in
> > landfill it's inert so doesn't give rise to greenhouse gases like
> > other stuff does which should be a higher priority for recycling.
>
> Surely that's an advantage?
Not if you want to maximise the percentage (by weight) of rubbish that is
recycled and want to minimise the impact of whatever is landfilled.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
I bet the recycling rate is lower then. It also probably costs more
because glass is valuable which is why we sort it at the kerbside.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
That's a Mechanical and Biological Treatment plant. It will recover some
recyclables from residual waste but of lower quality than if separated for
recycling instead of binned with other waste. It is possible that a
recyclables sorting plant may come later.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Brian L Johnson
Unless you're LINPAC (where my dad worked for a while) who, according to
the link, "is able to process fast food boxes, meat trays, egg cartons,
yoghurt pots, vending cups, and a range of other polystyrene products."
(But I know what you mean, though. ;) )
--
blj
Roland Perry
Brian L Johnson <no.e...@address.invalid> remarked:
>> Polystyrene is poison to plastics recycling.
>
>Unless you're LINPAC (where my dad worked for a while) who, according
>to the link, "is able to process fast food boxes, meat trays, egg
>cartons, yoghurt pots, vending cups, and a range of other polystyrene
>products."
Nottingham's list of things they accepted was extended about a year ago
to include yoghourt pots.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
on Thu, 16 Oct 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> They don't collect glass in Nottingum (in the mixed recyclables),
>> as they say it's not possible (safe?) to sort it. So we have to
>> take it to a bottle-bank, but to be fair there are plenty of them
>> to choose from.
>
>I bet the recycling rate is lower then. It also probably costs more
>because glass is valuable which is why we sort it at the kerbside.
They were proposing to have a red "glass wheelie bin", but I think a lot
of people thought that having a fourth bin was one too many. The speed
they currently collect the rubbish (the men literally run up the road
after the lorry) wouldn't allow any sorting, even if the lorry had an
extra compartment (which it doesn't - they have three different lorries
one for each bin).
--
Roland Perry
Brian L Johnson
> In article <op.ui181jj10v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid (Brian L
> Johnson) wrote:
>
>> What could be simpler than asking people to put only type 1 2 or 3
>> in their blue bin? The bins could even have a "1, 2 or 3" stamped
>> in a big triangle on the bin's side in big friendly letters.
>
> The problem is with the people willing to take the recycle from the
> councils. They say "bottles only" so bottles it is. Otherwise no doubt
> you'd be complaining they were sending the plastics to China next.
If that's what they say, then that's what they say. However...
> Fortunately this is a fast developing area and we hope that a wider range
> of plastics will be accepted RSN.
All the places which do recycled products (at the time, we were looking
for benches and decking) say that they are swamped with orders. They
can't make the stuff fast enough. With that kind of demand, it's a wonder
they're not all fighting over the plastics waste and not, as they
currently are, cherry-picking the easy stuff.
It's to be hoped that in any forthcoming recession, the process doesn't
falter: recycled products are, generally-speaking, not cheap and people
may not have the luxury of choosing recycled over cheaper traditional
products.
--
blj
Richard Meredith
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:
> Not if you want to maximise the percentage (by weight) of rubbish
> that is recycled
That's a pretty arbitrary criterion to choose; ISTM that for inert
materials like plastic you want to maximise the *volume* that's recycled,
as the lower the volume the less pressure there is on landfill sites.
> and want to minimise the impact of whatever is
> landfilled.
On that basis it sounds as if plastics should take priority over glass;
glass is dense, inert and has little long-term impact - it just sits
there.
The only reason for favouring glass over plastic is that recycling it is
much easier.
Brian L Johnson
Strangely, Lincoln doesn't. They've a 'bottles-only' policy.
Which is odd, given LINPAC's heritage.
--
blj
Mark Ayliffe
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> illuminated us with:
>
> The trouble with plastics is that it's not heavy and if you put it in
> landfill it's inert so doesn't give rise to greenhouse gases like other
> stuff does which should be a higher priority for recycling. South Cambs,
> like the City, doesn't have a recycling centre to sort waste at, so it is
> sticking to plastics that can be passed on to recycling processors easily.
>
> The City went down the same road in 2005. It was in response to very
> strong public demand but is expensive for what is collected and was
> strongly attacked by the opposition Labour group on that ground.
I've always understood that there is no economic advantage to
recycling plasic. I assume it only works now because of subsidy?
Presumably the landfill-weight saving doesn't even cover the net cost?
It is largely a public relations exercise.
Recycling (sorted) glass and metals on the other hand make sense, so
I'm glad to see that the City has that working well. Possibly the
surplus from that is subsidising the plastic collection?
--
Mark
Real email address |
is mark at | Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.
ayliffe dot org |
Duncan Wood
But surely what you want to do is minimise the overall enviromental
impact. & if it's inert then what is the issue.
Douglas de Lacey
No, no, silly boy. What you want to do is to tick the right gummint
boxes and minimise landfill tax. A completely different ball-game.
Douglas de Lacey
(Actually, even inert plastic is devastating to the environment. See the
Modbury website, passim.)
Douglas de Lacey
>
> I bet the recycling rate is lower then. It also probably costs more
> because glass is valuable which is why we sort it at the kerbside.
>
collection in the City as in S Cambs went to culter for roadbuilding --
I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.
Douglas de Lacey
Douglas de Lacey
> Paul Oldham wrote:
>> On 15/10/08 09:25, Ranec wrote:
>>
>>> So South Cambs have given me a bin into which I'm allowed to put plastic
>>> for recycling.
>>> There is a caveat though: bottles only.
>>> They've underlined this quite a lot.
>>> If it's plastic and shaped like a bottle then it's fine.
>>>
>>> Today the bin men came, emptied *most* of my plastic bin, leaving the
>>> Yakult bottles behind![...]
>>>
>>> I'm not happy.
>>
>> So what are you going to do about it?
>>
> I think I'd leave them in there for next time with a little note
> pointing out that they're bottle shaped.
>
Then you'd just annoy the operatives, who are Only Doing Their Job,
instead of the executive who decided on the policy.
Douglas de Lacey
Mark T.B. Carroll
> They were proposing to have a red "glass wheelie bin", but I think a lot
> of people thought that having a fourth bin was one too many. The speed
> they currently collect the rubbish (the men literally run up the road
> after the lorry) wouldn't allow any sorting, even if the lorry had an
> extra compartment (which it doesn't - they have three different lorries
> one for each bin).
Huh, again as a data point: here we can just put glass bottles and jars
in with the metal and plastics. I've not peered closely at what the
binmen do with it.
Mark
Roland Perry
10:01:00 on Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Richard Meredith <ric...@rmeredith.co.uk>
remarked:
>> Not if you want to maximise the percentage (by weight) of rubbish
>> that is recycled
>
>That's a pretty arbitrary criterion to choose; ISTM that for inert
>materials like plastic you want to maximise the *volume* that's recycled,
>as the lower the volume the less pressure there is on landfill sites.
If you shred plastic bottles the volume reduces enormously. (The same is
true of glass, and tin cans, of course).
--
Roland Perry
Theo Markettos
> But surely what you want to do is minimise the overall enviromental
> impact. & if it's inert then what is the issue.
Depends how you define environmental impact. Is it:
CO2 and methane emissions
Land used for landfill sites
Leachate from landfill sites
Pollution (SO2 etc) emitted by landfill sites
Resource conservation (metals, oil, etc reserves in other parts of the
world)
Energy conservation
Noise, traffic etc in servicing landfill sites
Biodiversity (upsetting of the balance of local flora and/or fauna)
Smells
Visual intrusion
and so on
Some of these are compatible, but some are in conflict. There's no
single-fix solution.
Theo
Roland Perry
17 Oct 2008, Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
remarked:
>Depends how you define environmental impact. Is it:
>
>CO2 and methane emissions
>Land used for landfill sites
>Leachate from landfill sites
>Pollution (SO2 etc) emitted by landfill sites
>Resource conservation (metals, oil, etc reserves in other parts of the
>world)
>Energy conservation
>Noise, traffic etc in servicing landfill sites
>Biodiversity (upsetting of the balance of local flora and/or fauna)
>Smells
>Visual intrusion
>and so on
>
>Some of these are compatible, but some are in conflict. There's no
>single-fix solution.
Stop buying a product that's shipped in stupid little plastic bottles?
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Lacey) wrote:
You are very, very wrong as far as the city is concerned. I can't speak
for SCDC, however. It does glass, metal and paper quite separately from
the City.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
Sounds like commingled recycling then which is then sorted in a MRF.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ric...@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard Meredith) wrote:
Targets, dear boy, targets!
Councils are under the cosh from the UK government and the EU to reduce
the _weight_ of material going to landfill and up the _percentage_ (by
weight) of waste recycled. Volumes don't get a look-in.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Ayliffe) wrote:
> On or about 2008-10-15,
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> illuminated us with:
> >
> > The trouble with plastics is that it's not heavy and if you put
> > it in landfill it's inert so doesn't give rise to greenhouse
> > gases like other stuff does which should be a higher priority for
> > recycling. South Cambs, like the City, doesn't have a recycling
> > centre to sort waste at, so it is sticking to plastics that can
> > be passed on to recycling processors easily.
> >
> > The City went down the same road in 2005. It was in response to
> > very strong public demand but is expensive for what is collected
> > and was strongly attacked by the opposition Labour group on that
> > ground.
>
> I've always understood that there is no economic advantage to
> recycling plasic. I assume it only works now because of subsidy?
> Presumably the landfill-weight saving doesn't even cover the net cost?
> It is largely a public relations exercise.
I think you're wrong there. Certain products, e.g. garden furniture, are
made from recycled plastics (really, in terms of the way plastics work,
reused rather than recycled, but never mind) and I understand the
manufacturers can't keep up with demand.
> Recycling (sorted) glass and metals on the other hand make sense, so
> I'm glad to see that the City has that working well. Possibly the
> surplus from that is subsidising the plastic collection?
It isn't a subsidy but the landfill tax contribution could act a bit like
that, but indirectly.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Duncan Wood
But we keep being told that plastic bottle recycling is in response to
residents demands.
Tim Ward
news:op.ui70gpxahaghkf@lucy...
>
> But we keep being told that plastic bottle recycling is in response to
> residents demands.
Correct. That's why we're doing it *despite* it not being best bang-for-buck
in terms of government targets. (What's best bang-for-buck in environmental
terms is well up for grabs, if there was any definite science we'd be using
that instead of weight targets.)
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Roland Perry
Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> remarked:
>> Councils are under the cosh from the UK government and the EU to reduce
>> the _weight_ of material going to landfill and up the _percentage_ (by
>> weight) of waste recycled. Volumes don't get a look-in.
>
>But we keep being told that plastic bottle recycling is in response to
>residents demands.
That's only because the residents have been conditioned to believe that
if a handful of Yakult bottles are landfilled then the world comes to an
end :)
--
Roland Perry
Duncan Wood
wrote:
Ah, I always assumed it was that drinks bottle occupied a lot of the
non-recyclable bin space.
Roland Perry
>>>> Councils are under the cosh from the UK government and the EU to reduce
>>>> the _weight_ of material going to landfill and up the _percentage_ (by
>>>> weight) of waste recycled. Volumes don't get a look-in.
>>>
>>> But we keep being told that plastic bottle recycling is in response
>>>to residents demands.
>>
>> That's only because the residents have been conditioned to believe
>>that if a handful of Yakult bottles are landfilled then the world
>>comes to an end :)
>
>Ah, I always assumed it was that drinks bottle occupied a lot of the
>non-recyclable bin space.
Crush the flexible bottles. And ignore the Yakult - surely you could get
a lifetime's supply in one bin!
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:30:30 +0100,
There are various mechanisms. We have introduced drinks container
(Tetrapak) recycling because the manufacturer has agreed to fund it
following consumer pressure on a dominant supplier.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Tim Ward
>
> Ah, I always assumed it was that drinks bottle occupied a lot of the
> non-recyclable bin space.
That's what is generally believed, yes.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk (Phil W Lee) wrote:
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk considered Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:35:31
> -0500 the perfect time to write:
> >
> >There are various mechanisms. We have introduced drinks container
> >(Tetrapak) recycling because the manufacturer has agreed to fund it
> >following consumer pressure on a dominant supplier.
>
> Aren't the manufacturers now obliged by european law to take
> responsibility for all their goods from creation to end-of-life?
>
> Certainly there was an impression given that recent legislation was
> supposed to acheive that.
Not yet, not in all case anyway, I believe.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Goodge
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk considered Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:35:31
>-0500 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>There are various mechanisms. We have introduced drinks container
>>(Tetrapak) recycling because the manufacturer has agreed to fund it
>>following consumer pressure on a dominant supplier.
>
>Aren't the manufacturers now obliged by european law to take
>responsibility for all their goods from creation to end-of-life?
>
>Certainly there was an impression given that recent legislation was
>supposed to acheive that.
No; only certain electrical goods. And even then, it's just the goods
themselves, not the packaging they are supplied in.
Mark
--
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff
Richard Meredith
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:
> *From:* rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> *Date:* Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:30:31 -0500
>
> In article <nbcjs5-...@news.virginmedia.com>, m...@privacy.net
> (Mark Ayliffe) wrote:
>
> > On or about 2008-10-15,
> > rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> > illuminated us with:
> > >
> > > The trouble with plastics is that it's not heavy and if you put
> > > it in landfill it's inert so doesn't give rise to greenhouse
> > > gases like other stuff does which should be a higher priority for
> > > recycling. South Cambs, like the City, doesn't have a recycling
> > > centre to sort waste at, so it is sticking to plastics that can
> > > be passed on to recycling processors easily.
> > >
> > > The City went down the same road in 2005. It was in response to
> > > very strong public demand but is expensive for what is collected
> > > and was strongly attacked by the opposition Labour group on that
> > > ground.
> >
> > I've always understood that there is no economic advantage to
> > recycling plasic. I assume it only works now because of subsidy?
> > Presumably the landfill-weight saving doesn't even cover the net
> > cost?
> > It is largely a public relations exercise.
>
> I think you're wrong there. Certain products, e.g. garden furniture,
> are made from recycled plastics (really, in terms of the way plastics
> work, reused rather than recycled, but never mind) and I understand
> the manufacturers can't keep up with demand.
Are wheely bins made from recycled plastic?
Because if anything really ought to be, it's a wheely bin.
Richard Meredith
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:
> *From:* rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> *Date:* Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:30:30 -0500
Yeah, I thought as much...
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ric...@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard Meredith) wrote:
TBH, I don't know. They're a bit hard to get these days because the
Germans have cornered the European market.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Goodge
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Sat, 18 Oct
>2008 21:19:41 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:28:12 +0100, Phil W Lee
>><phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk considered Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:35:31
>>>-0500 the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>>There are various mechanisms. We have introduced drinks container
>>>>(Tetrapak) recycling because the manufacturer has agreed to fund it
>>>>following consumer pressure on a dominant supplier.
>>>
>>>Aren't the manufacturers now obliged by european law to take
>>>responsibility for all their goods from creation to end-of-life?
>>>
>>>Certainly there was an impression given that recent legislation was
>>>supposed to acheive that.
>>
>>No; only certain electrical goods. And even then, it's just the goods
>>themselves, not the packaging they are supplied in.
>>
>That was a total farce then - to leave out the very part that has the
>biggest impact.
No, because it's aimed at things that can't easily and cheaply be
recycled. Cardboard, for example, is easy to recycle, and isn't
particularly harmful if disposed of in a landfill. Fridges, TVs, etc,
on the other hand, are difficult to recycle and costly to dispose of.
So the burden of disposing of them now falls on the vendor, rather
than the consumer or the consumer's local authority.
Roland Perry
13:14:07 on Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>Fridges, TVs, etc,
>on the other hand, are difficult to recycle and costly to dispose of.
>So the burden of disposing of them now falls on the vendor, rather
>than the consumer or the consumer's local authority.
How does that work if the vendor has gone broke in the ten years between
me buying a TV and getting rid of it? Or if it was a small shop now the
other end of the country because I've moved?
I bought my most recent TV off a vendor on eBay who was selling "as new"
refurbished stock (probably something originally bought and accepted
back by Tesco) - who do I get to recycle that one?
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In message <ot8mf4t0tula9k9af...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>13:14:07 on Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>Fridges, TVs, etc,
>>on the other hand, are difficult to recycle and costly to dispose of.
>>So the burden of disposing of them now falls on the vendor, rather
>>than the consumer or the consumer's local authority.
>
>How does that work if the vendor has gone broke in the ten years between
>me buying a TV and getting rid of it?
If the vendor has gone bust then they obviously can't fulfil their
obligations any more, so the stuff will have to be disposed of
elsewhere.
> Or if it was a small shop now the
>other end of the country because I've moved?
They'd have to accept it if you took it to them, but it's up to you to
get it to them. If you choose not to do so, then you need to find some
other way to dispose of it. As a customer, you are not obliged to use
a vendor's take-back facilities.
>I bought my most recent TV off a vendor on eBay who was selling "as new"
>refurbished stock (probably something originally bought and accepted
>back by Tesco) - who do I get to recycle that one?
If the vendor is trading as a business, then he is obliged either to
accept the TV and arrange for its disposal if you return it to him, or
to arrange some other method whereby you may dispose of it at his
cost.
Vendors can join a take-back network as an alternative to arranging
disposal themselves. If they do, then the customer cannot take the
unwanted goods back to the vendor, but can take them to the nearest
designated collection point. The collection points are usually located
at local authority waste disposal sites. The take-back scheme simply
pays the LA's costs for the disposal, rather than setting up a
parallel system.
A more interesting question here is whether a local authority is
allowed to place limits on the amount of waste electrical equipment
that a single consumer is allowed to dispose of at their site, given
that the retailer funding the take-back scheme is not permitted to
place any such restriction.
Espen Koht
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
In Norway the problem of where to take the electronic goods is largely
eliminated by the fact that the vendors have to act as a collection
point for the takeback network, so in practice most customers probably
end up taking back their old TV to where they are buying their new one.
Note that it is the producers of the electronic goods who pay for the
operation of the scheme, not the vendors.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <cakmf4l66cda7r9dr...@news.markshouse.net>,
How does that work for mail-order and online suppliers, who may not
have customer-accessible premises?
Espen Koht
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:01:15 +0100, Espen Koht put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >In article <cakmf4l66cda7r9dr...@news.markshouse.net>,
> > Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Vendors can join a take-back network as an alternative to arranging
> >> disposal themselves. If they do, then the customer cannot take the
> >> unwanted goods back to the vendor, but can take them to the nearest
> >> designated collection point. The collection points are usually located
> >> at local authority waste disposal sites. The take-back scheme simply
> >> pays the LA's costs for the disposal, rather than setting up a
> >> parallel system.
> >
> >In Norway the problem of where to take the electronic goods is largely
> >eliminated by the fact that the vendors have to act as a collection
> >point for the takeback network, so in practice most customers probably
> >end up taking back their old TV to where they are buying their new one.
>
> How does that work for mail-order and online suppliers, who may not
> have customer-accessible premises?
They wouldn't be the places people would normally go to dispose of the
electronic equipment because who knows where they really are, right?
Their customers would probably take their old stuff to the nearest brick
and mortar store, who may even benefit from the footfall of a customer
who who while dropping off their old TV, picks up an overprices HDMI
cable they forgot to order on-line.
Roland Perry
16:36:07 on Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>Fridges, TVs, etc,
>>>on the other hand, are difficult to recycle and costly to dispose of.
>>>So the burden of disposing of them now falls on the vendor, rather
>>>than the consumer or the consumer's local authority.
>>
>>How does that work if the vendor has gone broke in the ten years between
>>me buying a TV and getting rid of it?
>
>If the vendor has gone bust then they obviously can't fulfil their
>obligations any more, so the stuff will have to be disposed of
>elsewhere.
OK.
>> Or if it was a small shop now the
>>other end of the country because I've moved?
>
>They'd have to accept it if you took it to them, but it's up to you to
>get it to them. If you choose not to do so, then you need to find some
>other way to dispose of it. As a customer, you are not obliged to use
>a vendor's take-back facilities.
>
>>I bought my most recent TV off a vendor on eBay who was selling "as new"
>>refurbished stock (probably something originally bought and accepted
>>back by Tesco) - who do I get to recycle that one?
>
>If the vendor is trading as a business, then he is obliged either to
>accept the TV and arrange for its disposal if you return it to him, or
>to arrange some other method whereby you may dispose of it at his
>cost.
So why doesn't the distant real-world shop also have to "arrange some
other method at his cost"?
>Vendors can join a take-back network as an alternative to arranging
>disposal themselves. If they do, then the customer cannot take the
>unwanted goods back to the vendor, but can take them to the nearest
>designated collection point. The collection points are usually located
>at local authority waste disposal sites. The take-back scheme simply
>pays the LA's costs for the disposal, rather than setting up a
>parallel system.
Does someone publish lists of the vendors and LA's participating in this
scheme?
>A more interesting question here is whether a local authority is
>allowed to place limits on the amount of waste electrical equipment
>that a single consumer is allowed to dispose of at their site, given
>that the retailer funding the take-back scheme is not permitted to
>place any such restriction.
How does the LA verify that the equipment was originally supplied by a
participating vendor?
--
Roland Perry
Richard Meredith
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:
> > > > I've always understood that there is no economic advantage to
> > > > recycling plasic. I assume it only works now because of subsidy?
> > > > Presumably the landfill-weight saving doesn't even cover the
> > net > > cost? It is largely a public relations exercise. > > > > I
> > > > think you're wrong there. Certain products, e.g. garden >
> > furniture, are made from recycled plastics (really, in terms of >
> > the way plastics work, reused rather than recycled, but never >
> > mind) and I understand the manufacturers can't keep up with >
> > demand.
> >
> > Are wheely bins made from recycled plastic?
> >
> > Because if anything really ought to be, it's a wheely bin.
>
> TBH, I don't know. They're a bit hard to get these days because the
> Germans have cornered the European market.
Towels on the wheely bins as well..
Mark Ayliffe
> Ayliffe) wrote:
>
>> I've always understood that there is no economic advantage to
>> recycling plasic. I assume it only works now because of subsidy?
>> Presumably the landfill-weight saving doesn't even cover the net cost?
>> It is largely a public relations exercise.
>
> I think you're wrong there. Certain products, e.g. garden furniture, are
> made from recycled plastics (really, in terms of the way plastics work,
> reused rather than recycled, but never mind) and I understand the
> manufacturers can't keep up with demand.
I realise ICBW. However it seems that the main attraction of plastic
recycling comes from the fact that (most) plastic is made from crude
oil. It's assumed that if we can recycle plastic then we use less oil.
However, collection sorting and transport use a lot of resources to
the extent where it is possible to use more oil recycling than it
would have taken to produce an equivalent amount of new plastic.
Plastic recycling has only really taken off (in the UK) after the
stick of landfill tax was applied. So the benefit could well just be
the saving of landfill tax rather then the recycling process itself.
It is of course perfectly reasonable to think that we should be paying
more for our plastics in this way.
Add in the fact that plastic is not generally [1] infinitely
recyclable because of plymer chain length degradation, inclusion of
unwanted fillers & colours and mixing of different types producing
much lower grades. So the process must at best be marginal. Of course
if by clever marketing you can charge more for a park bench made of
recycled plastic than for one made from new plastic, then that might
help ;-)
[1] Though possibly there are now some exceptions to this for PET at
least.
--
Mark
Real email address | The sooner you fall behind,
is mark at | the more time you'll have to catch up.
ayliffe dot org |
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In message <cakmf4l66cda7r9dr...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>16:36:07 on Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> Or if it was a small shop now the
>>>other end of the country because I've moved?
>>
>>They'd have to accept it if you took it to them, but it's up to you to
>>get it to them. If you choose not to do so, then you need to find some
>>other way to dispose of it. As a customer, you are not obliged to use
>>a vendor's take-back facilities.
>>
>>>I bought my most recent TV off a vendor on eBay who was selling "as new"
>>>refurbished stock (probably something originally bought and accepted
>>>back by Tesco) - who do I get to recycle that one?
>>
>>If the vendor is trading as a business, then he is obliged either to
>>accept the TV and arrange for its disposal if you return it to him, or
>>to arrange some other method whereby you may dispose of it at his
>>cost.
>
>So why doesn't the distant real-world shop also have to "arrange some
>other method at his cost"?
It does. But that only applies to the cost of disposal, not the cost
of transporting the item to the disposal point. If it would cost you
more to send something back to a shop in, say Aberdeen than it would
to arrange (and pay for) disposing of it locally, then the obvious
choice is to dispose of it yourself.
A vendor has to offer at least one of either
a) taking back unwanted goods at its own premises and then disposing
of them itself, or
b) participating in a scheme whereby the consumer may return the goods
to some other location, where the cost of disposal will be met by
funds from scheme participants.
The vendor can choose which of these to offer, and is under no
oligation to offer both.
>
>>Vendors can join a take-back network as an alternative to arranging
>>disposal themselves. If they do, then the customer cannot take the
>>unwanted goods back to the vendor, but can take them to the nearest
>>designated collection point. The collection points are usually located
>>at local authority waste disposal sites. The take-back scheme simply
>>pays the LA's costs for the disposal, rather than setting up a
>>parallel system.
>
>Does someone publish lists of the vendors and LA's participating in this
>scheme?
Good question. The largest operator of such a scheme, Valpak, has a
list of take-back sites: http://www.valpak.co.uk/dts/page1734.aspx
I'm not aware if there are any general lists covering all operators.
As far as vendors are concerned, I don't think there is a general list
- you would need to check the documentation supplied by the vendor
where you purchased the goods.
>>A more interesting question here is whether a local authority is
>>allowed to place limits on the amount of waste electrical equipment
>>that a single consumer is allowed to dispose of at their site, given
>>that the retailer funding the take-back scheme is not permitted to
>>place any such restriction.
>
>How does the LA verify that the equipment was originally supplied by a
>participating vendor?
That's another good question.
Roland Perry
20:37:49 on Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>A vendor has to offer at least one of either
>a) taking back unwanted goods at its own premises and then disposing
>of them itself, or
>b) participating in a scheme whereby the consumer may return the goods
>to some other location, where the cost of disposal will be met by
>funds from scheme participants.
>
>The vendor can choose which of these to offer, and is under no
>oligation to offer both.
And it sounds like the some other location" can be anywhere. What's to
stop them setting up a "location" on the Isle of Mull, and challenging
people to take the stuff there?
>>Does someone publish lists of the vendors and LA's participating in this
>>scheme?
>
>Good question. The largest operator of such a scheme, Valpak, has a
>list of take-back sites: http://www.valpak.co.uk/dts/page1734.aspx
Result! My local "tip" has ticks in every box.
>>How does the LA verify that the equipment was originally supplied by a
>>participating vendor?
>
>That's another good question.
I'm full of "good questions", an occupational hazard :)
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In message <dvmpf45dunlttumpd...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>20:37:49 on Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>A vendor has to offer at least one of either
>>a) taking back unwanted goods at its own premises and then disposing
>>of them itself, or
>>b) participating in a scheme whereby the consumer may return the goods
>>to some other location, where the cost of disposal will be met by
>>funds from scheme participants.
>>
>>The vendor can choose which of these to offer, and is under no
>>oligation to offer both.
>
>And it sounds like the some other location" can be anywhere. What's to
>stop them setting up a "location" on the Isle of Mull, and challenging
>people to take the stuff there?
The "other location" has to be one run by an approved scheme. A scheme
won't be approved unless it has sufficient coverage.
Roland Perry
21:35:32 on Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>And it sounds like the some other location" can be anywhere. What's to
>>stop them setting up a "location" on the Isle of Mull, and challenging
>>people to take the stuff there?
>
>The "other location" has to be one run by an approved scheme. A scheme
>won't be approved unless it has sufficient coverage.
Sufficient coverage of what? If it's the whole country then the only
place that would ever be approved is somewhere like Leeds - which is
nevertheless an inconveniently long way from both Plymouth and Aberdeen.
--
Roland Perry
Richard Meredith
Perry) wrote:
> *From:* Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> *Date:* Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:22:27 +0100
You appear to be conflating 'location' and 'scheme'. It seems pretty
clear that to be approved a scheme needs to include locations with a wide
geographical distribution: single locations won't individually be
approved as 'schemes'.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In article <42QTPfBzMY$IF...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
That's the correct answer, AIUI.