N G McCrum (what a delightful name), an Emeritus Fellow in Engineering at Hertford College, Oxford, has a lesson for us in the letters column of The Daily Telegraph. It has far wider implications than the subject matter would indicate.

His primary concern is to take Liz Goodwin to task. She is the chief executive of the Waste and Resources Action Programme and McCrumb's complaint is that, in her response to an article about the partial collapse of the recycling programme in the UK, she confused the term "recycled" with "sorted for recycling". The context was her words, "10 million tons of waste were recycled in Britain last year" but, as McCrumb points out, "This does not mean 10 million tons were recycled." Householders, he reminds us, "have become aware that very little of what they put out for recycling is in fact recycled."

View full article here

A good letter. Shame he spoils it at the end saying we should burn rubbish for energy, as of course we cannot due to a certain legislature's handywork.

But he can still say that we should do so. Someone ought to respond and explain that we are not allowed to because of .....

> A good letter. Shame he spoils it at the end saying we should burn rubbish for energy, as of course we cannot due to a certain legislature's handywork.

Is that true though. For example here is a page where Buckinghamshire county council are talking about a new incineration plant.

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/content/i ... 1789274587

There are other proposals I'm aware of too. Of course none of the NIMBYS wants them, but don't explain what they'd do instead.

I wonder if "their" definition of Recycled, is sufficient to stop EU fines.

That, in truth, is what it is all about. As long as it is recorded as sorted waste by the collection authority, it satisfies the EU requirement.

I`ll say it again
There should be one collection a week and the prisoners should sort it for recycling, if that`s what the government wants.

Wonderfull.

So that also explains, why they are so keen to make us, do the sorting and how delightfull, that such a shabby conjob, is falling apart so completely.

Chalk up yet another EU balls up.

Fine, so record it then bung it in landfill like the old days.
We need a list of "lead-plating" EU directives - changes to UK law to meet the absolute minimum required by Brussells - for the Tories to promise to pass in their first 100 days ...

Better still, don't sort it in the first place ... put it all in one bin and save thecost of separate collection.

I like this idea from the Environment Agency in the Telegraph article quoted in the lead post.

"The agency said householders could help to tackle the problem by giving more recycled goods, such as books, old television sets and video games consoles, to second hand shops."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... apses.html

What a gloriously idiotic idea. In any case, charity shops normally won't touch electrical goods because of H&S. Dumps won't let you take away anything these past couple of years, least of all electrical items. One part of the system in conflict with another?

This is the most incredible mess, it's cost a fortune, it wastes everyone's time, it inconveniences everyone, and it's worse than useless.

As labeling goods recycled to fit an EU quota - I don't know how the directive in question came about, but I bet that our clowns played their full part in it, and then did all the bits which were optional to the full and more.

Since the dawn of History & probably long before. Man has been dumping what he couldn't burn in 'landfills', thus providing fascinating evidence to delighted archeologists recording our development. Are we going to deprive future travellers from Alpha Centauri (or thereby) of interesting digs on a strange planet inhabited only by insects? Shame on us!

If they land anywhere in the EU and find out how we are governed, they would turn right round and go somewhere else, disgusted at such a low form of intelligent life.

Are you referring to the political classes or the electorates?

Having looked at the WRAP website I believe that WRAP could serve a really useful purpose to the government in that the goverment could shut it down as a means of demonstrating that the public sector can take its share of the economic pain without causing any reduction in services whatsoever. A glance at the WRAP website suggests to me that all WRAP actually does is claim the glory for the actions of others. That, together with its massive salaries ( I believe the head gets over £200K) and the fact that its entire purpose is wrong headed tells me it should be scrapped immediately.