OK.....I try and live as "environmentally friendly" as possible. But I feel that there was a simple and powerful message that should have been focused and dealt with a lot better on this programme.
That is: Reduction is far more important and vital to this planet then recycling is!!
I'm not saying that we shouldn't recycle. But no matter which way you look at it, recycling consumes energy. And we've all seen or read those horror stories of the contents of recycled rubbish ending up in a dump on the far side of the world!! Apart from the fact that oil tankers and what have you carry this stuff all over the world and then the manufacturing process of conversion to something usable.
I just wish there had been more emphasis on the reduction of what we bring into our homes and what people could and should do i.e. stop buying packaged meat/deli/veg products, convenience foods, etc. And don't get me started about appliances!!! Yes we do have them in our house, but we've had the same telly, frig, etc. for 7 years (that's how long we've lived together)!! Now that I've written it, 7 yrs. isn't that long.....but for appliances to still work it probably is!!!
I don't want to wander around on different subjects, as the programme did. I just think that if people were more aware and bothered about what they brought into their homes, it would be more effective then recycling.
But the far important issue which I would like to have seen is the MANUFACTURERS responsibility in all of this!!! The governments are very slow to act and individual European governments all have different agendas, but manufacturers are global in a way governments are not!! I would have loved to have seen some CEO's brought to the dump and identify some of their products/packaging ending up there. Simple things like toothpaste - does it have to come in cardboard box??? Cosmetics - a glass bottle in a box covered in cellophane wrap - necessary?? Those are just some things that spring to mind, but if the likes of L'oreal, Unilever, etc. would put packaging at the forefront of their marketing campaigns, that would be effective far more then governments!!!
Agreed irishmaura. As pointed out in other threads, it all comes down to greed.
We could learn a lot from the supposedly backward Eastern European countries like Croatia/Yugoslavia, which under Tito in the 1970s saw the introduction of a power station which can transfer its waste heat to heating the majority of homes in Zagrab - free heating, rather than dumping it all in the atmosphere as we do. That we do not have such infrastructure was not because we didn't have the "technology" after the war, but because of self-interest of politicians and power companies - under the days of state ownership such inefficiencies were seen as beneficial to maintaining employment in the gas fields and coal mines, and under privatisation, most companies have a stake in both electricity and gas, so obviously wouldn't want to reduce "sales" of either. Its a complete farce.
Originally posted by moreteavicar: Agreed irishmaura. As pointed out in other threads, it all comes down to greed.
We could learn a lot from the supposedly backward Eastern European countries like Croatia/Yugoslavia, which under Tito in the 1970s saw the introduction of a power station which can transfer its waste heat to heating the majority of homes in Zagrab - free heating, rather than dumping it all in the atmosphere as we do. That we do not have such infrastructure was not because we didn't have the "technology" after the war, but because of self-interest of politicians and power companies - under the days of state ownership such inefficiencies were seen as beneficial to maintaining employment in the gas fields and coal mines, and under privatisation, most companies have a stake in both electricity and gas, so obviously wouldn't want to reduce "sales" of either. Its a complete farce.
Don't forget also that in the UK we have a serious NIMBY problem; people want all the benefits of electricity without having to live near a power station. You'd have a job persuading house-price-obsessed residents that a combined heat and power scheme would benefit them; most of them would be too bothered by the thought that it might knock a few K off the value of their home. You can't win with any rational argument against someone who is behaving irrationally. Under an iron-fisted dictatorship, that sort of thing doesn't matter.
Originally posted by AJS_dy: Don't forget also that in the UK we have a serious NIMBY problem; people want all the benefits of electricity without having to live near a power station. You'd have a job persuading house-price-obsessed residents that a combined heat and power scheme would benefit them; most of them would be too bothered by the thought that it might knock a few K off the value of their home. You can't win with any rational argument against someone who is behaving irrationally. Under an iron-fisted dictatorship, that sort of thing doesn't matter.
1) I suggest you go to Croatia /Slovenia and see for yourself. The powerstation is miles from Zagreb. It is perfectly possible to re-distribute the heat through long lengths of low-loss pipes. 2) You should read up on your history. Tito was anything but "iron-fisted". They had nothing whatsoever to do with the Soviet Union (in WWII Tito and his supporters even fought the Germans without Russian help to avoid becoming part of the USSR, even if it meant they had to steal guns from Germans in order to fight them!). What happened in Yugoslavia was the closest approximation to what communism was meant to be, whilst the Soviet Union was a brutal dictatorship pretending to be communism.
