General Discussion

The Lib Dems opposition to the £35 that the Tories will charge per annum to collect green materials doesn't seem to have much to do with environmentalism, just saving people cash and getting an easy vote. Unsurprising really as they are clutching at straws to demonstrate how they're not a wing of the Conservative party.

I believe council tax that covers recycling of man made materials could be reduced by legislation and consumer choices to not encase/buy foods and products in excessive packaging in the first place and also by encouraging reuse and up cycling.

But that would impinge on the human rights of companies to make whatever crap they choose and given that big business and ££££££££££££ is the cornerstone of British 'democracy', this is very unlikely.

So common sense is overlooked because of , it would also be common sense to think of vegetable peeling, hedge trimmings and mown grass nos as 'waste', but as a natural product that gardners can convert into a magical substance called COMPOST.

Even those people in Dawlish who do not own a garden probably live nearby someone who does. I have noticed private gardens within a short distance of some flats in the town..

The Lib Dem argument is that some people would not be able to afford the £35 and that is a fair comment. The other argument is that they might not be able to take their compost to the recycling centre because of not owning a car, age or disability. That is a fair comment for those whose green waste originates from their grocery shop.

But for those who are gardeners, then the activity requires some exercise and gardeners regularly make car journeys to garden centres to buy- yes that's right COMPOST.

I'm certainly not a Tory, but what do the Lib Dems base these scenarios on?

They claim fly tipping of green waste will increase and that the problem arises when not biodegradable or cutting and seeds of invasive species such as Rhodedendrons get discraded. Fair point

But what is their alternative, just opposing a £35 charge is not sufficient.

There's no community mindedness in their approach, it's just someone else's problem.

How about encouraging neighbourhoods to set up composting networks?

That would save multiple car trips to garden centres in the Exeter area or Jack's Patch, Trago MIlls, etc

That would save money spent on fuel and also reduce carbon emissions locally, so creating

financial and environmental positives.

How about older people or disabled people who cannot physically do any gardening but are lucky enough to own gardens allowing gardening enthusiasts who are on allotment waiting lists to tend their plots in return for some of the produce they grow?

How about talking to your neighbour who has a garden and offering them your green materials?

It's not waste it is a valuable resource!

How about talking to your neighbour who has a car and cooking them a meal or knitting them a cardy for taking some green stuff to the recycling centre if they were going themselves?

How about getting a rabbit or gerbil? They eat greens.

How about eating your greens?

How about not planting plants and trees that create so much of what the Lib Dems believe is waste?

That would require people taking some social responsibility..

Teignbridge should pay you for all the green waste it can turn in to compost!

It'crazy.

How about tackling tax avoidance by those with offshore accounts and then looking at local issues like this?

But hang on that would require the Lib Dems to remove their heads from the Tories brown waste sites and then admit they should never have propped up a party that cares little for the nation's citizens or our global ecosystem.

I'd rather get rid of blue and yellow waste as at least that is real and doing irreparable damage.

@Doc

I was with you until your last coule of paras. Have you actually booked an appointment to see one of your namesakes?........Maybe you should!

@Huw Matthews, no need to get emotional and personal. I'm entitled to my opinion.

If only you could get a sense of humour on prescription, then I'd recommend that you visit a Doctor.

So your initial post was humorous was it?

I thought it might be but didn't want to offend you in case it wasn't.

You Greens eh! lol

Well it contained serious points, but I am by nature sarcastic.

I will vote Green as they're the only party who are willing to discuss ecological sustainability.

That's different from environmentalism which in the past would be a side concern in politics.

I'm not saying ecological sustainability is vital simply because I want to protect the natural world to protect other species, though that;s part of it.

I'm saying it's important for us aswell - present and future generations. We're currently consuming resources at a rate that would be sustainable if we lived on x3 planet earth's.

My concern is both environmental and social as if we continue like this we'll really screw things up for our kids, grand kids, etc.

So for me sustainability is about living within our means, which is what society used to do anyway. But unchecked consumerist demand and materialism which fuels the manufacturing and production of products and which is in turn fuelled by clever corporate marketing is incompatible with managing global resources, lowering greenhouse gas emissions and protecting the environment.

The Dawlish housing developments for example will not meet national housing demand targets. In fact the BRE claims that only 1% of need is met per annum and the government  do not have figures for homes that fall into disrepar so it might be less than 1% in reality.

Only a small percentage will be  affordable as awell. And why build in Teignbridge? there are no jobs. so will mostly retired poeple on pensions move to the coast?

But the construction industry is seen as vital to the economic recovery, it's about the GDP figures. Yet the construction industry creates 35% of national waste. and the homes are built to the minimum standards in terms of insulation, meeting 1980s standards for southern Sweden admittedly a coller clime then the SW of England, but this is very poor.

The supposed eco materials used are only measured in terms of how the reduce energy in use (operational energy), i.e. to heat the home. They use Celotex and Kingspan insulation fo rexample which being derived from petrochemicals and blown in furnaces require lots of energy in manufacture, not to mention in transportation from overseas. And then they require further transport and processing which uses more energy when they have to be disposed of at the end of that homes' lifecycle. They can't be put in landfill as they do not biodegrade and some leech harmful VOCs. So they''re embodied energy by far outweighs the energy saved in space heating. it';s ironic but it would be better to renovate existing homes, but developers wouldn't bother as the turna round is slower and the profits aren't worth it, it can be done by competent DIYers but getting the 5% VAT for eco improvements is a nightmare, whereas developers' new builds incur a big fat 0% VAT, it;s ethically wrong, as well as shooting ourselves in the foot from a sustainability/futures perspective.

But no party is really telling us the truth, that economic and industrial reductionism is required to address environmental problems. Economic growth and ecological sustainability are incompatible.

A traditional socialist party would still claim that industrial output would be for the common good which is simply the same route but with a wider distribution. But it doesn't recognize planetary limits, so I'm not really a leftist in the true sense.

The Greens aren't making a big noise about this as I think they're targeting the middle ground and playing it safe, but when Natalie Bennet was quized about whether 40K homes were possible, she didn't say how; via a change to land distribution/ownership and using low carbon building techniques which the construction sector no nothing about, because that would make voters run for the hills as it sounds too socialist and it would require governments to radically regulate an industry which wields a great deal of influence over both Houses in Westminster.

But really it's just realistic, it recognizes that capitalism has failed, but it's not the second coming of communism in green guise though. Trade is naturally part of the human story as is development, but currently it's out of control.

But it's based on studies such as Zero Carbon Britain, it's possible on paper, but in practice the statistics don't account for people, embedded systemst such as our liberal democracy which has morphed into neoliberalism.