LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThis is seriously bad news for FF in Meath, Cork East and Cork S-C as the decision puts the issue back in the spotlight
This is seriously bad news for FF in Meath, Cork East and Cork S-C as the decision puts the issue back in the spotlight
This is very high on my list of issues with candidates. I don't want incinerators. I would rather eliminate the need for them. Incinerators are a classic modern example of creating a problem to deal with a problem.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them
Me too. I also don't like hospitals and would like to eliminate the need for them.Originally Posted by david
Until we have the sort of law that bans the manufacture or importation of disposable nappies, it's either burn them or bung them in a hole in the ground. I'd prefer the former.
Very funny. So you're perfectly happy to live downwind of an incinerator; good for you.
Besides, even a person of limited intelligence could see your example not a case of 'either or'.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them
I'd certainly prefer it to living near a landfill.
Perhaps. It's just that one sometimes hears people who don't want incinerators or landfill espousing "zero waste". Zero waste is a great idea, but you can't get there from here.
How do you propose dealing with today's non-recyclables if we aren't going to bury or burn them?
You obviously have no idea how much water it takes to clean reusable nappies - water is a valauble resource too. I know many disposable nappies are bio-degradable, however disposing of them in a timely fashion is a problem.
As for the incinerator. I believe the Judge said in his summing up that the opponents of the plans were "clutching at straws" with their claims - its a shame that a campaign can come so far and not present a solid case. In fact it is worse than that, it is counter productive. The anti-incinerator campaign has to look seriously at who is leading it and who has been advising it.
It certainly is. The sooner we are all charged by use the better, eh? But that's not a waste management issue.
Sure. I'm not an expert on nappies. My point is that we have non-recyclable materials here and now and they can't be wished out of existence. Bury or burn?
I agree. It's why I'm in this thread: I'm pretty sure the anti-incineration lobby aren't just a bunch of NIMBYs; but I do want to know where they're suggesting our non-recyclable rubbish ought to be going while we work to stop generating more of it.
Dan Boyle of the Green Party came around recently bleating about incinerators. When I asked him did this mean he was in favour of more huge landfill sites, he basically opened his mouth two or three time like a goldfish, mumbled something, smiled and walked away.
As far as I can tell, and Danny Boyle and his party have yet to convince me otherwise, there is no huge risk with incinerators - certainly no more of a risk than building a F-off big chemical or Pharma plant. As a huge proportion of Danny's constituents depend on these industries for their living, he manages to remain remarkably quiet about their impact and hazards.
Either the Green party do not understand the hazards of landfill or (and I suspect this is the case) they find incinerators much more emotive in bringing out the "nimby" brigade.
Decisions on incineration should be decided on the scientific evidence about the toxity or lack of it in emissions. Presumably the planning approvals are based on evidence that plants are safe.
But it is possible that planners and regulators may be overlooking the risk of incompetent operation of plants. As I understand it, incinerators have elaborate filtration systems for emissions control and presumably the systems are expensive to maintain and replace.In order to maximise profits, a plant operator might decide not to spend too much on maintenance, with the risk that the plant would not contain harmful emissions; the operator might also delay replacing systems even if they start to malfunction.
This would require frequent inspection from state inspectors who would need to conduct their own measurements of emissions.
But we can try. Except that we don't.
How? In small steps, as any large problem can be tackled.
For instance, a refundable deposit system on, say, drinks. 55¢ on a ordinary can or bottle, you get 50¢ back when you return it. The revenue helps fund the system but the manufacturers should pick up the biggest cost. That would be an amazing (for Ireland) start. But this particular government is diametrically opposed to anything of the sort.
So the first 'small' step is to get them out.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them
Reply With Quote