Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Business

Buying or selling? Get the right advice

“No Waste by 2010” joins the other crap in the landfill

By johnboy - 21 January 2009 61

The ABC informs us that the Chiefly Jon Stanhope has made a rare concession to the real world and admitted that the “No Waste by 2010” campaign was rubbish all along.

    Mr Stanhope says the “No Waste by 2010” campaign was designed to inspire the community to recycle.

    “Almost all slogans have an aspirational purpose,” he said.

    “We will never achieve a situation where there is no waste that’s actually [sent] to landfill, it will never ever be achieved. I think it was an appropriate slogan and an appropriate target.”

I’m sure in one management course or another the importance of aspiring to realistic goals was stressed to me. Still waiting for the training where they recommend talking bollocks for years doing nothing before giving up.

It must be a special ACT Government only one.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
61 Responses to
“No Waste by 2010” joins the other crap in the landfill
RuffnReady 3:36 pm 22 Jan 09

Sorry, forgot to preview my post above which should read:

Hmmm, and your point?

Atmospheric methane levels have risen over 150% since the Industrial Revolution, as have levels of a number of other gases which are 100-1000s times more powerful as greenhouse gases than CO2. None of which denies the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by about 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, CONTINUE TO RISE, and that that is influencing climate change. The increases in concentration of all of these GHGs is CAUSING CHANGE TO THE CLIMATE WHICH IS occurring 10-100 times quicker than “natural cycles” ever have.

As for methane, there are huge quantities of methane locked up below the ice (as clathrates) in northern Siberia and Greenland, and if IT IS ever released the world will experience the runaway greenhouse warming that scares the crap out of scientists and anyone who has a clue about the impacts.

But yeah, I’m not going to debate the science yet again, because only people who haven’t read it and don’t know what they are talking about bring up the usual, spurious, mythical anti-claims that have already been disproven by the scientists thousands of times over.

RuffnReady 3:32 pm 22 Jan 09

jakez said :

RuffnReady said :

If govts across the country were actually serious about landfill, and it is a serious issue, they would require deposit return schemes (like the 5c bottle deposit scheme in SA) for most packaging and get manufacturers to pay for it.

The irony in that plan would be that the price of the 5c deposit that the manufacturers would wear, would be a cost passed down to the consumer through the price of the item.

That’s fine with me – it’s an act of job creation for low-income earners – there are people who supplement or make a living off bottle deposits in SA. It’s also a great community service (reduced landfill, less resource depletion from having to make new packaging, cleaner environment).

RuffnReady 3:28 pm 22 Jan 09

proofpositive said :

Certainly is Gorebull warming due to CO2
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029.html
“methane is 25 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide”

Hmmm, and your point?

Atmospheric methane levels have risen over 150% since the Industrial Revolution, as have a the levels of a number of other gases which are 100-1000s of times more powerful as greenhouse gases than CO2. None of which denies the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by about 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and that that is influencing climate change, and that the increases in concentration of all of these GHGs is occurring 10-100 times quicker than “natural cycles” ever have. There are huge quantities of methane locked up below the ice in northern Siberia and Greenland, and if they are ever released the world will experience the runaway greenhouse warming that scares the crap out of scientists and anyone who has a clue about the impacts.

But yeah, I’m not going to debate the science yet again, because only people who haven’t read it and don’t know what they are talking about bring up the usual, spurious, mythical anti-claims that have already been disproven by the scientists thousands of times over.

Timberwolf65 12:47 pm 22 Jan 09

I hate Monty Python, but love Faulty Towers!
LMAO!

Granny 12:32 pm 22 Jan 09

How can you hate Monty Python!

😮

Thumper 12:12 pm 22 Jan 09

I couldn’t help myself. Sorry….

tylersmayhem 11:54 am 22 Jan 09

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

…and I hate Monty Python! 😛

Thumper 11:51 am 22 Jan 09

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

proofpositive 11:45 am 22 Jan 09

Move over far right Christians, Muslims and Jews – “global warming” replaces you all with a new in-vogue fundamentalist religion – http://thesil.ca/?p=1094. Lest anyone dare mention anything remotely at odds or at variance to the proscribed doctrine. Welcome to the modern day resurgence of a Spanish Inquisition.

tylersmayhem 11:42 am 22 Jan 09

What, and we needed Stanhope to tell us that?! Some of you actually voted for the idiot – don’t blame me!

Timberwolf65 10:50 am 22 Jan 09

PsydFX said :

I reckon we could achieve a higher recycle rate if we looked at changing our collection methods, surely weekly collection of recyclables, and fortnightly collection of general waste would force people into being more diligent with what they put where.

I couldn’t agree more and would love for the recyclable trucks to come once a week instead of once a fortnight as our recycle bin fills up quicker than the rubbish bin.
There is no incentive to recycle.

Thumper said :

You can get a second recycling bin. just ask Urban services and a fresh new wheelie bin will be delivered.

Yes but it will cost you $78 bucks a year for that second bin, I rang them last year because I needed the extra bin, and they hit me with that.
As I said there is no incentive to recycle, otherwise the fee would be wavered.

I even had my recycling bin stolen once and I rang up and got a replacement, only to find that the original one had been put somewhere else by another family member.

I thought I would take advantage of both bins and recycle as much as I could, to my disgust on recycling bin morning, I had both bins on the front lawn and the truck only emptied one of them, leaving me with a not quite over flowing recycling bin. Whats the go with that?

jakez 10:29 am 22 Jan 09

I wear a seat belt caf and not just because it is the law. I was more referring to the concept of the risks transferring to the third party and how the compensating effect (note, not negating effect) renders the example as different to the other examples.

Road fatalities have come down for a number of reasons caf we both know that, and the point isn’t so much about raw fatality numbers anyway. I’m not saying that seat belts are bad (although I will say that I don’t believe in seat belt laws for adults), I’m simply saying that seatbelts don’t belong as an example with CFC’s (black and white science) and the fact that the earth is round (black and white science). Seat belts save lives on the aggregate, whereas the other two simply are facts.

caf 10:08 am 22 Jan 09

So, for example, when the government passes a seatbelt law, some drivers may respond by driving less safely.

The important bit here is “some”, jakez. Road fatalities per distance driven have declined massively over the past 40 years, showing that improvements in vehicle safety are not completely offset by the Peltzman Effect.

jakez 9:56 am 22 Jan 09

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

As was the case with CFCs, seat belts and a round earth, change will just whoosh over the heads regardless. If they were dinosaurs, they’d be the ones saying “Rocks have crashed into the planet before. We’ve been here for over a hundred million years! Andrewboltasaurus says it’s all a scam to…well, he’s vague on the motive behind the conspiracy, but if it means I can point at eggheads and howl, so be it!”

I was with you until the seat belts bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_Effect

jakez 9:51 am 22 Jan 09

RuffnReady said :

If govts across the country were actually serious about landfill, and it is a serious issue, they would require deposit return schemes (like the 5c bottle deposit scheme in SA) for most packaging and get manufacturers to pay for it.

The irony in that plan would be that the price of the 5c deposit that the manufacturers would wear, would be a cost passed down to the consumer through the price of the item.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site