From The Metro:
Getting rid of Christmas rubbish could cost local councils £78 million, research has suggested.
The Local Government Association said authorities in England and Wales expected to deal with three million tonnes of waste over the festive period. Up to two-thirds of this could end up in landfill, which costs councils £40 per tonne in tax to the Government. The LGA urged householders to recycle as much as possible and compost fruit and vegetable waste...
Wow! That works out at £3 per household. Can't say that I'm too bothered about that.
As ever, Landfill Tax is one of the most insane taxes there is, but it only raises about £1 billion per year, i.e. 60p per household per week, and as local councils receive the bulk of their funding from national taxes dished out by Whitehall, that's all just part of the money-go-round anyway - if they got rid of Landfill Tax, then all that would happen is that Whitehall would cut grants to local councils by £1 billion per year. Landfill Tax is not an actual 'cost', it's just bureaucracy and hassle. The real 'cost' of Landfill Tax (if anybody could work it out) is the additional cost to local councils of recycling stuff that isn't actually worth recycling.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Big scary number of the day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
"Chairman of the LGA Environment Board Gary Porter said: "Christmas is a time for having fun and relaxing with the family but all the tin foil from the turkeys, plastic toy packaging and wilting Christmas trees can create lots of rubbish.
...
"People can help by recycling as much as possible. The more people recycle, the less money councils have to pay in landfill tax and the more they can spend on other services, like care for the elderly.""
Because they will, won't they?
They won't, say, simply squander it on anti-smoking co-ordinators and outreach programs for disaffected yoof instead, will they?
The 'real' cost of landfill tax is the amount of fly tipping it generates. In my little country lane there are currently:
16 wheels and tyres strewn into a field
1 No. quantity of general rubbish
1 No. quantity of automotive rubbish including an exhaust system
1 No. Quantity of bagged rubbish.
all of which have appeared in the last three or four weeks.
This is in addition to the rubbish I am storing in my garden from previous public spirited clearances that is now my problem.
JM, good point. Why is 'care for the elderly' always top of their list of 'things we will threaten to cut'?
L, another good point, we can add that to the total real cost of Landfill Tax.
As a general point I cant see why landfill is seen a such a problem. I know: "moving carpets of rats".Thats what always gets mentioned.
Boris Johnson was talking at one stage of an island airport in the Thames Estuary, his only good idea(not actually his idea: a company called Marinair had been [still is?] pushing the idea for decades). But of course the Tories hardly rallied in support.
Even if the airport is never constructed,they should IMO build the island out of landfill plus the spoil from Crossrail which could come down the Thames on barges.Even without planes landing it could serve to unite a two prong barrier/bridge taking trains and cars which would at the Southern end connect with the Channel Tunnel access system.The barrier could also generate electricity.
We have loads of useless dreary looking estuaries which could be filled in with landfill and they might pay people to dump good stuff.The Wash? Good riddance!
DBC Reed - as a fan of dreary estuaries I am against your idea
£78 million! Gosh! I make that...er...3 hours and 50 minutes of Gordon Brown's deficit. Just enough time for him to scoff his turkey and open his presents.
@Lola
Apart from the attraction of being free of people,most estuaries are difficult to take in unless there is some raised vantage point. I once came upon an estuary on emerging from the New Forest and could see nothing for sky-high rushes and other vegetable obstacles.They might be fun exploring in boats but it is difficult to enjoy boating without landing for picnics, pubs etc.
Name me one masterpiece level painting or poem dedicated to an estuary.(Peter Grimes is out because it is itself dreary).
Then think of the transormation that could come about by filling in vast tracts of the Thames Estuary: Venice is built on spoil and waste.Also I am not opposed to open water:they should dig new Norolk Broads or at least connect up some of the unreachable ones.Reaching the Northern system from the Southern via Yarmouth harbour is ridiculous.
L, DBC, there is already an MW policy on landfill - namely chuck it into disused quarries and mines and stuff - we have enough pre-dug holes in this country to last for centuries, and I'm sure they can rig it up to capture and burn methane etc. As to siting airports, that is beyond my ken.
@MW
You'd think they'd collect the methane from rotting waste but they don't.Not in Northampton.They converted the old tip into a sports stadium/football ground (the first game was halted when a gaping hole appeared in the pitch)but left the methane to vent out of fourteen-foot-high vertical pipes next to the footpaths.
DBC, as you have said yourself, Northampton usually ranks bottom of the table in anything - even, it would appear, in the national 'capturing and burning methane' stakes.
Post a Comment