While trying to find out whether Landfill Tax (a completely insane tax) is EU-imposed (which appears to be the case, but it's not 100% conclusive) I stumbled across this nugget on the BBC:
Under new EU legislation the UK will have to ensure that less than a third of its waste is sent for burial in landfill sites... The figure at present is about 80%. Even then, there will still be large amounts of waste which can neither be recycled nor sent to landfills.
The Environment Agency says space for landfills in south-east England could run out within seven years.
Guess when that article first appeared?
Click and highlight to reveal....
Wednesday, 27 November, 2002, 21:27 GMT
No wonder he's never around
10 minutes ago
14 comments:
Good spot and find MW - perhaps you should also be O/C Press Office besides being our chancellor?
Given we are digging stuff OUT of the ground pretty fast (sand, gravel, stone, salt, coal, clay) my guess is that there isn't a shortage of holes needing filling in again, or likely to be one either.
WFW, ta :)
S, exactly. That's the Raedwald Theory Of Landfill, well worth a read.
I seem to recall also a claim by Bjorn Lomberg that the UK's entire landfill requirement was about a quarter of the area of the Isle of Man.
In any case, it could be a nice little earner for Cheshire, being ever more rapidly hollowed out by the demands of global "warming" for road salt!
Does methane from landfill count as "renewable" or "fossil" fuel? Where does it stand in the demonology of carbon-based fuels?
Landfill Tax (a completely insane tax)
No more insane than a window tax.
You haven't taken into account the progress that has been made since then by the government in recycling policy announcements. Without that, the situation now could be catastrophic. Those used policy announcements could be covering every acre of our green and beautiful land.
We need a great deal more landfill,especially to build the artificial island Boris Johnson proposes in the Thames estuary which should be built even without the airport.With two bridges linking to the northern and southern shores (with the island in the middle,try and keep up)you could have barrages,tidal elecricity generation and a fast railway line on top connecting up the North/Scotland with the Channel Tunnel railway.Once established the island with its two arms could be used to drain and back-fill the Thames in an interesting possibly Venetian man-made landscape.
JC, it's probably a lot less than that, given if compacts over time.
B, if the methane costs more to produce that it is worth, it is 'renewable' and if it is a cheap and practical source of power (like incineration) then it is evil and must be banned.
JH, true, but we don't have window tax any more.
AC, a lot of them are new - like having to insure dogs.
DBC, out of interest, if you had to choose one or the other, would you go for Thames Estuary Island or Crossrail?
"which should be built even without the airport"
Sounds like Foulness is back! You can't keep a good white elephant down.
Talking about airports in the Thames estuary, the whole sorry history is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_estuary_airport. I particular liked the last disadvantage.
Firstly there is no shortage of holes in the ground- only a shortage of such with planning permission.
Secondly, Essex has successfully used domestic refuse for raising sea walls at Maldon and Leigh- there are no end of sea walls could do with raising, so the only actual problem is what to do with all the waterlogged holes left by mineral extraction.
@MW There is a strange connexion between Crossrail and the Thames artificial island in that Douglas Oakervee who was once Crossrail chairman,had previously built the Hong Kong artificial island airport
(they are not uncommon)and recently did the feasibility study on The Thames Estuary Airport.If he had any sense ,he would recommend taking all the spoil from
Crossrail deep tunneling down river in barges and dumping it in the Thames estuary.Being heavy clay
it would be ideal for an island ( I'm not fussed about the airport,more interested in the N/S high speed railway line being run across a combo tidal generation set-up and outer Thames barrier,connecting with line to Channel Tunnel ;plus a new town and container port facing North Sea.)
@ bayard Can't find this reference.If its to the Richard Montgomery,then the main danger is a tsunami so the island should be at least 20ft high.Lots of landfill.
Nothing wrong with Foulness option.Like lots of ideas from that era it seems strangely before its time See also Fairs Fare;Milton Keynes light railway scheme.
@Pat said.Right .Why are they letting the east Coast disappear into the sea when it can be bolstered by landfill?
P, indeed. Or dig up rocks for the sea walls and then dump the rubbish in the new holes. I don't think a load of plastic packaging and babies' nappies will hold off the waves for long.
DBC, ta for answer. You're probably right.
"If he had any sense, he would recommend taking all the spoil from Crossrail deep tunneling down river in barges and dumping it in the Thames estuary."
Very cunning!
PS, they are letting East Anglia sink into the sea and letting flood defences go to pot all over the country in order to "send a message" about "rising sea levels" and "climate change".
Post a Comment