Bully bag Brown

  
The humble plastic bag was a surprise inclusion in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s first important public speech on the environment, which was intended to signal a brave new role for the UK in the battle against global warming.

Unveiling plans to ban single-use carrier bags, Brown told a WWF-hosted event on 19 Nov: “One of the biggest contributors to our greenhouse gas emissions is landfilled waste. And all over the country campaigns are forming to get rid of disposable plastic bags - one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste.”

Such a ban, however, would ignore scientific advice from groups such as Defra and WRAP, which questions the significance of plastics bags in landfill and the environmental benefits of switching to paper, heavy-gauge plastic or fabric alternatives.

Instead, it seems, the PM is now being guided by the green lobbyists who organise these said “campaigns”. For the prudent politician, supporting green-bullying against easy targets such as plastic bags offers a safer bet than addressing the real environmental issues. Process industries be warned.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————

READERS COMMENTS:

From: John Kermit Hansen, sales manager, Arcflex Ltd, Leek, Staffordshire:

As a Danish national who has lived over here for 20 years, I read your article regarding plastic bags and landfill sites with interest.

What is going on in the UK now? I do not understand why the UK government do not look to Scandinavia, where I come from. There, they collect plastic bottles glass at supermarkets etc. Deposits are payed when you buy the products. The consumer gets the deposit back when the packaging and containers are returned.Not many throw the empty bags and bottles either glass or plastic away. The same works for aluminium packaging. 

From: Andrew Porter, Hitchin:

With reference to the information shown Above, reference Gordon Brown, the conclusion is rather obvious, the Prime Minister is pursuing a common tactic to be seen to be doing something, rather than actually dealing with the central cause of the problem. For example, too many other interests deflect attention away from dealing with the real issues in terms of environmental damage, global warming, etc. These include the following: -

a) Fuel taxation. There is considerable interest to retain the use of internal combustion engines, namely the dreadful energy transfer efficiency, about 30% at best for petrol vehicles, and 40% for diesel, where taxation on fuel provides a considerable financial income. It is clear that the use of lean burn engines was displaced through the introduction of a catalytic converter. For a catalytic converter to work means that more fuel is consumed. More fuel consumption means more income through fuel taxation. In other words, give the impression that something ‘green’ is being done, whilst making sure that the financial gains are not reduced, or even better increased.

b) Energy efficient lighting. Another misnomer, as Fluorescent lamps are not that efficient, about 25% at best, and contain mercury, thereby introducing a toxic waste product. As to other areas of loss, most people forget, conveniently, that the Power Factor of a Fluorescent lamp is very poor, thereby shifting the problem outside of the home. In terms of better alternatives, www.ultraleds.co.uk does have a range of LEDs suitable for many light bulb replacement applications, with a significant reduction in Power Consumption. In addition, General Electric are producing filament light bulbs that are as efficient as Fluorescent lamps, and unlike most Fluorescent lamps, they do work with dimmer switches.

c) Railway improvements. We persist in the belief that diesel traction still has a major role to play, and yet such trains have comparatively poor efficiency, whilst noting that 30+ year old diesel trains are simply being given new diesel engines and kept for another 15 years or more. The French, in comparison, have for many years use dedicated high speed electrified railways, with very reliable trains running at speeds of at least 186mph, and in some cases 204mph. In terms of ‘green house’ emissions, the answer is zero. Reason: The French have, for many years, had virtually all their electricity generated using nuclear power rather than fossil fuels.

Note: The Japanese have many routes of dedicated high speed passenger railways in their country. They have a population density of 337 people per square kilometre. The UK has a population density of 246 people per square kilometre. The claim that the UK has a population density that is too high for a dedicated high speed passenger railway using electric traction is false. Please also note that the electricity in Japan from oil as the fuel is only is only 8%, with 35% from nuclear and 10% from hydroelectric.

Conclusions: The UK are the world leaders in the dogmatic pursuit of false economy, where making a profit today comes first. To maintain this stance requires the application of political manoeuvring to give the impression that something constructive is being done, and hope that the majority of people find this acceptable. Sadly, if people step outside of the UK and see what other countries are doing, or have done, then it becomes rather obvious as to where the truth can be found.