Bishop Hill Zero Waste Scotland
Tim Worstall, writing at the Adam Smith Institute blog, looks at a new way of measuring the (alleged) benefits of recycling - looking at the carbon footprint - and finds much to applaud.
Full marks to "Zero Waste Scotland" for this idea. For as we keep being told, we've got to recycle in order to stop the planet burning up. Therefore, as you would think people would already have cottoned on to, we should be measuring what we recycle and how by how well doing so stops the planet burning up. That everyone should have done this earlier is true but more joy in heaven over one sinner repentant etc.
Tim's prediction is that once the new scheme has demonstrated unequivocally that all this recycling we are doing has a higher carbon footprint than landfilling it will be quietly dropped.
Meanwhile, Andrew Bolt-style questioning is catching on, at least in one small corner of England. The Englishman has written to Zero Waste Scotland to find out how much their scheme will cool the planet.
Reader Comments (55)
The Englishman
Oh dear. So the Zero Waste Scotland scheme will(?) save 500 KtCO2eq by 2025.
According to DECC, total UK net CO2 emissions for 2009 (last compiled figures) was 480.9MtCO2. This was substantially below 2008 (532.8MtCO2), mainly because of the recession.
Let's say a conservative annual average going forward would be 500MtCO2.
So by 2025, at unguessable public expense, the ZWS scheme will(?) have saved an amount of CO2 equivalent to one tenth of one per cent of the annual UK total CO2 emissions.
Wow. The future of unborn generations is assured.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_change/gg_emissions/uk_emissions/2009_prov/2009_prov.aspx
I really should have reminded everyone that the UK is responsible for 1.84% of global annual CO2 emissions.
I can safely assert that the ZWS scheme will have no measurable effect on future climate. Come to that, nor would reducing the UK total annual emissions to zero. The UK as a whole simply doesn't emit enough to influence future climate change (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the consensus value for climate sensitivity to CO2 is correct).
So, we can say with confidence, that any public expenditure on this scheme will be money wasted.
ZWS is gesture politics with no real-world impact.
This is very much like religious observance.
We're going to build a new cathedral.
Why?
To serve God.
Any particular reason, from scripture or revelation, to believe that God wants a lot of money spent on such a thing? Are you saying this is going to aid our salvation?
The ArchBishop and the Prime Minister are both very keen on the idea.
Right, so this is nothing to do with God or salvation and everything to do with the vanity of the ArchBishop and Prime Minister.
Just for fun, let's see how well the ZWS scheme will fare under the Carbon Metric it is so enthusiastically embracing.
At all times, please bear in mind that ZWS has now committed to 'evaluation' under this metric, and must now spend public money doing illogical things to improve its rating.
If we go along with the conservative estimate for total annual UK CO2 emissions as 500 MtCO2/yr, then by 2020, the total will be 450 GtCO2/yr.
ZWS thinks it can 'save' 500 KtCO2 by 2020.
That represents a 'saving' of 0.0001%. In other words, zero.
Every penny spent 'improving' on this figure is opportunity cost. Every illogical decision made in the process is opportunity cost. ZWS suffers, and so do the taxpayers footing the bill.
A good, clear example of yet more negative effects from out-of-control carbon rhetoric.
Watch essential to life the same items, like a tutor moment in the supervision and us. One inch time, one inch gold, the value of time is difficult to express to control time, watch, is your best toolspatek philippe replica
If you have just put the watch as a simple timing tool, that would be a little out of date. Now watch has become a "card" of the individual, wear what watch may be personal temperament, reveal taste even identity.
In that case, people in selecting the watch, always want to keep improving, good and good, but how to choose to you and high quality watch? Do you usually watch in the selection is there are some mistakes?
It is generally believed that the operating life of mechanical watches, longer than quartz watch. But that may not exactly, because the inside of the quartz watch all working parts and mechanical watches are the same. Although the electronic components of life is still not fully test finished, but may also have the same life. So, consumers can believe that a good quartz watch may provide with the mechanical watches as long service period.
However, quartz watches and mechanical watch also has its own advantages and disadvantages. Quartz watch biggest advantage is timing accuracy, wear convenient and easy to make into a thin and small, and the strong fashion sense. And a mechanical watch list of core technology is more, but the case thickness is compared commonly big. If you figure is convenient, but also for timing accuracy requirement is high, so should choose quartz watch. If that's small, thin quartz watch, you have to consider changing the battery is convenient, for the battery more and more expensive yue xiaoyue thin. More information in our watches wholesale netspatek philippe replica