Wasting St Helier’s money

Tuesday 24th November 2009, 3:00PM GMT.

From Keith Shaw.
AT a parish assembly at the Town Hall on 25 November Item 2 on the agenda will be: ‘The reorganisation of refuse collections and introduction of a parish-wide recycling scheme for St Helier.’

This item was previously on the agenda for the meeting on 30 September, but withdrawn to enable discussions between the parish and its staff. This, sadly, removed any opportunity to discuss the equally important second part of the item.
I think that the issue of recycling in the parish is far too important for it to be parcelled up with changing the refuse collection rounds.
I believe that:

• Insufficient public discussion has taken place following the recycling trial scheme in the Havre des Pas area.

• There has been insufficient information about the initial trial and its subsequent scheme reported back to the residents.

• Residents have not had sufficient opportunity to contribute to the process re their experience.

• The refuse staff have not been asked for their comments about the trial scheme.

• There isn’t evidence that the trial scheme was effective or that it could be ‘rolled out’ in other areas of St Helier. Where will residents keep five bins and two sacks of assorted domestic waste in their homes?

The Constable quoted a take up rate of nearly 60% in September 2007, which I challenged as I believed it to be closer to 30%. A few days later I provided him with the results of my simple research, which indicated a figure closer to 19%. My figure remains unchallenged and I would expect it to have decreased by now.

At that time, Deputy Robert Duhamel was advocating the use of a single simple waste sorting machine, which he took other politicians to examine in the UK. Much more cost effective and efficient than complex and expensive multiple collections.

Is the parish’s concept of ‘going it alone’, with all the resultant risks and costs involved, the right one at this time?

Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to have an Island-wide scheme for an Island-wide issue, as it is not a St Helier ratepayers’ issue but a Jersey taxpayers’ one.

1
PJG

November 24, 2009 at 3:14 pm

On a rock 9 x 5 surrounded by one of the most expensive bits of water in the world I have to question if recycling is really the way to go.
The cost in time, money and materials may outweigh any benefits gained.

As Keith Shaw says “There has been insufficient information about the initial trial and its subsequent scheme reported back to the residents”

Report abuse
2
demaid

November 24, 2009 at 4:50 pm

There are already examples of companies storing sorted, compressed (relatively high-value) waste because it is uneconomic to ship out of the Island.
For glass it will never be economic, or good for the planet, to sort and ship so it is a waste disposal problem – not a recycling problem.
Trying to solve industrial problems using cottage industry practices is nonsense.
Keep sending in the letters to the JEP.

Report abuse
3
LaPouquelaye

November 25, 2009 at 12:43 pm

PJG (message no. 1) appears to be taking a somewhat blinkered and (pardon the pun) parochial approach to the disposal of refuse.

I would have thought that the very size of Jersey, miniscule as it is, would be an excellent reason to promote recycling.

What alternatives to incineration are offered by the “enlightened” PJG? None at all.

It seems that PJG has either not given any cogent thought to the problem, or that he is prepared for him, his family and the rest of the population to sit in a midden of mouldering waste.

On the other hand, perhaps PJG is correct in saying “The cost in time, money, and materials may outweigh any benefits gained”.

The results obtained and the benefits derived in cities and countries around the world would appear to give the lie to PJG’s opinions.

Report abuse
4
J Lamborrari

November 25, 2009 at 3:18 pm

@LaPouquelaye #3
“…What alternatives to incineration are offered by the “enlightened” PJG?…”
I’m sure PJG can answer for himself, but I happen to agree with what he’s posted in #1, although I think demaid in #2 makes the pretty much the same point better.

If re-cycling of refuse is not an economically viable alternative to incineration (and possibly not an ecological alternative either) what alternative to the problem of excessive refuse on a small island would an ‘enlightened’ person such as yourself offer?

It seems to me that to compare re-cycling scheme in cities to any scheme on an island is problematic as I imagine the cities transport their material to a plant outside the city limit without the need to export it or switch between vehicle/vessel; furthermore how many cities have a population of under 100,000 and operate recycling plants?

The obvious first step is to reduce the amount of incoming material that is going to become part of the problem.

Report abuse
5
Bean

November 25, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Glass is excellant for recycling and is recycled in many countries, crush it, wash it,grind it, makes perfect sharp sand for block making.

Report abuse
6
PJG

November 25, 2009 at 4:32 pm

LaPouquelaye #3
Says “I would have thought that the very size of Jersey, miniscule as it is, would be an excellent reason to promote recycling”

An explanation please, surely recycling relies heavily on the economies of scale and to ship low value bulk off island is exorbitantly expensive in money, risk of pollution and fuel use ?
Perhaps the “enlightened” LaPouquelaye has a low cost, safe fuel efficient alternative ?

LaPouquelaye appears to discount incineration out of hand.
Would he not be less blinkered to ask for more research into the whole question of rubbish disposal “targeted” for an island such as ours, not just to emulate the uninformed knee jerk green reaction of recycle recycle recycle.

Then LaPouquelaye with his world wide hat on says “The results obtained and the benefits derived in cities and countries around the world would appear to give the lie to PJG’s opinions”
Is LaPouquelaye saying the results of recycling in London/Liverpool/New York can easily be reproduced in Jersey ?
He is possibly correct, but, I stand by my initial statement,

“As Keith Shaw says there has been insufficient information about the initial trial and its subsequent scheme reported back to the residents”
Or does LaPouquelaye,s broader than my parochial approach disagree with finding out the facts ?

Report abuse