<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Recycling Idiocy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/</link>
	<description>It is all obvious or trivial except...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:45:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: skh.pcola</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/comment-page-1/#comment-4808</link>
		<dc:creator>skh.pcola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:02:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/#comment-4808</guid>
		<description>&quot;Voluntary schemes&quot; set up by governments rarely stay voluntary for long.  Collecting the methane &lt;i&gt;in situ&lt;/i&gt; at the landfills is a better and cheaper idea...and one that takes almost no additional money to implement, since it is a matter-of-course currently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Voluntary schemes&#8221; set up by governments rarely stay voluntary for long.  Collecting the methane <i>in situ</i> at the landfills is a better and cheaper idea&#8230;and one that takes almost no additional money to implement, since it is a matter-of-course currently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alastair</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/comment-page-1/#comment-4784</link>
		<dc:creator>Alastair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/#comment-4784</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t we already have rotting food in our houses waiting for weekly collection, by the bin men?  I don&#039;t see much of a problem in having two bins, one for organic waste and one for inorganic.  It may be  a problem for people in flats who have space constraints but if it is a voluntary scheme then this is less of a problem.  As you point out, there will be costs associated with having two seperate collection mechanisms so they will need to take this into account when calculating whether it is worth doing but I think it is at least worth looking at.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t we already have rotting food in our houses waiting for weekly collection, by the bin men?  I don&#8217;t see much of a problem in having two bins, one for organic waste and one for inorganic.  It may be  a problem for people in flats who have space constraints but if it is a voluntary scheme then this is less of a problem.  As you point out, there will be costs associated with having two seperate collection mechanisms so they will need to take this into account when calculating whether it is worth doing but I think it is at least worth looking at.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Wadsworth</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/comment-page-1/#comment-4782</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Wadsworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:26:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/#comment-4782</guid>
		<description>Tim, sure, you say &quot;collect methane at landfill&quot;, she says &quot;anaerobic digester&quot; aren&#039;t they basically the same thing in principle?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, sure, you say &#8220;collect methane at landfill&#8221;, she says &#8220;anaerobic digester&#8221; aren&#8217;t they basically the same thing in principle?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AntiCitizenOne</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/comment-page-1/#comment-4773</link>
		<dc:creator>AntiCitizenOne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:01:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/#comment-4773</guid>
		<description>Er, just put food you don&#039;t eat, in the same place as food you&#039;ve eaten.

i.e. flush it down the toilet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Er, just put food you don&#8217;t eat, in the same place as food you&#8217;ve eaten.</p>
<p>i.e. flush it down the toilet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Wadsworth</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/comment-page-1/#comment-4772</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Wadsworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:21:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/#comment-4772</guid>
		<description>Tim, I am confused. 

I thought that you thought that collecting methane from rotting food and using it to generate electricity was a good idea, CH4* being a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2, to the extent that you believe in this MMGW nonsense in the first place. 

* Which is in turn not as bad as nitrous oxide, but 95% of &#039;greenhouse gases&#039; are naturally occurring ozone and, er, clouds.

Tim adds: Get a grip will you? Yes, collecting methane is a good idea. But wy not just do what we do already.....collect it at the landfill?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, I am confused. </p>
<p>I thought that you thought that collecting methane from rotting food and using it to generate electricity was a good idea, CH4* being a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2, to the extent that you believe in this MMGW nonsense in the first place. </p>
<p>* Which is in turn not as bad as nitrous oxide, but 95% of &#8216;greenhouse gases&#8217; are naturally occurring ozone and, er, clouds.</p>
<p>Tim adds: Get a grip will you? Yes, collecting methane is a good idea. But wy not just do what we do already&#8230;..collect it at the landfill?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JuliaM</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/comment-page-1/#comment-4763</link>
		<dc:creator>JuliaM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:50:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/#comment-4763</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;&quot;The proposal is that we should all have rotting food in our houses...&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;b&gt;Nothing&lt;/b&gt; is too much to honour mighty Gaia! Stone the heretics who disagree!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;The proposal is that we should all have rotting food in our houses&#8230;&#8221;</i></p>
<p><b>Nothing</b> is too much to honour mighty Gaia! Stone the heretics who disagree!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Englishman</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/comment-page-1/#comment-4758</link>
		<dc:creator>The Englishman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2007/12/29/recycling-idiocy/#comment-4758</guid>
		<description>Of course there was a time when 1.7 million tonnes of biodegradable waste  a year was turned into pork via swill feeders with no need of subsidies. But it was banned without compensation by the Labour Government.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course there was a time when 1.7 million tonnes of biodegradable waste  a year was turned into pork via swill feeders with no need of subsidies. But it was banned without compensation by the Labour Government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 276/280 objects using disk: basic

Served from: timworstall.com @ 2012-02-12 03:19:40 -->
