Should you be wondering how much the campaign has received over during it's 2003 to 2006 life, the figure is £2.3 million. According to the DEFRA minister, Ben Bradshaw, the three-year campaign "succeeded in diverting approximately 23,000 tonnes of biodegradable nappy waste from landfill in England". Sounds great doesn't it? All that crap helping to save the planet!
However, and isn't there always an however? Just before Ben Bradshaw told Parliament of how brilliantly successful the real nappy campaign had been he said,
"In May 2005, the Environment Agency published a report entitled "A Life Cycle Assessment of disposable and reusable nappies in the UK". The report concluded that there was no significant difference between any of the environmental impacts of the disposable, home use reusable and commercial laundry systems that were assessed. None of the systems studied were more or less environmentally preferable.In other words, they carried on funding a campaign on environmental grounds even though they had concluded themselves that reusable and non-reusable nappies cancel each other out on environmental measures. Makes you wonder whether someone, somewhere has shares in one of these companies that's had its business helped out by campaign which effectively gave the market free advertising doesn't it?
9 comments:
A question:
If the take up were increased would this change the balance in favour of Terrys
If this were true then the campaign, which has a fairly low cost as these things go, might well be worth pursuing.
Chris P
Raised in Terrys
Used Pampers on Issue
So it's good to waste money as long as it's a protectionist measure?
Also raised in Terry's I believe. I certainly remember the disgusting tubs of soaking nappies in the bathroom.
'disgusting tubs of soaking nappies in the bathroom' or shit filled pampers in every lay-by and carpark , beach or park throughout the land......... tough decision isn't it?
Were that the decision you might have a point.
Haddock, don't your council empty your bins?
Our first was in reusables around the house (much cheaper and I'm of Scottish descent) but you can't inflict that on the wider public, so it was diposables when out.
It's all about CHOICE, Nannny State.
It's just like the whole "Man made global warming" thing: most every one knows its a croc of shit, but it just FEELS right to hobble enterprise in the first-world.
"If this were true then the campaign, which has a fairly low cost as these things go, might well be worth pursuing."
I don't want to appear to be a cyber bully, but what a fuck-witting thing to say.
That is UK2.3 million that could be used PRODUCTIVELY in some area of policy that DOES work (schools, public transport, police, water supply), or failing that, given back to the people who paid the taxes. That kind of thinking, Mr Paul, is symptomatic of Labour/Socialist thing: that there’s plenty of money to go round, and even more if you need it: just ask the magic-pixie-fairy thingy called a “taxpayer”.
You FUCKING FUCKWIT. Why can’t you just trust wage earners (including your own voters) with their own money? You, sir, are a parasite. One day (but I doubt it) you will wake up with an understanding of what it does to an economy when a government wastes money. But then it won’t matter, cos you and your cronies will have enjoyed power, drooling at the thought of controlling people’s lives, right down to the detail of what they wrap their children’s bums in.
Flash, you'd be amazed how many intelligent people won't even discuss Global Warming because it's an "open and shut case".
Eh, ed? It IS an open & shut case: CO2 levels increase AFTER the global temperature rises, thus it is not the cause of any supposed warming. FACT.
But I know what you mean :^)
Post a Comment