More news from Bill Newton-Dunn.
Two things particularly caught my eye on his newsletter:
The Waste Directive to increase Recycling
Yesterday, the European Parliament approved binding targets for the recycling of waste by 2020 that the European Union’s 27 member states must include in national plans or face legal action by Brussels. The rules seek to achieve recycling of 50 percent of waste from households and 70 percent of hazardous materials. The sheer fact that concrete targets had been accepted despite strong opposition in some capitals was a victory for MEPs. National governments are increasingly difficult to negotiate with. As the recession bites, they know that this legislation will cost money so they become reluctant to accept the parliament’s amendments. According to Brussels estimates, Europe generates around 1.8 billion tonnes of waste, which is an average of 3.5 tonnes per person, mainly from households, commercial enterprises such as shops or restaurants, industry, agriculture and construction and demolition projects.
Welcome news that concrete targets are in place, but where the EU has often fallen down (In my opinion at least) is turning this political endeavour into equal and fair action across all member states. Many people in my ward, and across the country presumably, often point out that they are not against the green agenda as such, but it pains them to be issued with directives from Europe that we will try our best to comply with, while other members states will just ignore them and get away with it.
An argument that I have sympathy with - I suspect the European project would have much more popular support if the design and implementation of policy felt less like some member states were freeloading off the contributions of others.
However, this could be balanced if I had the views of a German to hand - they recycle a significantly larger portion of their waste than we do, and have done so for years. What do they make of our recalcitrance over developing our refuse systems? Perhaps they feel we are not pulling our weight.
The second bit that caught my interest, on a green theme also:
IATA (the world association of airlines) gave a briefing today to the parliament. Their goal is a 25% efficiency gain by 2020. Rising oil prices are a strong economic incentive to them. Every possibility is being explored : for example, British Airways has calculated the one tea-bag airborne for a year uses a litre of fuel. A unified European air space with a unified air-traffic control system would save over 10% of aircraft emissions. IATA’s nightmare is that the world’s governments may fail to work together but develop different conflicting solutions.
I cant make up my mind whether 25% is a bit ambitious, or a rather poor effort. I don’t know by how much the motor industry has reduced its fuel efficiency since that last oil crisis (not that we are in one now), but I would speculate that they have improved by more than 25%. I also have no idea whether air engine makers have improved their efficiency since then, but I suspect not. Perhaps someone could furnish me with some of these statistics.
I posted the bit about a 10% saving by unifying air traffic control systems across Europe, and while I think IATA’s nightmare is cynical, I’m inclined to agree.
What I know for certain is that if British Airways stopped buggering about working out the impact of tea bags on their MPG, they wouldn’t have made such a cock up of Terminal Five. How did they work that out?
Answers on a postcard.