Jump to content

More uselessness from DBC


Newsdesk
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

It can be calculated yes. They might not like the answer. Its not all about money though. Its about carbon capture and release and protection of the environment (not cutting down trees)

I am not an obsessed greenie myself but these will be arguments that deflect from a simple cost comparison.

Totally agree that protecting the environment is a sacrifice worth making, but the carbon foot print that the DBC’s rubbish recycling journey creates should not be ignored either. There can be no question that the DBC’s process of shipping recyclable material (collected from Douglas residents) to the UK generates additional carbon emissions. It’s possible that the whole end to end process causes more environmental damage than it offsets (of course we can’t know that for sure because DBC has never produced any stats, and they may not have even thought about the CO2 impact of what they are doing).

One of the once assumed big advantages of (the whole world) going digital was that this would save paper which would, in turn, save numerous trees. This argument seemed to have merit until the ‘digital’ behemoths like Jeff Bezos’ Amazon came along and appended (to their digital operations) physical individual package deliveries by conventional fossil fuel burning vans and trucks, to their customers. The amount of packaging materials (cardboard that comes from trees and plastics that come from oil) used to ship myriads of individual items is (often) greater than the items themselves.

If this Island is serious about the world not cutting down forests, we will need to change many aspects of our lifestyle; one of which must be to buy the things we need locally and stop having them individually delivered from the UK, etc. Obviously, some residents have very valid reasons why some items will have to be purchased off Island, and not only because it is so much cheaper to buy tat online. This is why the IOMG should be working, in conjunction with LAs, on holistic/ joined-up/ progressive/ grown-up policies across all of our economic sectors.

Protecting the environment is an inherently complex issue which requires lots of diverse solutions. As I posted previously, the EU are working on a fairly comprehensive set of legislation which will address the perennial challenges coming from ever-increasing waste. As their focus changes towards reusing, as opposed to recycling, I expect that a whole lot of drastic changes will ensue.      

Edited by code99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, code99 said:

This is why the IOMG should be working, in conjunction with LAs, on holistic/ joined-up/ progressive/ grown-up policies across all of our economic sectors.

 

And therein lies one of the bigger problems. Having had a close up of how LA's work there is an air of competition between them.  That should now be removed by an announcement that amalgamation and eventual total island wide integration of all LA business will start with the next administration and be completed within 5 years. 

That would save a whole shed full of money.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Happier diner said:

see above

Not as simple as that if you think about it

I know it's not simple, that's why I was asking if anyone had 'done the maths'.

I have absolutely no doubt that shipping aluminum away is the best solution. I am not convinced shipping paper is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 2bees said:

Who owns the EFW plant now? 

Wasn't it sold to IoM Bank who now lease it to the operator? Although to be fair it may have changed ownership again since then.

I've posted this before but I think the contract needs looking at or reviewing, from the ratepayer's point of view if nothing else. Gate prices rise hugely and inexorably year on year compelling LAs to pass them on to ratepayers and it's a major driver of increased cost.

If Govt (or DOI) negotiated it originally then all you have to look at is the previous regulatory agreement with MG or the purchase of the Liverpool Terminal site to tell you all you need to know about what may be going on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2bees said:

Who owns the EFW plant now? 

I would guess that if its a normal design-build-operate contract (DBO) then after the operation period (maybe 25years) the government will own it. Its paid for over the duration of the contract. Normally the employer (in this case IOM Gov) would have an option to buy it back at any time during the contract.

That's how it normally works, but of course I don't know if its this type of contract. These PPPs do vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mr Helmut Fromage said:

Monday 12th at The Legion Hall for a Requisition Meeting about Bins.

or

”A Festive Audience with stubborn Townhall Twats”

Perhaps we can throw rotten fruit and vegetables at them? 
 

I would imagine a good turn out and they will get serious shit from ratepayers. It will also be interesting which Douglas MHKs turn up. I can’t imagine Minister Thomas attending, as he has grown far too arrogant, and he hasn’t the time for such village pump matters. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all playing out exactly as was predicted when central government foisted all of this on to the local authorities after they hood-winked the taxpayer into believing that a dual system of incineration AND recycling would be the answer to our landfill waste disposal issues and green credentials.

Yes it would be absolutely brilliant if we could recycle more but the reality is we're probably maxed out, there just isn't the critical mass to make it work for either, economically or carbon neutrally. 

Sending recyclables elsewhere (off-Island) is convenient because it's out of sight out of mind. I doubt anyone in DBC or any other LA or IOMG gives a flying fuck what the carbon footprint is once it leaves the Island (or even more to the point when it arrived on the Island).

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Wasn't it sold to IoM Bank who now lease it to the operator? Although to be fair it may have changed ownership again since then.

I've posted this before but I think the contract needs looking at or reviewing, from the ratepayer's point of view if nothing else. Gate prices rise hugely and inexorably year on year compelling LAs to pass them on to ratepayers and it's a major driver of increased cost.

If Govt (or DOI) negotiated it originally then all you have to look at is the previous regulatory agreement with MG or the purchase of the Liverpool Terminal site to tell you all you need to know about what may be going on.

The reason for the increases is due to the low tonnage (due to recycling) and fuel to keep the damned thing burning.

It's utter madness.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moghrey Mie said:

I thought IOM government mortgaged it a few years ago.

Sold to IOM Bank for £45,000,000 in 2004 and again in 2019 for £25,724,562. It is now owned by RBS International. 

It was a sale and 25 year lease back arrangement. Presumably so that IOMG could get £45M back to piss away somewhere else. I think the second transaction is simply to do with something internal when the IOM Bank shifted the loan book to Jersey.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...