Councils bitching about Tesco
Discussion
My apologies for the Daily Mail link, but since it contains quotes from council officials I think it's fairly reliable:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390086/Gr...
tl:dr version - Tesco installing their own recycling bins, and chucking the council's bins out. Councils whinging because Tesco are "greedy". You really couldn't make it up. At least when I shop in Tesco I know I'll be treated as a valued customer, and not a dairy cow.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390086/Gr...
tl:dr version - Tesco installing their own recycling bins, and chucking the council's bins out. Councils whinging because Tesco are "greedy". You really couldn't make it up. At least when I shop in Tesco I know I'll be treated as a valued customer, and not a dairy cow.
'We seem to have three types of supermarket chains - the smaller ones like Aldi and Lidl who refuse to have recycling banks in their car parks, others like Sainsbury's and Waitrose who are happy to work with us, and Tesco, who seem to want to make a profit out of it.'
In other words, Aldi and Lidl can't spare the parking spaces, Sainsbury's and Waitrose haven't realised they are missing out on a nice little earner, and Tesco, who have.
Bet the council wasn't paying anything for the spaces, either.
Seems to me that the councils are pissed that Tesco have realised that the councils have essentially been making money off them.
In other words, Aldi and Lidl can't spare the parking spaces, Sainsbury's and Waitrose haven't realised they are missing out on a nice little earner, and Tesco, who have.
Bet the council wasn't paying anything for the spaces, either.
Seems to me that the councils are pissed that Tesco have realised that the councils have essentially been making money off them.
Or it could be about the snotty letters and visits tesco gets about shopping trolleys found in streets, hedges and canals. Phoning the store up and telling the person answering they have 24 hours to remove a trolley or they'll personally be liable to a fine of several thousand pounds (because they took the call) haven't gone down well.
MonkeyHanger said:
Are these the same Councils who like fining people for accidentally putting a bit of Cardboard in the "general waste" bin?
If that isn't trying to make a profit from recycling, i don't know what is.
I am going to take a whild and guess and says if anyone is prosecuted for putt ing stuff in the wrong bin its only after they have been told more than once.If that isn't trying to make a profit from recycling, i don't know what is.
Councils dont make profits, they will use the money in other areas - as highlighted in the report - less used recycling facilities.
Some Gump said:
I don't recycle.
I don't want to recycle.
However, our local caancil have forced us all into this half arsed 3 bin system on the bais we save the planet.
Now, we know the real reason...
Why would you not want to?I don't want to recycle.
However, our local caancil have forced us all into this half arsed 3 bin system on the bais we save the planet.
Now, we know the real reason...
The real reason is they are restricted on how much they can dump in landfill and realistically it is common sense to reuse things rather than stick them in a hole. Especially as trying to open a new hole is nightmare as no one wants a rubbish dump in their backyard.
Dogwatch said:
Maybe that's the problem. If they had to respond to external forces perhaps they would be more efficient and less inclined to put two fingers up to the people who pay them.
If councils were allowed more freedom to charge then I dont think the public response would be very good.There is a big difference between allowing them to charge for services and make surpluses and - changing the way they are funded so they are more like businesses. I guess the latter is a seperate discussion.
Recycling is driven by logistics: lack of landfill space.
This in turn is driven by cost - £80 a tonne to tip waste to landfill which will rise to around £120 per tonne over the next few years.
The average UK home produces a tonne of waste each year.
The average cost per household in the UK paid via council tax, for a complete waste management service is around the £60 - £70 mark.
Hence the need to reduce what goes to landfill. Councils are not really that bothered by what means this is achieved; recycling, reuse or waste reduction.
The fluffy eco stuff is all valid but is little more than a handy spin off of recycling and certainly not the primary driver - despite the line some councils choose to take.
The reason that Tescos are taking full control of recycling on their sites is a complex one - linked to both money and legislation. Certainly, there is money to be made in good quality, separated material but in the grand Tesco scheme of things, it barely shows as a blip. However, there is an anticipation that greater legislation will be enforced on something called producer responsibility. This is widely used across Europe but not so much here. In simple terms, it requires the producers of the packaging waste to make a financial contribution to it's recovery from the waste stream or demonstrate practical efforts to have done so. Tesco is one such producer and very big one. Failure to do so can result in significant penalties, fines and of course the bad publicity that results.
By retaining the recycling under their control, Tesco can feed this into their waste data and the amount is likely to have a profound impact on their adherence to any policy that may come to bare on them in the future - even though there is no way to determine if that waste they are claiming they have diverted from landfill was actually produced by them in the first place.
And this is why councils don't like it. Tescos are in fact, 'stealing' recycling from them - or more precisely, the data that the recycling provides. If too much waste gets recycled at Tesco, then the council will find that proportionally, more domestic waste is going to landfill. Although the overall weight may be less, they will still suffer as targets are set proportional to total waste arising rather than absolute weight.
To be honest though, this is more of an issue in areas where recycling is used to make energy. The incinerators that do this are expensive bits of kit that have been provided, normally on PPI contracts that set minimum calorific values and quantities of feedstock. Any shortfall, the council has to cover. If Tescos are going round hoovering up all the good, burnable stuff, then councils could find themselves in an awkward situation - probably forced to buy the stuff from Tesco to feed the plants.
This in turn is driven by cost - £80 a tonne to tip waste to landfill which will rise to around £120 per tonne over the next few years.
The average UK home produces a tonne of waste each year.
The average cost per household in the UK paid via council tax, for a complete waste management service is around the £60 - £70 mark.
Hence the need to reduce what goes to landfill. Councils are not really that bothered by what means this is achieved; recycling, reuse or waste reduction.
The fluffy eco stuff is all valid but is little more than a handy spin off of recycling and certainly not the primary driver - despite the line some councils choose to take.
The reason that Tescos are taking full control of recycling on their sites is a complex one - linked to both money and legislation. Certainly, there is money to be made in good quality, separated material but in the grand Tesco scheme of things, it barely shows as a blip. However, there is an anticipation that greater legislation will be enforced on something called producer responsibility. This is widely used across Europe but not so much here. In simple terms, it requires the producers of the packaging waste to make a financial contribution to it's recovery from the waste stream or demonstrate practical efforts to have done so. Tesco is one such producer and very big one. Failure to do so can result in significant penalties, fines and of course the bad publicity that results.
By retaining the recycling under their control, Tesco can feed this into their waste data and the amount is likely to have a profound impact on their adherence to any policy that may come to bare on them in the future - even though there is no way to determine if that waste they are claiming they have diverted from landfill was actually produced by them in the first place.
And this is why councils don't like it. Tescos are in fact, 'stealing' recycling from them - or more precisely, the data that the recycling provides. If too much waste gets recycled at Tesco, then the council will find that proportionally, more domestic waste is going to landfill. Although the overall weight may be less, they will still suffer as targets are set proportional to total waste arising rather than absolute weight.
To be honest though, this is more of an issue in areas where recycling is used to make energy. The incinerators that do this are expensive bits of kit that have been provided, normally on PPI contracts that set minimum calorific values and quantities of feedstock. Any shortfall, the council has to cover. If Tescos are going round hoovering up all the good, burnable stuff, then councils could find themselves in an awkward situation - probably forced to buy the stuff from Tesco to feed the plants.
MonkeyHanger said:
Are these the same Councils who like fining people for accidentally putting a bit of Cardboard in the "general waste" bin?
If that isn't trying to make a profit from recycling, i don't know what is.
Not about profit. It's about wasting money.If that isn't trying to make a profit from recycling, i don't know what is.
The income generated from recycling subsidises a service that costs more to provide than the council receives to provide it.
The value of recyclable material is determined by it's quality - lack of contamination, i.e. containing the wrong materials. If this is too high, it can get rejected, meaning it goes to landfill costing the council more money that they cannot recover or the value they get for the material is less than they could otherwise attain.
The very very few councils that have a policy of fining they only do so as a last resort.
I think I'm right in saying that in a country of 60million people, less than 10 have been taken to court on this issue.
Jasandjules said:
I am guessing you work for the council.
Perhaps it would be good to reduce the council staff's pensions to zero - let them pay into private pensions like I do.... That'll keep the taxes lower..
I believe the council pensoions are in for a big change in the near future..Perhaps it would be good to reduce the council staff's pensions to zero - let them pay into private pensions like I do.... That'll keep the taxes lower..
I have worked for a council yes, our budget was decicded from above and we always stuck to our budget.
The demand for our services far outstripped what we could supply. I would guess we were only able to help around 10% of the people that requested our service. Aside from that much of what we did we had to do as the council is required to provide that service,
Although we helped X people unfortunatley a much larger amount of people would feel we had done nothing.
There were talks of charging for our service on top of council tax but i wasn't a fan of it.
Been a while since I read up on it, but Tesco will presumably be bound by the Carbon Reduction Committment scheme, being a large organisation? I think it's based on energy use rather than waste, but perhaps there's an offset mechanism available and this is a way of exploiting it? Think the baselines have already been set, and figures will be published in league table format every year. Any move down the league table has the potential to hit the share price (at least that's the idea), so maybe this is a clever way of improving their performance in the year immediately after the first table, thus jumping that much higher in the subsequent one? Failing that, maybe they just think they can a) do it better and b) make money in the process? If the net impact is less waste to landfill, does it really matter if someone makes money in the process of achieving that aim?
ETA - I find it hard to take someone seriously when their job title is "corporate director for resources and transformation". I mean come on...
ETA - I find it hard to take someone seriously when their job title is "corporate director for resources and transformation". I mean come on...
Edited by hornet on Tuesday 24th May 20:39
Hi StevieBee long time no exchange of posts on recycling 
It's only £3bn
Finally...picking up from a dangling thread way back...have you in all honesty as yet seen a full, and I mean full, energy audit for the Councils' approach(es) to recycling of any particular material?
StevieBee said:
Recycling is driven by logistics: lack of landfill space.
Incineration? Get the temperature and other factors right and the scare stories go up in smoke.StevieBee said:
This in turn is driven by cost - £80 a tonne to tip waste to landfill which will rise to around £120 per tonne over the next few years.
Cost, or taxation sponsored by the EU and UN at pain of fining Councils i.e. us via Council Tax?It's only £3bn
StevieBee said:
The average UK home produces a tonne of waste each year.
RightoStevieBee said:
The average cost per household in the UK paid via council tax, for a complete waste management service is around the £60 - £70 mark.
OKStevieBee said:
Hence the need to reduce what goes to landfill.
Incineration?StevieBee said:
Councils are not really that bothered by what means this is achieved; recycling, reuse or waste reduction.
Suerly their costs go down more with some rather than others?StevieBee said:
The fluffy eco stuff is all valid but is little more than a handy spin off of recycling and certainly not the primary driver - despite the line some councils choose to take.
True enough but we can hardly blame them for taking advantage of a gullible and propagandised public, after all they're gullible and propagandised themselves.StevieBee said:
The reason that Tescos are taking full control of recycling on their sites is a complex one - linked to both money and legislation. Certainly, there is money to be made in good quality, separated material...
What's or who's the source of the noney being made?StevieBee said:
However, there is an anticipation that greater legislation will be enforced on something called producer responsibility. This is widely used across Europe but not so much here. In simple terms, it requires the producers of the packaging waste to make a financial contribution to it's recovery from the waste stream or demonstrate practical efforts to have done so. Tesco is one such producer and very big one. Failure to do so can result in significant penalties, fines and of course the bad publicity that results.
The EU fining Councils i.e. taxpayers? StevieBee said:
By retaining the recycling under their control, Tesco can feed this into their waste data and the amount is likely to have a profound impact on their adherence to any policy that may come to bare on them in the future - even though there is no way to determine if that waste they are claiming they have diverted from landfill was actually produced by them in the first place.
IndeedStevieBee said:
And this is why councils don't like it. Tescos are in fact, 'stealing' recycling from them - or more precisely, the data that the recycling provides.
I think you have a point!StevieBee said:
To be honest though, this is more of an issue in areas where recycling is used to make energy. The incinerators...
Incineration!Finally...picking up from a dangling thread way back...have you in all honesty as yet seen a full, and I mean full, energy audit for the Councils' approach(es) to recycling of any particular material?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff