REview - Movie - 'Trashed' - More clever than wise

That last line is not a critique of the movie.

It's a quote from it:

"The difference between the clever man and the wise man is that the clever man can extricate himself from difficult and intricate situations that the wise man would never have gotten into in the first place."

Author: Jewish proverb

I had been invited to our local Ross theatre (rediscovering what a great little venue it is), by a local media baron, and approached with some misgivings, not least because I also dragged along 'she who must be entertained'.

Me because I have not had the best experiences with such documentaries, and on the missus' behalf because, well, if you are not a bit of an eco-activist, the subject matter does not exactly equate to the latest Twilight. And one and a half hrs plus on Trash talk is a fair old whack.

But I need not have worried. That time passed quickly and was well spent... for both of us, and I think the rest of the audience, which I was thrilled to discover included 'Mrs. Green' of My Zero Waste and her family. Their presence in part being explained by her having a featured role as a zero waste advocate.

However, in doing justice to an objective review, it is not a movie that will be everyone's idea of a good night out, or to their tastes. I think you would need to be interested in the topic, and happy to see your money going to such an exercise in necessary awareness.

But even if it doesn't appeal as a movie experience, I'd say catching it if and when it is on TV, or when the DVD is released, is a worthy consideration.

There's stuff worth knowing, and it is presented well.

The script is solid, and not preachy, and with a presenter/VO the calibre of Jeremy Irons, and music backdrop by Vangelis, the audio-visual experience is top notch.

Though the full HD impact of a 40m wall of rubbish calving into the sea at the East end of the Med is pretty revolting.

This was one of the biggest out of control land dumps there is, at Sidon, and though vile had an awesomely fascinating aspect to it too. It was like those rock strata you see science types getting excited about to explain dinosaur extinctions or tsunamis.

Which is apt, because in a way it is a waste mountain version of the cr*p 'we' throw out over the decades... centuries. No further back than that, as it was pointed out that it's really only in the last hundred years that we moved from 'natural' materials that degraded 'naturally' on disposal to those that do not, if at all. Or, if they do, into something not nice at all.

This was a thread throughout, and was indeed an area that informed even me, when I thought I was quite on top of the messy aspects of human imposition on this planet.

The expert 'talking heads' referred to were very good, and unlike many advocates came across as reasoned and well-informed. And realistic.

But what they had to share, and show, was not too palatable, even as one sits in a comfy cinema in the well-regulated West. Lured into a false sense on security by 3rd world horror stories, I was unprepared to what was closer to home for comfort.

And Mr. Irons was a great guide in complement. Not too earnest if passionate, and even cynical and self-mocking with a wicked sense of humour on occasion to lighten what too easily could become a voyage into darkness if not careful.

But careful we need to be. I was pretty aware of many of the issues around biodegradability (and will need to revisit my open-ended investigation on this topic that I started a long time ago), but the microparticle 'soup' that plastics which enter the eco-system create was really horrifying to be reminded about. And while 'witches' knickers bags are the stuff of many an M&S/Daily Mail PR stunt, this is an area I am much more concerned about.

Also incineration, especially the so-called newly-rebranded 'Energy from waste' variety.

The theory is good, and the intentions of some noble. But I now have serious outstanding concerns on the practice... and the intentions of others.

One look at the news these days shows the 'authorities' are not always smart or to be trusted, especially when in thrall of big business or under fiscal pressures.

The movie spent a lot of time on what comes out of the chimney, and it's not pretty if the thing is not set up right and run right... including changing filters that are needed to meet safety levels, but get bunged up pronto and need replacing a lot... at vast cost.

I was reminded of our 'bagless' Dyson vacuum, that was to 'save' us a fortune, but whose EPA filter ran up such a replacement bill we got rid of it. So too with such facilities. They cost a lot to build, and more to run. And if the money gets tight, they either run dirty or they shut down.

And if they don't shut down and run dirty... you don't want to be near. And by 'near', I mean on the planet. Like plastic micro/nano particles, what goes up, or down, or in the water, goes around... everywhere.

A large chunk of what is in there that shouldn't be are dioxins, and these are not nice. At all.

A distressing part of the narrative was necessary, and this was a visit to Vietnam, to see the results of dioxin contamination as a result of the Agent Orange spraying during the war there.

Now this was concentrated hugely (and there may be other factors), but even after all this time there seems no doubt that this stuff is not great to get into the food chain, and especially by the time it works up to apex predators... like us. 

There was a very nasty scene in a pathology lab in Vietnam to illustrate the one way humans, or at least half of us, can purge out bodies of dioxins, and that is from Mother to unborn child. If you watch... be forewarned, and prepared.

Yet even here in the UK there are 'officials' who at best seem... too comfortable with reassurances from those they'd prefer to hear from than those who don't suit.

And with our headlines currently full of breaches of trust from those in authority... and even complicit media driven more by agendas than professional integrity... I tend to err on the precautionary principle advocated by the Professors and experts we were presented with throughout.

And it's not like some 'we're all doomongering' efforts where the pulls are economic vs. environment; there are compelling triple bottom line arguments in mitigation to be had too. Win-win-wins abounding, just like those we try and push here at Junkk.com or with RE:tie. It doesn't have to be a stark choice between living in a cave or dying a horrible slow death.

If I was to offer a critique, it would be that the movie was 80% problem, and 20% more positive. Though the positives were inspiring. I was thrilled to see a section on the inspirational unpackaged concept, for instance, and especially to hear their spokeslady talk not just in savings terms, but also... shock... making a profit!

But it is necessary to grasp and appreciate that there are some ideals that reality may not allow. Population densities, budgets... time.

These are all vast, intermingled issues that are hugely complex and need to be discussed as part of the whole 'green' deal (and another time than here). And too often this rather key fact gets lost in focusing on one issue. Focus is good, but it can lead to dogma, and dogma can create pockets, and pockets competing for attention can mean inconvenient truths that don't suit get ignored to push the passion, more than being aware of the pragmatic actualities.

The movie made me realise how easy it is to get caught up on one's own little area of concern, and perhaps ignore the bigger picture and how others in theirs need to be related to. But on the whole I felt a strong sense of vindication with what we at Junkk are trying to do, and how it can't hurt and hopefully can help. If in a small way. But it also made me realise that the movie addressed reduction (which has limits), and recycling (which has 'issues') and disposal (which has huge consequences), but barely even tipped a hat at the potential of reuse... especially designed-in reuse, or repair.

Now these are niche and poor cousins, but with a bit of imagination and will, they could become just as big as solutions... and money-making ones too. I hate to say it, but a lot of effort does seem focused on areas of dealing with waste that are now profitable but maybe not that great on enviROI and hence as good for the planet as often claimed. Box-tickers and target-setters do like such things as rates and bonusses can be easily related.

Yes, sending a container with bales of compressed milk bottles to be 'recycled' is better than sending it empty... but what about the possibility they don't need 'processing' at all, and get sent to a place where they can become a new, long-lasting product in their own right? The movie well showed that the resilience of these new waste materials makes them pretty effective in aggressive environments. Why not apply them rather than keep looking for ways to deal with them, if not having them is simply not a consumer society-realistic option?

I noticed that a member of the Rausing family had helped with the funding.

Maybe Tetrapak would be open to an approach from Junkk.com or RE:tie again on the back of this movie, when any tries before have not got past the gatekeepers who can often talk a good tale, but end up failing to walk quite as well in complement?

If they did, maybe together we can find ways to be both clever... and wise?

Caption: By coincidence, in chatting with said media baron last week, I happened to stumble across an experiment I had bee conducting, namely leaving a bio-degradable shopping bag to do its thing. Clearly, after a few years, it is on its way, but if non longer a turtle-choking threat, those little pieces are still not very benign. 

ADDENDUM 1 - In researching this further, and in wishing all on the US Eastern seaboard well post-Sandy, I found this interesting:

http://www.lastnightsgarbage.com/?p=2890


‘New York City is an island built on garbage. Dutch settlers constructed much of the southern tip of Manhattan by extending the shoreline with landfill.’

ADDENDUM 2 - A URL of a new post about the issue closer to home:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20154032

ADDENDUM 3 - In compelment to the Energy from Waste segment:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680763/sweden-needs-more-trash-because-it-has-turned-all-its-got-into-energy

ADDENDUM 4 - an interview with the producer by the packaging industry:

http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/environment/trashed-challenges-world-to-change-habits-profile/

Scraping the top of the barrel

A little idea/tip for the day.

Was having my lunchtime juice and ended up, as you do, polishing off the juice box.

Keen to get the most from this, I walloped the top and swirled and stuff, but some still remained inside.

So I yanked the top off.

This gives you some interesting componentry, from a multi-piece cap pourer to the box.

All present reuse promise, but here I look at 'waste'.

Because that cap arrangement intrudes down a wee bit, at least 2mm, into the box body.

Yank the whole deal out (and keep it... you never know) and you get a fair bit more juice out (see pix).

Heck, you may also even make the folk at the recyclers a bit happier at one less contaminant in the recycling waste stream to address.

Win, win.. win. I'll drink to that:)

enviROI again; this time on Tetrapaks

There are many good blogs in the green field.

One such is My Zero Waste run, appropriately, by a Mrs. Green.

Her interest is, as the blog name suggests, Zero Waste. A laudable aim to be sure, though I tend to wonder if it is a tad idealistic, and hence can compromise the overall very worthy intentions by working to an extreme many consumers might not accept and I doubt business or government could hope to satisfy.

But one area, amongst many, she is very good at is finding folk in places of responsibility, and getting them to talk. Better yet, to answer questions in public forum. And good on them in turn for agreeing.

Hence I was interested that a Tetrapak rep was on board, following a previous peice that elicted answers from a council (Cornwall) that seemed to me pretty technically comprehensive...

Recycling officer, Jenny Walden, from Tetrapak answers your recycling questions

All good stuff. however, some that was shared rather cranked an eyebrow or two (the piece rather smacked of being a carefully-constructed PR piece from a website), more for what was not said than what was, and prompted me to write in hoep of clarification...

I wonder if you could amplify that final Q&A on Transport with a few more facts beyond entirely laudable dedication, belief and passion.

I would like the technical details, and if life cycle analysis (what I equate to the 'enviROI' ) is the best tool to gauge the environmental impact so be it, though in this field I have found that science can be used to blind.

Is there anything objective, substantive and, most importantly, easy for the layperson to understand that you might direct me/us to in this regard?

I am lucky to have a carton recycling skip right nearby (though I am actually keeping all mine to see what reuse options might present first), and have pondered the heavy gauge steel container that requires a large diesel truck to get it and what is a large amount of fresh air to a place that might well compact more effectively, but then sends it all on still further.

Frankly I am just keen to be reassured I am not just getting boxes ticked but actually contributing to a scheme that might be sending even more Co2 skywards (a priority to reduce surely?) due to the lack of local alternatives that may appear less attractive, and only exist through policy failings, but for now are on balance perhaps better on a pure GHG emission basis.

I'd also be interested in how all this applies to the costs and processes involved in posting an empty carton in a Jiffy bag.

ADDENDUM -

I have had a reply, or at least a sort of one, which is already to be commended as too often awkward questions go to the naughty corner.

I am very happy to say that a very thorough, independent, peer reviewed study has been done to show just how justified it is for you to continue to recycle your cartons in the UK, despite all these caveats you have highlighted.
Unfortunately, we are still awaiting the publication of this Life Cycle Study by a government agency for me to point you to this. We have asked the agency for special exemption so that we might show you this particular element of the study, but until we secure their permission, I am limited as to what I can communicate beyond this.

Hmn, so having alluded to all sorts of stuff initially, it is not, as such ready yet. And as you will soon gather, by eyebrow is already acquiver at who this all seeing, all-knowing and hence all to be believed government agency is.

It also sets me again to pondering what or why such 'officers' actually do or are. What is their job function, their mission, and what qualifications are the expected to, or do they have. There are an awful lot, in companies, LAs, quangos and schools, etc.

But many times they seem to be sweet young things who disseminate information from on high and 'respond', as here.

It is hard to imagine that most are in any way involved in strategy, discussing the science or setting policy. And so, too often IMHO, they really are no more than press officers with a green sticker pasted on.

Hence any reply to mine will be interesting...

Thank you for responding. I will await this information being made available with anticipation and interest.
In the meantime, might you be able to point to the others you alluded to?: ‘across numerous studies recycling has been shown to be environmentally preferable.’
Also, might I ask which government agency the latest is/will be with? Not WRAP perchance?
This is a quango whose ever-growing board gets bonusses on meeting targets, and it is my experience ticking a tonnage box does not often meet the same enviROI criteria that I tend to feel are better to hold some initiatives to account for improving my kids’ futures.
So I tend to crank an eyebrow at their objectivity.

As many here will know, I am not so convinced that the consumer side of WRAP at least (the industrial seems much more focused) is worth its salt. Quangos at best seem cursed by being vehicles of fudge and compromise, with lack of accountability at their core. It's the worst of business where explaining ROI is usually lost in jargon, and the same governments who use our money to pay them to do their dirty work use them as a firewall if...when things go wrong. Only they keep the pay and pensions as they were only obeying orders.

If it is WRAP, let us not forget this is the same entity who gave £250k of our money to Heinz to 'see how' they could lightweight their cans and save a honking great cost on raw materials.

TetraPak, by my memory, is not short of a bob or two. Now I accept that private, commercial entities should not be expected to fund ever-evolving government policy, that changes goalposts, without a fight, but one giving the other taxpayers' money to help resolve the CSR shortfalls of the policies and systems of both is hardly the solution I favour either.

RE-miss?

Spot the missing word here.

Now, what could we turn this into?

Some can need telling where to stick it.

Funny old world. Week before last I shared in my local paper a new place I happened across to get rid of cartons. The following week someone wrote in to suggest that I had it wrong as it wasn't in the right place.

For all the good it will do (some do get a critical bit betwixt their teeth no matter what - I got the feeling they felt I was the one in charge), I have tried to clarify:

While I share Mrs. X's frustration with the lack of a coherent national waste policy, extending from logistics to communications, especially as it dribbles piecemeal down to a ready, willing and keen to engage public from central and/or via local government, perhaps it is often best to celebrate that something gets done, if poorly, rather than nothing at all.

While I feel 'honoured' might be going a tad far, and as one who still struggles what to do usefully with Tetrapaks, in sharing the new facility's existence I was simply happy to find that, at last, there was an option now available for their recycling at least; one which I was not aware of.

But of course, having moved from what to do with them, we end up with where. I guess this can create as much spirited discussion in the positive as say, the location of an energy-from-waste facility can in the negative. If 90% [interesting to ponder how the writer arrived at this stat] of those arriving at Red Meadow to recycle do so by car, and solely for this purpose, then that is more than unfortunate. However if they park there to go swimming or, as do I, to walk through en route to town, then I feel the existence of a new means to get rid of more waste in a selective manner was still worth sharing.

Agreed, Station Approach is another good location (though I'd be more likely on a dedicated car-borne trip to go there, showing that what's good for one may not always be so for another [what's the opposite of a NIMBY?]), and if it does not enjoy a similar option that is a pity.

Is it run by the same folk? In fact this has got me to wondering about the sheer number of diverse entities, with targets to meet and quotas to fill (plus bonuses for doing so), who are actually doing what, where... and to how good an actual enviROI (a measure of return on investment to the environment in genuine reduced greenhouse gas emission terms that I coined and apply) all over our fair county and land. One often just has to trust that those tasked to do so, be it by the EU, ministerial desire or whatever, are actually doing so in the right way, for the right reasons.

Frankly a heavy steel skip to haul 90% fresh air in 1 litre card skins on a large diesel truck doesn't seem the best wherever it may be located, especially without knowing the distance to reprocessing. But I guess one tries to seek the positives. So until there is some trustworthy (!) single (!!) nationwide initiative (!!!) in place, communicated sensibly and clearly (! x a lot), so consumers can do their bit in the best way (eg: drop offs by kerbside or only en route in a car; and rendered in a minimum volume form for maximum recylcate content in skip/container prior to shipping), I guess I'll just concern myself with telling any who care to listen about new ways to stick it, simply hoping it's a 'better way' to spare their rubbish going into a hole or up in smoke if it doesn't have to. Whilst continually lobbying those in power to improve the situation at every turn.

And I encourage all of us to do the same. Hence I, and I am sure such as Mrs. X, would value an official view of what’s out there, plus why and how ‘we’ can best do our bit in light of the major efforts to encourage us to ‘recycle’. It’s clear that is not quite enough.

Hey, it's Easter Monday. I'm on a break.

Ok, I'm easily excited

Just got back from the Saturday Mother's Day shopping, and look what the boys and I spied in the recycling section of the carpark: a new skip for cartons (Tetrapaks).

This is great! No more moaning about the one and only facility in Fife or wherever, or daft notions of posting them off to be dealt with.

Two things, though. One is that it's a real shame that there is no way to help punters squash them first, as this is a hefty bit of steel to carry 99% fresh air in a 1litre skin.

The other is that I had no clue these were coming or are now here. And I tend to be a tad more aware on such matters. Wouldn't such a facility warrant a bit of PR ra-ra?

Of course the one thing I have not raised is the enviROI. Maybe I don't want to know.