BBC Breakfast: Debate on local recycling, 08/10/2006

Debate on BBC Breakfast between Green Party spokesperson Sian Berry and Professor James Woudhuysen of De Montfort University on whether domestic recycling is a good idea, in the context of local councils and new approaches to recycling. Begins with a short film on domestic rubbish. See also the BBC Breakfast News 'Talking rubbish' archive of this week of coverage, which includes links to other video clips. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/5404528.stm

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• recycling
• green
• landfill
• authoritarian
• council
• forecasting

[nicomacdonald]

It may not be "a case of not knowing how to respond" but no one has chosen to present counter arguments in this thread. Rather, personal insults and comments about rhetorical style have been deployed. I don't believe this is the right place to host such a debate, but if people want to debate the issues can I suggest posting on your own Weblog and pinging me (nico@spy.co.uk) so I can respond publicly.

[nicomacdonald]

When creating a debate around a subject it is required you find people with agendas -- different agendas -- to engage with each other around their points of view. That way, we the audience can make up our own minds. And when someone is attacked for 'having an agenda' it usually means the person doing the attacking has a _different_ agenda and the other person's arguments have unsettled them, but they neither know how to respond to the arguments, nor do they don't want to change their mind.

[StonefieldJim4]

JW would "oppose any attempts to protect the environment"? This is such an extraordinarily stupid thing to say I shouldn't really flatter it with a reply. To take to task many of the tenets, policies and philosophical assumptions of environmentalism is not, ipso facto, to not care about the environment! It's not a zero sum game. Read JW's book 'Energise' and tell me it's author doesn't care about environmental despoliation. You won't... because he does.

[LuMagazine]

James Woudhuysen is a shill for the nuclear power industry, inserting himself on the US green speaker circuit... He's an agent provocateur, acting to create a breech where the nuclear power industry can take over the electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

[number94]

It seems that there are so many 'Professors' these days that the title has become... errr, rubbish.

[left888]

Why? He was on another planet. We send millions of tons of waste to landfill each year and he calls that minutiae. When she sort of brings this up he goes off on a complete tangent, talking about green spaces. His arguments were full of holes, and he didn't really answer any of the questions. If he, as a don, was marking an essay of that charcter, presumably it would score pretty low!

[Chaffinch4]

Where did they dig that Professor up from! According to him the Green Party think that humans are a "cancer on the planet". Evidence for that statement, Prof? lol

[ejbh3160]

The Greens were being painted as the ones who would be authoritarian when it was precisely the opposite of what she was saying!

Well done Sian! As ever the Greens sounded like the ones who care about the people on the receiving end of these mad councils!

As for the mess with fortnightly collections.. thats what you get when the Grey parties try to do a 'greenwash' and get it wrong (as they always will)! If you want REAL green policies then VOTE GREEN!

[woodlaand]

James woudhuysen is a don give him a break

[mattrtl]

Seems like Woudhuysen is available whenever programme makers need a professional academic who is guaranteed to create conflict on an environmental story. He'll seemingly oppose any attempts to protect the environment, without ever offering alternative solutions, denying that problems exist, and name-calling.

By contrast Sian Berry was down to earth and seemed like someone who is actually looking for effective and realistic solutions to a real problem.

[mountain19]

by god i think youve got it. but to disagree with a government when speaking the truth is very dangerous. most know this and tend to disagree with the one oposing the gov. with obvious truths. for the most part these people disagree for reasons they themselves are not aware of. there lies the danger in government/republics.