for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

Or collecting their P45's. :-(((
Only joking. I'm just starting to develop a very black humour on this.
Alan

Thursday 3rd August, 2006
ASDA LAUNCHES 'OLD BAGS' CAMPAIGN
Supermarket Set To Introduce Reusable 'Bags For Life' In Stores Nationwide

ASDA confirmed today it wants to discourage customers from using free, single trip plastic carrier bags by introducing a new range of 'bags for life' in all of its 307 stores nationwide*. The new durable bags are designed for repeated use and will cost just 5p

Dont think we've seen these before (maybe the second one) - the first is interesting, but unfortunately shows some competition. SEO are mentioned near the bottom.


http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=69464-natureworks-rpc-bebo-biodegradable-pla

http://www.hemscott.com/news/comment-archive/item.do?id=10123

As to degradable/biodegradable, even if Tesco have gone for the degradable alternative, I feel that pressure will eventually cause all plastics wherever possible to be biodegradable, so Tesco may end up SEO customers eventually (wishful thinking perhaps).

Alan,
I saw (can't remember where, it's my age you know) about 2 weeks ago a very good newspaper article where the writer was being devils advocate as regards the green issue. He argued along the lines of, increased transport cost for the longer journeys to and from designated sites, costs re burning, effects on re-cycling on the environment etc. It was mainly along the lines of increased costs re collection and disposal of items such as glass, paper and plastics. A good point was re-cycling paper, as new paper is made from soft wood tree's that are easily replaced, and new paper being cheaper to produce than re-cycled paper. Plastics although having the properties that enable them to be re-cycled are the most expensive of the materials mentioned to re-cycle.
The conclusion was that to re-cycle although a better alternative to final disposal was not the holy grail most people except it to be. The article did make you think.
As to biodegradable. It appears this will be the main way forward for materials that are difficult and or expensive to re-cycle or dispose, IE plastics.
In the future I feel that biodegradable items will be the way to go, as it is still by far the best alternative environmentally, as well as being the most cost effective when all else is considered.

Softwood trees may grow a lot quicker than hardwoods, but they still take several yeasr to grow and of course take up land ...... paper is wasted by the ton in almost every company, so to recycle must make sense

Not saying you are wrong, as I just repeated sections or the article, so it was not my argument. As you say they take up land, but trees are vital to the environment especially as they help to combat the greenhouse effect.
It looked at costs of both systems. I am still a great believer in re-cycling or, if possible bio-degradable, but as said it did knock some of the excepted ideas a bit.
In a nutshell, I hate waste.

not entirely sure of my facts that i think hardwood trees are more beneficial than softwoods on climate change, and most certainly are for biodiversity

Never been totally convinced by recycling as an ideal. When i think of recycling paper I do tend to think of enormous machines, massive delivery lorries and enormous energy spent pulping and bleaching. All for a product that is less than perfect for most office uses(grainy, grey etc).
Off track, but I often wonder about the "throw away society", and whether it might be a more effective target to try and ensure consumer durables are more durable, and easier to repair when they do break. hands up whos sick of throwing away electrical equipment, because replace is cheaper than repair.
Like many things in life, the easy target wins votes, looks like you are doing something and is cheap. the harder target is often the one that it is worthwhile trying to hit.
Greekman,
the point that was made by the writer was pretty much the one my imaginary friend was trying to get across to me, without actually saying it. i can't be bothered to check back on my posts of the time, but he was batting on about "is it really green when you take everything into account"? I thought he was talking about transportation and GM, and I set off in that direction. in hindsight, perhaps he was talking about the article that has sparked this afternoons lively debate on degradable v biodegradable and the recycling issues.
You wait till I see him!!
Alan

Greekman, I agree your/the article's comments. A lot of the problem with recycling is the energy cost of collecting and recovering the "waste" product and turning it back into something useable. Then there's also the fairly slender economic case as you also point out. I'm not aware of the figures, but in the case of paper the two factors together have been enough to put some local authorities off recycling.

I'm not sure that there is a particularly strong environmental case against "tree farming" as such. Obviously of far greater concern is mowing down irreplacable resources such as the Amazonian rainforest, but most of that goes for either hardwood logging or disputable agricultural and mining practices.

Countries looking to further recycling would do well to consider Germany's example - here there is a deposit on most glass or plastic drinks bottles, which encourages the consumer to return the empties to the shops, thus avoiding having to send special vehicles on separate trips to collect from homes or bottle banks. There is also a whole "industry" amongst the disadvantaged who go picking up stray bottles from bins or wherever they may be discarded as litter in order to collect the deposits, thus helping to keep the streets and parks clean.

I've always been against the recycling of paper for the following reasons:-

Many of the forests now redundant through recycling (large areas in Germany, for e.g.) have never been replanted - no need to, they existed to produce paper. There are now vast areas of land which once had trees producing oxygen - they're now being developed or left barren.

AND

The quality of recycled paper is poor and has limited use.

Dont start me on bottle recycling - totally ineffective.

A lot of recycling has been about business - not saving the planet. Unfortunately, many people who claim they want to save the planet live on a completely different one!

Giving my age away now but I used to collect empty bottles when I was a kid, as most had a deposit paid. On taking them back to the local shop I often then bought 4 blackjacks (for the benefit of you young uns, these were 4 for an old penny sweets).
Them was the days. With a quid, you could drink in a pub all night, go onto a night club, have fish and chips on the way home and still have some change left over.
Oh dear, started to cry with nostalgia and flooded my pipe. Sad ain't it.
But seriously, how many people today would bother taking bottles back for the return deposit, even if it was 10p per bottle, not many.

Interesting about the denuded forests, Oblo. Typical of industry to rape and pillage the land and then abandon it. It's also hardly surprising that supposedly eco-friendly Germany has a few skeletons in its closet.

When local authorities grant permission to companies for things such as quarries, the quarry companies are mostly obliged to make the land good after they cease operations. Clearly the German forests were exploited in less enlightened times.

Greekman,

When I started work I got a 15p Luncheon voucher per day - I could buy a steak and kidney pie and pint of beer with it!

I also collected the bottles as a youngster - King Fling, dandelion and burdock, etc. - used to hang around outside off licenses and fish and chio shops, take them out the bins and collect the 3d (I think it was) deposit!

You flooded your pipe, Greekman? Would that be your catheter, or have you borrowed the grandkids' bong?

The deposit thing works here in Frankfurt, is all I can say. A placcy 1.5L mineral water bottle carries a 25 -cent deposit, which would probably be worked out to 15p in Britain. Similar goes for beer and cola bottles. And if you have half a dozen, the incentive is already there to recycle them, as what housewife would throw away 90p a week that she could offset against her grocery bill?

I have a Tesco reuseable bag they are very wide, but if you buy the morning papers and frozen or chilled products and soft fruit you don,t want them all in one bag, your newspapers will be wet and your banana's bruised.

aldwickk

How do you know my banana is bruised?

The oily one

your wife told me.

If you know my wife, I'll see you in court.

You must have met her when she was a little tipsy. She's normally not very fussy in that state.

The oily one

Asda's environmental press release about recycling at stores included a bit about reducing the weight / amount of packaging by 10%.
Reading the blurb on Greenseal, it says that one of its key benefits is reducing the weight of the packaging necessary due to a mono layer.
Co-incidence???
Alan

Added to above post;
Asda also underlined its commitment to recycling rather than sending to landfill.
SEO claim that Greenseal allows packaging waste to be recycled, whereas normal packaging waste goes to landfill.
Was the Asda press release a forerunner? Here are our goals and targets in this press release. The next one to say they have achieved it through greenseal.
Tantalising.
Alan