<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: UK breaks 70% recycling barrier</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/10/02/uk-breaks-70-recycling-barrier/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/10/02/uk-breaks-70-recycling-barrier/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:29:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Whittle, NAIL2</title>
		<link>http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/10/02/uk-breaks-70-recycling-barrier/comment-page-1/#comment-469</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Whittle, NAIL2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1365#comment-469</guid>
		<description>Here in Norfolk generally officers work well listening to arguments, but are under pressures to secure PFI cash. This effectively ties their hands to what has been acheived in the past, not what is acheived by Beacon waste authorities now or figures quite acheivable in the future.

Consequentially we are getting £2bn PFI mainly earmarked for incinerators (dressed up as EfW, sorry CHP is now the in vogue term and I word cover) rather than at least 35-40% of that wisely invested in much needed per tonne cheaper decentralised recycling, composting and anaerobic digesting capacity and infrastructure.

70% needs to be the new &quot;minimum&quot; threshold figure. One can&#039;t snub /subvert recycling/front end recovery and sorted food waste digesting, with old figures, outdated projections and official inertia

I do agree with John C/Shlomo. Nuts hey?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here in Norfolk generally officers work well listening to arguments, but are under pressures to secure PFI cash. This effectively ties their hands to what has been acheived in the past, not what is acheived by Beacon waste authorities now or figures quite acheivable in the future.</p>
<p>Consequentially we are getting £2bn PFI mainly earmarked for incinerators (dressed up as EfW, sorry CHP is now the in vogue term and I word cover) rather than at least 35-40% of that wisely invested in much needed per tonne cheaper decentralised recycling, composting and anaerobic digesting capacity and infrastructure.</p>
<p>70% needs to be the new &#8220;minimum&#8221; threshold figure. One can&#8217;t snub /subvert recycling/front end recovery and sorted food waste digesting, with old figures, outdated projections and official inertia</p>
<p>I do agree with John C/Shlomo. Nuts hey?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Costigane</title>
		<link>http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/10/02/uk-breaks-70-recycling-barrier/comment-page-1/#comment-464</link>
		<dc:creator>John Costigane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:26:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1365#comment-464</guid>
		<description>70% recycling is an excellent performance and shows up the lack of ambition at government level. Best practice should be promoted as standard. The previous &#039;wait and see&#039; approach is seen to have be a big mistake.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>70% recycling is an excellent performance and shows up the lack of ambition at government level. Best practice should be promoted as standard. The previous &#8216;wait and see&#8217; approach is seen to have be a big mistake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

