Monthly bin collection plan is mooted by council
Bristol could become the first council in England to collect black waste bins once every three or four weeks, under new plans.
The city council, run by the Green Party, already has the highest recycling rate among "core cities" in England, with 45% of household waste being recycled.
Bristol City Council has launched a public consultation on the potential changes, which will run until 10 March.
The authority's deputy leader, Heather Mack, said the move would reduce the cost and "the impact on the environment", but opposition councillors said there were increasing complaints about the existing service which should be sorted first.
Switching to a three-weekly black bin collection will save the council £1.3m a year, while a four-weekly collection would save £2.3m.
The move has been proposed to encourage more recycling of food waste.
Bristol City Council said around 50% of households don't recycle food waste, and a quarter of most black bin rubbish is food which could be recycled.
Around £700 worth of food is thrown away every year per house, the council added.
Food waste is sent to an anaerobic digestion plant, and converted into energy by burning the methane waste that comes from it, with the by-product being used for farm fertiliser.
The council is also facing increasing costs of treating waste, which has increased by £4m in the last five years.
Ms Mack said: "There's due to be a tax on the residual waste we send to be processed, for the carbon in that.
"So we really need to consider how much we're sending and where else could it go.
"We would also offer larger bins for larger households, and an extra collection for people with sanitary products or nappies, so we don't want people to unduly struggle with this," she added.
The plans have been criticised by opposition parties at City Hall.
Tom Renhard, leader of the Labour group, said: "There needs to be a focus on sorting out the existing service.
"I'm getting an increasing number of complaints from local residents across the city that recycling isn't being collected and black bins aren't being collected on [the current] two-weekly basis.
"Some of my residents haven't had a recycling collection this side of Christmas.
"You're also starting to see that if residents' recycling isn't getting collected and it's piling up, they're going to put it in the bin, which isn't going to help recycling rates."
Follow BBC Bristol on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to us on email or via WhatsApp on 0800 313 4630.
Black bin collections 'may be cut to once a month'
Bristol parents invited to join nappy recycling trial
Work continues to complete overdue bin collections
Bristol City Council
Bristol Waste
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Land grab conspiracies spread alongside Canadian wildfires
"This isn't just wildfire policy -- it's a global land control strategy operating through 'sustainability' language," a June 1, 2025 Facebook post claims. The text claims the "Rio Law" is a global framework established to encourage sustainability that can be used to reclassify land in Canada for resource extraction and forbid residents from returning home after they are evacuated due to wildfires. The text spread across Facebook, Instagram and X partly echoing debunked theories about Agenda 21 and moves to push fire-displaced residents into "smart cities" where they will be subjected to strict technology surveillance or face restriction of movement. Simultaneously, users on Facebook and TikTok made additional claims about land grabs precipitated by wildfire evacuations invoking either controversy over Ontario province's Bill 5 or images of a possible pipeline route, which would supposedly cross Manitoba to reach Hudson's Bay. Conditions are primed for another massive wildfire season in Canada, as the over 3.6 million hectares (13.8 thousand square miles) of area burned so far in 2025 has already surpassed the year-to-date average for the past decade (archived here). More than 30,000 people have evacuated their homes in western Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba provinces, including remote Indigenous communities fleeing south. But as of June 12, some 7,000 evacuees in Saskatchewan province began returning home. Media report people will also soon be allowed to go back to communities Manitoba, but many areas remain under evacuation orders there and in neighboring Ontario. The fires hit as trade tensions with the United States have triggered the new federal government to open discussions about access to Canadian natural gas and coveted minerals. But the potential projects, including pipelines, raise concerns of environmental impact and Indigenous consent. Nevertheless, experts told AFP it was highly improbable for a wildfire to be used to intentionally target specific areas for resource exploitation. Mike Flannigan a professor of wildland fire at Thompson Rivers University (archived here) said a wildfire is defined by three factors: how it starts, what it can burn through, and the weather conditions around it. Many fires are started -- mostly unintentionally -- by humans, he said, but fuel and weather play too large of a role in where flames spread, making it nearly impossible to start a wildfire that could successfully target a premeditated location. Flannigan also pointed out that climate change creates conditions that suck up moisture from vegetation and generate stronger wind, a mix conducive to more unwieldy fires. "The drier the fuel, the easier it is for a fire to start," he told AFP on June 5. Wildland firefighters use burning techniques to impede the path of smaller and less intense fires and keep them away from populated areas (archived here), but Flannigan said once the blazes reach the tops of the trees -- also known as a crown fire (archived here) -- response becomes limited. "There's only two options then: one is evacuate, get out of the way until the weather changes or the fuels change, or do a burnout operation, which is where you get in front, where the wildfire is spreading, start a new fire that's fighting against it," he said. Hossein Bonakdari, an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Ottawa (archived here), analyzed indicators such as leaf coverage and winter snow area to predict the probability of wildfire in certain parts of Canada. Even with these prediction tools, Bonakdari noted, a plethora of minute variables dictating a wildfire's spread exist, making it impossible to foresee whether it could reach a certain location. "I need a dataset of today to do the prediction for tomorrow," he said on June 6. While the claim that wildfires could be used to clear certain areas for resource extraction may be unsubstantiated, concerns about infringement on Indigenous treaty rights in relation to Ontario's Bill 5 exist (archived here). The legislation gives the province authority to declare "special economic zones" (archived here), overriding local laws for resource projects in a move that Indigenous leaders say will conflict with the government's treaty obligations. Ontario Premier Doug Ford plans, for example, on extracting minerals from the Ring of Fire deposit in the north of the province. Other Canadian premiers also recently floated the idea of a pipeline through Manitoba to end in Hudson's Bay, similar to what has been referenced in some land grab claims online. Using reverse image search, AFP traced the map in those posts to a 2023 blog proposing a path for pipelines (archived here). However, no formalized proposals for such a project could be found. The posts also misrepresent the 1992 Rio Declaration (archived here). The document produced at the United Nations' Earth Summit does not mention removing people from land. Rather, it lays out principles of protecting environmental and developmental systems, to which it says states should agree. AFP previously debunked claims about resident displacement to extract resources following hurricane evacuations. Read more of AFP's reporting on wildfire misinformation here.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Governor Morrisey puts the National Guard and West Virginia State Police on standby for planned protests in West Virginia
CHARLESTON, WV (WVNS) — Governor Morrisey put the National Guard and State Police on standby for planned protests in West Virginia. 'No Kings' protests scheduled across the nation and in West Virginia are in opposition to President Donald Trump's policies on immigration and ICE detainments and his scheduled military parade in Washington, D.C. for the Army's 250th birthday on June 14, which also coincides with Trump's 79th birthday. According to a post on Governor Patrick Morrisey's Facebook page, Governor Morrisey stated that the National Guard and the West Virginia State Police on standby due to planned political demonstrations in parts of the Mountain State on the weekend of June 14, 2025 and June 15, 2025. I support the constitutional right to free speech and assembly, but West Virginia will uphold law and order. We will not tolerate looting, destruction, vandalism, or any violence toward law enforcement. Governor Morrisey In the post, Governor Morrisey also stated that the National Guard and West Virginia State Police will be on standby to stop any of the protests from going from peaceful to violent. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
