We have all stayed at rubbish hotels but this one is a little different, it’s a hotel made entirely out of rubbish.

The hotel is made up of approximately twelve tonnes of rubbish collected from Europe’s beaches. It has been built as an artistic method of raising awareness about the throwaway culture that we live in and to highlight the coastline’s worrying levels of pollution.

The hotel is located in the world famous tourist city of Rome and has been created by German artist HA Schult. The distinguished guest list of the hotel includes eco-warrior and Danish fashion model Helena Christensen.

Whilst this may be seen as a bit of fun by some, there is a very serious underlying message that we are ignorant about rubbish and resources. We currently consume far beyond the earths capacity of resources and at some point something must give.

To some extent the increased awareness of recycling has largely determined that our throw away lifestyles can be maintained safe in the knowledge that rubbish will be recycled. This fails to address the true underlying problems and the need to reduce our rubbish, where this is not possible then reuse should be preferential to recycling.

This is a value that BuilderScrap can assist with in relation to construction materials, we are always seeking to maximise the life cycle of products and resources by providing a platform to do so.

It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure that we do everything we can to reduce the amount of consumption that we are currently inflicting on our planet, after all the earths resources are finite.

This post acts as an indicator to how the average person perceives environmental change. It’s not just Construction but also food production that contributes to climate change.

More than half (57%) agreed with the statement that “food production contributes to climate change”, while 12% disagreed with this. However about one third either did not know (10%) or said they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement (22%). Unlike the measures in the previous section, agreement with this statement was not linked to the amount of uneaten food the respondent generally ended up throwing away. Those who agreed that food production contributes to climate change were no more likely to throw away uneaten food than those who disagreed with this statement.

Respondents were also asked what they would do if they had a better understanding of the environmental impacts of how food is produced. Half (50%) said that they would be willing to make changes to the food they buy to reduce the impact on the environment. Slightly fewer than one quarter (23%) of respondents said they would still buy the food they usually buy, even if they were better informed. One quarter (24%) said they had already made changes to the food that they buy to reduce their impact on the environment, with nearly one in ten (9%) saying they were keen to do more.

Readers… down your Builders surplus supply.  We’re in a festive mood here at BuilderScrap.com. The turkeys have been purchased and Grandma’s itching to help out with the Christmas Pudding. This post looks at a number of behaviours relating to food purchasing and consumption at home as well as growing your own fruit and vegetables and composting in the garden. Table 22 presents the findings for four food-related behaviours using the stages of change response scale employed throughout this report.

In total almost nine out of ten (88%) respondents reported that they were already wasting less food, with three-quarters (75%) saying they were “already doing this and intend to keep it up” and 13% “already doing this though I’d like to do it more”. This shows an increase since 2007, when less than two-thirds (63%) reported they were “already doing this and intend to keep it up”.

Nearly half (46%) of respondents with a garden reported that they were already composting household or garden waste (the equivalent of 43% of all respondents), with one fifth (20%) having rejected this behaviour and a further one fifth (20%) having either not heard of this or not thought about it. Those who were already composting household food and garden waste included people who had a compost heap or composter at home as well as those who were using composting collections provided by their council. The majority (62%) of respondents indicated that their council provided a collection for garden waste and a third (34%) for food waste. One half (51%) of all respondents who had a garden said they normally used a council collection for garden waste (a slight decrease from 55% in 2007), and one quarter (25%) of all respondents said they normally used a council collection for food waste (an increase from 20% in 2007).

One third (33%) of respondents with gardens reported that they were already growing their own fruit and vegetables (the equivalent of 30% of all respondents), with a slightly lower proportion (29%) reporting that they had rejected this behaviour. One in ten (10%) were contemplating it whilst nearly one fifth (17%) had either not heard of this or not thought about it.

Of the five measures covered in Table 22 respondents were least likely to be already buying fish from sustainable sources and intending to keep this up (only 26% were at the maintenance stage). A large group of respondents (43%) were classified at the pre-contemplation stage – indicating that they had either never heard about this or that they had not really given it any thought. A relatively high proportion (17%) of respondents were left unclassified on this measure, which included just over one in ten (12%) answering not applicable (implying that not all consumers buy fish).

At BuilderScrap.com we’re not just interested in building supplies. We love finding out about the eco-behaviours of the general public. In this survey respondents were asked to consider their current behaviour and willingness to act in relation to five recycling, composting and reusing behaviours (using the stages of change response scale). A breakdown of responses from the 2009 survey is provided in Table 20, dividing respondents into the five summary groups associated with the stages of change scale.

When asked whether they “recycle more items rather than throwing them away‟ a large majority (91%) of respondents fell into the maintenance category (including all those currently acting and those who may not be doing it as much or as often as they would like). This represents a significant increase in this behaviour since the 2007 Defra survey, in which 70% of respondents reported that they were already recycling more items than throwing them away. Table 21 summarises these results.

Respondents were asked about taking their own shopping bags when they went shopping and also about the frequency of doing this. The majority (84%) of respondents reported that they were already taking their own shopping bags and intending to continue (the maintenance stage), with only small numbers of respondents at each of the other stages. It is relevant to note that there has been a reduction in the availability of single use carrier bags over the last two years, informed by voluntary agreements between the Government and leading retailers

Most respondents were also reusing items like plastic bottles and glass jars, with three quarters of respondents reporting they were maintaining this behaviour. One in ten (11%), however, were still at the pre-contemplation stage and had not considered doing this before, and a similar proportion (8%) had rejected the behaviour.

Slightly fewer than half (43%) of respondents said they were already composting household food or garden waste and intended to keep this up (the maintenance stage) while a fifth were at the pre-contemplation stage. A further fifth had thought about composting household food or garden waste but had rejected the idea. Those who were already composting household food and garden waste included people who had a compost heap or composter at home as well as those who were using composting collections provided by their council.

Of the five items covered, respondents were least likely to be checking whether an item could be recycled before purchasing. For this behaviour, nearly half (49%) of respondents fell into the pre-contemplation stage – having never thought about doing this or never heard of this. Nearly a third (29%) of respondents said they were already doing this (the maintenance stage), while 14% had rejected the idea.

This post from BuilderScrap.com concerns not just building materials but also the recycling of common waste.  Consistent with 2007, 83% of respondents said there was a bottle or recycling bank in their area. However, reported usage of these facilities had increased slightly compared with 2007 (see Table 18). Around three-quarters (71%) of respondents said they made use of recycling banks, an increase of six percentage points since 2007.

Respondents who said that they used their local recycling facilities were then asked what type of items they took there (see Table 19 for a full breakdown). People were most likely to take glass items to bottle banks or recycling centres – with nearly three quarters (70%) of respondents reporting taking these to be recycled. This is slightly less than the 76% who reported that they used their doorstep recycling collection for glass. Just under half (47%) took clothes to be recycled. Around a third of respondents reported that they took paper items, cardboard, shoes or tins and cans to their local recycling banks. It is likely that this is influenced by levels of doorstep collection for certain items, for example door-step collections for glass and clothes recycling are less widespread than paper.

In 2007, similar proportions of respondents were taking each of these items to recycling facilities. Where there had been changes in recycling, the largest increases were for tins, cans and foil, and paper items where the proportion of respondents who said they took these to be recycled had increased by eight percentage points.

Are you concerned about packaging, the BuilderScrap.com team are. Check out this defra survey. Respondents were asked how frequently they decided not to buy something because it has too much packaging (using a six-point scale ranging from always to never). Just 6% of respondents said they always decided not to buy for this reason, while 8% said they did this very often, 7% quite often, 14% sometimes and 14% occasionally. Come on UK lets Recycling gb

The largest group of respondents (46%) said they never decided not to buy something because it had too much packaging. It should be noted that this is less than the proportion of respondents who were at the pre-contemplation or rejection stage for this behaviour (58% of all respondents said they hadn’t really thought about the behaviour or had rejected it – as shown in Table 15). This implies that some people who said they had rejected or had not really given any thought to not buying things because they had too much packaging were actually (at least occasionally) avoiding products because they had too much packaging.

Come on guys… lets make Recycling gb our priority!

The BuilderScrap.com team love this type of post. They keep us grounded on public attitudes to energy conservation and environmental issues

The survey asked respondents to indicate how many light bulbs, including energy saving light bulbs, they had in their home. The mean average for the total number of light bulbs per home was estimated to be 20 per home which is consistent with research carried out by the Energy Saving Trust in February 2008 (which indicated a mean number of 19 light bulbs per home).

Note
8 Light bulbs, cars and most electrical appliances (e.g. refrigerators, stoves, washing machines) carry the EU Energy Label. The energy efficiency of the product is rated in energy levels ranging from A to G on the outside label. ‘A’ stands for the most energy efficient and ‘G’ for the least energy efficient.

The mean number of energy saving light bulbs per home was just over half this number (12) indicating that in an average home around 60% of the light bulbs were energy saving light bulbs. Comparisons with research carried out by the Energy Saving Trust in February 2008 and the 2007 Defra survey data indicate that the average proportion of energy saving light bulbs in people’s homes is increasing. In 2007 the equivalent figure was reported as 4 energy saving light bulbs per home, increasing to a reported 7 per home in February 2008 (and 39% of all bulbs). This is shown in Table 13. The 2007 question only asked for an estimate of the number of energy saving light bulbs in the home.

Energy Saving Lightbulbs

Here at BuilderScrap.com we’re looking at respondents’ purchases of appliances and whether being “Energy Saving Recommended‟ had been a factor in purchases. The purpose of this the BuilderScrap blog isn’t just to help you guys save on construction costs, but to help home owners make informed decisions relating to the environment.

Respondents were presented with a list of seven household appliances and asked which, if any, they had bought in the last twelve months. As shown in Table 12, a third (32%) of respondents had bought at least one of these appliances, with the most common purchases being a washing machine (15%), fridge-freezer (9%) or a dishwasher (8%). It was less common for respondents to have purchased a tumble dryer (6%), fridge (5%), freezer (3%) or washer-dryer (2%).

A similar question was asked on the Energy Saving Trust tracker survey in August 2007. Where comparisons are possible the proportion who had bought each appliance in the last twelve months was fairly consistent, although there had been a small, but statistically significant decrease in the proportion of respondents who had bought a fridge-freezer.

We think that’s because its been really cold!

Here at BuilderScrap.com we love to find little hint’s, tips and useful information. We loved this snippet from the good people at home recycling.

Recycling office furniture

The Facts

* Up to £13 million of furniture is reused already each year
* There are many people locally, in reduced circumstances, who would welcome what you might be throwing away

REDUCE

* If you don’t need to replace then don’t

REUSE

* Give away to, and buy from charities – you’d be helping a good cause and saving a lot of hassle too
* Try selling your unwanted furniture and look around for second hand bargains

RECYCLE BASE MATERIALS

* Only recycle as one last resort before wasting
* Attempt to breakdown into separate recyclate groups

Don’t forget us at BuilderScrap.com we pride ourselves on re-use and stopping waste ending up in landfill.

A great article from Larry West on The Benefits of Metal Recycling. All of us in the BuilderScrap.com offices had a look at this one.
The United States recycles 150 million metric tons of scrap materials annually, including 85 million tons of iron and steel, 5.5 million tons of aluminium, 1.8 million tons of copper, 2 million tons of stainless steel, 1.2 million tons of lead and 420,000 tons of zinc, according to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI). Other metals such as brass, bronze, magnesium and tin are recycled as well.

What are the benefits of recycling all that metal?
U.S. Exports Recycled Metal

In 2008, the scrap recycling industry generated $86 billion and supported 85,000 jobs. The recycled materials that the industry processes into raw material feedstock every year are used for industrial manufacturing around the world. In 2008, the United States exported $28.6 billion—roughly 44 million metric tons—of scrap commodities, which contributed significantly to U.S. trade balances.
Metal Recycling Saves Energy

Recycling scrap metal reduces greenhouse gas emissions and uses less energy than making metal from virgin ore. The amount of energy saved using various recycled metals compared to virgin ore is up to:

– 92 percent for aluminium
– 90 percent for copper
– 56 percent for steel

Metal Recycling Conserves Natural Resources

Metal recycling also conserves natural resources. Recycling one ton of steel conserves 2,500 pounds of iron ore, 1,400 pounds of coal and 120 pounds of limestone. Recycling a ton of aluminium conserves up to 8 tons of bauxite ore and 14 megawatt hours of electricity.

Can the UK do more?