With the added words - "because I've spent the money on diesel for extra, unecessary trips to the "recycling centre" and back and back"
It has to be said that recycling is a joke.Green waste should be unlimited, as it gets composted and sold on as a usable commodity.How many businesses get free starting materials?And then to limit the amount 
Same for building waste.It has a use so its recycling should be unlimited.And wood too.It can be burnt and energy produced = useful commodity.I agree that there should be limits on some things.Only 1 fridge per household per month is not unreasonable IMO.
I doubt very much that one household would have as much as one fridge per 5 years let alone one per month. But let's suppose your fridge expired and coincidentally so did your neighbours at the same time. Would it not make more sense to make one trip with both fridges in one vehicle (assumning you could) than two seperate trips? If they are both broken, they both need to go to the re-cycling centre at some time. Why effectively discourage "car sharing"? It's just un-coordinated, clueless rules and regs.
The same crazy council tells me in their leaflets (another complete waste of resources), sent to evey household, that anything put in the Black non-recyclable bin, "goes to land fill sites which are a major cause of climate change". What a load of toss. But if they believe that, why do they make us use our cars more than is necessary to take stuff to the recycling centre? Complete bunch of morons.
Anyway, I feel better now I've got that off my chest but we seem to have gone way, way off topic.
Sorry the 1 fridge per month thing was supposed to be sarcasm (which failed).It's the kind of pointless, stupid thing councils would do.
Lost my sense of humour in the heat of the moment 
Ever heard of the 'Green Fiscal Commission'?
No? Well maybe you should have..
Basically they're there to work out how to implement more taxation using the prefix 'green' to justify it. But don't take my word for it:
Their objectives, from their website:
But wait, what's this? is this a million to one coincidence?
Green Fiscal Commission Chairman: Robert Napier
green fiscal commission
and....
MET Office Chairman: Robert Napier
Met Office: Management of the Met Office
So no conflict of interest there then. Move along people. Nothing to see here.
Global temperatures are falling
Please don't make assumptions on how or where I get my evidence from.
The Lie of Deadly Rising Seas
Theres evidence aplenty if you look for it, which you, and our government scientists don't want to do or belive.
I think its apparent from one very quick look at the graph that known effects (eg Mnt Pinatubo and El Nino) have such a pronounced short term effects that you can skew the data any which way you want over such a short time period.If you started the graph half way through 1984 you would get quite a scary rising average.But the CC and GW are a predicted thing for the coming century, which would be best addressed by taking action in the next couple of decades.
Click to expand... So that is a shift in taxation, ie tax is raised from somewhere other than income.
Not a rise in taxation per se
So overall you pay the same amount of tax, but less income tax and more on petrol.So you are tempted to try and use less petrol.
I think it's a bit of weak argument to say we shouldn't introduce green taxes because some people can't afford it. We live in a system whereby all of us have to prioritse our spending. That's just how capitalism works. But without green taxes, we are actually incentivised to pullute - because it's cheaper than not polluting, and much more convenient, all round.
So the argument for taxing polluters is obviously to make non-polluting activities a more attractive proposition. Tax the bad stuff, like pollution, and not the good stuff, like income, and let market forces take care of the rest.
It seems like common sense to me.