We have allowed manufacturers to condition us to accept products that are used only once. We have been brain-washed to expect a never-ending supply of raw materials and holes in the ground for the discarded product. We have become a throwaway' society.

We never think twice about paper hand towels that produce twice as much CO2 as the alternatives, an electric blower or a hand towel that can be washed. Hankies now take a distant second place to tissues that are discarded. We assume someone else will look after the debris, like the council with its waste collection and landfill sites, but there is a serious financial cost and excess CO2 production.

It's the same with all those polystyrene coffee mugs folk nurse on their way to work, the debris from drinks vending machines and water coolers, and the plastic cups, cutlery and plates that are used for parties and outdoor eating. At least fish and chip paper could be composted.

They all involve valuable raw materials that are used once and then discarded. This single use produces far more CO2 than the alternatives that can be used time and time again.

However first prize for waste production has to go to the disposable nappy for babies. Re-usable and disposable nappies both produce similar amounts of CO2 until they are taken off the baby's bottom. Raw materials, that is wood pulp and some plastic in the disposables, and cotton's pesticide and water for the reusable ones, show a reasonable balance as does the energy for manufacture and supply.

It's after use that the disposable loses out, as the sodden wood pulp and solid waste produces methane as it decomposes at depth in landfill sites, and the weight increases the transport needed.

Consider these facts for little Bradfordians: 12,000 babies use up to 6,000 disposables each in their lifetime, with a daily 80,000 nappies (48 tonnes) going to landfill. The annual 29 million nappies make up 7 per cent of Bradford's household waste at a cost of over £1 million. With landfill tax rising at £8/tonne each year it would be reasonable for disposables to be surcharged to pay for living up to their name. It costs the council about 4p to dispose of one nappy and without that subsidy the disposables would be dearer than reusables.

The Council would save by supporting a district nappy laundering service, using the modern reusables with velcro fastening and comfy designs. It would reduce waste going to landfill and so cut CO2 emissions, and, in increasing employment, keep the money in the district rather than with the multi-nationals who spend £40 million a year advertising disposables.

The CO2 impact from laundering could be reduced with renewable energy and electric delivery vehicles. How about a Bradnap service that gives the benefit of the disposables without the disposable problem? See www.beat.org.uk for details of the Bradford Real Nappy Project.