reusa-can

reusa-can applies for a grant

reusa-can applies for a grant. (Advised not to apply)

Judge a project on its value not how much money is behind it.

Reusa-Can was invented in 2005 and we tried to apply for a grant from the Waste and Action Resources Programme (WRAP). We were told it could not have a grant because WRAP didn’t give grants for recycled metals. This was untrue but we did not find out until 12 months later. Twelve months later having contacted DEFRA, they informed us that we should apply again, that WRAP were wrong. This had wasted 12 precious months.

DEFRA informed us that CORUS and Heinz had been given a grant to thin down wall thickness of cans saving 28,000 tonnes of steel. We informed DEFRA that had Heinz/CORUS used my system it would have saved 932,000 tonnes of steel equivalent to six Indian tinplate factories.

CORUS and Heinz are foreign companies and were given a grant for new tooling for new materials not scrap metal. They are both worth £billions they did not require a grant and were obliged to improve production for their shareholders. New tooling for new materials isn’t within grant eligibility rules of WRAP it only applies to waste products. Were the rules bent?

The main purpose of WRAP is to reduce waste, energy use and emissions. This grant did none of these things. CORUS and Heinz had their grant when steel production prices were at a premium. CORUS will have sold on that 28,000 tonnes of steel at probably £100 per tonne possibly making a £2.8 million profit for their shareholders. Cans have not reduced in price, they have increased.

Let us guesstimate that Heinz and CORUS were given £2,000,000, as they supposedly had a sixty-man research and development team working on it. Heinz did not reduce can prices so possibly made £2.8million. Was the £2,000,000 grant returned to WRAP? If not, between CORUS and Heinz was there a profit of £5.6 million profit plus possibly £2 million of grant giving a total of £7.6 million?

Were these improvements ever instigated, if not, why did they get a grant? Was there an MP or a member of the House of Lords involved pushing for them to get a grant? What was his/her involvement? Did he/she benefit in any way? What greenhouse gas emissions were actually achieved if they sold on 28,000 tonnes of steel? It is not illegal to ask questions (yet) although we doubt anyone will ever get an answer. We are not saying Heinz/CORUS have done anything illegal but they did not need UK taxpayer’s money.

We don’t blame Heinz/CORUS for seizing the opportunity when they could. It is our government that’s at fault for not seeing these things. TATA Steel now own CORUS they gave donations (Donations) to Labour.

reusa-can governments’ response

Our politicians make speeches about global warming but do not want to see a drop in production. They want it both ways, increased production but lower emissions, which is impossible. Their plans are based on a never-ending supply of oil knowing full well that within five years we will be in a desperate situation. The governments’ own forecast is we will have a £200 million annual deficit in oil production.

Sammy Wilson MP said, “If the government were really serious about global warming and emissions they would do something about industrial emissions”. Reusa-Can believes that because political parties get donations from multinationals none will consider it. It needs public pressure to change their mind.

We wrote to the Rt. Hon. John Hutton MP in 2007 when he was Minister for BERR (John Hutton MP) asking what priority tinplate production for manufacturing can for food distribution should there be an oil shortage. He refused to reply for six months, when he finally replied we were informed we could not have the information on ‘grounds of security’. So the public are not allowed to know if they are heading for problems until it hits them.

Politicians make speeches about environmental crisis situations in Antarctica and in other parts of the world. There will be a United Nations Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 but not one industrialised country will want to cut production to cut emissions. UK Politicians will not support any concept that reduces large-scale industrial production. Reusa-Can will give huge reductions in resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. Are politicians sincere about climate change and reducing emissions? Put your opinion on our blog and sign the Reusa-Can petition. (Click here sign our petition and tell a friend) Reusa-Can will benefit the public more than recycling.

Reusa-Can believes that a shortage of resources is equally important as climate change. If this recession lasts for any length of time scientists will be monitoring its affect on climate change. Whatever the results show you can be certain our resources will have depreciated considerably and will not recover.

The forthcoming Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 will have politicians from all over the world attending. Only one question needs to be asked, “Which countries are prepared unreservedly to cut industrial production to guarantee a cut in emissions and global warming”? It will be interesting to hear their answer.

reusa-can deserves a government grant

Reusa-Can applied again in 2006 for a Wrap grant. We were told again, before applying, we would not get a grant. We applied anyway. It was refused a grant, Reusa-Can was considered “impractical and didn’t have any backers (Wrap rejection). However, our photographs prove it is practical. We have proved Wrap’s judgement is sadly lacking. Reusa-Can had savings far beyond their comprehension.

Potential environmental and resources savings are, we believe, bigger than anything WRAP had ever come across before. That’s what they are supposed to encourage. Potential energy and emission savings of Reusa-Can worldwide probably outstrips Wrap’s total emission and energy savings since they began.

Wrap grants applications are judged in secret, there is no appeal. Those judging a new concept must have knowledge of the industry for which applicants were seeking a grant. If they do not have any knowledge they are not qualified to judge. Someone connected with canning industry experience may have judged Reusa-Can. As soon as they saw how threatening it was to canning and steel production, they made sure it was rejected. We had applied for an initial £37,500 to make basic tooling to prove it could be done.

I asked Gordon Brown to intervene on several occasions, the world market is worth £300 billion to the UK, but he refused.

In 2006 we applied for an International Patent Office (IPO) via the European Patent Office in Geneva it cost £2,000. You are allowed 20 months to see if you can make progress with your concept. During that period the IPO searched every known patent in the world. Nothing was even close to what we had invented – it was unique. IPO claimed it was “Novel, Inventive and Industrially Applicable. All 13 claims of our invention had been accepted without query. But Wrap stated in their report Reusa-Can was “impractical” having judged the same patents (Wrap rejection). The IPO is far more capable than Wrap to judge whether Reusa-Can is practical or not.

A grant is not judged on what your project will achieve or benefits it will provide. It is judged on what money you have and how good it makes the department assigning the grant look. That is why Heinz & CORUS had a grant. They had £billions behind them and whatever grant they were given the department was safe. They knew there was no chance of losing money – but it did nothing towards saving resources or cutting global warming. It made Wrap look good. The fact that their grant did nothing for the environment or cut packaging counts for nothing.

To have a worldwide patent would have eventually cost £150,000. We did not have that sort of money so our overseas patents had to be sacrificed. Renewals would have cost £thousands each year to renew. There are many other patents in the pipeline. Without the money to finance our patents we had to withdraw keeping only our patent for the UK. We offered to hand over everything to the government ‘free of payment’ providing ratepayers and shoppers would benefit. It was rejected. We have withdrawn that offer.

We informed the Prime Minister of the patent search results by IPO, he was not interested

This country has probably lost a £300 billion market and unassailable lead in reducing global emissions thanks to this government and our Prime Minister.

After our grant application was rejected, an engineer made elementary hand tooling ‘free of charge’ so we could prove a rim could be removed from a can without damaging the can. It proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Wrap’s decision was invalid, no matter what excuses they make. Now we have proved Reusa-Can works; by making a sample it eliminates us from any government grants. It forces you into the arms of equity loan sharks. They would not want to give anything back to the public and they would want present members of Reusa-Can out of the business within six months.

Having been refused a grant we asked Wrap for our four sets of ‘Confidential’ technical information, including copies of our patent application (not then published) to be returned. The information was in four bright red hardback A4 ring binders marked ‘Confidential’. Two were returned but we were told, two were “lost”.

Recently UK government departments have lost CD’s and memory sticks full of data –
But losing two hardback A4 bright red ring binders marked ‘Confidential’? We do not believe it. We are convinced they were deliberately handed, either directly or indirectly, to competitors, probably foreign, in 2006. Until they have been returned and irrefutable evidence of where they have been we will not accept any other explanation.

We understand that a foreign company is planning to bring out a version of Reusa-Can after the next election maybe even before. If this is true you will know who is to blame.

Reusa-Can is a ‘green’ step too far for government; it proves they are not interested in cutting industrial production or cut industrial emissions significantly.

How does the government expect British businesses to survive and get experience if they keep backing foreign multinationals? What message does this send to British industry and individual designers if our own government and politicians will not support us?

In 2007 the Chief Executive Officer of The European Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association (EMPAC) flew especially from Brussels to Bristol to see Reusa-Can. We were told the canning industry was “very concerned about our achievements, they would do everything to stop me”. They are getting an enormous amount of help from our government to do it.

When oil supplies are in demand again and there is no tinplate to make cans we will regret not using those we are destroying. According to recent reports you will not have to wait long (Redemption Song) and (Oil Price Shock) and oil is over $72 per barrel (June 2009).

Reusa-Can has been stifled from the very start. The Rt. Hon. Michael Jack MP (Conservative) Chairman of the Parliamentary Environmental Committee has refused numerous requests to allow me to speak to his committee. We have been writing to him since the end of 2005.

A ‘Public Inquiry’ needs to investigate how and why grants are given or not given.

reusa-can packaging industry’s response

Reusa-Can has tried to get canning companies interested in manufacturing Reusa-Can under licence. Some were so afraid of what had been achieved they not only returned our samples they returned the letter written we sent them. That way there was no evidence we had written to them.

The Packaging Council will not answer my letters or emails. The packaging industry Standards body INCPEN will not acknowledge emails or letters or return my telephone calls. They have pledged to encourage innovation, reduce energy costs and environmental pollution. Chairman of this organisation is, if he still there, Chief Executive of a canning company.

Reusa-Can gets a public response

Reusa-Can was displayed at a ‘Climate Change Event’ at Barnard Castle Co. Durham on the 16th May 2009. It was organised by Helen Goodman Labour MP for that area. She will confirm that the whole time of that event Reusa-Can was inundated with people interested in this project. They were all disgusted, but not surprised, that Reusa-Can could not get a grant.

I am sure there is a sizeable minority within parliament that are genuine we need to support them.

“Well-heeled dynasties are being created in a way we have not seen since the Victorian era. Why should any of us care? For one thing, it’s not healthy for democracy. The super-rich have the means through the financing of political parties, the funding of think tanks and the ownership of the media to shape Government policies or to deter reform of a status quo that doesn’t suit them.” From: ‘Who Runs Britain’ written by Robert Peston BBC’s Business Editor

Does this seem to be familiar with what we have been saying about grants for and donations from multinationals? Who do UK politician’s serve?

Sign our petition and tell a friend!!

Reusa-Can - homepage

Reusa-Can - the ultimate

Back to Top