Do green equations add up?

My kitchen has become a bit niffy these days. Well it's the demands of recycling you see. We now have domestic waste separated into paper (most sorts acceptable but not telephone directories), cardboard, plastics, cans, glass, compostable food waste, non-compostable food waste. Seven separate groups of waste, filed away in their own designated part of the kitchen, ready to be disposed of.

Of course the kitchen also features the waste preparation area, where the food cans and glass gets washed before filing. And it was while I was washing cans and glass prior to filing that a nagging doubt crept into my mind and just wouldn't leave. Do all these recycling initiatives actually make a difference to the planet, or does it just give us something to do while we wait for global warming to cook us to a crisp.

Take the plastics. Well I wish the council would - but instead they are banned from the dust-bins leaving the problem of disposal with me. So I collect them, wash them, and once a week load up the boot and drive down to the recycling centre to dispose of them. Have I made a net saving to the planet? It seems unlikely.

Glass recycling has always worried me. Adding recycled glass to the raw ingredients used for glass manufacture does save energy - but only up to a point. After the level of recycled glass exceeds 15-20%, the energy required to manufacture glass starts to increase again. If you include the domestic pre-wash, collection, delivery to the glass factory, industrial cleansing and processing, is this really beneficial.

It seems to me that the onus of going green has all been placed on the willing but tired shoulders of the consumer. We have all bought our hessian bags so that we don't need to use supermarket provided plastic bags and we sort our waste at home and in the office. But the government seems very slow to progress the initiatives which would really make a difference - integrated transport systems, alternative power sources, reducing the packaging on products....

And just as I stack the last can on the drying rack, and am feeling completely baffled the radio brings me the latest cricket news. The MCC have considered Pietersens controversial changing from right to left hander during the delivery of the ball by the bowler and "The MCC believes that the switch-hit stroke is exciting for the game of cricket" - apparently are not going to ban it! What? Now I will have to re-evaluate everything I previously thought I understood about life - and of course I am completely baffled.

Stop - it's too exciting

Unbelievable!! For years cricket has been dying on it's feet. Or rather it's supporters have.

Unable to attract young supporters, cricket has slipped down the list of favourite sports in England. The 5 day test format looked more and more like a dinosaur heading towards inevitable extinction in the hearts and minds of the UK sports fans. The modern short attention span is catered for so much better by other games. Fun is what we want, what our souls ache for. Then along came limited overs cricket - a whiff of change making the colling embers of the game of cricket glow a little more brightly.

20 over cricket, offering razzamatazz and excitement charged over the horizon like cavalry racing to the rescue. The IPL demonstrated just how this new format could capture the imagination, bring new supporters to the game, and enthuse a new audience. Throwing off the old fusty image we have a new sport, tailor-made for the new century.

The problem is that the cricket authorities are still made up from the sort of staid, saliva drooling, senile stalwarts that would rather see the sport die than change. Kevin Pietersen's innovation with the bat (changing from a right to left handed grip during the delivery of the ball and swatting the ball for six) moved everyone. For the new fans, they saw enterprise and excitement. But not the grey has-beens. It moved the MCC to cast off their Zimmer frames, put down their cups of cocoa and croak in unison "Stop!! This isn't cricket! It is too exciting. We must invent a new rule to stop this."

And I dare say they will. It is their motivation for this that beats me. Rather see the game die than evolve, rather snuff out popularity and keep things the same as they were, rather despise innovation than embrace it.

Their arrogance baffles me - but I guess they will have the ashes of the game to keep them warm in their dotage.