The Communities and local government select committee, chaired by Labour MP Dr Phyllis Starkey, has rubbished (excuse the pun) the government's strategy for reducing waste in landfill sites. You may remember the plans for fortnightly bin collections and fines for not re-cycling were the solution to the growing landfill problem. Well, Mr Starkey and his committee have damned the policy as "half-hearted and likely to fail". The report says plans to charge householders who fail to recycle £30 a year are too timid and too complicated and a reward of up to £30 for "good" households is too low to encourage mass recycling. Convenient, wouldn't you say that it is also enough for people to just about tolerate - i.e. enough for the government to get away with and make a bit of money off the back of a serious and emotive issue, yet make no difference whatsoever in solving the actual problem.
The report also stated that there is no proven direct link between higher levels of recycling and fortnightly collections. It also showed concern that there has not been enough research done in to the health implications of waste being left lying about for an extra week and the increase in vermin. The report, unsurprisingly therefore, criticised some local authorities for "blundering" into fortnightly collections without proper consideration or consultation. It is pretty typical of government to "blunder" in to these types of decisions without consultation as they are trying to our green each other and raise a little extra cash for the coffers.
And now for the spokesman (Defra's this time) "We are disappointed that on financial incentives the committee has not recognised the need to try out innovative ways of encouraging sustainable waste behaviour." Innovative ways = untested ways. Encouraging = unfairly forcing. If financial incentives do work, then let's look at them; but going ahead with a policy that is based on no solid thinking or research may raise money and make it look as though you’re doing something but it is not an effective way to govern a country or solve a problem.
Comments
Careless
"Mr Starkey"? Two things wrong with that....
You could have gone further with your equations. "Sustainable waste behaviour" = "Unthinking compliance with environmental dogma".
Why would we want to look at financial incentives for recycling? Is recycling an end in itself, or a means to an end? It looks like the government's brainwashing campaign has nearly reached completion, when even a good sceptic like yourself doesn't think to question whether they ought to be incentivising this activity? It's not a question of whether recycling is good, seems to be the assumption, it's just a question of the best way to encourage it.
Wrong. There are a number of arguments for recycling:
1. To reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
2. To reduce use of landfills.
3. To reduce our consumption of natural resources.
But:
1. Recycling isn't necessarily the lowest-carbon method of dealing with waste. In the case of combustibles, it may be better for the environment to recover energy by burning it. In the case of putrescibles, it may be better to recover energy and fertilisers by digesting it. In the case of glass, it may be better to produce a secondary product (e.g. various crushed-glass products) and to produce new glass from raw materials. Metals are usually worth recycling (though even in that case, there may be exceptions), but for the rest of the waste stream, recycling is simply an option, not necessarily the best option.
2. Contrary to popular political myth, there is no inevitable shortage of landfill space. The impending shortage is purely the result of political decisions. Our extractive industries create plenty of void each year, and there is plenty more natural void above ground. We won't stop landfilling anyway, because there is no other way to dispose of a large proportion of our waste. And the environmental impact of modern landfills is minimal - with modern, engineered liners, the amount of time it takes for anything within the landfill to seap out (the "permeability") is measured in millions of years - that's so slow a rate that it would be undetectable. Any gases produced can be captured and utilised. Given enforcement of proper standards, landfilling should be simply another waste-disposal option, not an environmental pariah.
3. We have a pretty good system for identifying those things that are scarce and therefore valuable - it is called "price". Assuming that all "externalities" of waste disposal are "internalised", that production of natural resources is not subsidised, and that the market is sufficiently transparent that we have a reasonable view of current and anticipated supply and demand, then the decision is best left to the market whether a particular type of waste is better recycled or thrown away.
So should the government be encouraging people to recycle? Not directly. It should be ensuring that all the right incentives and information are in place, and then leave it to individuals and organizations to decide how to respond to those incentives and information. Mandating a certain level of recycling, or composting, or reduction of waste to landfill simply prevents people from making rational decisions about how to deal with their waste.
It is another example of the modern plague of confusing means with ends. The ends at which government might legitimately aim are to internalise the externalities of waste disposal, and to ensure competitive markets for handling that waste (which ought to include exposure of waste producers to the cost of its disposal). Compelling recycling or any other form of waste management is neither a valid end in itself, nor a valid way of internalising an externality. It is just plain wrong. Incentivising it makes no sense, however effective the incentive might be in delivering that false objective.