Memorandum by Nic Godden (RC 54)
During the "You and Yours" programme
this morning, you were good enough to comment on an email I submitted
concerning our system of collecting domestic rubbish. I got the
impression that you may have thought my suggestion was more of
a giggle than a serious contribution and I would like the opportunity
to submit a more detailed paper to your Committee in the hope
of correcting that impression.
We have inherited from the past a system designed
for the needs of public health and which is unsuited to our current
need to conserve energy and protect the environment. It is indeed
perverse in its effects in that it encourages conduct which defeats
our objectives. I realise that your primary purpose may be to
resolve the short term problems arising in operating the present
system but I would suggest that he problem itself is by nature
long term and will eventually require longterm" and radical
solutions.
I guess that most people would agree as to the
objectives that any system should now support:
— To reduce to the bare minimum the
production of materials that eventually become rubbish and encourage
energy conservation and recycling.
— To enlist the British public in recovering
and if possible recycling the maximum percentage of such unwanted
materials.
— To achieve the above with the minimum
of public interference and with maximum efficiency and effectiveness.
The reasons that the present system can be regarded
as being perverse are quite straightforward:
— Under the present system, manufacturers
and retailers have virtually no incentive to economise on the
production of materials that eventually become rubbish, little
incentive to research the design and use of new materials which
might be biodegradable or less enviromentally offensive and little
incentive to recycle. On the contrary, manufacturers of packaging
material have every incentive to maximise production and retailers
gain marketing advantage by requiring "name-specific"
packaging on every product. Meanwhile, manufacturers of consumer
durables encourage replacement rather than repair, the latter
being made as difficult and expensive as possible. If they were
required to fund the entire collection, disposal and recycling
of their unwanted products, manufacturers and retailers would
find this conduct substantially less attractive.
— There is equally little incentive
for the public to collect, sort and bin rubbish and the more complicated
the process becomes the less patience they will have with the
whole process. Public reaction to the changes that have already
taken place and to the prospect of charging by volume make it
quite clear that no cooperation will be forthcoming.
— The present charging structure breaks
the first rule of taxation, eg; that it should be easy to collect
and be collected from a smaller rather than a larger number of
contributors. Under any conceivable method of charging, a substantial
percentage of householders will be given exemption by reason of
inadequate means or will refuse to pay, so any hope of achieving
the desired result by higher or differential charging is quite
illusory.
I believe that it is possible to achieve our
objectives by turning the system on its head:
— The householder who collects and
recycles rubbish should be regarded as a public benefactor and
should be congratulated and rewarded rather than penalised. The
rate of payment which would prove effective is open to question
but one looks for a positive encouragement for the public to collect
rubbish from outside of their own homes to add to their own store
and if this were achieved it would greatly improve the appearance
of our public areas.
— Conversely, those producing and distributing
materials constituting "potential rubbish" should be
regarded with some distaste as, at best, performing an undesirable
if sometimes necessary function. A properly designed charging
system would motivate them to economise on the use of all such
materials, introduce materials that are less ecologically damaging
and easier to recycle and reintroduce cost effective repair facilities
for consumer durables.
— While having no statistics as to
the source of our domestic rubbish, it is a racing certainty that
over 90% is produced or retailed by a relatively few major public
companies, probably far fewer than 100. This provides an ideal
tax base, small in number and not in any position to avoid payment.
I also believe that a rolling statistical sample of the contents
of our bins would provide at low cost a quite acceptable data
base to identify the proportion of the cost each industry, manufacturer
and retailer should bear.
I predict that there would be a number of flow-on
consequencies in such a change in policy:
— There would be a radical change in
approach by manufacturers and retailers in the packaging and marketing
of their products.
— Retail pricing would very quickly
reflect the true rubbish disposal costs of every product, thus
diverting consumer demand towards ecologically preferable brands.
Conceivably, packaging would be charged for separately.
— Manufacturers would set up much more
effective and cost competitive spares and repair facilities.
— The public would become committed
to support he ecological aims of the policy and would enthusiastically
tidy up after each other to secure reward
— The physical state of our public
places would improve.
— There would be substantially greater
research into the use of biodegradable and more easily recyclable
materials.
— If manufacturers and retailers were
encouraged to become involved in domestic rubbish collection,
the whole process would become more efficient and effective by
reason of their greater knowlege of the hazards and potentialities
of the materials involved.
In conclusion, the onus of operating the system
would be put on to the shoulders of a relatively few major public
companies who should have both the ability and resources to manage
the operation in the most effective way, both from the ecological
and financial points of view. They might not like the responsibility
but then they would have every incentive to get on and make a
good fist of managing it!
|
