20. Wales
achieved a 76% reduction in single-use bags through a 5p charge,
and Defra estimated that a similar charge in England would result
in 4.2-5.6 billion (60-80%) fewer single-use plastic carrier bags
being used and discarded each year.[54]
Given that the
proposed English scheme would have more exemptions that the one
in Wales, it is likely that the reduction in bag use would be
lower than the 76% achieved in Wales. Without additional complexity
from exemptions for small retailers (which
we discuss below) and
for biodegradable bags (which
we discuss in Part 3),
it might achieve as large a reduction in bag use and littering.
21. Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland
have each set the charge at 5p, whereas the Republic of Ireland
has set it far higher. Matthew Quinn told us that Wales "originally
consulted at 7p, and that was set after economic work", but
was reduced to 5p after retailers said it would be easier to administer
at that level.[55] The
charge in the Republic of Ireland was deliberately set six times
higher than the average level that consumers reported that they
would be willing to pay for a bag to strongly influence consumer
behaviour, and led to a 90% reduction in use (paragraph 5).
22. Dr Poortinga suggested that in
the longer term the charge might need to be raised in order to
retain its effectiveness. Studies that have tracked carrier bag
use have suggested that use may start to increase again some years
after the introduction of a charge.[56]
Ireland increased its charge to 22 cent (18p) in 2007, with the
aim of keeping plastic bag per capita usage to no more than 21.[57]
Northern Ireland originally proposed a rise in the charge to 10p
in April 2014, but this has now been cancelled as, according to
Defra, the charge has been so successful.[58]
23. Although
there is evidence that higher charges can achieve greater impact,
a charge set at 5p has been shown to be highly effective in Wales
in substantially reducing use. Evidence from Ireland suggests
that increasing the size of the charge, or having a credible threat
to do so, is important for sustaining changed behaviours. The
Government should implement a 5p charge for all single-use carrier
bags, following the example of the scheme in Wales, but should
review the level of the charge after two years to assess if an
increase is necessary.
Bag material: environmental impact
24. Dr Swannell of WRAP told us that
deciding on the best material for bags involved complex judgements,
including its potential impact in the marine environment.[59]
An Environment Agency study in 2006 (paragraph 13), comparing
the resources and carbon emissions needed to produce, transport
and dispose or recycle different types of bag, showed that thin
plastic bags have the lowest environmental impact in terms of
emissions (Figure 2).Figure 2:
Carbon impacts of different types of bag
Type of carrier bag
| Carbon impact if not re-used
(kg CO2, for a month's worth of bags)
| Number of times used to have less environmental impact than a single-use plastic bag used once and thrown away
|
Thin single-use High-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bag
| 2.08 |
|
HDPE bag
with a prodegradant additive ('Oxo-biodegradable')
| 2.25 |
|
Starch bag[60]
| 4.69 |
2 |
Paper bag |
5.52 | 3
|
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bag thin bag for life
| 6.92 |
4 |
Non-woven PP bagThicker bag for life
| 21.51 |
11 |
Cotton bag
| 271.53 |
131 |
Source Environment Agency, 'Life cycle
assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags available
in 2006'[61]
25. The Government has proposed that
the 5p charge will apply only to single-use plastic bags. It would
not apply to paper bags, or to others not containing plastic.[62]
The Government is also proposing that biodegradable bags are exempt
from the charge (Part 3).
PROPOSED EXEMPTION FOR PAPER BAGS
26. The evidence from life-cycle analysis
suggests that a paper bag needs to be reused at least three times
to make its emissions impact lower than that of a typical single-use
plastic carrier bag (Figure 2). British Retail Consortium (BRC)
told us that in the Republic of Ireland, which only applied the
charge to plastic bags, some retailers turned to using paper bags
instead.[63] BRC warned
that not including paper bags in any charging scheme in England
"would increase the environmental impact of single-use bags
which runs contrary to the aims of the proposed charge."[64]
27. The Welsh Government decided to
apply the charge to all bags in order to prevent such substitution.
They told us:
Our experience from looking at the
issue and speaking to colleagues is that, if you exempt some types
of bags, there are substitution effects into those bags. If you
exempt paper or compostables, you get more use of those. The work
that the Environment Agency did for us suggested that those bags
had a greater environmental impact in the round than a light-gauge,
single-use bag. It did not look attractive for us to do that.[65]
The Government told us that it did not
think that any increase in use of paper bags would be significant:
Paper bags are exempted under the
carrier bags levy in the Republic of Ireland. Officials there
have confirmed that there was no switch to paper in the grocery
sector. However, high street retailers did switch to paper bags.
The Government has calculated that even if customers of large
retailers increase their paper bag use by 50% there would still
be a negligible environmental impact in terms of carbon emissions
(3,500 tonnes CO2 equivalent representing less than
4% of the savings from plastic bags) due to the very low current
levels of use. As paper bags are not a substantial issue for the
marine environment or long lasting litter, and many of the current
uses of them would be exempt under the charge due to size of organisation,
charging is not considered necessary.[66]
However, there is little basis for the
Government's assertion that paper bag use might only rise by 50%,
which it presents as a worst case scenario. Given the current
low levels of use of paper bags amongst high street shops, if
large retailers transferred to using paper bags, the increase
could be significantly higher than this.[67]
There are few data currently collected and published about bag
use amongst high street retailers, so this change would currently
be hard for the Government to monitor.
Paper bags can have a greater emissions
impact than plastic bags. Exempting paper bags from the charge,
as the Government proposes, would weaken the message to reuse
bags, diminish the impact of the charge and the likely reduction
in the number of bags used and associated environmental benefits.
The Government should therefore include paper bags in the charge.
Impact of re-using bags
28. The environmental impact of an individual
carrier bag reduces if people reuse it many times. Figure 2 shows
that some types of bag would need to be reused for shopping many
times in order to avoid an emissions impact greater than that
of a single-use bag. A reusable cotton bag, for example, would
need to be reused over 130 times (equivalent to daily use for
over 4 months) to have the same impact as a thin plastic bag used
once. This would increase to 393 times if the plastic bag were
used three times.
29. Using carrier bags for waste disposal,
such as for lining bins, also reduces their environmental impact
by displacing the need to purchase additional swing-bin and pedal-bin
liners. As a result of the introduction of a carrier bag charge
in Wales, WRAP observed an increase in purchases of these bin
bags.[68] They estimated
that 11 million more bin bags were sold in Wales in 2012 than
there would have been had the carrier bag charge not been introduced.
This equated to 80 tonnes of plastic; negating only 4% of the
amount of material saved through the reduction in use of thin-gauge
carrier bags.[69]
30. Defra consider that "the expected
reduction in lightweight plastic bag usage, and anticipated trend
towards re-usable bags, will minimise the impacts of the charge
on consumers".[70]
The Welsh Government told us that this was something that
they had "looked at quite hard", but concluded that
their scheme did not disproportionately affect those on low incomes,
and added "if anything, it is possibly the opposite".[71]
31. Some have raised the potential for
reusable bags to harbour dangerous bacteria that might cause food
poisoning. Professor Hugh Pennington of University of Aberdeen
has suggested that bacteria from raw meat or soil-covered vegetables
could be transferred to the inside of a reusable bag and contaminate
food.[72] The
Welsh Government had sought advice from the Food Standards Agency
and decided to exempt bags used for unwrapped foods. They told
us that they had no evidence of any increased food poisoning as
a result of the charge in Wales. Against that background, the
Government's proposal to exempt bags used for unwrapped food is
a sensible public health precaution.
32. 'Bags for life', thicker plastic
bags designed to be durable enough to be used many times, will
only be more environmentally sustainable if they are repeatedly
reused. WRAP have collected evidence from Wales on the numbers
of bags for life that were sold, using data from five retailers.
Between 2010 and 2012, the number sold more than doubled, whereas
those sold in the rest of the UK fell for those same retailers.[73]
A study funded by the Welsh Government and Zero Waste Scotland
found that whilst 79% of people in Wales say that they reuse a
bag for life in supermarkets, only 51% actually do so. This is
nevertheless nearly double the level observed in Scotland (28%),
which currently does not have a charge.[74]
33. Some shoppers do not realise that
they can return bags for life to be replaced, if they break. The
Welsh Government and Zero Waste Scotland study observed over 9,000
consumer purchases in different shopping sites,[75]
and found that:
Even though the intrinsic promise
made when purchasing a bag for life is that the bag will be replaced
with a new one at end of life, once represented to the retailer
only 7 Welsh and no Scottish shoppers were observed replacing
a bag for life in this way.[76]
Encouraging free replacement and recycling
of bags for life at the end of their usable life reduces the cost
to consumers, but more importantly could also help reinforce the
habit of reuse. Retailers should clearly communicate to shoppers
that they can obtain a free replacement at the end of the bag's
useable life, so that the charge for bags for life this is a one-off
cost. Supermarkets should ensure there are systems to recycle
these bags.
34. Actual usage of more durable bags
depends on people changing their habits to bring bags with them.
A thin bag for life needs to be used four times as often as a
single-use plastic bag used once, and thicker bags for life would
need to be used 11 times as often (Figure 2). Ireland, recognising
the need to incentivise this reuse has made plastic shopping bags
designed for reuse exempt from its bag tax provided the retailer
charges at least 70 cent (58p) for the bagthree times the
charge for a standard bag.[77]
35. The Climate Change Act 2008 does
not provide for a charge to be applied to multi-use bags. Analysis
into consumer behaviour in Wales observed:
Heavy duty plastic bags for life
retail for 6-10p per bag and it was observed that some retailers
are pushing the use of heavy duty plastic bags for life to consumers
at tills. If these are in fact not being reused and replaced as
intended this may have unforeseen unfavourable effects on the
environment in the wider context.[78]
Overall, the increase (by weight) in
bags for life purchased in Wales negated around 30% of the reduction
in the weight of thin-gauge bags given out.[79]
The Welsh Government is considering taking reserve powers to ensure
that bags for life are priced higher.[80]
The Government says that it would seek a voluntary agreement to
charge higher prices for these bags in England:
We would expect retailers to keep
a clear differential in pricing between Bags for Life and single-use
plastic bags. As an example, selling single-use plastic bags for
5p and Bags for Life for 6p would not illustrate clearly enough
to customers the significantly-greater environmental impact of
the Bag for Life and the need to reuse them at least four times.[81]
However, evidence from Wales suggests
that this is unlikely to be sufficient.
36. With
the introduction of a charging scheme for single-use bags, the
Government should be ready to introduce legislation to ensure
that retailers sell 'bags for life' at an appropriate higher price
than the charge for single-use bags, taking into account their
greater emissions impact. The Government should set a minimum
price for bags for life at a level which incentivises their reuse;
perhaps a minimum of 10p for a thin and 20p for a thick bag for
life that could subsequently be replaced for free if it breaks.
The Government should ensure any additional proceeds of these
charges also go to charity, with retailers allowed to recover
the cost of such replacements.
Retailers
PROPOSED EXEMPTION FOR SMALL RETAILERS
37. The Government has proposed that
only retailers with more than 250 employees would be covered by
the mandatory charge. It is not consulting on this aspect of the
scheme. The Government wants to "ensure that [small retailers]
are not disproportionately burdened",[82]
and cited a 3-year freeze on new regulation for businesses with
fewer than 10 employees introduced in 2011.[83]
Since provision for the charge was made in the Climate Change
Act 2008, it is arguable that it is not a 'new' regulationfurthermore
its proposed implementation in 2015 is beyond the timeframe of
the 3-year regulatory freeze.
38. The evidence we received suggested
that many small retailers oppose the exemption and would like
to participate. The Minister told us that Defra had not received
any submissions from retailers wanting to be excluded from the
scheme.[84] National
Federation of Retail Newsagents told us:
We support the policy in light of
the benefits it can bring to the environment, local communities
and businesses. Therefore we were disappointed to learn that the
government intends to exclude small retailers from the levy as
our members will not be able to participate or share in the benefits
of scheme.[85]
Association of Convenience Stores also
wanted a wider coverage of retailers included in the scheme:
It would be difficult for retailers
with stores in other parts of the UK to differentiate between
the requirements for the different schemes. The inconsistency
between large and small stores would create confusion for customers,
and make messaging harder to communicate. It could create a misleading
perception that larger stores are more socially or environmentally
responsible.[86]
39. The Government's solution is to
suggest that small businesses can choose to charge for bags if
they wish.[87] British
Retail Consortium called the exemption for companies employing
less than 250 people "not logical, and will further confuse
consumers with some smaller supermarkets having to charge and
others being able to provide free polythene bags". They were
concerned that franchise operations might be exempt, and that
the charge could be applied differently to stores within the same
group, which would be "confusing for customers and place
some retailers at a competitive disadvantage based solely on their
business model".[88]
Campaign to Protect Rural England highlighted a rural dimension
to the exemption for small businesses, which could potentially
reduce the effectiveness of the charge in discouraging littering:
littering is greater and there are
more smaller stores proportionally in rural communities. Even
now, we are seeing plastic bags being found disproportionately
more frequently on rural roads. The risk is that if you exclude
smaller stores from a scheme, you would see that becoming a bigger
problem in rural areas and not so much in urban[89]
British Retail Consortium told us that
small businesses would not be worse off under a mandatory charge
if they were subject to lower reporting burdens, as was the case
in Wales:
This is a nil cost to retailers,
because if you look at the Welsh scheme for example, what the
Welsh Government have done there is to say, "Okay, the charge
applies to all, but the reporting restrictions, which could potentially
add a burden, are relaxed for smaller companies." They have
taken note of the potential business burden on smaller companies
in the way the reporting restrictions apply to them. We are not
seeing any of our members saying that they want this exemption
for small stores.[90]
Marks and Spencer favoured replicating
the Welsh charging model, where only retailers with more than
10 employees would be required to report statistics and cost and
revenue data for the scheme.[91]
40. The
Government's proposed exemption for small retailers is unnecessary,
and risks adding undue complexity to the scheme, reducing its
environmental impact and reduction in bag use. There is compelling
evidence that small retailers want to be included in the mandatory
scheme as a voluntary approach could be counter-productive. The
Government should include small retailers in the scheme, but exempt
those with 10 employees or fewer from detailed reporting requirements.
As in Wales, all shops should be required to publicise in-store
the proceeds and where the money raised is spent.
PROCEEDS AND ENFORCEMENT
41. The Climate Change Act 2008 enables
the Government to require sellers of goods to charge for single-use
plastic bags that they supply to their customers.[92]
Defra proposes that Trading Standards Officers (TSOs) would be
responsible for enforcing the charge, as they are in Wales and
will be in Scotland, because "TSOs are already responsible
for enforcing packaging requirements in England, so adding plastic
bag enforcement would slipstream in with this current work".[93]
The Government recognises that civil sanctions may be required,
and is considering how they should be introduced.[94]
We heard that in Wales "there
have been no prosecutions, but there have been a number of trading
standards warnings given, and a number of trading standards reports
and inquiries into specific cases."[95]
Keep Wales Tidy told us that only six businesses have been found
to be in breach of the charge, and that this has been seen as
an indication of the scheme's success.[96]
For consumers to accept the charging scheme, public trust in it
is vital so Trading Standards should undertake intelligence-based
enforcement of the charge.
42. The Government expects that the
charge will raise around £70 million for charity. [97]
The Government's consultation stated that it "will not collect
the proceeds of this charge in England, which will stay with the
organisations collecting them. We will encourage these organisations
to donate the profits to good causes".[98]
The Government has no powers to force a retailer to give money
from the bag charge to a particular organisation, but "expects
that the retailers will act as they have done in the other countries
of the UK and donate the proceeds to good causes".[99]
Wales told us that they have reserve powers for directing payments,
but have opted for a voluntary arrangement on where the funds
should go.[100] Keep
Wales Tidy told us that they "support the voluntary agreement
and would like to see the whereabouts of the proceeds continuously
monitored and publicised."[101]
43. Whilst
we support the use of funds for good causes, such as environmental
charities, we are concerned about potential abuse of the scheme.
The Government should set clear rules for transparent reporting
and for retailers to publicise prominently in store where the
funds are going. It should ensure tough sanctions exist to prevent
retailers having a conflict of interest about which charities
are supported and ideally shoppers should decide which local charity
the funds go to, as already happens in some stores. If there is
evidence of retailers abusing this approach, the Government should
follow the example of the landfill tax and plastic bag tax in
the Republic of Ireland by centrally collecting and allocating
funds for environmental projects.
44. The Climate Change Act 2008 enables
the Government to require organisations to keep records relating
to charges for single-use carrier bags, and to publish these.
Administrative costs and VAT would be deducted from the money
passed on to good causes. In Ireland, administration costs were
relatively low, at around 3% of revenues, because reporting and
collection was integrated into existing VAT reporting systems.[102]
Defra told us that it expected retailers' administration costs
to be "about £6 million" (over 6%), "leaving
a VAT take of about £19 million".[103]
45. Research shows that a majority in
England (81%) is willing to pay a 5p charge if the money goes
to charity.[104]
This is in line with our conclusions in our 2011 report on Environmental
Taxes, that taxpayers are significantly more likely to accept
green taxes if they are clearly set up to support environmental
aims rather than as a vehicle for raising money for the Treasury.[105]
Under current proposals the
Treasury intends to take VAT from the proceeds from the bag charge
(just under 1p of the 5p), which would otherwise go to charity.
The estimated £19 million raised in VAT should be spent on
new environmental programmes and to cover the costs of monitoring
the effectiveness of the scheme. This would help reinforce the
wider environmental objectives of the charge and maintain public
support.
Wider environmental benefits
46. Research suggests that a majority
of people in England (54%) support the introduction of a charge.
Dr Poortinga told us he believed that it will become more popular
after its introduction because support for the carrier bag charge
in Wales increased from 59% before it was implemented to 70% afterwards.
He noted that similar positive attitudinal changes have been observed
for other environmental and behavioural change policies.[106]
47. Research suggests that a proportion
of people consistently over-state their pro-environmental behaviours
(a gap between stated intention and observed actions).[107]
There is evidence that the charge could help close this gap. 10%
of shoppers in Wales told researchers that they take new single-use
bags from shops; observations showed that in reality around 15%
do so. This divergence was considerably less than in Scotland
(25% and 66%), which does not yet have a charge.
48. Keep Britain Tidy told us that a
charge could help stimulate good environmental behaviour more
generally on waste prevention and reuse.[108]
In Wales, more people reported that the charge was an effective
way to reduce waste and litter after the introduction of the scheme,[109]
and research showed that the charge in Wales "may be a factor
in increasing pro-environmental awareness and behaviours".
[110] Professor
Richard Thompson told us "I believe a considerable number
of consumers are keen to do the right thing, but are confused
as to what the right thing is",[111]
which reinforces the need for the Government to ensure its approach
is simple, easy to follow and consistent.
49. As we discussed in Part 1, the proposed
charge could help reduce levels of littering. Economic psychology
suggests that charging can lead some people to justify negative
social behaviours if they feel they are paying for a service.[112]
It is sensible not to directly link the proceeds of the charge
to fund litter collection, as it might lead some to justify littering.
However, giving bags a value should incentivise their reuse, and
reduce the numbers disposed of thoughtlessly. More research
is needed into how people respond to the charge including the
impact on littering and recycling. The Government should ensure
that retailers collect and submit data on bag reuse, and monitor
how the charge affects wider behaviours to ensure the scheme has
as significant an environmental impact as possible.
42 Q111 [David Newman] Back
43
Q111 [Professor Thompson] Back
44
Poortinga, W, Whitmarsh, L. Suffolk, C. (2013) 'The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in Wales: Attitude change and behavioural spillover effects'.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 36: 240-247 Back
45
Q3 Back
46
Dr Wouter Poortinga (BAG 001), para 18 Back
47
Dr Wouter Poortinga (BAG 001, para 17 Back
48
Q35 Back
49
For instance, in March 2010 the Cabinet Office and Institute for
Government published Mindspace: Influencing behaviour through public policy,
which discusses the scope for using behavioural sciences in policy-making.
This discusses the importance of simplicity as part of 'salient'
messages to encourage behaviour change. It also identifies that
changing the 'default' option, and ensuring consistent messaging
are also important. Cass Sunstein, whose book 'Nudge' (Penguin,
2009) with Richard Thaler inspired a lot of the work of the government's
behavioural insights work, has recently written a book 'Simpler:
The Future of Government' (Simon and Schuster, 2013) in which
he makes the case that complexity is costly and potentially harmful.
Back
50
Q13 Back
51
British Retail Consortium (BAG 028), para 2.1 Back
52
Q39 [Neil Sinden]; Waitrose (BAG 027), para 7.2 Back
53
Q11 Back
54
Defra (BAG 032), para 20; Defra estimate that this could save
between 31,600 and 42,100 tonnes of waste, given that the weight
of single-use plastic bags used by supermarket customers in England
in 2012 was 52,600 tonnes. Back
55
Q6; the economic analysis was looking at what would not create
economic disbenefit but would create sufficient incentive Back
56
Convery, F., McDonnell, S. Ferreira, S. (2007) 'The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy'
Environmental Resource Econ 38:1-11; Dr Wouter Poortinga (BAG 001),
para 19 Back
57
Irish Government Current levy Back
58
Defra, Single-Use Plastic Bag Charge for England: Call for Evidence,
November 2013, para 31 Back
59
Q20 Back
60
In this study, a starch-polyester blend was used Back
61
Contents of first column taken from Table 6.1, p46 HDPE, oxo-biodegradable,
starch); Table 5.4, p40 (paper); Table 5.5, p41 (LDPE); Table
5.6, p43 (PP); Table 5.9, p44 (Cotton) Back
62
The Call for Evidence states:'a plastic bag is a bag that is fully
or partly made from plastic. (Para 27) Back
63
Q37 Back
64
British Retail Consortium (BAG 028), para 4.2.5 Back
65
Q23 Back
66
Defra (BAG 049), para 26 Back
67
Indeed Eunomia (2012) 'Assistance to the Commission to Complement an Assessment of the Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Options to Reduce the Use of Single-use Plastic Carrier Bags in the EU'
assumes that 50% of retailers could shift from plastic bags to
paper, which, given the large number of retailers currently using
plastic bags, would result in an increase in paper bag use far
higher than 50%. Back
68
WRAP (2013) 'Effect of charging for carrier bags on bin bag sales in Wales'
Back
69
WRAP (BAG 031), para 14 Back
70
Defra (BAG 032), para 34 Back
71
Q28 Back
72
'Why bags for life could be carrying germs' BBC news 29 October
2013 Back
73
WRAP (BAG 031, para 12 Back
74
Welsh Government and Zero Waste Scotland (2013) 'Behaviour Study on the re-use of plastic bags'
P5 Back
75
4884 Wales and 4645 Scotland transactions were observed Back
76
Welsh Government and Zero Waste Scotland (2013) 'Behaviour Study on the re-use of plastic bags'
P5 Back
77
Irish Government Alternatives to disposable bags Back
78
Welsh Government and Zero Waste Scotland (2013) 'Behaviour Study on the re-use of plastic bags'
p4 Back
79
WRAP (BAG 031, para 13 Back
80
Q21 Back
81
Defra, Single-Use Plastic Bag Charge for England: Call for Evidence,
November 2013, para 54 Back
82
Defra (BAG 032, para 32 Back
83
Defra (BAG 032), para 31 Back
84
Q66 Back
85
National Federation of Retail Newsagents (BAG 012), para 6 Back
86
Association of Convenience Stores (BAG 016), para 7 Back
87
Defra (BAG 032), para 11; Q61 Back
88
British Retail Consortium (BAG 028), para 4.4.1 Back
89
Q41; This analysis draws on the data from the Keep Britain Tidy
survey 'How Clean is England?: The Local Environmental Quality Survey of England 2012/13',
p29 Back
90
Q40 Back
91
Marks and Spencer submission to Defra consultation Back
92
Defra, Single-Use Plastic Bag Charge for England: Call for Evidence,
November 2013, para 24 Back
93
Defra, Single-Use Plastic Bag Charge for England: Call for Evidence,
November 2013, paras 67-68 Back
94
Defra, Single-Use Plastic Bag Charge for England: Call for Evidence,
November 2013, paras 69-70 Back
95
Q8 Back
96
Keep Wales Tidy (BAG 041) Back
97
Q78 Back
98
Defra, Single-Use Plastic Bag Charge for England: Call for Evidence,
November 2013, para 11 Back
99
Defra, Single-Use Plastic Bag Charge for England: Call for Evidence,
November 2013, para 55 Back
100
Q8 Back
101
Keep Wales Tidy (BAG 041) Back
102
Convery, F., McDonnell, S. Ferreira, S. (2007) 'The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy'
Environmental Resource Econ 38:1-11 Back
103
Q80 Back
104
Poortinga, W, Whitmarsh, L. Suffolk, C. (2013) 'The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in Wales: Attitude change and behavioural spillover effects'.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 36: 240-247 Back
105
Budget 2011 and Environmental Taxes HC 878 Back
106
Dr Wouter Poortinga (BAG 001, para 10 Back
107
Mindspace: Influencing behaviour through public policy states
"For example, one meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviours
reported that at least 80% of the factors influencing behaviour
did not result from knowledge or awareness". Kollmuss and
Agyeman (2002) Mind the Gap. Environmental Education Research
8(3): 239-260 Back
108
Keep Britain Tidy (BAG 022), para 9 Back
109
Dr Wouter Poortinga (BAG 001), para 11 Back
110
Welsh Government and Zero Waste Scotland (2013) 'Behaviour Study on the re-use of plastic bags',
p9; In Wales 98% of people who re-use bags for life, and 88% of
those that don't, agree with the statement that they have "become
more aware of the importance of recycling or re-use rather than
throwing items away in the regular bin", compared with around
70% of those in Scotland. Back
111
Professor Richard Thompson (further) (BAG 044) Back
112
Gneezy and Rustichini (2000) 'A fine is a price' Journal of Legal
Studies, vol. XXIX Chicago Back