Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
JB

Paid to recycle, charged for waste?

 £50 recycling incentives 'likely'

Good idea or just the same problems as chip'n'bin?
Rob R

Perhaps we need a 'bin tax', you pay less each year if you opt to have a smaller bin.
cab

I recycle very little, because generally we don't purchase much that requires recycling. The flip side is, of course, that we have very little going in the bin that doesn't get recycled; a very high proportion of what we chuck does go to recycling, even if there isn't much of it.

Such a scheme as this misses the point; recycling isn't the best option, reducing and reusing are better, recycling is simply better than wasting. Reward those of us who reduce and reuse.
RichardW

It will be a screw up.

Vague goverment guidlines & local council implimentation = recipe for disaster.


Justme
Rob R

Justme wrote:
Vague goverment guidlines & local council implimentation = recipe for disaster.


Shame it doesn't include any meat, you could have written that up for the HMM database Wink
orangepippin

Justme wrote:
It will be a screw up.

Vague goverment guidlines & local council implimentation = recipe for disaster.


Justme

Unfortunately this summary is all too true.

The article points out that the UK has the worst landfill record in Europe. Perhaps before we try to do something about that, we should ask *how* this has come about. Is it because the Brits can't be bothered to reduce their waste (as is implied by Joan Ruddock and the local government association), or is it because the UK also has one of the highest population densities in Europe and simply has less space to deal with waste, or is it because other EU governments and their local government equivalents saw the importance of reducing waste long before the UK local authorities, and did something about it?

If the cause of our poor landfill record is - as justme implies - the poor performance of our local authorities, then maybe the way to tackle it is to go for the root cause of the problem - inefficient and poorly performing local councils. That means imposing financial penalties not on householders but on councils. Central government can already do this, through some kind of landfill levy - maybe that needs to be increased, and also taken outside of council tax so that underperforming councils can't get council taxpayers to bale them out.
snozzer

cab wrote:
I recycle very little, because generally we don't purchase much that requires recycling. The flip side is, of course, that we have very little going in the bin that doesn't get recycled; a very high proportion of what we chuck does go to recycling, even if there isn't much of it.

Such a scheme as this misses the point; recycling isn't the best option, reducing and reusing are better, recycling is simply better than wasting. Reward those of us who reduce and reuse.


Cab, thats a really valid point and I was ahead of my time suggesting this for years until you raised your points in the "chipped bins binned thread" last week.

However, I still think it is a step in the right direction. We have kerbside recycling in our village and it shocks me how many people don't even put out their recycling bins. So any incentive to encourage them to do that has got to be positive.

The issue of reduce and reuse is valid, but right now to many people is less easy to achieve. The weekly shop at tessainsasdrrison leaves many with empty cereal boxes and food tins etc which are difficult to reduce and have limited options for reuse.
cab

The solution is simple enough. Define (a) as being the waste allowable per house before you start to pay. Throw more than (a) and you pay, throw less and you do not.

Define (b) as a weight less than (a). If you throw out less than (b) then you might get a rebate. You only get that rebate, however, if you recycle twice (or pick another multiplier) the weight of what you throw away.

If you are below (b) then you get a rebate if your compostable waste weighs less than another figure, which we shall call (c). Thats because it is assumed to get to (c) you must be composting waste yourself.

This sounds complicated; it isn't. But it might at least work to not discourage people like me from taking it seriously; to simply pay people who recycle more will alienate and anger the 'hard core' reduce, reuse, recycle crowd.
Rob R

cab wrote:
But it might at least work to not discourage people like me from taking it seriously; to simply pay people who recycle more will alienate and anger the 'hard core' reduce, reuse, recycle crowd.


Tough. You just have to look at the bigger picture. Wink
cab

Rob R wrote:
cab wrote:
But it might at least work to not discourage people like me from taking it seriously; to simply pay people who recycle more will alienate and anger the 'hard core' reduce, reuse, recycle crowd.


Tough. You just have to look at the bigger picture. Wink


I am bootyshake

Which is why I'd propose a scheme that penalises those who do not reduce waste output, makes recycling a bit something that is expected, and rewards those who reduce, and reuse. Seems only sensible.
orangepippin

Schemes that are "only sensible" go nowhere. You've got to consider how local councils are going to afford to pay rebates to people who cut their waste - or, to put it another way, how they are going to make money out of this.
cab

orangepippin wrote:
Schemes that are "only sensible" go nowhere. You've got to consider how local councils are going to afford to pay rebates to people who cut their waste - or, to put it another way, how they are going to make money out of this.


By charging those who do not reduce their waste output. Its there in the article, isn't it?
Rob R

cab wrote:

Which is why I'd propose a scheme that penalises those who do not reduce waste output, makes recycling a bit something that is expected, and rewards those who reduce, and reuse. Seems only sensible.


Green tax schemes don't have to have carrot though, you said so yourself. More stick.
RichardW

But do you trust your local bin man (lowest bid company plus lowest paid workers) to be able to correctly identify weigh & record your waste? We can even trust them to turn up on the days they are supposed to. Our recycling can be out for 4-6 weeks when it is supposed to be collected every 2 weeks. The bin & compost bin seem better & do get collected alternative weeks.

Once people start to get charged then fly tipping will increase as will neighbours putting their rubbish in your bin.

Time we stopped excess packagin at source. Went back to returnable / reusable & cash deposited bottles.


Justme
vegplot

I feel disappointed the encouragemnet is either financial or punative bot are the wrong way to address this issue as they have too many problems associated with them.

I'd like to see people encourage in other ways through education but I've no idea how this would work in reality if it ever could.

A reduction in the amount of pre-waste (waste before it comes waste) such as less packaging or less packaged goods. I don't what the breakdown of products are in domestic waste, in terms of types of waste, but this should form part of the whole problem rather than just dealing with what people throw away.

I'm just prattling on now and not being very productive.
cab

Rob R wrote:
cab wrote:

Which is why I'd propose a scheme that penalises those who do not reduce waste output, makes recycling a bit something that is expected, and rewards those who reduce, and reuse. Seems only sensible.


Green tax schemes don't have to have carrot though, you said so yourself. More stick.



Nope, they don't have to have a carrot. It wasn't my idea to have a rebate; what I've said is that if there IS to be a rebate, it shouldn't put people like me in the position where they'd have to scavenge more recyclable goods to get it, because thats crazy. If there IS one, it should not exclude those who are reducing, reusing, those being better than recycling. Do you disagree?
JB

cab wrote:
Rob R wrote:
cab wrote:

Which is why I'd propose a scheme that penalises those who do not reduce waste output, makes recycling a bit something that is expected, and rewards those who reduce, and reuse. Seems only sensible.


Green tax schemes don't have to have carrot though, you said so yourself. More stick.



Nope, they don't have to have a carrot. It wasn't my idea to have a rebate; what I've said is that if there IS to be a rebate, it shouldn't put people like me in the position where they'd have to scavenge more recyclable goods to get it, because thats crazy. If there IS one, it should not exclude those who are reducing, reusing, those being better than recycling. Do you disagree?


If the rebate is there to make the recycling acceptable to those who do not already recycle then there is no reason to make the rebate cover you. After all your council doesn't need to give you any incentive to reduce your waste as you already do so.

edit - that's not to say that I think it's right that you wouldn't get a rebate merely that there's no need for the council to give you a rebate as an incentive.
Rob R

cab wrote:
Nope, they don't have to have a carrot. It wasn't my idea to have a rebate; what I've said is that if there IS to be a rebate, it shouldn't put people like me in the position where they'd have to scavenge more recyclable goods to get it, because thats crazy. If there IS one, it should not exclude those who are reducing, reusing, those being better than recycling. Do you disagree?


No, but like JB says, you are already doing it, so what's the point of offering you an incentive for something you already enjoy doing?
cab

JB wrote:
If the rebate is there to make the recycling acceptable to those who do not already recycle then there is no reason to make the rebate cover you. After all your council doesn't need to give you any incentive to reduce your waste as you already do so.


It only gives incentive for people to make a small improvement; what I'm saying is that this is fine, but if we're going to do this then lets have a greater incentive for people to make bigger improvements.

This kind of scheme would encourage me to increase waste. Why try to avoid junk mail and freeby newspapers when I can get a council rebate through recycling more paper? Why opt for packaging that I can compost myself when I actually have no shortage of compost for the garden, and I can instead buy a product that contributes towards my recycling rebate? Heck, I'd be making money by being less environmetally friendly. And thats crazy.
snozzer

Rob R wrote:
cab wrote:
Nope, they don't have to have a carrot. It wasn't my idea to have a rebate; what I've said is that if there IS to be a rebate, it shouldn't put people like me in the position where they'd have to scavenge more recyclable goods to get it, because thats crazy. If there IS one, it should not exclude those who are reducing, reusing, those being better than recycling. Do you disagree?


No, but like JB says, you are already doing it, so what's the point of offering you an incentive for something you already enjoy doing?


But there has to be a baseline to start from.

The reduce reuse angle is great, but totally unworkable for a scheme like this as it would be impossible to monitor. Imagine somebody on the look out for new easy come ££ in his annual reduce assesment says "this year I reused my rubbish 48 times". Apart from asking how much you reused, you would need to know the input in the first place i.e. how much they had purchased.
Rob R

But the bigger picture, cab, is that most people aren't like you, so a modest improvement for 99% of the population adds up to a lot more than catering for the few people who go the extra mile.

I'm not disagreeing, just being devils advocate, as this thread seems very similar to our car over consumption problems. I happen to think that both problems need tackling at source and ensuring that well meaning people like us are not caught up in the middle to give a greater incentive for all.
cab

snozzer wrote:

But there has to be a baseline to start from.

The reduce reuse angle is great, but totally unworkable for a scheme like this as it would be impossible to monitor. Imagine somebody on the look out for new easy come ££ in his annual reduce assesment says "this year I reused my rubbish 48 times". Apart from asking how much you reused, you would need to know the input in the first place i.e. how much they had purchased.


The simple system I outlined would work just fine for measuring whether people are 'reducing and reusing' rather than just 'recycling'.
cab

Rob R wrote:
But the bigger picture, cab, is that most people aren't like you, so a modest improvement for 99% of the population adds up to a lot more than catering for the few people who go the extra mile.


It isn't an either or thing; by all means encourage all, but lets not have a scheme that discourages those who would do more; hence have a simple system where there is encouragement to recycle, but more encouragement to go further. That is the bigger picture. To instead impose an ill considered, ham-fisted system that only goes half way... Well, it simply isn't as good an idea.

Quote:

I'm not disagreeing, just being devils advocate, as this thread seems very similar to our car over consumption problems. I happen to think that both problems need tackling at source and ensuring that well meaning people like us are not caught up in the middle to give a greater incentive for all.


Not sure what 'at source' means here. There is a strange idea that we're not the 'source' of our own waste, that its all someone elses fault for selling us all of this packaged stuff. That, really, is baloney; if something is overpackaged, the simple answer is not to buy it.
Mrs Fiddlesticks

What doesn't help is that individual councils all have different recycling policies. I can't recycle plastics in to kerbside collection in this village but the next village up is in a different council so they can. If every council provided as much recycling as possible then it would at least start folk off at the same point.

I'd be like Cab though. We fill our one recycling box most weeks but other than that our average waste is one carrier bag of stuff in the main bin.

You can see the councils getting all survelance about it and wondering where my rubbish is Rolling Eyes am I flytipping on the the quiet?
Rob R

cab wrote:
system that only goes half way... Well, it simply isn't as good an idea.


Yes, so right. It's the same with cars, which is why I made that point.

Quote:
Not sure what 'at source' means here. There is a strange idea that we're not the 'source' of our own waste, that its all someone elses fault for selling us all of this packaged stuff. That, really, is baloney; if something is overpackaged, the simple answer is not to buy it.


'At source' here means raising the cost of disposal at the point of sale, which makes the more packaged goods more expensive & the less packaged goods more attractive to the consumer. The money raised at that point goes to make it free to dispose/recycle at the end, so people are less inclined to fly tip (though some people always will, like the those who tip leaves in our dykes instead of on the muck hill, they've probably already passed the council recycling place on their way out here. Twisted Evil ). I'd like to see the same 'at source' disposal regime to fund a national farm plastics recycling scheme too.
orangepippin

Some basic questions:

Why is the UK so bad at this, when there is apparently so much good practice in the rest of Europe? Can't we just do what they do?

Why do local councils seem to have so many different schemes? Can't we just have one scheme applied nationally?
cab

Rob R wrote:

Yes, so right. It's the same with cars, which is why I made that point.


Utterly and totally unrelated and dissimilar. A more dodgy comparison is hard to come up with.

Quote:

'At source' here means raising the cost of disposal at the point of sale, which makes the more packaged goods more expensive & the less packaged goods more attractive to the consumer. The money raised at that point goes to make it free to dispose/recycle at the end, so people are less inclined to fly tip (though some people always will, like the those who tip leaves in our dykes instead of on the muck hill, they've probably already passed the council recycling place on their way out here. Twisted Evil ). I'd like to see the same 'at source' disposal regime to fund a national farm plastics recycling scheme too.


Theres some sense in that... But I don't see it as really being enough in itself; ideally, I'd like to see lockable bins and encouragement for reduced waste output as well as some up front difference in price based on packaging. And that would be similar to how we are taxing vehicles; hit the same problem from multiple angles to reduce useage and change future choices, to make the long term manufacture and distribution of over-packaged products less attractive.
snozzer

cab wrote:
snozzer wrote:

But there has to be a baseline to start from.

The reduce reuse angle is great, but totally unworkable for a scheme like this as it would be impossible to monitor. Imagine somebody on the look out for new easy come ££ in his annual reduce assesment says "this year I reused my rubbish 48 times". Apart from asking how much you reused, you would need to know the input in the first place i.e. how much they had purchased.


The simple system I outlined would work just fine for measuring whether people are 'reducing and reusing' rather than just 'recycling'.


It wouldn't though. It would be based on averages at best and have no account of other external influences.
Rob R

cab wrote:
Rob R wrote:

Yes, so right. It's the same with cars, which is why I made that point.


Utterly and totally unrelated and dissimilar. A more dodgy comparison is hard to come up with.


No, just that you couldn't accept the points with cars, for some reason none of us could fathom. It the same basic problem of production & consumption.

Granted it's not the same structure but you said it would encourage you to be more wasteful, which is exactly what I (and others) said about the VED system. How about that system for bins? - the bigger your bin the more annual tax you pay & they'll only empty the bins you've got. You could have different 'bands' of bins for different types of waste (ie less for the recyclable bins, but still taxed in order to encourage the reduce bit). BTW I'm not seriously proposing an unfair system in vehicles to be applied to waste.

Quote:
Theres some sense in that... But I don't see it as really being enough in itself; ideally, I'd like to see lockable bins and encouragement for reduced waste output as well as some up front difference in price based on packaging. And that would be similar to how we are taxing vehicles; hit the same problem from multiple angles to reduce useage and change future choices, to make the long term manufacture and distribution of over-packaged products less attractive.


Similar approach but with the fundamental difference the car tax is a fixed cost & the packaging would be a variable cost, so packaging tax would be more akin to the fuel duty only scenario.
cab

Rob R wrote:

No, just that you couldn't accept the points with cars, for some reason none of us could fathom. It the same basic problem of production & consumption.


I didn't accept the points because they were flat out wrong.

Quote:

Granted it's not the same structure

(snip)

Nor shall I waste time reading any attempt to try to link two totally disparate, unrelated, ideas, especially when the former claims you made were simply erroneous.
cab

snozzer wrote:

It wouldn't though. It would be based on averages at best and have no account of other external influences.


Averages? External influences? Thats relevant how? It isn't based on measuring an average, it is based on defining an absolute.
Rob R

cab wrote:
Rob R wrote:

No, just that you couldn't accept the points with cars, for some reason none of us could fathom. It the same basic problem of production & consumption.


I didn't accept the points because they were flat out wrong.


In your mind.

cab wrote:
Quote:

Granted it's not the same structure

(snip)

Nor shall I waste time reading any attempt to try to link two totally disparate, unrelated, ideas, especially when the former claims you made were simply erroneous.


You've misunderstand me a little. As I'm not attempting to link two totally unrelated ideas then it would trully be a waste of my time addressing that as a point. The paralell came about when you made the following point:

cab wrote:
to simply pay people who recycle more will alienate and anger the 'hard core' reduce, reuse, recycle crowd.


It seemed acceptible to alienate that subset of car drivers but not of waste producers. It's not about the failings of VED that's another issue, but the reasons why people feel the way they do when they are pushed into that situation by choices & circumstance as a result of a tax system designed to encourage a positive response from the community as a whole, rather than the individual.

Never mind. I shall not waste time explaining that further, the reasoning doesn't need making any clearer.

Now, back to the article...
RichardW

You two & your bloody car tax Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


Justme
RichardW

Mrs Fiddlesticks wrote:
What doesn't help is that individual councils all have different recycling policies. I can't recycle plastics in to kerbside collection in this village but the next village up is in a different council so they can. If every council provided as much recycling as possible then it would at least start folk off at the same point.


That is so true. Our local council started a scheme in town it was so well used that they stopped it as in the councils own words "people were recycling to much" they just could not cope with the demand. If this gets going ALL councils should be made to recycle the same things & I mean the worse should do more not the best do less.


Justme
IanNW

A local recycling centre which sorted through about 200T of waste a day was closed about 12 months ago. This was due to the amount of fine topsoil it had stored.

The items sorted and sold on for reuse by this particular plant were:

Fine soil
Ferrous metal
Non Ferrous metal
UPVC window frames
Paper
cardboard
Wood
Plastics
Mobile phones would also be lifted and given to the local recycle mobile phone charity.

Skip Hire companies and local authorities from Flintshire, Gwynedd and Cheshire used this site as it proved cheaper to place the waste at this place than it did to take to Landfill.

It later became apparent that this plant was closed down through bad management. Environment Health had visited several times and placed restrictions on amount of waste to be taken on a daily basis and that the fine soil was to be disposed of. This did not happen quick enough or not at all in some cases and caused the closure.

Whilst the other materials were considered a lot more desirable by companies capable of recycling and reusing the materials.

Plastics were being bought by a local company and being reused.
Paper and cardboard was being bought by the local paper mill and turned back into pulp.
Wood was being sent to a company that turned the wood into chippings.
UPVC window frames going to various window companies to recycle and re use as windows.
The biggest problem was getting rid of the fine topsoil.

About 60% of the materials coming into this centre were being recycled and the rest going onto landfill.

At the end of the day it is not about what can be recycled, but what commercial demand is available for recycling?

These centres are run as a business at the end of the day and can only operate as long as they have a demand for the products they produce/provide.
gnome

RichardW wrote:
But do you trust your local bin man (lowest bid company plus lowest paid workers) to be able to correctly identify weigh & record your waste? We can even trust them to turn up on the days they are supposed to. Our recycling can be out for 4-6 weeks when it is supposed to be collected every 2 weeks. The bin & compost bin seem better & do get collected alternative weeks.

Once people start to get charged then fly tipping will increase as will neighbours putting their rubbish in your bin.

Time we stopped excess packagin at source. Went back to returnable / reusable & cash deposited bottles.


Justme


absolutely correct, i agree entirely with what you say here.
Behemoth

Here are the Conservative's proposals:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7496709.stm

The small print is that it is a form of 'redictribution of wealth'. Basically the amount the council would have paid in land fill tax is redistributed around those who've reduced the load. So the tax burden remains the same, it requires a 'tax floor' to be set e.g. a minumum amount must be collected by the loacl authority to equate to what it would have paid in ladfill tax. This would be fixed for ten years. However, of it changes behaviours and establishes a new way of dealing with 'waste' in peple's minds it's a step forward.
Treacodactyl

I hope they include better incentives for reducing consumption in the first place rather than just for recycling.
Stacey

What's being done to 'encourage' manufaturers to stop using so much packaging in the first place?
cab

Behemoth wrote:
Here are the Conservative's proposals:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7496709.stm

The small print is that it is a form of 'redictribution of wealth'. Basically the amount the council would have paid in land fill tax is redistributed around those who've reduced the load. So the tax burden remains the same, it requires a 'tax floor' to be set e.g. a minumum amount must be collected by the loacl authority to equate to what it would have paid in ladfill tax. This would be fixed for ten years. However, of it changes behaviours and establishes a new way of dealing with 'waste' in peple's minds it's a step forward.


While that last point is true, I think we'll have to wait to see the sums before we know how good or bad this is. At present, if you talk to the council department that collects your refuse, it turns out that they're only really responsible for a pittance of the council tax you pay (at least here they are). So if theres no new money, we're looking at a tiny payback for those who recycle most.

And again, I don't think its really addressing the point; reduce and reuse are the most beneficial of the thre r's. I'll wait and see what this proposal means for reducing the total amount of waste produced, which will mean looking at the details (if they ever emerge).
Stacey

cab wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Here are the Conservative's proposals:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7496709.stm

The small print is that it is a form of 'redictribution of wealth'. Basically the amount the council would have paid in land fill tax is redistributed around those who've reduced the load. So the tax burden remains the same, it requires a 'tax floor' to be set e.g. a minumum amount must be collected by the loacl authority to equate to what it would have paid in ladfill tax. This would be fixed for ten years. However, of it changes behaviours and establishes a new way of dealing with 'waste' in peple's minds it's a step forward.


While that last point is true, I think we'll have to wait to see the sums before we know how good or bad this is. At present, if you talk to the council department that collects your refuse, it turns out that they're only really responsible for a pittance of the council tax you pay (at least here they are). So if theres no new money, we're looking at a tiny payback for those who recycle most.

And again, I don't think its really addressing the point; reduce and reuse are the most beneficial of the thre r's. I'll wait and see what this proposal means for reducing the total amount of waste produced, which will mean looking at the details (if they ever emerge).


Why should we be paid for living within our own moral code?
cab

Stacey wrote:

Why should we be paid for living within our own moral code?


So people who believe they should recycle should go unpaid, whereas those who do not should be paid?
Treacodactyl

Stacey wrote:
Why should we be paid for living within our own moral code?


Waste affects everyone though doesn't it?
Behemoth

Agree with the reduce and re-use. IIRC form the radio there was no mention of reducing waste or rewarding those who put less in the waste stream, I guess no-one can get past the fly tipping issue. the American experience has shown that those on lower incomes, who recycle the least at the moment, respond well to this system and become the greatest recyclers.
cab

Behemoth wrote:
Agree with the reduce and re-use. IIRC form the radio there was no mention of reducing waste or rewarding those who put less in the waste stream, I guess no-one can get past the fly tipping issue. the American experience has shown that those on lower incomes, who recycle the least at the moment, respond well to this system and become the greatest recyclers.


I think thats the best thing to commend this. But all the same... Because no one talks about reduce and reuse, the whole thing comes across as being rather ill thought out, only a half measure.
Behemoth

Agree.

Reducing the load in the waste stream involves more than just individual action and has to start with the packaging regs and then the retail choices people make.
cab

Behemoth wrote:
Agree.

Reducing the load in the waste stream involves more than just individual action and has to start with the packaging regs and then the retail choices people make.


And for many people that means that reducing the amount of rubbish they produce is a pretty major change in their lifestyle. Not easy, but I think necessary.
Stacey

cab wrote:
Stacey wrote:

Why should we be paid for living within our own moral code?


So people who believe they should recycle should go unpaid, whereas those who do not should be paid?


I don't think anyone should be paid. I think the manufacturers should be targetted first and the emphasis placed firmly on reduce. The current enavgelism about recycling is entirely misplaced IMO
Stacey

Treacodactyl wrote:
Stacey wrote:
Why should we be paid for living within our own moral code?


Waste affects everyone though doesn't it?


I don't think anyone disputes that
cab

Stacey wrote:

I don't think anyone should be paid. I think the manufacturers should be targetted first and the emphasis placed firmly on reduce. The current enavgelism about recycling is entirely misplaced IMO


Its a little misplaced, I see where you're coming from... Recycling is worthwhile, but as Behemoth and I have just been discussing, its only one of the three R's, and arguably the least valuable. I agree that manufacturers should be targetted, but I'd also aim at consumers; people buy what they want, people want packaging. Cucumbers, for example, and swedes, and heads of broccoli... They don't NEED to be shrinkwrapped, but supermarkets tell us that people prefer to buy them that way.
Treacodactyl

Stacey wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:
Stacey wrote:
Why should we be paid for living within our own moral code?


Waste affects everyone though doesn't it?


I don't think anyone disputes that


Then I don't see what someone's moral code has to do with it. If someone wishes to throw lots of stuff out then they have to pay for it to be processed.

I also wonder what percentage of waste is packaging as many people seem to just concentrate on that and I would guess it's only a small amount of what gets thrown out. You can insist on packaging being reduced but you still need to tackle what else people throw out.
Stacey

cab wrote:
Stacey wrote:

I don't think anyone should be paid. I think the manufacturers should be targetted first and the emphasis placed firmly on reduce. The current enavgelism about recycling is entirely misplaced IMO


Its a little misplaced, I see where you're coming from... Recycling is worthwhile, but as Behemoth and I have just been discussing, its only one of the three R's, and arguably the least valuable. I agree that manufacturers should be targetted, but I'd also aim at consumers; people buy what they want, people want packaging. Cucumbers, for example, and swedes, and heads of broccoli... They don't NEED to be shrinkwrapped, but supermarkets tell us that people prefer to buy them that way.


So, it's the supermarkets making the decisions, not the consumer. I fully support the WI stance that consumers should remove excess packaging and leave it in the shop.
Behemoth

Stacey wrote:
So, it's the supermarkets making the decisions, not the consumer. I fully support the WI stance that consumers should remove excess packaging and leave it in the shop.


It is frustrating but it is partly driven by the consumer. As I've mentioned elswhere my OH has colleagues who wont eat our raspberries when delivered to work in a plastic tub due to perceptions of it being unclean and off a bush. They'll pay a fortune for a handfull of raspberries in a plastic punnet from the supermarket because they perceive it as being clean and safe.
Stacey

Behemoth wrote:
Stacey wrote:
So, it's the supermarkets making the decisions, not the consumer. I fully support the WI stance that consumers should remove excess packaging and leave it in the shop.


It is frustrating but it is partly driven by the consumer. As I've mentioned elswhere my OH has colleagues who wont eat our raspberries when delivered to work in a plastic tub due to perceptions of it being unclean and off a bush. They'll pay a fortune for a handfull of raspberries in a plastic punnet from the supermarket because they perceive it as being clean and safe.


What would they do if all supermarkets only had loose fruit though? They'd have to get used ot it or starve Very Happy I get your point but if supermarkets only provided loose fruit/ veg people would buy it. I'm not putting this well Rolling Eyes I'm posting in a rush as I'm off to the veg shop (trying to to not breathe and spread this dastardly chest infection while I'm there Embarassed )
cab

Stacey wrote:

So, it's the supermarkets making the decisions, not the consumer. I fully support the WI stance that consumers should remove excess packaging and leave it in the shop.


Well, no, its both really. The consumer wants (x), if supermarket does not do (x) then consumer goes elsewhere. You can criticise the supermarket for complying with customer demands, of course, but if non-compliance means they lose custom then a PLC would be wrong to not comply.

You have to go at this from all angles; producer, retailer and consumer.
Stacey

cab wrote:
Stacey wrote:

So, it's the supermarkets making the decisions, not the consumer. I fully support the WI stance that consumers should remove excess packaging and leave it in the shop.


Well, no, its both really. The consumer wants (x), if supermarket does not do (x) then consumer goes elsewhere. You can criticise the supermarket for complying with customer demands, of course, but if non-compliance means they lose custom then a PLC would be wrong to not comply.

You have to go at this from all angles; producer, retailer and consumer.


But if the govt said tomorrow that no veg was allowed to be shrink wrapped what would the consumer do?
cab

Stacey wrote:

But if the govt said tomorrow that no veg was allowed to be shrink wrapped what would the consumer do?


Starve, because the supply chain won't be sorted out that fast.

Simply put, the government is not going to suddenly say that. And the supermarkets are not going to suddenly do it. And the consumer is not going to suddenly demand it. Thats why, I think, you've got to work at this from all of the angles to solve the problem.
Stacey

cab wrote:
Stacey wrote:

But if the govt said tomorrow that no veg was allowed to be shrink wrapped what would the consumer do?


Starve, because the supply chain won't be sorted out that fast.

Simply put, the government is not going to suddenly say that. And the supermarkets are not going to suddenly do it. And the consumer is not going to suddenly demand it. Thats why, I think, you've got to work at this from all of the angles to solve the problem.


You get my point though.....
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Page 1 of 1
You must set the ad_network_ads_377.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).