Environmental Consultants - Pay as You Throw

Although incineration reduces the amounts of waste to land fill, efforts should still be made to limit the amount of waste to land fill. The commercial and industrial sectors are well covered with the following guidance

“Comply with your duty of care, Use an authorised waste carrier, Check your carrier is registered, Use waste transfer notes, Pre-treat waste for landfill, Follow hazardous or special waste controls, Have a permit or licence[xviii]”,

As well as obligations under Packaging Regulations 2003, EPA, and EPR for Permitted Activities. . . .

The average householder gets off pretty lightly, they are asked nicely to recycle but successful prosecutions are seldom carried through to fruition. Pay as you throw schemes have met with mixed results.

“70% of both women and men said they would be more careful about creating waste if they had to pay for it to be collected[xix]”

There is a clear case for pay as you throw the problem comes when attempts are made to implement it.

Approach 1 - Pay as you throw on a volume only basis: A simplified system is required without too much tech to go wrong. A volume only system could provide this.

Any new scheme would need to address the technical problems encountered in the past but there is serious potential for waste reduction in this area.

1. If you want your bin collecting, you put it out for the bin man on the prescribed day. If you don’t want it collected then you keep it back from the road, a flagging system could be used to highlight that a resident wants their bin emptying.

2. The bin man types the number embossed in the bin, or the house number name in to a PDA type device, and you are charged a set amount for the collection. Alternatively a high resolution GPS system could be used to plot the location of the pick for the bins. Recycled items are not charged for, nor is green waste which is put in separate bins.

3. Charging could be implemented via a charge or a rebate on council tax, the latter would no doubt receive wide spread report.

Cons: Recycle / Green Bin Pickups will have to be more frequent, and provisions will have to be made to recycle as much waste a possible as council / UAs will be under pressure to do so by the public.

People will obviously try to abuse the system, compacting rubbish in to their bin, or hiding household waste in with the green waste etc. For these offenders day trips should be organised to waste management facilities, to educate them on the need for recycling, they should visit a land fill and see for themselves what happens to their rubbish.

Pros: People would soon start to take notice of the packaging that they buy, it would get left in the shop, forcing the shop to change, or they would swap to a card packaged product from a plastic one, because they know card can go in the recyclable bin for free.

Approach 2 - Get Strict: Pilot Schemes have met with success in countries with greater “discipline” than the UK i.e. Korea:

“Estimation results using 3017 Korean household survey data indicate that a rise in waste collection fee induces households to recycle more wastes. However, this effect is partially offset by decreases in source-reduction efforts due to the feedback effects, resulting in relatively lower price elasticity of demand for solid waste collection services. This implies that household demand for solid waste collection services will not decrease much with additional increases in the collection fee, unless further recycling incentives such as more frequent recyclable pickup services are accompanied.[xxi]”

Very strict recycling “regimes” have managed to implement 100% recycling policies. Taiwan is one such Island forced to adopt very stringent measures to Clean Up its act.

Cons: This will not work in the UK, we are too militant.

Pros: It will deliver the best results of any system.