Britain Needs A ‘Pay As You Throw’ Tax
by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 11.21.06
Such is the proposal of a new report released on the weekend by the UK’s Institute for Public Policy Research and Green Alliance. They point out that only about a quarter of domestic waste gets recycled in the UK, whereas across the Channel in the Netherlands they can manage almost three times as much. In another example, of the 4 billion foil lined TetraPaks (longlife milk and juice) used in UK, only 10% get recycled, but Germany, who has a tiny levy on the cartons, processes 65% of the things. The report cites other instances of European neighbours seeing pronounced reductions in consumption of throwaway goods where a ‘Pay As You Throw’ tax has been applied. But it also notes that there are some good news stories on the home front, like supermarket chain, Sainsbury’s, working with their suppliers to replace the use of cardboard boxes with reusable crates, saving approximately 8,400 tonnes of cardboard a year. Items suited to a throwaway levy are said to include, single use cameras, disposable razors, picnic tableware and non-rechargeable batteries. ::Institute for Public Policy Research, via ::The Age.
Germany already has this. Recycling and disposal costs are paid for at the time the product is purchased. Non-recylable materials are taxed at a much higher rate. Its odd they don't mention this.
Would it not make more sense to tax the companies making and supplying the throw-aways and profitting off of them, rather than the end-user? Then maybe industry would rethink the product life-cycle more before they manufacture.
Stacey, this is what they do in Germany, with the Green Dot program, as anonymous alludes to. We mentioned the program in an earlier piece on eco-packaging. But in essence, applying a tax or levy to the product at point of purchase can be seen by industry as making the product less attractive to buy. And they want customers, so they design out the waste, or the packaging, to avoid the loss of sales. But in general, yes, it would be ideal if non-responsible design practices were taxed at the source. Instead industries like clear fell forestry, coal mining, and nuclear power often get subsidies.
Remember they have a heck of lobbying power in every country. So while I like that idea, I'm glad that some leverages have been applied. I would love to see more.
Same is seen here in the US with bottle deposits. It is very hard to get every state with this let a lone, to take the tax to the true fault.
Its just the world we are in, take the wins as we can, and lick the wounds when we can't.