A. The Responsibility of Companies to Reduce
Waste B. Means Adopted to Reduce Household Waste
C. The Drawbacks of Fly-tipping D. Producers’ Effort on
Waste Reduction E. Obstacles to the New Programme
F. The Role Consumers Play in Reducing Waste G. The
Significance of Generating Less Rubbish Until recently most
people in the waste industry had assumed that it was impossible to reduce the
amount being produced and were concentrating on putting the stuff to better use.
But lately that assumption has been challenged. For one thing, the pace at which
the rich world churns out rubbish has been slowing. 11 Reducing the amount of waste
being produced makes a great deal of sense, provided it does not cost more, in
either environmental or financial terms, than disposing of it in the usual way.
Governments hope it might help to trim both greenhouse-gas emissions and
waste-management costs. But they are not sure how best to encourage
it. 12
Some are trying to persuade consumers to throw away less. The simplest
method is to collect the rubbish less often. In areas of Britain where the
dustmen come round only every other week, recycling rates are 10% higher than
elsewhere. Another tactic is to make households pay by volume for the rubbish
they generate, rather than through a flat fee or through local taxes. Many
places in Europe, America and Asia have adopted "pay-as-you-throw"
schemes. About a quarter of Americans live in communities with such programmes.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reckons that they reduce the volume of
rubbish by 14-27% and increase recycling (which usually remains free) by
32-59%. 13
However, there are drawbacks. Fly-tipping-the illegal dumping of
waste-tends to rise slightly as people try to avoid paying. And householders
generally grumble a lot if they have to pay extra to have their rubbish
collected. In addition, most local authorities have simply decided against the
idea. When the British government offered them money to experiment with
pay-as-you-throw schemes earlier this year, no one signed up. 14 Businesses
are generally seen as a sorer target
than consumers. It can be argued that
manufacturers bear some responsibility for the amount of waste rich countries
produce. They often have an incentive to reduce waste anyway, since most already
pay for disposal by volume. There is even a name for the steady reduction in
materials used to make the same goods: "lightweighting". It is not only
electronic gadgets that have become smaller and 5ghter over the years even as
their performance has improved but many other things too, from cars to plastic
bags. 15
In theory, consumers could steer firms towards waste reduction by buying
products that are easy to recycle. To some extent this is happening. Tesco’s
Alasdair. James says British consumers rank the environment as their third
priority after price and convenience. Further, if governments oblige
manufacturers to include the cost of disposal in their prices, firms will pass
those costs on to consumers, who will have an incentive to buy the products that
are the easiest to dispose of. Many governments are currently
trying to give greenery an extra push with compulsory wastereduction schemes.
Thirty-six states in America, for example, charge for the disposal of tyres. The
states spend the money on clean-up programmes or pay others to run such
programmes. Many of the tyres are blended into road surfaces or burned in cement
kilns. Several other states have "advance recovery fees" for computer monitors
and televisions. All this should provide a spur to the waste industry and speed
the adoption of new technology.