UK plans to make plastic packaging producers pay for waste disposal

[webfact]

UK plans to make plastic packaging producers pay for waste disposal

 

 

Plastic and other waste is seen floating on the Marine Lake at New Brighton beach near Liverpool, Britain, February 11, 2019. REUTERS/Phil Noble

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is to set out plans to overhaul its recycling system on Monday, including making plastic packaging producers pay the full cost of dealing with their waste and introducing a deposit return scheme for cans and bottles.

 

The plans, which also aim to make household rubbish collections more consistent around the country, will be introduced by Environment Secretary Michael Gove and go out for consultation for three months.

 

"We will introduce a world-leading tax to boost recycled content in plastic packaging, make producers foot the bill for handling their packaging waste, and end the confusion over household recycling," Gove said in a statement.

 

The tax will be payable by producers who fail to use enough recycled material.

 

At present, producers pay only around 10 percent of the cost of dealing with plastic packaging waste, the environment ministry said.

 

Under an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system, the industry will pay higher fees if its packaging is harder to reuse or recycle.

 

EPR for packaging will raise between 800 million and one billion pounds ($1 billion-1.3 billion) a year for recycling and disposal, the ministry said.

 

Government will seek views on two options for how a deposit return scheme might work for cans and glass or plastic bottles, it added.

 

The first would target a large amount of drinks on the market, irrespective of container size. The second, known as the "on-the-go" model, would concern smaller container sizes - those most often sold for consumption outside the home.

 

"This could drive up the recycling of an estimated three billion plastic bottles which are currently incinerated, sent to landfill or left to pollute streets, countryside and the marine environment," the ministry said.

 

Household waste recycling rates in England have risen from around 11 percent in 2000/1 to about 45 percent, but since 2013 rates have plateaued, according to ministry figures.

 

($1 = 0.7756 pounds)

 

(Reporting by Stephen Addison; Editing by Mark Potter)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-02-18

[Pedrogaz]

Excellent idea. Also ban all use of one-trip plastics, pass a law requiring all packaging materials to be reusable.

[Basil B]

Making recycling consistent all around the country would be a big start, and banning the use of plastics that can not be recycled.

 

We have to separate paper and cardboard from the other recyclable rubbish yet I have seen the bin men then throw it all in the same skip.

 

And always thought that for many products like beds, mattresses, sofas, fridges, washing machines, TV's and other white goods the suppliers should have to provide free collection of the old goods and say people like glaziers should have to provide bins at their premises for customers to dispose of broken glass.

 

There again we (Brummies) are lucky to get our general wast collected these days.  

[Ulic]

Seems reasonable, tax at the point of production or import into the country based on weight so companies will minimize the size/weight of the packaging. The packaging is often excessive and wasteful.

[jak2002003]

Won't the companies just pass on the extra cost to the consumers?

 

This just seems a way for the government to get even more money.  

 

If it was serious about the environmental issues (not making money) they could make a law to totally ban none recyclable plastic and one use plastics.  There are plenty of alternatives out there for them to use already.

 

[johng]

Yes I agree just another government "money grabbing scheme"
"world leading tax" !! pffff.

There is money and jobs to be had in recycling....all that money thrown at failing banks ponzi schemes could have been better used ?

[Mukdahanman]

What took them so long?

[samran]

4 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Won't the companies just pass on the extra cost to the consumers?

 

This just seems a way for the government to get even more money.  

 

If it was serious about the environmental issues (not making money) they could make a law to totally ban none recyclable plastic and one use plastics.  There are plenty of alternatives out there for them to use already.

 

From a public policy perspective, taxes like this are ones which governments would rather not collect. 

 

The whole point of the tax is to get companies and consumers to move away from damaging and wasteful types of packaging. 

 

If the tax does it’s job properly, the government actually won’t be collecting very much. 

[zaZa9]

I just love responses like #5 and #6.

 

Its always like , "DONT DO ANYTHING , ITS GONNA  HAVE TO BE EXPENSIVE !"

 

Thats the  catch cry that got us all into this mess ... "do it on the cheap , and F*** the consequences !"

 

It also pangs of naivety because  it is simply  just believing everything a seller will tell you .

 

The washing machine is a good example.

The metal body actually costs more than molded plastic , but  with plastic   it wont  rust around the base and  the seams , will it  ? How many of us have had a w/machine ( or a car )  that still worked fine , but the body was shot ? So a washing machine made with some  metal that rusts actually means that while  they  could be made  cheaper AND    the body would last last longer  (  and be recycled easier ! ) ,  most  arent made like that .

So who benefits from making a full metal body washer ??

Not the consumer.

Dont get me started on cars  and planned obsolescence ..

 

The assumption that what we consume Now has to be the best and cheapest is utterly false .

 

 

Anybody that gives a hoot about the future , and would like to see the world  NOT left for our kids as   one huge landfill , should at least consider all the possibilities , and not off hand  reject any change as,  "Too expensive !"

 

Making products a bit more recyclable makes economic sense.

Somebody is already paying to dispose of the stuff that is non-recyclable  , and that you leave out on the footpath on Garbage Day , and that chump is you already.

 

 

 

 

[zaZa9]

Sorry , now I read  Post 6 as being ironic...

[ParakhGroup]

Thanks for this update and every packaging industry has its duty to run as per law and maintain a clean and eco-friendly environment.

[Prissana Pescud]

Well done UK. The world would do better to plant vast areas with trees and plants.

And harvest said trees to make paper packaging viable again. Trees give us oxygen, timber and paper packaging.

I encourage everyone to plant a tree. No need to hug it unless you want.

But they truly are the best sustainable positive resource that the world has.

[Cryingdick]

The refund on bottles and cans thing is in many places in the USA. The grocery stores are forced to maintain a dirty smelly recycling center in every store. When I did it a can was 5 cents as was a bottle. 

 

It would take 30 minutes waiting in line and getting slime all over yourself to get $5 or whatever it was. Now here is the thing. I had a garbage bin and a recycling bin that picked up all of the recycling from my home. 

 

So I was basically having to pack up this crap just for the deposit if I wanted it. Along highways in the USA there is the adopt-a-highway program so litter on the side of the road isn't really a big thing. From what I understand much of it just gets mixed back together in a land fill because there isn't the demand for it. So it was rather pointless. I guess it makes people doing it feel like they are saving the world and that's a warm feeling. Truly an exercise in futility that many places are realizing and changing the laws back to how it was. 

 

I prefer paper over plastic but for a place like the UK not so sure that works. There isn't enough forest left. When they talk about a 2 kilometer square fire raging across England you know trees aren't plentiful enough to start clear cutting them. Where I live it is easily sustained. However the environmentalists over and over said that paper is horrible. It seemed like they were under the impression that people were cutting down old growth trees and endangering the spotted owl etc.

 

The reality is that it is tree farms and the trees are as little as 6 inches around and taken for pulp.

 

But this is about England which is a tiny over populated island. Recycling won't solve the over population problem. There needs to be a discussion about having children. People even cite their children as a reason to save the planet. It is because people breed unrepentantly and  everybody feels entitled to bring children into the world. If you want to quadruple your carbon footprint have two kids.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Basil B]

On 2/18/2019 at 10:12 AM, jak2002003 said:

Won't the companies just pass on the extra cost to the consumers?

Yes they will...

But the consumers would just be paying it as tax another way.

Like with Wines, Beers, Spirits, Fags, etc, that tax offsets income tax but also serves a purpose in reducing consumption of such items.

[jak2002003]

2 hours ago, Basil B said:

Yes they will...

But the consumers would just be paying it as tax another way.

Like with Wines, Beers, Spirits, Fags, etc, that tax offsets income tax but also serves a purpose in reducing consumption of such items.

do you think that the tax on alcohol in the UK decreases its consumption?

[Basil B]

17 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

do you think that the tax on alcohol in the UK decreases its consumption?

possibly to a degree, unfortunately it does not target the right people (the young with a larger disposable income), but I do think it is a fair tax, just look at smoking it took a lot more than just taxing fags to reduce the amount of smokers. 

[sammieuk1]

There will be a counter claim from the manufactures of we are already paying for a plastic government bubble wrapped in Cayman havens with a clingfilm thin veneer of caring????