This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/21/pay-as-you-throw-away-five-ways-to-cut-off-waste-at-the-source

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Pay as you throw away? Five ways to cut off waste at the source Pay as you throw away? Five ways to cut off waste at the source
(4 months later)
How are we going to crack waste? Emily Barr’s zero-waste week has been a graphic illustration of how individuals can dramatically reduce the amount of non-recyclable waste we produce – if we’re prepared to put in the effort. Recycling, composting and energy from waste are all ways of dealing with the problem once it has arisen. But it’s better to prevent waste in the first place, and that needs action by businesses and governments. Here are five ideas to help cut waste off at source.How are we going to crack waste? Emily Barr’s zero-waste week has been a graphic illustration of how individuals can dramatically reduce the amount of non-recyclable waste we produce – if we’re prepared to put in the effort. Recycling, composting and energy from waste are all ways of dealing with the problem once it has arisen. But it’s better to prevent waste in the first place, and that needs action by businesses and governments. Here are five ideas to help cut waste off at source.
The first, and most controversial, is important because it makes any other effort at waste prevention more effective. The coalition’s Localism Act took away councils’ powers to charge residents for the weight of rubbish they produce. A “pay as you throw” (PAYT) switches waste from a fixed charge to a metered service like electricity or gas, saving money for those who waste less or recycle more. Examples from across Europe show that well-designed PAYT schemes can cut household waste by 10% because they provide a direct incentive to householders – and therefore save councils money.The first, and most controversial, is important because it makes any other effort at waste prevention more effective. The coalition’s Localism Act took away councils’ powers to charge residents for the weight of rubbish they produce. A “pay as you throw” (PAYT) switches waste from a fixed charge to a metered service like electricity or gas, saving money for those who waste less or recycle more. Examples from across Europe show that well-designed PAYT schemes can cut household waste by 10% because they provide a direct incentive to householders – and therefore save councils money.
Plastic bags are hard to recycle and a major contributor to litter, both on land and at sea, which makes them the focus of our second suggestion. We’d extend England’s charge on single use carrier bags – due to come into force in 2015 – so that it applies to all bags and all businesses. A simpler scheme in Wales has had a dramatic impact on the number of bags issued. England’s exemptions are confusing and undermine the aims of the charge.Plastic bags are hard to recycle and a major contributor to litter, both on land and at sea, which makes them the focus of our second suggestion. We’d extend England’s charge on single use carrier bags – due to come into force in 2015 – so that it applies to all bags and all businesses. A simpler scheme in Wales has had a dramatic impact on the number of bags issued. England’s exemptions are confusing and undermine the aims of the charge.
In 2012/13 the Furniture Reuse Network reused 2.7m items of furniture and electrical equipment, preventing over 100,000 tonnes of waste and saving low income families around £350m. The recession has dramatically increased the demand on third-sector reuse organisations, and supply hasn’t always kept up. So our third item would be a local authority reuse target on household furniture and electrical items. This would not only prevent waste, but would also make a considerable difference to the lives of many people.In 2012/13 the Furniture Reuse Network reused 2.7m items of furniture and electrical equipment, preventing over 100,000 tonnes of waste and saving low income families around £350m. The recession has dramatically increased the demand on third-sector reuse organisations, and supply hasn’t always kept up. So our third item would be a local authority reuse target on household furniture and electrical items. This would not only prevent waste, but would also make a considerable difference to the lives of many people.
It is particularly difficult to avoid waste when out and about. If you get thirsty in the park, buying a bottle or can of drink may be the only choice – but a network of public water fountains in prominent locations (our fourth request) would provide a waste-free alternative. It would also cut impulse purchases of sugary drinks. This isn’t a new idea: Rome has maintained its traditional drinking fountains, while Sydney has invested in new ones. Water companies could be encouraged to sponsor fountains, showcasing the quality of water available direct from the tap.It is particularly difficult to avoid waste when out and about. If you get thirsty in the park, buying a bottle or can of drink may be the only choice – but a network of public water fountains in prominent locations (our fourth request) would provide a waste-free alternative. It would also cut impulse purchases of sugary drinks. This isn’t a new idea: Rome has maintained its traditional drinking fountains, while Sydney has invested in new ones. Water companies could be encouraged to sponsor fountains, showcasing the quality of water available direct from the tap.
Finally, there’s food. The 2012 Food Waste Bill did not get voted through, which was a huge shame. It would have placed an obligation on large supermarkets and manufacturers to donate a percentage of their surplus food for redistribution. Other surplus food, unfit for human consumption, would have been required to be made available for livestock feed. A number of (real or perceived) barriers to food donation would also have been removed.Finally, there’s food. The 2012 Food Waste Bill did not get voted through, which was a huge shame. It would have placed an obligation on large supermarkets and manufacturers to donate a percentage of their surplus food for redistribution. Other surplus food, unfit for human consumption, would have been required to be made available for livestock feed. A number of (real or perceived) barriers to food donation would also have been removed.
Though our suggestions are not all new, it seems appropriate that the best ways to prevent waste are tried, tested and ripe for recycling.Though our suggestions are not all new, it seems appropriate that the best ways to prevent waste are tried, tested and ripe for recycling.
Chris Sherrington and Peter Jones are senior consultants at Eunomia Research & Consulting. The ideas described here are explained in more detail in Eunomia’s Waste Prevention Wish-list.Chris Sherrington and Peter Jones are senior consultants at Eunomia Research & Consulting. The ideas described here are explained in more detail in Eunomia’s Waste Prevention Wish-list.
Interested in finding out more about how you can live better? Take a look at this month's Live Better Challenge here.Interested in finding out more about how you can live better? Take a look at this month's Live Better Challenge here.
The Live Better The Live Better Challenge is funded by Unilever; its focus is sustainable living. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.
Challenge is funded by Unilever; its focus is sustainable living. All
content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled
advertisement feature. Find out more here.