Until recently, most people in the waste industry had assumed that it was impossible to reduce the amount that was produced and were concentrating on making better use of things. But lately that assumption has been questioned. For one thing, the rate at which the rich world produces garbage has slowed.
Between 1980 and 2000 the amount of waste produced by OECD countries increased by an average of 2.5% per year. Between 2000 and 2005, the average growth rate fell to 0.9%. That was just ahead of the population growth rate (0.7%), but far behind the economic growth rate (2.2%). The OECD describes as “a fairly strong relative decoupling between municipal waste generation and economic growth”, although it does express some doubts about the reliability of the data. The European Union has detected a similar trend in several European countries as has CyclOpe, the research institute.
Reducing the amount of waste that is produced makes a lot of sense, as long as it does not cost more, either in environmental or economic terms, than to eliminate it in the usual way. Governments hope it can help cut both greenhouse gas emissions and waste management costs. But they are not sure what is the best way to encourage it.
Some try to persuade consumers to waste less. The easiest method is to pick up the trash less often. In areas of Britain where dust collectors come every two weeks, recycling rates are 10% higher than elsewhere.
Another tactic is to make households pay by volume for the garbage they generate, rather than through a flat fee or local taxes. Many places in Europe. America and Asia have adopted “pay-as-you-go” schemes. (In Taiwan, heads of households even have to dump their own garbage in the truck). About a quarter of Americans live in communities with such programs. The EPA estimates that they reduce trash volume by 14-27% and increase recycling (which is generally still free) by 32-59%.
There are drawbacks. Illegal dumping of waste tends to increase slightly as people try to avoid paying. And households generally complain a lot if they have to pay more for garbage to be collected. Some communities have responded by offering rebates to those who throw less, a more pleasant way to package the same idea. But most local authorities have simply opposed the idea. When the British government offered them money to experiment with pay-as-you-go schemes earlier this year, none signed up.
Businesses generally see themselves as a softer target than consumers. It can be argued that manufacturers bear some responsibility for the amount of waste that rich countries produce. They often have an incentive to reduce waste anyway, as most already pay for volume disposal. There is even a name for the constant reduction of the materials used to make the same products: “lightening.” It’s not just electronic devices that have gotten smaller and lighter over the years despite improved performance, but many other things as well, from cars to plastic bags.
The average aluminum beverage can is only half as thick as it was in the 1960s, according to Molson Coors, the firm that introduced this type of packaging in 1959. Its US subsidiary has reduced the weight of its cans by 7%. in the last five years. only. That means savings not just on the metal itself, but also on shipping and even cooling – thinner cans cool faster.
EU officials, in particular, are eager to rush with light weight. WRAP, the UK agency charged with reducing waste, is trying to promote it for various types of packaging. It financed trails of a lightweight flap lid for food cans, which it believes could save 15,000 tonnes of steel each year in Britain alone. Heinz, a giant food manufacturer that participated in the trial, hopes that adopting the new lids will save it 400,000 a year. WRAP has performed similar tests on thinner glass and plastic bottles, with equally promising results.
WRAP also coaxed Britain’s biggest supermarkets and food suppliers into signing a voluntary agreement to halt packaging growth last year and start reducing it from 2010. Last July it announced that the initial target had been met. , despite a 1.8% increase in sales. Some companies go much further: In 2007, Tesco pledged to cut its packaging by a quarter by 2010.
In theory, consumers could steer companies toward reducing waste by purchasing products that are easy to recycle, say, or have only minimal packaging. To some extent, this is happening. Tesco’s Alasdair James says British consumers see the environment as their third priority after price and convenience. But many governments are trying to give vegetation a further boost with mandatory waste reduction schemes. Some impose fees on certain products, similar to bottle deposits, to ensure they are disposed of safely. Thirty-six states in the United States, for example, charge for tire removal. States spend the money on cleanup programs or pay others to run them. Many of the tires are mixed with the road surface or burned in cement kilns. Several other states have “early recall fees” for computer and television engines. So have Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, among others, and China is working on a plan.
The problem with rate schedules is that all products in a category are subject to the same charge, whether they are easy or difficult to remove. That doesn’t give manufacturers any incentive to incorporate easy removal into product design.
One answer is to ban certain substances altogether, thus eliminating the need to dispose of them later. Several places, from San Francisco to the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, have banned or severely restricted the use of plastic bags. The EU banned the use of various heavy metals and flame retardants in electronic products in 2006 and recently proposed to expand the scheme. Several US states were so impressed that they copied the EU rules.
