Zero Waste by Robin Murray, Greenpeace Environmental Trust 2002

More documents

Recommendations

Info

At Byker and Neath, protestors chained themselves to the incinerator gates. At Edmonton and Sheffield, Greenpeace occupied the chimneys. A national network was formed in May 2001, bringing together all these groups in Britain and Ireland. In July 2001 Greenpeace was acquitted of charges of criminal damage by a north London jury, on the grounds that its crime was justified since it was preventing greater harm to those living near the plant. The strength of local feeling was reflected politically. In May 2000, the Conservative Party published a waste policy that proposed a five-year moratorium on incineration, kerbside recycling for every home in Britain, and a dense network of compost sites throughout the country. The Liberal Democrats published a similar manifesto at the same time. From mid-2000 there was a marked change in government policy. It departed from the ‘light government’ approach in three principal ways: 1. compulsory recycling targets for local authorities were included in the Waste Strategy 2000 in May 2000; 2. the first specialised recycling institution was announced in the Strategy, the Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP), to promote markets for recyclate; 3. the Spending Review in July 2000 announced direct government support for recycling, reportedly in excess of £500 million over three years, supplemented by £50 million for community recycling schemes. In the areas of targets and finance, there were administrative moves to weaken the support of these measures for recycling. The targets were set much lower than was hoped (25% in 2005, 30% in 2010 and 33% in 2015) in line with the maximum levels officials believed could be achieved, and consistent with ‘30:50:40’ packages being advanced under the integrated option. More strikingly, it was found that DETR officials had classified incineration ash used in road building and construction as recycling, with the result that those authorities with large incinerators rose overnight to the top of the recycling league. Similarly, when the Spending Review allocations were broken down, it transpired that £220 million was to be allocated to PFI waste projects, all of which to that date had been incinerator-led packages, £140 million was reserved for recycling, and the remainder was part of a package of £1.127 million allocated to local authorities to spend on environmental and cultural services at their discretion. Given the relatively weak position of recycling within the context of local authority budgetary politics, this left collection authority waste officers with few potential earmarked funds on which to base a radical reorientation of their collection systems, so that an important opportunity for promoting recycling was lost. 87 In spite of these difficulties, the shift in government outlook was marked. WRAP was established rapidly and appointed as its leading adviser the principal US expert on secondary material market creation. In October 2000, the Government ‘de-listed’ incineration as eligible under the Renewables Obligation (although as a compromise pyrolysis and gasification were still included). The proposed shift in the EU packaging targets from recovery to recycling signals the end of the PRN subsidy for incinerators. The Parliamentary Select Committee that considered Waste Policy, reporting in March 2001, urged the Government to adopt the more ambitious recycling targets of 50% by 2010 and 60% by 2015, and re-iterated the call of an earlier Select Committee to impose a tax on incineration as part of a more general disposal tax. The Welsh Assembly in May 2001, as part of its response to the Kyoto targets, agreed a planning ‘presumption against’ incineration to secure the space for the development of ‘recycling and sustainability’ 88 . 126 Zero Waste 127
C o n c e rned over the widening conflict over waste strategy t h roughout the country, and the lack of pro g ress being made in meeting the EU Landfill Dire c t i v e ’s diversion targets, the G o v e rnment called a Waste Summit in November 2001, and announced a review of policy to be undertaken by the P e rf o rmance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office. None of this is yet sufficient to slow the momentum behind the incinerator-led plans and contracts being advanced by the disposal authorities. Yet it signals a change in the political climate, which provides the context for immediate measures that would switch Britain’s waste economy from its current preoccupation with incineration to intensive recycling and the advance of each of the aspects of Zero Waste. 128
Page 1 and 2:
As a pollutant, waste demands contr
Page 3 and 4:
F o r e w o r d Stephen Tindale, Gr
Page 5 and 6:
outlines the political, financial a
Page 7 and 8:
F rom the perspective of pollution,
Page 9 and 10:
disposal. The issue of toxicity is
Page 11 and 12:
primary forests … Humankind has i
Page 13 and 14:
I I Zero Waste Fair and foul At one
Page 15 and 16:
phasing out the production of the s
Page 17 and 18:
innovative Zero Waste thinkers, Mic
Page 19 and 20:
the technical circuit of inorganic
Page 21 and 22: But here, too, the advance has been
Page 23 and 24: m a c h i n e ry of mass production
Page 25 and 26: Inset 1 Vertical compost unit mater
Page 27 and 28: Recycling as market economy If the
Page 29 and 30: IV The Road to Zero Waste 1. Settin
Page 31 and 32: After that the household rate is pu
Page 33 and 34: Europe by no means all landfills ha
Page 35 and 36: • support groups. Many recycling
Page 37 and 38: past have tried to limit these imba
Page 39 and 40: are targeted. In economic terms, re
Page 41 and 42: V The Green Materials Revolution Th
Page 43 and 44: municipal sector. The eco-efficienc
Page 45 and 46: The commodity-service economy One o
Page 47 and 48: Designing for cycles The trends ide
Page 49 and 50: parallel to increasingly far reachi
Page 51 and 52: Canada, the USA and Australia. New
Page 53 and 54: V I I Re-orienting UK waste The pol
Page 55 and 56: Germany. 65 Only 8% of household or
Page 57 and 58: where returns are high, while remai
Page 59 and 60: The important point to note is that
Page 61 and 62: • minimising costs, not advancing
Page 63 and 64: VIII The integrated option As a res
Page 65 and 66: The attraction of these arrangement
Page 67 and 68: These inquiries are defensive. They
Page 69 and 70: Climate change and Significance pla
Page 71: • the exemption from business rat
Page 75 and 76: • the introduction of measures to
Page 77 and 78: 3. The recycling of bulky waste •
Page 79 and 80: • introduce a ban on untreated mu
Page 81 and 82: Inset 4 Halifax, Nova Scotia In the
Page 83 and 84: 2. Restructuring incentives There w
Page 85 and 86: make recycling and composting finan
Page 87 and 88: conversion scheme from their share
Page 89 and 90: of operation and monitoring of prac
Page 91 and 92: a subsidiary of an existing waste c
Page 93 and 94: X Beyond Recycling I have argued th
Page 95 and 96: This has been effective when pollut
Page 97 and 98: Inset 5 Producer Responsibility and
Page 99 and 100: challenge comes when the cause of t
Page 101 and 102: auditing bodies, and by schemes suc
Page 103 and 104: 186 of regional sub-centres. Local
Page 105 and 106: Beyond the waste ghetto Zero Waste
Page 107 and 108: testing. Never has waste been so cl
Page 109 and 110: • Central government intervenes i
Page 111 and 112: workshop, May 1998, Berlin. 15 USEP
Page 113 and 114: strong, and that increasing numbers
Page 115 and 116: supportive of the ‘integrated opt
Page 117 and 118: Press, 2000. The book also outlines
show all

Zero Waste by Robin Murray, Greenpeace Environmental Trust 2002

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?