| |
CRAIG COMMENTS |
The cost of waste
Wednesday 2 August 2006
Waste disposal is a growing problem worldwide. The 20th century ushered in the era of built-in redundancy and increased the volume of rubbish disposal enormously. Everything thrown away has a cost. If it is disposed of legitimately, there is a cost to the shire council – if it is disposed illegally, it is at a cost to the environment.
In a very large rural municipality such as East Gippsland, the costs are greater for individual ratepayers. It costs more per ratepayer to provide rubbish collection services over such a large area and there is no incentive to non-ratepayers to dispose of rubbish carefully. These costs are an unfair burden on the local economy.
Curb side recycling and anti-litter campaigns encouraging Australians to keep Australia beautiful have been around for decades, yet still some will not hear the message. What is not well known is that campaigns such as Keep Australia Beautiful and Clean Up Australia which help reduce the impact of roadside rubbish have generally been funded by the manufacturers of the packaging and products that are collected as litter. These businesses are totally opposed to implementing successful and popular programs like South Australia’s beverage container deposit scheme, which require them to play a greater role in recycling.
In the Victorian State Government’s recent sustainability action statement, the government has continued its support for the National Packaging Covenant - a voluntarily code which relies on curb side recycling and consumer responsibility. The government also announced its intention to introduce a 10 cent levy to curb the use of plastic bags as an incentive to reduce their use, even though public support for this measure is marginal. There is strong support, however, for container deposit legislation (CDL) which is designed to ensure the return of cans and bottles for recycling. In fact, 78% of people across my electorate were in favour of CDL when surveyed recently. South Australia has had such legislation in force for over 20 years. If Victoria introduced similar legislation, there is little doubt that other eastern states would follow suit.
Some rubbish, like paper and cardboard, eventually degrades but steel, aluminium and glass remain an eyesore for decades and there is a need for strong legislation to ensure that such containers are recycled. There is a good case for the deposit to be at least equal to the 10 cent levy on a plastic bag and for a large share to go to local councils to recompense them for collecting containers not recycled through the proper channels.
The reason why this vital legislation has not been introduced is because supermarkets, packaging and drink companies have substantial political influence and are generous donors to political parties. Many contribute to both sides of politics which proves that the donation is not based on any political philosophy but purely to ensure that they receive favoured treatment whichever side is in government.
CDL does work. In the countries and states where it has been implemented, there are higher recycling rates, less contamination of recycled products and strong community support. The reason the powerful packaging industry opposes CDL is unlike the plastic bag levy where the consumer bares the cost, CDL is an extended producer responsibility scheme which means that the producer has a continued responsibility for recycling of the beverage container.
The industry describes the National Packaging Covenant as “a successful environment strategy for the industry”. One would question whether it is as successful strategy for the environment.
