Direct Action is next step for the Anti-Bin Tax campaign

by Mark O 'Hehir Tue Jul 29, 2003 13:43

Everyone esle in the country has to pay bin charges so why should the cities be different. More empty posturing by political opportunists! The anti-bin tax campaign - a strategic alliance of spongers and wasters!!

by pat c - boggers against bin-charges Tue Jul 29, 2003 13:49

people outside cities dont have to pay it. they can resist if they so choose.

by Alan MacSimoin - Workers Solidarity Tue Jul 29, 2003 13:52

According to the latest figures less than 8% of waste comes from our homes. Most waste dumped in landfills is not domestic rubbish, but rather commercial, construction and agricultural waste.

Twenty years ago (in 1983) the Government put an extra 1% on workers' PRSI. This was to pay for local services, after they abolished domestic rates. Under the agreement reached in 1983, the councils were to be allocated money from this extra 1% contribution. But you just can't trust our rulers. Last year, for example, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council only got 48% of the money owed to them under this agreement.
Since then they have been trying to make us pay twice for services. We still pay the extra PRSI. To screw more money out of us and fatten up those services they want to privatise, we had the water charge. A long campaign of mass non-payment and physically stopping cut-offs forced the government to back down and abolish that charge.

Now they are at it again with the bin tax. The government reduces taxes on big business and their profits (Corporation tax is now the lowest tax on profits anywhere in the EU) and then tries to dip even deeper into the pockets of working people. In Sligo, for example, the refuse charge has shot up to €10 per bag - or over €500 per year.

Anyone who believes the government claims about the bin tax being fair or necessary probably also believed Charlie McCreevy when, just before last year's general election, he said "no cutbacks whatsoever are being planned, secretly or otherwise". Since the election the €10 billion Health Strategy has been shelved, and now Dublin's Mater Hospital has to treat some of its patients in the car park.

The pledge to end hospital waiting lists within two years has been torn up, and former Minister for Education, Michael Woods, was caught instructing his civil servants to lie about the school building budget. Parents were promised improvements to sub-standard schools, in order to get their votes, when a decision not to go ahead had already been taken.

In return for all the cutbacks we get charged more. The TV licence rose by 40%, the tax on bank cards by 108%, ESB bills by 13%, hospital charges by 26%, bus fares by 9%. Thanks to 'social partnership' our wages, on the other hand, are only allowed to rise by 3% in the private sector and nothing in the public sector until 2004.
The politicians (who are currently paying themselves an extra €12,800 each for passing their local authority seats to party colleagues, often family members), the big farmers and the bosses don't hold back when it comes to defending their interests. We should do the same, and no better way to start than by telling them to stuff their bin tax.

by Mark - Socialist Party Tue Jul 29, 2003 14:21

Direct action is now the only way to go. The legal route is well and truelly exhausted with the new law that allows non-collection. Campaigns that only took the legal route in the past without recourse to direct action invariably failed. Now that power over the descision to collect or not to collect lies with unelected county managers the government have left people with only one option - to act.
These campaigns have a mass charachter and the membership must be fully mobilised to prevent non-collection.
The idea that people in Dublin should pay because people are paying elsewhere is nonsense. No-one must pay! It is the experience of the introduction of a charge elsewhere and the subsequent privatisation and price hikes that makes this issue all the more pressing. Victory in Dublin could be the start of a nationwide fightback against cuts and privatisation.
On the waste issue - every locality should have a publicly funded recycling centre. The principle of the poluter pays should apply. That means the building industry, the corporations and agriculture - the sectors that create the most waste.
Of course ultimately the only way to solve the problem of polution is to take the means of production out of the hands of the wealthy minority who control every aspect of our lives and place the economy under democratic collective ownership.

by aaron Tue Jul 29, 2003 14:30

the home county of the minister of environment martin cullen td is now being used as the guinea pig for the bin tax which you must pay for every individual bin night with the charge being over 5 euro for removal along with the usual tax requirements all residents are now being provided with 3 wheelie bins for differant sorts of waste and the bins being taken away 1 a week for alternating weeks wo you can have food waste in your bin for 3 weeks which is very environmentally friendly i suppose considering it is virtually a return to the wild. this man must be stopped he reminds me of homer when he takes over as the sanitation coordinator of springfield and runs out of budget in a week this is the cullen solution be thankful and enjoy being the end user joke for all the preened peacocks in the dail (doll house)

by Andrew Tue Jul 29, 2003 14:48

Apperently Cullen has said he expects bin charges to rise to a figure around 700 Euros a year (presumbaly to ensure a large enough profit so the service can be privitised).

Plus they intend to re-introduce charges for water, probably to be another 200 Euro.

by Joe Momma Tue Jul 29, 2003 15:38

I don't support a flat bin tax, but surely a charge per collection make perfect sense? As far as I know this is in operation in Fingal at the moment.

Obviously waste from the commercial, industrial and agricultural sectors must be the primary focus of any waste management strategy, but does that mean we simply ignore domestic waste and allow households to generate as much waste as they like without penalty? I'd like to hear what strategy the Anti-Bin-Tax Campaign has for managing domestic waste.

As far as I can see, there has to be an incentive for the householder to reduce, reuse and recycle waste. How are we going to do this without some form of local charge?

by Mark - SP Tue Jul 29, 2003 16:30

As pointed out by some of the posts above, householders do not produce the majority of waste. However an incentive to recycle would be a propper recycling centre in all localities that took all recyclable waste. Householders do not choose to have three layers of packaging on pizzas, two on toothpaste etc. These come from the producers.

by Joe Momma Tue Jul 29, 2003 17:38

I'm aware that householders do not produce the majority of waste, but it's still a significant portion which cannot be ignored. I'd love to think that everybody will choose to reduce, re-use and recycle without an incentive, but experience shows us that this is not the case. People always had the choice not to use plastic bags, but it wasn't until the bag levy came in that people stopped using them. Green freaks like myself eschewed plastic bags for years, but it took a financial incentive to change behaviour on a large enough scale to make a difference.

Dublin has decent Bring Centres and the like, but how do you make people use them? Also, doorstep collection of recycleable material has less environmental impact than multiple car journeys to bring centres.

Obviously unnecessary packaging needs to be tackled also, but in my view any waste management strategy which fails to tackle the behaviour of the average punter is doomed to failure.

by Mags - Working Class Action Tue Jul 29, 2003 18:06

Well people might just possibly use the bring centres if they were open at reasonable hours.

My local bring centre is on the North Strand. It was opened amid much hoopla by the Lord Mayor a few months back.

This week there is an ad in the local paper saying that the centre is closed every Saturday from now on. It is open Monday-Friday 10am-4pm. I work full-time between those times (as do most people), so when do I 'bring' my recycleables to the centre? Do I just dump them at the gate and piss off local residents?

If the City Council were seriously committed to re-cycling then they would have the centre open at hours when it is accessible to ordinary people. If not a Saturday then one or two late opening nights per week.

I won't be holding my breath on that one.

by Joe Momma Tue Jul 29, 2003 18:38

I'd love to think that the only thing stopping people from using bring centres is the opening hours, but I fear that's not the case.

The bring centres in my area are open on Saturdays and on Sunday mornings. The centre you're referring to on the North Strand is a much bigger operation than a bring centre and is aimed at large-scale disposal, i.e. when you need to get rid of an old fridge or when you're clearing out your shed.

If they've stopped opening on a Saturday then I bet I know why: the local residents probably complained about nuisance!

by R Isible Tue Jul 29, 2003 18:38

The assertion that an extra tax/charge added to goods will produce a significant amount of recycling is one that needs to be backed up with concrete data: I know from having lived in a country where a 15 cent charge was added to each aluminium soft-drink can that it didn't produce any incentive for me because it was too much of a problem to gather all of the cans over a month (pain in the arse storing them, carrying them home from where I bought them, bring them to the distant and inconveniently located recycling centre). That's just an anecdote, but it illustrates some of the problems. A more important problem though is the one that you explicitly ignore: the waste problem is mainly not centred in households!

by Joe Momma Tue Jul 29, 2003 19:25

If you actually read my comments you will see that I explicitly acknowledge that the domestic sector accounts for only a minority of the country's waste.

However, the reason I bothered to comment in the first place is that I am growing tired of rhetoric from the Anti-Bin-Tax campaign which seems to suggest that domestic waste does not need to be tackled at all.

I'm willing to debate the effectiveness of financial incentives/disincentives, but in my view they have been shown to work. The example you provide is one in which the disincentive in terms of effort outweighed the financial incentive. This need not be the case in terms of domestic waste reduction: for example it does not take any extra effort to put recycleables into your green bin rather than your grey bin.

Also, your example shows why financial incentives are often necessary: laziness is a powerful factor.

by R Isible Tue Jul 29, 2003 19:49

my example shows that for those that can afford it laziness will lead to the production of the same amount of waste. Those that can't afford it will continue to consume the same tiny amount of resources with the same impact on the environment. The only difference for those people is that they will be poorer than they were before. By concentrating on supporting the further exploitation of those people and saying "yeah, domestic waste is less than a tenth of the problem, but let's concentrate on that rather than on industrial/commercial wate" you are explicitly choosing to ignore a massive elephant that's standing in centre of the living room while a bull runs rings around it smashing up the china.

This is about (as pointed out more clearly above by others) the increase of pre-existing taxes which were implemented to take care of waste in our society.

There may be a case to be made for saying that there should be free waste disposal (comprising separated aluminium/glass, compostables, plastics) provided for families earning below some generous threshold and a fine imposed if the separation isn't being done. That's NOT the same as supporting this unfair double taxation.

by Terry Tue Jul 29, 2003 20:34

Joe,

I would tend to agree that the Anti-Bin tax campaign are most vocal about the tax aspect of it but that is not to say it doesn't have a view on tackling the domestic waste issue. However I will add that the campaign is made up of numerous individuals and to a certain extent, it reflects that.

I also accept to a certain extent that people have sometimes to be 'encouraged' to do things and at one time I would have agreed, hitting them in their pocket would be a possible method. I no longer subscribe to this view, having watched the way things have unfolded and how cynically the politicians have attempted to load up huge costs on people through the bin tax, while the other sectors of the waste-pie get off lightly. But charging for the waste cannot result in any sort of recycling, if the facilities are totally inadequate or non-existant in some places. I can recall being in Germany 15 years ago in a relatively small town and back then, their recycling facilities were far better than anything this country has even now. We are way behind.

The bulk of our politicians and councillors have no green credentials whatsoever. It is a dellusion to think otherwise. The government have even gone as far as changing the law (July 2002?), so that the power to decide on issues of waste has been removed from the councillors to central government. They don't even have the power anymore to propose extra recycling bottle banks in the local supermarket carpark!

What we really need is a proper recycling infrastructure and a commitment to it. There is none at the moment. Recycling in this country as far as I am concerned is purposely being underfunded so as to set it up for failure. This will then make it easier to sell the idea of incinerators to the public. And this is already under way. Indeed an incinerator is planned for Dublin in Ringsend that will burn 500,000 tonnes of waste a year. There is no chance of recycling of paper, cardboard, plastic or wood occuring, because it will be burning down in Ringsend.

We need a cultural change and we need lots of facilities. At the moment, to be seen to recycle in this country, still has a hangover of looking slightly green and hippy. The government could change all this if it was committed. A huge marketing campaign, with facilties etc etc could well be the start. Other countries (though not many) have managed to increase recycling and thereby tackle their waste problem by achieving levels of 80% or more).

I definitely think that the Anti-Bin Tax campaign DOES need to broaden it's scope to include tackling the waste problem from the ground up, something like in the manner of the Galway Safe Waste Alliance has(http://gofree.indigo.ie/~ljhannon/gswasub.htm)
The campaign and all individuals alike should become familiar with the Zero Waste Policy initiative ( http://www.zerowaste.co.nz ) too.
I have been at various bin tax meetings, and members of the public do bring this issue up.

So I finish by saying why not get involved in the campaign and contribute in this very area you have pointed out.

Leaving it to the politicians, will just mean that we all get screwed and recycling will not increase. It is more likely to fall. And the waste crisis will not be tackled, although they are gearing up to tell us that incinerator is the solution. I don't think so.

At the end of the day private companies really do exist to make a profit, not to solve social problems. If anything they really need people to create more waste not less. Likewise power companies need people to use more power not less.

by d Tue Jul 29, 2003 21:07

What we really need is a proper recycling infrastructure and a commitment to it. Indeed an incinerator is planned for Dublin in Ringsend that will burn 500,000 tonnes of waste a year. We need a cultural change and we need lots of facilities. A huge marketing campaign, with facilties etc etc could well be the start. Other countries (though not many) have managed to increase recycling and thereby tackle their waste problem by achieving levels of 80% or more).

I definitely think that the Anti-Bin Tax campaign DOES need to broaden it's scope to include tackling the waste problem from the ground up, something like in the manner of the Galway Safe Waste Alliance has(http://gofree.indigo.ie/~ljhannon/gswasub.htm)
The campaign and all individuals alike should become familiar with the Zero Waste Policy initiative ( http://www.zerowaste.co.nz ) too.
If anything they really need people to create more waste not less. Likewise power companies need people to use more power not less.

by Terry Wed Jul 30, 2003 00:33

I think the last commentator may have mis-interpretated my statement regarding incinerators. The 'indeed' refers to the fact that the government rather than supporting recycling is doing the exact opposite -supporting incinerators. Everywhere that incinerators came in, recycling levels have either stalled or worse fallen. Incineration is not recycling. It generates a toxic ash, which is still at least one third the original volume. Incinerators by their nature burn mostly that which can be recycled.

As regards the change of cultural and building up an infrastructure, while it is something we can do to a certain extent as individuals, it's only up to a point. Ideally this would be pushed from the ground up by the people so that politics must take on their demands so that the change occurs in the broaden level of Irish society in our political institutions and structures too, so that it works with us and not against us, as it is currently doing now.

by Ozymandias Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:39

I don't see a valid case for demanding free rubbish collection.

Shoudn't we be recycling our waste rather than throwing it away?

by MG Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:53

...rubbish collection is not free. What do you think your PAYE taxes and PRSI contributions pay for?

by Andrew Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:52

Inevitably when some article opposing the bin tax is posted to indymedia some 'green' brings up the recycling red herring.

Whatever you feel about recycling (and I compost as well as doing glass/tin/paper) talking about it at the same time as the bin tax is dishonest. The tax has NOTHING to do with encouraging recycling. Someone who recycles everything then can will pay exactly the same as someone who recycles nothing.

Frankly the so called 'greens' who support or equivicate on the tax in the name of recycling are idiots. Far from promoting recycling you are doing the opposite, linking it with this tax will make many LESS willing to take recycling seriously. They will see it (rightly in this case) as a scam to make them pay more tax.

What you should be doing is helping to build opposition to the tax and in doing so start a discussion about what a real recylcing program would be like. Some (real) greens are already doing this and many local activists/campaigns are open to such arguments.

As for incentives - I wouldn't rule out some form of incentive BUT it should NOT also be a revenue raising measure for the government. We already pay for our local services through PRSI (a 1% rise replaced rates). Making people pay twice for them will be opposed.

by iosaf Wed Jul 30, 2003 13:44

Recycling is big business. I never get involved in the bin tax thing coz i'm not in ireland, but i do remember that when most London boroughs issued a "recycling" box to encourage recycling, I got "excited". Oh thought I, the world shall be a better place. I took the little recycled green box into my home and explained to my honest but lazy squatmates how we would use it. We shall put all our recyclable waste in here and save the local and greater environment. "but iosaf, they don't recycle plastic!" said one of the brighter ones, an attractive punky called Nadia, "yes, nadia you are completely right there, you really are the brightest" replied I. "And the box if you look iosaf is made from recycled plastic, recycled polymer plastic to be precise" added Nadia almost nonchantly. "You really are very clever", thought I. "And polymer plastic due to its unique bonding qualities, has what engineers call material memory" mused Nadia quite the brightest punky in Streatham that year. "oh you are onto something there, nadia, why don't we investigate the properties of recyclable polymer plastics?" quiped I. & so we did. Haines the waste collection company of London, indeed manufactures recycling bins, and the famous "wheelybin" from this material, and it does have "memory". You drop one from a five story block of flats balcony, and observe how over three days the bin will return to it's original moulded shape. But why was Haines not choosing to recycle this wondrous material itself a byproduct of Oil, and thus the WARS of fame in our modern age?
$$$. no-one had presented a "viable" economic incentive to recycle the material to the companies involved.

I suspect that this happens everywhere, recycling is a thought of by the public as being "worthy" but all too often is only about "profit".

It is long long past time that we had an "OPEN" debate on recycling, and just didn't use it as ecologically friendly carrot to tempt the donkey which is the average urban resident.

Serious Greens will and indeed _do_ do this.
and serious anarchists like Nadia and Andrew as well.

by Joe Momma Wed Jul 30, 2003 16:10

"What you should be doing is helping to build opposition to the tax and in doing so start a discussion about what a real recylcing program would be like. Some (real) greens are already doing this and many local activists/campaigns are open to such arguments."

Starting a discussion is exactly what I'm trying to do here, but I have to say I'm not encouraged by the response (Terry above is the honourable exception). If you're really serious about getting Greens involved in the campaign, the issues I'm raising need to be addressed. They are not red herrings.

If you took the time to read my comments, you'll see that I've already said I'm not in favour of flat rate charges, but I'm worried by the rhetoric of the anti-bin-tax campaign which seems to suggest that they will oppose ANY collection-based charge. The message being sent out is that people should be free to generate as much waste as they want, without financial disincentive - as a Green I can't support this.

The points which need to be addressed are growing in number, so I'll try to deal with them in summary form:

- Recycling: Recycling is only one form of waste diversion, and it is less desirable than reduction and re-use. The comments I've read above seem to suggest that the anti-bin-tax people only think in terms of recycling. Reduction should be the main aim, and here financial incentives can play a key role. The plastic bag levy is an example of a financial disincentive which led to massive reduction.

- Domestic waste only a minority of all waste: I think the estimate quoted was something like 8%. If anybody can convince me that 8% is not a significant portion of our waste problem, I'll shut up. I've already said that other sectors need to be prioritised, but I can't accept that you can just leave the domestic sector alone.

- 1% on PRSI: This is the mantra which worries me most. A flat-rate bin charge doesn't provide an incentive to reduce, re-use or recycle, but even the systems currently in place in Dublin and Fingal provide more incentive than simply paying for unlimited waste disposal through central taxation. In Fingal you can reduce the amount you pay by having your grey bin collected less frequently, and in Dublin you can pay less by getting a smaller grey bin.

- Incineration: I'm against incineration on the basis that it undercuts efforts to promote reduction, re-use and recycling. The incinerator proposed for Dublin will require a massive volume of waste to make it profitable.

I'll stick around for a proper debate, but on the strength of the correspondence so far I won't be rushing out to lend my support to the campaign.

by Andrew Wed Jul 30, 2003 16:36

Joe I'm actually not bothered whether or not more 'greens' get involved in the campaign - if you re-read what I wrote you'll see I was arguing it was in the interests of (real) greens to do so rather then the campaigns interest.

And again the bin tax is NOT related to waste reduction so there is no onus on the campaign to have a detailed position on this unrelated question. But if you actually check what people involved say you'll discover that waste reduction (in the form of shop packaging) is talked about almost as often as recycling.

'Greens' like you pretending that the bin tax is somehow about waste reduction are simply cutting off your nose to spite your face. And in general rubbishing the fact that the 1% PRSI hike was to cover rates just adds to the impression of 'Greens' as bearded 'middle class' sandal wearers who care more about trees then people. An impression that is often unfair (but perhaps not in this case).

by Ray Wed Jul 30, 2003 16:42

One of the problems here is that there are two colliding ideas of how services should be paid for. One the one side, Joe Momma is arguing that the more waste you produce, the more you should pay. On the other, the bin tax campaign is arguing that waste collection is a basic service, and as a basic service the amount you pay should be related to your income, not how much use you make of it.
The 'pay as you pollute' system suggested by Joe has its good points, but there are problems:
1 - This is NOT the system being implemented by the corporation, or in most places around the country. The charge is x00 euro a year - whether or not you have a compost heap or use your green bin. Generate one bag of rubbish a year and you will pay just as much as everyone else. This is not an incentive to reduce waste reduction, and I don't see why any Greens should support it.
2 - "What about Finglas?", you say. "What about a system where you pay for each bag of rubbish you generate?" The problem with this is that its regressive taxation. A family on a low income will generate more rubbish than a single stockbroker. This is true even if the stockbroker cares nothing for the environment, and the family do as much as they can to reduce waste. More people equals more rubbish.
Waste collection is a basic service, like clean drinking water, basic medical care, education for children. It shouldn't depend on an individual's ability to pay, instead it should be paid for by everyone. And that universal payment should be progressive, based on a percentage of your income rather than a flat rate.
Service charges, if they go uncontested, are likely to rise to the better part of a thousand euro a year. For someone on the average industrial wage, this represents 5% extra tax. There is a major difference between bins and the bags levy. Use of bags is very elastic in that its easy to switch to reusable bags, and the cost per bag is low. Even if the corpo introduced per bag charging, and even if people managed to cut the waste they produced in half *(much harder to do than to cut their use of plastic bags) they would still be facing an annual buill in the hundreds of euro.
The basic idea of service charges is to raise money through indirect, rather than income tax, and the goal is to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the worse-off. Its impossible to seriously discuss service charges in Ireland without addressing this.

* what _will_ happen, if per bag charging is introduced, is a massive increase in the amount of illegal dumping. People filling their boots full of black bags and driving into the countryside. People dumping their waste in amenity space. People burning rubbish in their back gardens - plastics and all - rather than paying for it to be collected.

by Yossarian Wed Jul 30, 2003 18:33

Imagine that every house had a reasonable weight quota depending on the number of residents. Collection of waste within this quota would be free (see below) with a tax rebate for those with significantly less waste. Those generating more waste would be penalised by a tax surcharge. A system such as this would on average keep the status quo in terms of paying for the service (through the 1% PRSI) but would also have an incentive/penalty clause built in to encourage people to reduce their waste. Also those who exceeded their limit would pay for it in proportion to their income.
The same could also apply to water charges.

by Joe Momma Wed Jul 30, 2003 18:34

"And again the bin tax is NOT related to waste reduction so there is no onus on the campaign to have a detailed position on this unrelated question."

I've said multiple times that I'm not in favour of a flat charge which does not encourage waste reduction. I'm interested in the Bin Tax Campaign's views on weight-related or volume-related charges, or other financial incentives to reduce waste. Surely the Bin Tax campaign has to take a position on this, and what I've heard so far is not encouraging.

Ray above addresses the real issue sensibly and I thank him for that. It's a shame it took so long for us to get down to the nub of the matter.

by pat c Wed Jul 30, 2003 19:03

The campaign DOES NOT have to take a position on anything other than opposing the charges. If you dont like that then go shag a tree.

If you want you can go set up a group which is in favour of bin charges according to weight. The state will be happy to have you and other "greens" doing their dirty work for them.

by Chekov Wed Jul 30, 2003 23:41

As far as I can see it, there is no chance of any serious measures to reduce waste being taken in Ireland in the near future. The government just ain't gonna do anything that would interfere with the right to make a profit. On the other hand there is a measure being implemented by the government which is likely to make the situation significantly worse. The bin tax, if succesful, will make the problem worse in a number of ways:

1) It will be, in effect, a subsidy for the direct producers of 92% of the country's waste, actually decreasing the incentives for them to reduce waste. These same people are also the producers of the rest, although this 8% passes through the hands of householders before disposal.

2) It is a big step towards privatisation which will create a rich industry whose entire point is to increase the amount of waste produced by the remaining 8%.

3) It will, without doubt, lead to an increase in illegal dumping which is as much of an environmental problem as landfills are.

4) Worst of all, it will associate the idea of environmentalism and waste reduction with another huge transfer of wealth from the majority of the population to the very rich. This will make it even harder for anybody who genuinely gives a damn about the environment to win any sort of audience for their ideas.

The bin charges represents a drastic escalation in the problems of waste disposal in Ireland. To me there is no greater priority for the environment than to stop the bin tax. The first thing that you do when dealing with a wound is to stem the bleeding and stop the problem from getting worse.

Of course stopping the bin tax won't cure the illness. However, if we can't stop it getting any worse, what chance do we have of succeeding in the much more difficult task of curing the patient? The major problems with our environment are closely related to the fact that it is always cheaper to pollute. And the guys who pull the strings of power are the same guys who are trying to make a profit. We could sit around devising up schemes that the government could implement to reduce waste. We could watch them ignore us while they destroy the plant, or we could do something about it. Or are you just somebody who does nothing criticising those who do something for not doing everything?

by Joe Momma Thu Jul 31, 2003 01:02

"Or are you just somebody who does nothing criticising those who do something for not doing everything?"

I'm not criticising anyone, I was just looking for a sensible debate here (perhaps that was foolish of me). I'm also trying to gauge whether the attitude expressed by pat c above is typical in the anti-bin-tax campaign. If it is then I won't waste my time further.*

As part of the Green movement I'm active on a whole range of issues. The idea that any one issue can be dealt with in total isolation goes against the grain for me.

*Until somebody else posts another story on the topic and I allow myself to be drawn in again.

by pat c Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:19

The Anti-Bin charges campaign is a single issue campaign which opposes a regressive tax. Thats what its about, its not going to dance to the tune of middle class tree-hugging greens. Yes, its that simple, people disagree with you and are not going to be bludgeoned into accepting your views.

Dont be surprised when people get annoyed when you demand that they take up other issues. Try going to a GAA club and demand that they start playing rugby.

There is nothing stopping you from starting up a campaign which supports a gradated bin tax based on consumption, conservation measures, whatever.

by Joe Momma Thu Jul 31, 2003 13:18

If that is indeed the approach of the Anti-Bin-Tax campaign then I'll leave it alone.

I've no desire to slag off or undermine the campaign, but if it rules out these ideas then it's not for me.

by Terry Thu Jul 31, 2003 14:40

Joe,
The Anti-Bin Tax campaign is mainly a single issue campaign so as to keep the focus on the issue of
double-taxation. But there are many people both in the campaign directly and I am sure residents who
are refusing to pay the Bin Tax that have strong views on the environmental and recycling aspect.

You said that recycling is just one issue and waste reduction should be considered too. I am in total
agreement there, but when you move into the issue of waste reduction, like less packaging, the
spotlight switches to the retail sector and industry. They have done very little to tackle this. This
is outside of shoppers control. Chekov is right when he made the point:

>1) It will be, in effect, a subsidy for the direct producers of 92% of the country's waste, actually decreasing the
>incentives for them to reduce waste. These same people are also the producers of the rest, although this 8% passes
>through the hands of householders before disposal.

Getting back to the campaign, I can see you are disappointed with the attitude of some of the population, in
that they seem to only be concerned about not paying the bin tax and apparently little concern for the environment,
as apparently reflected in the low rates of recycling in this country. Perhaps we do need a bit of a cultural
change with regard to recycling, but I am confident that given a proper recycling infrastructure and an education &
marketing campaign, this would change. Not only that so far the waste debate in our national media has been a
disgrace, but what else would you expect from the corporate media. So far the debate has been posed the solution
as being Landfill vs Incineration. Recycling we are told won't work here, but somehow Swedes are different and
that's why it works there. And waste reduction, perhaps the most important part of it, and perhaps because this
falls on the private sector's (retail+industry) lap has disappeared altogether from the discussion.

Mention has been made of the success of the levy on plastic bags. Indeed it has been a success, but the implication seems to be that this model will therefore work if scaled up to the bin tax. I disagree. But looking at the
plastic bag issue, before it came it, I found it hard to find decent Green Bags. I would also add that shops were
just too willing to not only give you 'free' bags, but to give excess amounts. What I am saying; the effect of the
levy has not just be on the end-consumer, but also on the shop-owners too.

Regarding, incentives for reducing waste, I do agree that is the nub of the problem if we want to solve our waste
crisis. Personally I do feel the Anti Bin Tax campaigns should get involved, simply because unless there is a
solution devised democratically by the people, the issue will come up very soon again. A proper solution would have
a lasting and satisfactory impact. What the government is proposing and analyzed very well by Chekov, is that it
will actually made the waste crisis worse.

So what are my solutions for reducing waste? Well straight off, you are not tackling industry and straight off you
are up against the issues of globalization and so called unfair competition. In numerous countries, proposed deposit
schemes for bottles, cans and batteries have been opposed under WTO rules. So here we have a self appointed World Court of arbitrary power that is actually over-ruling the sovereignty of countries. Surely the issue of waste is
a social problem to be solved by the people. We are all crying out for the 'correct' solutions, but what we have
and more of what we are about to get is anything but. We cannot comprehensively solve the waste problem without
tackling much broader issues that block our path.

So then what incentives are there for reducing waste amongst the 8% group? Not many. But why, because the way things
are structured, most of the viable possibilites have been blocked off. If waste collection was charged by weight,
this is not neccessarily the best measure, as we know, plastic can be light and bulky, but even if we did, we would
then in this scheme be encouraged to buy items with less packaging. In the oligarchy that is the super-market
business, we actually have the situation, where the items on the shelves with more packaging are cheaper than those
without. We have no way of forcing them to use say even cardboard packaging over plastic. We are constantly given
the line, that the consumer has choice or the power of markets. That's total hogwash. What we end up with is that to reduce our waste costs on one side, the consumer would end up pay more on the other (in the shops). That to me is no incentive. One more thing, one of the most toxic things in the domestic waste stream is batteries and
(the long) flurosecent light tubes (the white powder is mecuric oxide by the way). This makes up a tiny volume,
yet is perhaps the worst part. Where's the encouragement to reduce here, especially when every toy for Christmas,
seems to be battery operated? But getting back to the Plastic Bag levy -how about charging industry a levy for
packaging. That would make a difference, but then that would be 'unfair' competition, but mainly because every
item in the shop is affected, which translates into many different business, as opposed to plastic bag manufacturers
which I am sure were never giving the bags away free in the first place. It's just that the shops were taking
the hit on that cost.

And super-markets got out of the obligation to take back packaging, with the introduction of the Repak scheme. So
far I don't see how the Repak scheme has done anything to reduce packaging. It's done a little bit to recycle
internal waste (such as boxes etc) to super-markets.

By the way I heard in the UK, when the large wheelie bins came in, the volume of waste increased quite significantly. I suspect it is true for here. They should have given people the choice of selecting a smaller wheelie bin at the very least. And people with young children and lots of waste, is probably related to disposal nappies. That's another issue, but again, the Bin Tax will not solve it.

So the way I see it, it is not possible to tackle waste reduction, without unlocking all the other problems.

by Joe Momma Thu Jul 31, 2003 16:48

Terry - thanks for those comments, there's a lot of sense therein.

I strongly agree that the disposal/recovery cost of packaging needs to be internalised by industry, i.e. there should never be a situation where the item with more packaging is less expensive than that without. Scams like Repak allow industry to wriggle out of their responsibilities in this regard, and thus prevent this internalisation.

All the issues you mention, from the WTO on down to incineration, are being addressed by Greens worldwide, which is why I'm comfortable as part of that movement. Waste management, as you point out, is a social problem, or at least it would be if it weren't constantly pushed "out of sight, out of mind". This is why, like you, I'd like to see anti-bin-tax campaigns get more involved in pushing the solutions.

One small note on wheelie bins: it's a little known fact that in Dublin City you CAN get a smaller wheelie bin and thus pay about half the charge. This is one of the amendments the Greens suggested which was adopted by the City Council. I don't mention this to defend the flat rate charges, but the fact that the City Council don't advertise this fact is further proof that their commitment to waste reduction is deeply suspect.

by Chekov Fri Aug 01, 2003 00:15

You replied to the last sentence in my comment, the only one that could be interpreted as mildly terse (my apologies if it offended you). You didn't reply to anything else. If you really are looking for debate why not answer the substantive points? Basically, as I understand it, the bin charges represent a significant attack on the environmental situation in Ireland, for the reasons stated above. The Greens are supporting this attack. How do you defend them?

by Joe Momma Fri Aug 01, 2003 01:25

Sorry for not replying in detail, but at this I'm struggling to keep up! I take on board all your points insofar as they apply to a flat-rate bin charge, but I don't think any of them should stop us talking about financial incentives to reduce waste:

"1) It will be, in effect, a subsidy for the direct producers of 92% of the country's waste, actually decreasing the incentives for them to reduce waste. These same people are also the producers of the rest, although this 8% passes through the hands of householders before disposal. "

There is truth in this - as I said above waste producers must be made to internalise the costs of disposal or recovery of their waste. However I cannot accept that householders are purely waste receivers rather than waste producers. As long as any element of choice remains (as I assume it must), householders will play a role in how much waste has to be recovered/disposed of. Also, it's not as if the 92% is some monolith which can be tackled with a single policy: it's made up of smaller sectors such as commercial, retail, agricultural, construction and demolition, industrial etc., However, if these sectors can be made to internalise the environmental costs of their activities, the financial disincentives to creation of waste by householders need not be very high.

"2) It is a big step towards privatisation which will create a rich industry whose entire point is to increase the amount of waste produced by the remaining 8%. "

I would agree that current government policy is pushing us in this direction. Incineration is also going to create a huge disincentive to waste reduction, as these facilities will require massive quantities of waste to be viable. This is why any system involving financial disincentives must be explictly targeted at waste reduction, i.e. not a flat-rate charge. However, it should be noted that privatised waste disposal is failing throughout the country as people cop on to waste reduction - private waste operators are cutting routes that are no longer profitable. This isn't much fun for the householders no longer served by waste collection, but it gives some hope that these services will be brought back into public hands. We must publicise the lesson that privatised waste collection is not compatible with environmental aims.

" 3) It will, without doubt, lead to an increase in illegal dumping which is as much of an environmental problem as landfills are."

This is certainly a problem, and we have seen this behaviour by the private sector when faced with environmental charges. There's a difficult balance to be struck here between enforcement and cultural change. Ultimately, as somebody said above, waste management needs to be seen as a social problem, and behaviour like illegal dumping needs to be socially unacceptable. This is why it's unhelpful to suggest to people that the government has a duty to deal with as much waste at they care to produce. This is analogous to people in middle class areas who feel they should have the right to a place to park their cars, even though such places don't exist. I accept the anti-bin tax campaign's work on resisting the flat-rate charges, but I think it's massively unhelpful to suggest that householders don't have a responsibility to reduce waste. We can't afford to perpetuate the idea that waste is somebody else's problem.

" 4) Worst of all, it will associate the idea of environmentalism and waste reduction with another huge transfer of wealth from the majority of the population to the very rich. This will make it even harder for anybody who genuinely gives a damn about the environment to win any sort of audience for their ideas."

That's obviously a big problem with flat-rate charges, but I don't see that this would be the case with a sensible system of financial incentives to reduce, re-use and recycle. Like I say, the disincentives involved need not be very high, and could be linked to means to avoid inequity.