Public issues
Waste
Introduction
The government has watered down proposals to make businesses more responsible for waste.
We produce over 8 million tonnes of waste each year. Much of this colossal waste mountain is the result of poor product design. A vast number of goods are created without a thought for what will happen to them at the end of their useful life. No prizes for guessing – they end up in the dump.
We look at current government proposals for product stewardship schemes, and what these will mean for consumers.
Product stewardship
The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 gives the government new powers to introduce “product stewardship schemes”. These schemes can be used to make manufacturers and retailers take more responsibility for the goods they sell.
In 2008, a draft discussion document flagged over 20 products as potential priorities for stewardship schemes (see 'What's on the table', below). But current plans indicate we’re unlikely to see a rash of schemes anytime soon.
What is product stewardship?
Product stewardship means that goods should be designed and manufactured to minimise their environmental impacts, including the impacts from their disposal. Overseas, product stewardship schemes are increasingly common and have been developed for a wide range of consumer goods from TVs to tyres.
The Waste Minimisation Act, originally drafted by former Green MP Mike Ward, aims to put us in step with overseas trends. Under the Act, stewardship schemes can be developed to prohibit the sale of a product, control or prohibit the use of certain materials, or require manufacturers and retailers to take back end-of-life goods for recycling.
What's on the table?
Prior to the 2008 election, the Ministry for the Environment drafted a discussion paper listing over 20 products and wastes for which stewardship schemes could be developed. Of these, seven were fingered as priorities for action. Electronic waste, a rapidly growing waste stream, was one of them. Other priorities were food waste, green waste (such as garden waste), tyres, treated timber, agricultural chemicals, and construction and demolition waste.
But things changed post-election. A revised discussion document released by the ministry in March 2009 listed just three products for which stewardship schemes “may” be developed. These are agricultural chemicals, used oil and refrigerant gases. The revised document says voluntary schemes may be set up for other wastes – but this will largely depend on whether businesses are willing to take part.
Current proposals are disappointing. If consumers are going to have effective options for reducing waste, a much more comprehensive approach to product stewardship is needed. The OECD’s 2007 report on New Zealand’s environmental performance also signals the need for more action. Among its recommendations, the report calls on the government to increase regulatory support for recovery or recycling of “priority wastes” such as post-consumer electronic goods.
The Australian government is proposing a mandatory stewardship scheme for electronic goods. These goods create a particularly nasty waste problem because of the toxic substances used in many appliances. Details of the Australian scheme, which will focus on computers and TVs, are expected to be finalised by November 2009. We’d like to see a similar scheme here.
The waste levy
With product stewardship proposals watered down, the main impact of the Waste Minimisation Act will be felt through the waste levy.
From 1 July 2009, all landfill operators are required to pay a levy of $10 for every tonne of waste that comes through their gates. This levy is being passed on to consumers and businesses through higher dumping fees.
If you put out your trash in an official council rubbish bag, the levy also means you’ll be paying more to buy the bags – though you probably don’t need to panic too much. Ministry for the Environment spokesperson, Martyn Pinckard, reckons an extra 20 cents per bag is all most consumers will pay – that’s an increase of around $10 a year for households that use a bag a week.
The aim of the levy is to increase the price of waste disposal and, ultimately, to help dissuade us from our wasteful ways. But whether an extra 20 cents a week will be enough to do this is debatable. The current economic climate is likely to have a more immediate impact on waste generation. There’s a well-established link between economic growth and waste. When growth declines, the amount of waste we produce drops. The reverse also holds: high growth rates mean more waste.
Where your money goes
The $10 tax will have at least one tangible outcome. The Act requires the money we pay through the levy to be spent on waste-reduction projects. Based on available data, a sizable amount of cash could be raised. Each year, we dump around 3.2 million tonnes of waste into landfills. With the levy set at $10 a tonne, that’s a potential income stream of $32 million a year.
However, this multi-million-dollar pie has to be split several ways. Half is earmarked for distribution to the country’s 73 local councils. Each council’s cut will be set according to the population it serves. The other half (minus administration costs) will go into a contestable funding pool administered by the Ministry for the Environment. Organisations can apply to this fund for money to set up their own waste projects.
What’s not clear is whether levy income will simply displace existing funding. For example, councils could use their share to fund services they already provide, such as recycling, rather than direct it towards new projects. There’s also a possibility that levy income may displace funding for the Environment Ministry’s own work on waste. Funding for the ministry has already dropped to $69.9 million for 2009/10, down from $83.7 million in 2008.
Just how effective the waste levy will be may not be known until it’s reviewed in two years. Decisions already made by the government are likely to impact on what’s achieved. Earlier this year the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, announced an end to “Govt3”, a waste-reduction and resource-efficiency programme operating across government agencies.
Landfill charges
Exactly what you pay to dump a tonne of rubbish will vary depending on where you live. Wellingtonians pay $93.25 a tonne. Christchurch residents pay around double that: $194.50 a tonne. Waiheke Islanders are charged $181 a tonne to dump their household waste. How much you pay is influenced not only by your location but also by who owns the landfill. Some landfills are council owned; others are owned by commercial operators and their charges will include a profit margin.
Minimising waste
Tips for waste-watching at home
- Think about what you’re buying. Are the batteries for your MP3 player rechargeable? Can you refill your printer cartridges? Is there too much packaging on that brand of moisturiser/cereal/kid’s toy? Do you need a plastic bag – why not take your own?
- Look for products with an independently certified eco-label such as Environmental Choice.
- Compost food waste or set up a “worm” farm if space is tight. Around 45 percent of the average domestic rubbish bag is kitchen and garden waste.
- Re-use and recycle where possible. Most areas have recycling facilities for paper, glass, plastics (grades 1 and 2) and cans.
Did you know?
- An estimated 8.7 million tonnes of solid waste is produced each year. Of this, we recycle 2.4 million tonnes; 3.1 million ends up in “cleanfills” (disposal sites for inert waste); and 3.2 million is dumped in landfills.
- Eleven percent of landfill waste is potentially hazardous. A significant portion of total hazardous waste also gets poured down drains and ends up in wastewater treatment stations.
- Around 55 percent of landfill waste comes from business and industry.
- By weight, around 12 percent of the average rubbish bag is estimated to be packaging. But because packaging is often very light, it can take up a lot of space. Ministry for the Environment figures suggest it can make up to half the rubbish bag.
The plastic bag debate
Fifty years ago, plastic shopping bags were a rarity. Now, they’re everywhere. While they’re not the biggest environmental problem we face, Consumer believes reducing their use is easy and we support measures to do this. Cutting back means we create less waste, and reduce the economic and environmental costs of disposal.
Public pressure has already led some retailers to start charging for bags. In April 2009, The Warehouse introduced a 10-cent charge for its plastic bags. The company says profits will be donated to community groups.
From 3 August, shoppers at Foodstuffs supermarkets (New World and Four Square stores nationwide and Pak’n Save stores in the South Island) will have to pay 5 cents for a bag – no word yet on how profits will be spent.
Take your own bags and you can avoid paying extra. If you’re wondering how to replace all those free plastic bags you’ve got used to, www.getreal.org.nz has suggestions. The site is run by a group of waste-free enthusiasts and includes instruction on how to make a bin liner out of newspapers. For the more radical, Get Real suggests putting your rubbish straight in your bin without a bin liner.
The degradable alternative
Degradable plastic bags are sometimes touted as an alternative to conventional plastic. They’re designed to break down when exposed to certain heat and light conditions.
Jo Knight from the Zero Waste Trust says the problem is these bags don’t break down properly in landfill conditions. Some biodegradable bags made from corn starch or plant-based cellulose can be composted, says Jo, and these may be an option for food waste - but only if they’re composted along with the food waste.
Our view
- Product stewardship schemes have the potential to make inroads into waste reduction. However, current proposals are far too narrow.
- Schemes also need to be investigated for common consumer goods. Electronic waste should be a priority, along with other potentially hazardous post-consumer goods.
- Higher charges for disposal can encourage people to create less waste. But at the current rate of just $10 a tonne, the new waste levy may be more effective at raising revenue than reducing rubbish.
More information
There are many websites with advice on ways to reduce your waste. Here are some of them:
- Ministry for the Environment: www.mfe.govt.nz and www.sustainability.govt.nz
- Sustainable Households: www.sustainablehouseholds.org.nz
- Zero Waste Trust: www.zerowaste.co.nz
More from consumer.org.nz
Report by Jessica Wilson.