In the environmentalists’ mantra, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, recycling is the third-best option. Here in Jersey, we can only recycle bottle-shaped plastic. Any other plastic in the recycling bins is removed by hard-working people at conveyor belts for burning, or renders whole batches ‘contaminated’, to be passed through to the incinerator anyway.
Reducing is first in the list, and we have a growing number of small shops and outlets in Jersey where we are encouraged to bring our own containers back again and again to be refilled from bulk supplies, or simply to pick up fruit and vegetables devoid of plastic films, trays and boxes.
Since these perfectly viable alternatives exist, is it not time to start tackling the issue at source? The cost of collecting, sorting and recycling waste currently comes out of our taxes, rates, and partly from the profits made from recycling aluminium and steel cans.
Yet we did not profit from the plastic-forming machines, nor were we involved in the marketing decisions to pre-package every item. Those who introduced the plastic revolution increased their profits, reduced their handling costs and increased their sales. Should they not pay for the clean-up operation?
Could we introduce a surcharge on single-use plastic in all its forms, paid by the importer? To back this up, should we not penalise businesses for not reducing their waste, for producing waste that is not recyclable, and for not bothering to separate and recycle what they do produce?
The income produced by the miscreants who do not make more effort to follow best practices could pay for the introduction of better, automated recycling facilities, and for the recycling of waste where it is financially unfeasible at the moment. The business costs of those who do make the effort would fall due to reduced rates, taxes and waste charges. Shoppers would naturally gravitate to the businesses who care, and so enjoy the lower prices.
