This is a shame because it was actually a very rare thing from a Conservative government. A half way decent, well written and interesting document containing some thoughtful observations. That led up to a series of utterly unambitious targets backed up with pathetically small amounts of money but for once there was nothing much wrong with the analysis of the scale and the nature of the problem.
All the right kinds of language can be found in the document. It talks about sustainable production. It invokes the principle of polluter pays. It recognises the importance of achieving a circular economy. Importantly it also comes from a clear perspective that it isn’t enough to rely on consumer pressure and nudging the behaviour of end users if we wish to reduce the mountain of waste. It is vital that we get on top of problems of production and distribution and that in turn requires a strong focus on research and development.
Some of the things the Waste Management Strategy document reveals are shocking even to those of us who think we are aware of the scale of the environmental challenge. Try these facts for instance and see whether you realised quite how bad the problems are:
- The average life span of many products that we buy and use in daily life is actually shorter than it was 20 years ago. We are throwing things away quicker and living more wastefully.
- Since 2013 recycling rates have plateaued at around 45%. So 55% of what we dispose of is burnt or buried and we are not improving that.
- 10 million tonnes of food and drink are wasted post farm gate every year. That is worth £20 billion. All that waste food creates methane when it biodegrades.
- We use 5 million tonnes of plastic in the UK every year. Between 2015 and 2025 if we do not act marine plastic pollution is set to treble world wide to 150 million tonnes.
Faced with such utterly shocking facts this is what the UK government is doing.
- Plastic bags will be taxed more heavily
- Plastic straws will be phased out
- Cosmetics will not be allowed to contain microplastics
- Local councils will be encouraged to introduce food waste recycling schemes.
Yet do those actions remotely match up to the scale of the problem that is acknowledged to exist? As soon as you search for serious money being devoted to large scale action the weakness of the Waste Management Strategy quickly becomes apparent. For example, it costs significant amounts of money to set up an anaerobic digestor and to collect and deliver food waste from every home and business in a way that doesn’t use up more energy than it generates. So I searched the document carefully to see exactly how much help local councils were being given to transform their collection processes. Then I searched again. All I could find was a vague promise that making such changes would eventually be cost neutral to them.
I shall of course be using the one Green seat we have on my own District Council to try and get a promise from the Leader of the ruling local Conservatives to commit to putting in new collection and processing mechanisms so that we can comply with the wishes of his own Secretary of State and collect local food waste separately. I expect him to say that he cannot commit to doing so until he knows where the money is coming from. Vague promises from a Secretary of State who may not stay in post and belongs to a Government that may be on the way out are rarely enough to persuade budget holders to act. Good intentions have to come with real money if they are to mean anything.
This isn’t just a problem with one part of the Strategy. It is a problem that permeates the whole document. Nowhere can you find proper financial commitments. Everywhere you can find nice well meaning sound bites. A strategy that isn’t backed by money isn’t one that is being taken seriously.
Billions are being spent on road building schemes. Billions are going on building Hinkley Point to provide us with over priced power sometime in the distant future if the Chinese and the French get their technology right. Billions have gone into the pockets of building contractors via the government’s ‘Help to Buy’ scheme. The waste management strategy has to settle for allocating the odd ten million here or there.
The contrast is shocking and worrying. At best it means that Michael Gove is genuinely trying to do something serious but is being denied money by Philip Hammond and the Treasury who still see waste management as something of a fringe issue. At worst it means that Michael Gove has come up with a strategy that sounds good in the headlines but delivers nothing remotely adequate to the scale of the task.
I leave readers to decide for themselves which is the most likely. And with the thought of all those mountains of rubbish that are building up or being burnt whilst politicians continue to think that we can deal with the consequences of a failed throwaway culture without a serious rethink about what the government spends our money on.