U.K. supermarkets and related businesses are announcing today that they have set themselves a target of ensuring all plastic that they use can be recycled by 2025.
I welcome the news. It would be churlish not to do so.
At the same time, I despair at it. This is a voluntary code. There are no sanctions. And no enforceable disclosure requirments that I have seen reported.
For reasons that have been obvious since the 1970s, when Friends of the Earth began highlighting the issue, plastics are a major problem and threat to our planet, whatever their uses might be. It has taken until 2018 to get supermarkets to recognise the issue. And there is no certainty that they will now deliver on their promises.
The reality is that voluntary codes ultimately rarely work well. The best comply. The rest free ride. This is why we do not have voluntary funding for government. We have taxes instead. Even then we still get abuse, but it's less than it otherwise might be.
The lesson needs to be pointed out. When an issue is important there is no room for voluntary codes: law is required. This is the case here.
Michael Gove will trot along to applaud this morning as these supermarkets launch their Code. But the case for stronger action is already known on this issue.It should be Gove in the lead. He isn't. And that's why the celebration should be decidedly muted. Real action - legally backed - has to follow.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
How many people even know this stuff exists ?
http://www.symphonyenvironmental.com/d2w/
Not me…
First time posting here after being an avid reader for 6+ months…
@Andy Crow — looks good on first inspection but a small amount of digging suggests that oxo-degradable plastics just add to the micro-plastic issue. It’s a sticky topic and unfortunately I don’t think oxo-degradable are the answer. I was also suspicious of the lack of obvious links to research on their website
Directly from http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16263
“1. Key findings
The overall conclusion of this review is that incorporation of additives into petroleum- based plastics that cause those plastics to undergo accelerated degradation does not improve their environmental impact and potentially gives rise to certain negative effects.”
I usually agree with most of your comments so I’m sorry that this first exchange is more confrontational.
Johan G says:
Well, I have to admit to not being an organic chemist, and criticism of this manufacturing process may well be justified. I find it hard to believe it has worse environmental effects than ‘orthodox’ plastics, but I may be wrong in that assessment.
So I won’t be taking offence.
Thanks for your kind words.
Good points about voluntary codes rarely working well, and encouraging free riders. You only have to look at the way the Guardian online is begging for money to realise a lot of people are reading the content without making a contribution.
The answer as you suggest would be State intervention.
What, for the Guardian?
It should absolutely apply to the Guardian. It’s a classic example of the failure of voluntary codes. Their losses are widely known and the current voluntary model leads to a vicious circle of decline. More people who free-ride will read it online, and fewer people are chipping in with funding. Advertisers don’t want to promote their wares to free-riders as they’ve usually got little disposable income, so the Guardian’s revenue falls further. Even government wants to pay less for job vacancies there, as the readers are not the target audience. Many of them probably can’t afford to come for interviews. So they double down on the requests for voluntary donations and the cycle repeats.
It can only end in bird’s handful of ways, a paywall, closure or state intervention. The people working within commuting distance of those London offices need feeding, and have already described personal experiences at food banks.
If the UK state doesn’t do it, then another State will e.g. KSA, Qatar or Russia.
Guardian voluntary payments are growing, fast, I gather
They are now bigger than advertising revenue
It seems to be developing a successful business model
That strategy seems to be working for the Guardian at least, they are on track to breaking even, primarily because of increased ‘reader revenue’: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/apr/25/guardian-on-track-to-break-even-as-company-halves-its-losses
They also ended 300 FTE roles, though. Time will tell if it works out for them in the future, but people are beginning to realise that quality content has a cost and many a ‘free’ thing on the internet relies on giving up marketable personal information. A good case study on new financing models based on voluntary contributions are the rise of Patreon and services like that. There are quite a few people on Youtube who now have a regular income out of that – who have the incentive to produce quality content for a regular audience, rather than getting as many views as possible for the ad revenue.
Whether a model like that can work on a larger scale and to fund newspapers and the like is another question, but I would applaud the attempt to keep the content free and asking for voluntary contributions, rather than paywalling the lot as many other outlets have done.
In this context, the issue of subscription options for a newspaper is a ridiculous red herring. Whether it adopts a policy of a paywall or voluntary donations is hardly life threatening.
A government has a duty of care regarding issues that have a direct affect on the quality of life of its citizens and future generations. Markets are incapable of dealing efficiently and effectively with matters of such importance to people and planet. Pussyfooting around with voluntary codes of practice is a political sop to the business community, which can exacerbate the potential for positive outcomes by delaying beneficial change and ensuring a level playing field – the latter should be welcomed by the business sector.
Think how many lives could’ve been saved if tobacco advertising had been banned by courageous governents in the 1950s when the link to lung cancer was unequivocally proven (http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87?utm_source=njam&utm_campaign=sponsorcontent&utm_medium=display).
I agree – it is a wholly different issue
That’s why I sought clarification in the first place
From Alberta, Canada : I pay for the Guardian subscription and I think it is worth it. I had never before read the Guardian when only hard copy was available. I did read for free for a while and then decided to pay. So things do work well sometimes and in this case perhaps in an unexpected way.
I enjoy and admire your work Richard.
I too pay the Guardian
Thanks