Banned wagon
A weekly survey of the things our rulers want to prohibit THE generation now in power is the first to have been raised on a twice-weekly diet of Blue Peter. And doesn't it show? Long afternoons spent collecting milkbottle tops for the programme's guidedog campaign have resulted in a devotion to recycling — irrespective of whether or not it is beneficial to the environment.
The European Parliament has voted to beef up the European recycling directive on packaging. Under the new rules, there are specific rules laying down what proportion of various types of waste must go to recycling plants. By 2006, 60 per cent of glass must be recycled. Fifty-five per cent of paper must also be recycled, along with 50 per cent of metals and 20 per cent of plastics. Incinerating materials and using the heat to generate electricity, as is now done in several British plants, does not count. Nor does using waste materials in alternative applications — crushed glass, for example, is used in road construction. You can only fulfil your recycling targets by turning old bottles into new bottles.
The cost of ensuring that these targets are met will be immense. Across Europe, it will require an initial investment of £18 billion and cost the economy a further E4 billion a year. Such expense might be justified if it were guaranteed to lead to less pollution, yet the process of recycling — of plastics in particular — involves considerable quantities of fossil fuel and the use of many hazardous chemicals. Would it not be better to try to reduce the amount of plastics used in the first place? The fact is that recycling does little to discourage wasteful use of packaging materials: goodygoody Germany, which has already met all the recycling targets demanded by the directive, produces twice as much waste per consumer as does Finland. This column is not in the habit of calling for things to be banned, but why not simply outlaw that hateful modern commodity, the plastic bag, and be done with it?
Ross Clark
Previous page
