When trying to find a solution for reducing garbage levels and landfill use, one very popular issue comes to mind, bottled water. This fad has become a hot topic for waste management and its concerns because of the undeniable amounts of plastic waste it produces each year. Although this plastic is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over eighty percent of these bottles are simply thrown away (Baskind, 2009). The idea of banning water bottles has been raised by several municipal governments but the city of Toronto has actually voted to ban the sale of these plastic products on all municipal premises by the year 2011. The article “Toronto bans water bottles” published by Canwest News Services explains this decision as well as other measures which the city plans to take in order to reduce their waste production.
By banning the sale of bottled water on premises such as City Hall and golf courses, the government will be implementing regulatory control in the sense that they plan to prohibit this specific action within the city and furthermore, will enforce consequences if these regulations are not met. As when other regulatory controls are put into action, an alternative has been proposed for this situation, including upgrades of already existing fountains to ensure that Torontonians have access to clean and safe drinking water (Canwest News Services, 2008). The government has attempted to approach the ever-increasing issue of plastic water bottles in the past by tactics such as moral suasion. This included stainless steel bottle campaigns and the education and awareness of plastic water bottles’ effects on the environment, but it is evident that the government felt a stronger strategy was needed to address the problem.
Others might argue that this problem could be handled using economic incentives as opposed to regulatory control. Instead of completely banning the sale of bottled water, an additional tax could be added to the cost of the product. The idea behind this tax would be that consumers would gradually become more and more discouraged to purchase bottled water and would begin to participate in more sustainable practises such as carrying a reusable water bottle with them and filling it up at the fountains. In order for this incentive to work successfully, fountains within Toronto would still have to be upgraded, therefore providing an alternative option to paying an increased amount for “packaged” water. Also, it would have to be advertised and made aware that a supplementary tax was being added to the price of the plastic product, or else consumers may be careless and continue to purchase the problematic bottles. Although command and control regulation is most appropriate when monitoring costs are very high, the process of monitoring this additional tax would not necessarily be out of proportion.
Another example of an economic incentive that could be implemented would be a deposit/cash back system. When purchasing bottled water, consumers would pay the normal price for the product as well as a small additional fee. Then, consumers would have the option of returning their emptied bottles to a specified location and would be given back that additional fee for doing so. This technique is currently used for waste products such as beer and liquor bottles as well as milk containers. It would convince buyers to return their bottles, causing more plastic to be recycled than thrown in the garbage. Also, even if consumers weren’t returning their bottles to compensate their deposit, it is likely that someone will use this system to their advantage to make a profit. Unfortunately, monitoring a process such as this might involve high costs because bottled water is such a commonly used product.
When it comes to this specific issue, I believe that it would be more appropriate to use regulatory control than the mentioned economic incentives to approach the problem of plastic water bottles and the ever-increasing levels of waste that are associated with them. I think it is necessary for Toronto to ban the sale of bottled water if the city wants to make a significant reduction in the amount of waste that enters their landfills. Although increasing the price of bottled water would divert some citizens from purchasing the product, many consumers would still not be financially affected by the additional tax. This means that bottled water would still continue to be purchased, and waste levels would not decrease by the desired amount. In the other case, a deposit/cash back system would cause more bottles to be recycled but there is still a very good chance that some would end up in landfills. For either situation, manufactures would still be fabricating the plastic product, which elucidates even more environmental concerns. If bottled water was completely banned in the city, citizens wouldn’t even have the option of purchasing it on premises (drastically decreasing plastic waste levels) and furthermore, the demand for the fabrication of plastic water bottles would decrease as well. In other situations, economic incentives have proven to be a less harsh and more appropriate approach, but as history has shown in the past, sometimes government command and control is necessary to avoid serious environmental harm.
References
Baskind, C. (2009) Five Reasons Not to Drink Bottled Water. 11 May 2008. http://lighterfootstep.com/2008/05/five-reasons-not-to-drink-bottled-water/. Accessed 15 November 2009.
Canwest News Services (2008) Toronto bans water bottles. 3 December 2008. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1027243. Accessed on 15 November 2009.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Ban the Bottle
What does the city of Toronto have in common with the small Australian village of Gundaboon? Both municipalities are currently pursuing new laws that would ban the sale of bottled water. As reported in a recent news article, Toronto City Council recently voted to ban the sale of plastic-bottled water on city premises. If the regulation is fully implemented, the Ontario capital would be the first large city in the world to adopt such a ban. Meanwhile, Gundaboon in New South Wales, Australia has implemented a similar law that bans such sales throughout the entire town. This is part of a growing trend to “ban the bottle” by municipalities and other organizations, such as universities. The University of Winnipeg also recently implemented a ban.
Proponents of the bans cite environmental sustainability as the main reason for the push. While the single-use bottles are recyclable, many do not make it into blue bins, and ultimately pile up in landfills. As many people are now aware, the plastic in these bulky bottles then takes many decades to degrade. Thus, we are seeing implementation of regulatory control in order to address this environmental problem. However, economic incentives could instead be used in attempting to reduce the amount of plastic going to landfills. These incentives could come in the form of a deposit return system. A specific monetary deposit could be required at the time of purchase, then returned to the consumer if and when they bring bottles to a recycling facility. These incentives could help to address the problem in two ways. First, consumers stand to lose money if they do not return their used bottles, and thus would be more likely to ensure they are recycled. Second, the addition of a deposit seemingly increases the retail price of bottled water. So consumers may choose not to buy bottled water, thus also reducing accumulation.
However, such a system of incentives presents challenges. It would be very expensive to implement and administer, both to the retailers and governments. Retailers would have to make changes to their transaction systems, and would bear the responsibility of forwarding the collected deposits to the governments. Governments would have to hire new staff for administration and for handling returns. The costs to the former would be passed on to the consumer, while the costs to the latter would ultimately fall on the tax-payer. In each case, this is regardless of if they buy bottled water or not. Costs to the bottling companies would be minimal. They would continue to obtain the plastic for their bottles from recycled material, while continuing to sell their product to retailers, all without involvement in the deposit return system.
In the case of bottled water and reducing the environmental impact it causes, I prefer a system of regulatory control over economic incentives. The incentive system carries many complexities and complications between the 4 groups involved: the producers, the retailers, the consumers and the government. While all but the government contribute to the landfill problem, all but the producers incur the costs of the proposed solution. Yet the producers continue to profit from sales, and it could also be argued that they contribute the most to the landfill problem by bottling the water to begin with. Therefore it does not seem to be a fairly balanced solution. Regulatory control carries less complications. A straightforward ban in a municipality directly reduces plastic accumulation in that municipality’s landfills. It also does more to improve environmental sustainability. The production and sale of bottled water creates negative impacts beyond just plastic waste. Much energy is spent in production and transportation of the bottles to market, with even more being spent during recycling. This expenditure creates pollutant emissions. A ban on sales curbs all these negative impacts. While this does greatly affect the producers, it was they who originally created the environmental problem. Water is readily available to people in almost all parts of Canada, and the developed world. The impact caused by these companies is not necessary, and their profits should not trump the environment.
Water bottling companies profit from a resource of public domain that should not facilitate private profit, all while causing negative environmental impacts. This practice, in itself should not be allowed. A ban on bottled water sales is a step in the right direction.
Reference:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1027243
Proponents of the bans cite environmental sustainability as the main reason for the push. While the single-use bottles are recyclable, many do not make it into blue bins, and ultimately pile up in landfills. As many people are now aware, the plastic in these bulky bottles then takes many decades to degrade. Thus, we are seeing implementation of regulatory control in order to address this environmental problem. However, economic incentives could instead be used in attempting to reduce the amount of plastic going to landfills. These incentives could come in the form of a deposit return system. A specific monetary deposit could be required at the time of purchase, then returned to the consumer if and when they bring bottles to a recycling facility. These incentives could help to address the problem in two ways. First, consumers stand to lose money if they do not return their used bottles, and thus would be more likely to ensure they are recycled. Second, the addition of a deposit seemingly increases the retail price of bottled water. So consumers may choose not to buy bottled water, thus also reducing accumulation.
However, such a system of incentives presents challenges. It would be very expensive to implement and administer, both to the retailers and governments. Retailers would have to make changes to their transaction systems, and would bear the responsibility of forwarding the collected deposits to the governments. Governments would have to hire new staff for administration and for handling returns. The costs to the former would be passed on to the consumer, while the costs to the latter would ultimately fall on the tax-payer. In each case, this is regardless of if they buy bottled water or not. Costs to the bottling companies would be minimal. They would continue to obtain the plastic for their bottles from recycled material, while continuing to sell their product to retailers, all without involvement in the deposit return system.
In the case of bottled water and reducing the environmental impact it causes, I prefer a system of regulatory control over economic incentives. The incentive system carries many complexities and complications between the 4 groups involved: the producers, the retailers, the consumers and the government. While all but the government contribute to the landfill problem, all but the producers incur the costs of the proposed solution. Yet the producers continue to profit from sales, and it could also be argued that they contribute the most to the landfill problem by bottling the water to begin with. Therefore it does not seem to be a fairly balanced solution. Regulatory control carries less complications. A straightforward ban in a municipality directly reduces plastic accumulation in that municipality’s landfills. It also does more to improve environmental sustainability. The production and sale of bottled water creates negative impacts beyond just plastic waste. Much energy is spent in production and transportation of the bottles to market, with even more being spent during recycling. This expenditure creates pollutant emissions. A ban on sales curbs all these negative impacts. While this does greatly affect the producers, it was they who originally created the environmental problem. Water is readily available to people in almost all parts of Canada, and the developed world. The impact caused by these companies is not necessary, and their profits should not trump the environment.
Water bottling companies profit from a resource of public domain that should not facilitate private profit, all while causing negative environmental impacts. This practice, in itself should not be allowed. A ban on bottled water sales is a step in the right direction.
Reference:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1027243
Monday, November 16, 2009
Regulatory Control for Recycling in Devon
The Plymouth City Council in Devon has implemented a number of tough penalties for people who do not recycle, or who put the wrong things in the recycling or the garbage. There are some residents who do not recycle properly, and others still who do not recycle at all, so the City Council decided to be stricter about enforcing the rules of recycling. In an article entitled “Householders face tougher recycling penalties” written by Richard Savill and Christopher Hope in 2008, the consequences put into place for people who do not recycle properly are examined. The city Council used to make people pay a fine of £50 if they broke the laws, but they have increased the fine to £110 if the regulations for recycling are broken, which is the maximum amount that the fines are allowed to be. They also sent around a questionnaire to each household, asking the household to nominate one adult who will be responsible for the recycling bins that get put on the curb and for what goes in them.
This makes it easier for the City Council to persecute one person because they can lay the blame on that person.
This is an example of regulatory control because the government is telling the citizens what they must do, and making consequences for them if they do not follow what they have said. In many other cities, the same recycling laws apply but it is harder for the government to be able to tell who the one at fault is when the recycling regulations are not followed. Especially in the case of apartments and houses where many adults live, the city cannot always tell who the person who should be fined and persecuted is. However, with the system set up in Devon, it is very easy to be able to tell because one adult in each household has declared themselves responsible for it. Instead of using regulatory control in this instance, the Plymouth City Council could have used economic incentives and instead of punishing the residents for breaking the rules, they could be rewarding them for following the rules. The Council is being very stringent and there are many people in Devon who are not pleased with the fines and punishments that are being brought on them. Many of the residents believe that the penalties are too harsh and it is making a lot of them not want to recycle. Erin Pickles, the Conservatives’ shadow Local Government Secretary said “We should be making it easy for families to go green, not extending the intrusive, noisy, heavy hand of the state” (2008).
Some of the economic incentives they could put into place would be to reward the households and businesses who recycle properly by giving them money for every bag of recycling they have or for every less bag of garbage they have. They can also give businesses tax rebates if they produce a smaller amount of waste. I believe that regulatory control is important in many cases and I do think it is a good idea for there to be a fine for people who do not follow the law, but I think that the fine that the Plymouth City Council in Devon implemented is too high. I think that if they used more economic incentives, more people would be willing to recycle and would not be as frustrated and angry with the government. Many people can be lazy when it comes to environmental issues if it makes life a little more difficult for them, but if there is some reason why they should recycle which benefits them directly, they would be more willing to do what is right and what they have been told to do.
Reference
Savill, R., Hope, C. Householders face tougher recycling penalties. Telegraph.co.uk. 27 May 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2038124/Householders-face-tougher-recycling-penalties.html. Accessed 14 November 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
