Recycling on its own is not enough to tackle the UK's ever growing waste problem. people must change their habits and consume less in the first place, but even more important is the reduction of packaging waste and we must reuse and repair more. We have become, in the UK and the USA especially, it seems, a throw-away society where it is also cheaper, unfortunately, to buy new rather than to repair. As an example we should see the fact that an Epson computer printer of the low range costs UK£29.99 but when the ink reservoir was full up six month into its use and the warranty did not cover that a quote of £72 for a new ink reservoir was given and another £70 for fitting the said ink reservoir. How come that the unit itself, with the ink reservoir, can be sold for £30 while a repair would cost £110 more than a new one? This just is the wrong way round. We must change this, again.
In its report, “Consumption: reducing, reusing and recycling”, the Economic and Social Research Council argues that the process being made by increasing recycling rates is undermined by the sheer volume of waste that is being generated by all of us. Therefore the ESRC advocates 'social marketing' as part of the solution.
It estimates that, if household waste output continues to rise by 3% a year, the cost to the economy will be £3.2 billion and the amount of harmful methane emissions will double by 2020.
The report highlights the many ways that social science can contribute to waste policy development, either by devising initiatives, by providing tools to evaluate their relative effectiveness or by helping to understand why they did or did not work.
Commercial marketing tools could be used, said the ESRC's Professor Ken Peattie, to influence public behavior for the benefit of society as a whole.
This social marketing, he said, can be successful because if focuses on the target audience's point of view, taking account of any emotional or physical barriers that may prevent people from changing their behavior.
We must return to the old ways of glass bottles that have a deposit on them which is refunded when the bottle is returned, as well as take on board tried and tested methods from other countries, such as the reverse vending machines for aluminum soda and beer cans. In the USA many families – especially those forced to live on the street, but also others – make a living from collecting, including removing them from litter bins, such cans and feeding them into the reverse vending machines where they are paid a couple of cents each per can. We will not be getting far by punishing households for not recycling “properly” but will get a lot further if we give people incentives to recycle.
Guilt messages are ineffective, as are punishments, in this instance. A better way is to focus on the benefits of a greener lifestyle as encouragement to people to reduce their consumption. If people can see no benefit it it for them – the greater good may appeal to some but not all – then many will not do it. But do we have the political will to see this through as a country? Do we also have the will as individuals to make this work by firstly reducing our consumption and secondly by ensuring that everything can be recycled in one way or the other?
© M V Smith, July 2007
Recycling is not enough
