Kindly sponsored by the Environmental Services Association
Date: Monday 29th September, 18.00 - 19.00
Location: Andante, Hyatt
Speakers: Greg Barker MP Cllr Neil Clarke, Leader of Rushcliffe Borough Council Jessica Prendergrast, SMF Dirk Hazell, ESA
Chair: Fiona Harvey, Financial Times
Methane emissions from landfill currently make up about 3% of UK greenhouse gas emissions and, although there has been progress toward reducing the amount of rubbish going into landfill in recent years, much more needs to be done if target reduction figures are to be met. Key objectives from Defra’s Waste Strategy for England 2007 are to ‘put more emphasis on prevention and re-use’, invest in infrastructure and maximise the benefit from investment ‘through increased recycling of resources and recovery of energy’.
The Strategy for England sets a target of 50% recycling and composting of household waste by 2020 and the Scottish Government has been even more ambitious with a target of 60% within the same time frame. The Strategy for England acknowledges that central government needs to show leadership by reducing its own waste, but the task of incentivising individual households to change their behaviour is by no means an easy or straightforward one.
Defra is piloting waste minimisation schemes through local councils but these largely rely on financial penalties and incentives; throw-away less and pay less or continue in the same way and pay more.
Initiatives such as weighing the amount of rubbish being disposed of per household and putting microchips in bins to store address information have met with public resistance both because of current unease over the government’s ability to store data securely and because many suspect that they will need to pay more for a service they see as a right.
Increasing the amount paid for disposing of household waste will not necessarily reduce the amount of waste considerably. Unless the charging increase is substantial, and therefore politically unpopular, many households may simply choose to absorb it. In order for households to recycle and compost more the means to do these things must be easily available, but there is wide disparity between local authorities and services offered just as there is disparity between individuals and how much personal effort they are willing to make. Even where comprehensive services exist they may not be well communicated to the local community leading to poor take up and confusion over what is available and also over what is expected from individual households.
Behavioural economics is dominated by academic and theoretical language, but at its heart is a simple and intuitive message: what we do and how we behave when making decisions is influenced by many things including habits, emotions, culture, and the example of others, as well as by cost and the availability of information. People are just as likely to do what they have always done or what their neighbours or friends generally do as to do what is financially most beneficial.
Behavioural economics points us to a wide variety of other policy options and tools which may be appropriate and applicable in the face of challenges. For example social norms can be greatly influential in the form of community groups and peer pressure - people recycling because they’re invited to join an initiative or because many of their neighbours do - yet very little government attention is given to encouraging local groups or promoting their work.
The debate will consider how recommendations from the study of behavioural economics might be used by government, at both a local and national level, to influence attitudes to waste and recycling asking the key questions: what are the alternatives to fiscal incentives/disincentives and how can they be effectively used?
Questions for the debate: