One of the very first posts I wrote was about changing my deodorant from the standard plastic encased roll-on to a plastic-free one (read skincare and the new deodorant). After struggling with Lush’s solid deodorants I eventually settled for a deodorant stone that I found in a green supermarket while visiting some friends in Totnes.
The deodorant stone works a treat. The methodology behind it sounds completely implausible, but the fact is it works. Made of mineral salts, they look like a piece of crystal pulled straight from a rock in a dark, damp cave. Wetting the stone and rubbing it directly on the skin causes it to leave behind an invisible layer of salts that apparently prevents odour-causing bacteria from setting up home.
"What the hell is that?" asked my cousin H when I left it out on her bathroom shelf during a visit earlier this year.
"Umm, my deodorant..." I replied sheepishly. I love H to bits, but I don't think she's really all that into alternative concepts, so I generally don't share these particular sensibilities of mine with her.
"Well, I haven't noticed you smelling yet, so I suppose it must do something," was her closing comment.
And then Disaster Strikes
All was good for a year. And then a couple of months ago I had to lay my beloved deodorant stone to rest and go in a search of a new one (in other words, I dropped it on the floor and it shattered into about a million pieces). That was when things started to go wrong. First I thought I’d buy one direct from the company that made/sourced my original stone. No can do, they’re out of stock. As is every stockist I could find that stocks this particular brand.
Alright, so I’ll see if I can find one locally, I decided. Errm, no. None of my local health stores stock them in their completely packaging-free state. Do I drive to Totnes to buy one from the store I got the first one from? Seems a bit wrong, and somewhat hypocritical, to exude evil exhaust fumes for that purpose alone.
Ok, so there must be other companies that supply them, I thought. Internet here I come. And yes, after much deliberation, I settled on ‘Tawas Crystal’, pictured in a lovely little bamboo basket. Great, I thought, no plastic. Sorted.
Or not. When the crystal arrived a couple of days later it was in a jiffy bag. But not only in a jiffy bag. In a plastic box, wrapped in bubble wrap, in a jiffy bag. ‘Darn’ would be the polite way of phrasing my reaction. There was probably more plastic involved in this one package than if I had gone out and bought a typical roll-on deodorant from the shop down the road. I’ll use it for now obviously, but, I wondered, what am I going to do next time?
Hark the Herald Angels
Thank you Mrs Green over on My Zero Waste. You are my saviour.
“Not all crystal deodorants are the same,” she pointed out, and sent me off to read the details about them on Natural Spa Supplies. And this lovely company, Natural Spa Supplies, also sells the good kind. But what about their packaging I wonder? Although the fact that Mrs Green had already recommended them to me indicated that the packaging would be sustainable, having learnt my lesson from previous experiences, this time I thought I’d better check.
“I use padded envelopes which are filled with recycled paper," they tell me. "And corrugated cardboard and string to protect the contents. I do tend to use a strip of cellotape to make sure the envelope doesn’t fly open, but that is all.” A strip of cellotape? I can live with that.
Yippee! I think. There are other people out there who are trying to change the world. And so I have just placed my first order. As well as the alum deodorant, I’ve ordered some other things to try too – Rhassoul clay for washing, soapnuts for the washing machine, savon noir soap for Bron to shave with, and a clay water purifier to replace my plastic Brita filter. I suddenly feel very poor, but I feel confident it’ll be worth it! Besides, it's always fun to try something different.
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Sunday, 22 August 2010
But what does 'Plastic' mean?
I have been thinking about what the word plastic has come to mean within our society. In the research I’ve been doing for the book I’m trying to write about plastic, I keep coming across one particular quote.
‘I want to say one word to you; just one word,’ says Mr. McGuire to Benjamin Braddock in the iconic 1967 movie, The Graduate.
‘Yes, sir,’ replies Dustin Hoffman’s character, Benjamin.
‘Are you listening?’
‘Yes, I am.’
‘Plastics,’ says Mr McGuire.
‘Exactly how do you mean?’
‘There’s a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?’
In the 1960’s plastic was just coming into its own. It was the way forward, the chosen material of the space age. Despite being mid-Cold War, the 50’s and 60’s are generally regarded as being optimistic and forward-looking decades, and – with the launch of post-war economy-boosting plans to get everyone buying, buying, buying – decades of material affluence. ‘The optimism of life in those decades was accompanied by a ‘throw-away’ approach to material goods, a short-term relationship between people and their possessions,’ writes Penny Sparke in The Genius of Design. And this is very much epitomised by the now famous article in Life magazine, ‘Throwaway Living: disposable items cut down household chores’. Plastic was the future, the ‘stuff of dreams’ (Penny Sparke).
So when did this change? I’ve started asking people what they think of when they hear the word ‘plastic’ – people who aren’t aware of my particular dislike of plastic, and people who I know aren’t particularly eco-warrior-esque, as I figured they wouldn’t have too many pre-existing ideas about the environmental connotations of plastic. Here are some of the responses I’ve had so far:
‘Barbie. Fragile, brittle.’
‘Lego, cheap, oil, chemicals, bags.’
‘Cheap and nasty!’
‘False. Cheap and nasty, cosmetic surgery etc…’
Hmmm, not too flattering, I must say. Cheap is true – after all, the cheapness of the material is one of the reasons why it’s become so ubiquitous. And nasty – perhaps nasty because plastic doesn’t age well, it flakes, it becomes brittle. And maybe nasty because it’s cheap. Even though many people seek to buy the cheaper things, being cheap is still an insult. As plastic products flooded the post-war market, quantity took over from quality as plastic was substituted for other longer-lasting and more expensive materials such as steel and ceramics. ‘Cheaper, lower quality plastic products had entered the civilian marketplace,’ writes Penny Sparke. ‘Doubts began to emerge about the materials’ relationship with good design; consumers began to be anxious that they were being sold ‘vulgar’ or tasteless goods, and disenchantment set in.’
But – and this is one of the most interesting things for me – this idea of plastic as cheap and nasty, and representative of bad taste, has led the word to take on a whole different meaning. ‘In the sixties, you could always insult a guy by calling him ‘plastic,’’ Elizabeth Royte tells her readers in Garbage Land. ‘The word became a kind of shorthand for a suburban life of conspicuous consumption and upward striving.’ Plastic people, plastic culture – it’s become synonymous with fleeting, throwaway ideas, with being shallow and worthless. Everybody understands this, and this concept has fully insinuated itself within society and language.
And yet the use of plastic has risen and risen, and is now the most produced material in the world, millions of tonnes of it every single year. If everybody hates it and looks down their noses at it, how did this happen? Five minutes after I asked a lady at work what she thought of plastic – to which her response was, ‘I don’t like it’ – she’s tucking into her plastic-sealed lunch. Is it because plastic as a material was just so innovative we couldn’t help but be tempted by it and what it could offer us? The more I think about it, the more I realise that humans are short-term thinkers. We look for easy solutions, the quick fix, the lazy option. Plastic has provided this for us in ways that were probably never even imagined a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. How could we say no once it was there?
Let’s face it, plastic revolutionised the way I live. It made things affordable to people who could never have afforded such things if they weren’t made of plastic, and who am I to say they shouldn’t be allowed to have them if they want them? Who am I to tell someone they can’t strive for a better lifestyle? And as long as people were buying plastic – despite the increasingly negative thoughts being attached to it – companies continued to make it.
And so here we are.
Penny Sparke’s book, The Genius of Design, was produced to coincide with a recent BBC2 series of the same name. It was a five part series looking at all sorts of different aspects of design, including a whole episode dedicated to plastic (‘Better Living through Chemistry’), which was incredibly fascinating. Unfortunately, the episode doesn’t seem to be available to watch online at the moment, but the whole series can be bought on DVD – ironic, given as DVD’s are a typical example of how plastic has shaped modern living.
‘I want to say one word to you; just one word,’ says Mr. McGuire to Benjamin Braddock in the iconic 1967 movie, The Graduate.
‘Yes, sir,’ replies Dustin Hoffman’s character, Benjamin.
‘Are you listening?’
‘Yes, I am.’
‘Plastics,’ says Mr McGuire.
‘Exactly how do you mean?’
‘There’s a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?’
In the 1960’s plastic was just coming into its own. It was the way forward, the chosen material of the space age. Despite being mid-Cold War, the 50’s and 60’s are generally regarded as being optimistic and forward-looking decades, and – with the launch of post-war economy-boosting plans to get everyone buying, buying, buying – decades of material affluence. ‘The optimism of life in those decades was accompanied by a ‘throw-away’ approach to material goods, a short-term relationship between people and their possessions,’ writes Penny Sparke in The Genius of Design. And this is very much epitomised by the now famous article in Life magazine, ‘Throwaway Living: disposable items cut down household chores’. Plastic was the future, the ‘stuff of dreams’ (Penny Sparke).So when did this change? I’ve started asking people what they think of when they hear the word ‘plastic’ – people who aren’t aware of my particular dislike of plastic, and people who I know aren’t particularly eco-warrior-esque, as I figured they wouldn’t have too many pre-existing ideas about the environmental connotations of plastic. Here are some of the responses I’ve had so far:
‘Barbie. Fragile, brittle.’
‘Lego, cheap, oil, chemicals, bags.’
‘Cheap and nasty!’
‘False. Cheap and nasty, cosmetic surgery etc…’
Hmmm, not too flattering, I must say. Cheap is true – after all, the cheapness of the material is one of the reasons why it’s become so ubiquitous. And nasty – perhaps nasty because plastic doesn’t age well, it flakes, it becomes brittle. And maybe nasty because it’s cheap. Even though many people seek to buy the cheaper things, being cheap is still an insult. As plastic products flooded the post-war market, quantity took over from quality as plastic was substituted for other longer-lasting and more expensive materials such as steel and ceramics. ‘Cheaper, lower quality plastic products had entered the civilian marketplace,’ writes Penny Sparke. ‘Doubts began to emerge about the materials’ relationship with good design; consumers began to be anxious that they were being sold ‘vulgar’ or tasteless goods, and disenchantment set in.’
But – and this is one of the most interesting things for me – this idea of plastic as cheap and nasty, and representative of bad taste, has led the word to take on a whole different meaning. ‘In the sixties, you could always insult a guy by calling him ‘plastic,’’ Elizabeth Royte tells her readers in Garbage Land. ‘The word became a kind of shorthand for a suburban life of conspicuous consumption and upward striving.’ Plastic people, plastic culture – it’s become synonymous with fleeting, throwaway ideas, with being shallow and worthless. Everybody understands this, and this concept has fully insinuated itself within society and language.
And yet the use of plastic has risen and risen, and is now the most produced material in the world, millions of tonnes of it every single year. If everybody hates it and looks down their noses at it, how did this happen? Five minutes after I asked a lady at work what she thought of plastic – to which her response was, ‘I don’t like it’ – she’s tucking into her plastic-sealed lunch. Is it because plastic as a material was just so innovative we couldn’t help but be tempted by it and what it could offer us? The more I think about it, the more I realise that humans are short-term thinkers. We look for easy solutions, the quick fix, the lazy option. Plastic has provided this for us in ways that were probably never even imagined a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. How could we say no once it was there?
Let’s face it, plastic revolutionised the way I live. It made things affordable to people who could never have afforded such things if they weren’t made of plastic, and who am I to say they shouldn’t be allowed to have them if they want them? Who am I to tell someone they can’t strive for a better lifestyle? And as long as people were buying plastic – despite the increasingly negative thoughts being attached to it – companies continued to make it.
And so here we are.
Penny Sparke’s book, The Genius of Design, was produced to coincide with a recent BBC2 series of the same name. It was a five part series looking at all sorts of different aspects of design, including a whole episode dedicated to plastic (‘Better Living through Chemistry’), which was incredibly fascinating. Unfortunately, the episode doesn’t seem to be available to watch online at the moment, but the whole series can be bought on DVD – ironic, given as DVD’s are a typical example of how plastic has shaped modern living.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
The Joys of Retail
I was sitting in on an interview at work for a new staff member the other day, when the manager all of a sudden threw the questioning over to me. Put on the spot, I found myself grasping to explain the complexities of being a Waterstone’s bookseller. Many people might ask how being a bookseller could possibly be complex, but bookselling is as political and money-driven as virtually every other profession out there. In this particular instance, the knot I was trying to unwind was the balance between being an individual whilst also toeing the company line.
Within every store we are strongly encouraged to promote the books we personally love, tailor the store to our own particular brand of customers, and strike up friendly conversations with customers left, right and centre in order to make them feel welcomed. However, in contrast to these freedoms, every member of staff is also expected to say a set of very specific lines to customers at the till point.
‘Do you have a Waterstone’s card? Would you like one of ours books of the week for only £4.49?’ And - my particular favourite - ‘Do you need a bag?’
Do you need a bag?
‘Do you need a bag?’ not, ‘Do you want a bag’ or ‘Would you like a bag?’ It’s an interesting choice of wording – the use of need rather than want is designed to make the customer think about their requirements rather than their wants. But does it work? Now that’s a loaded question. I get lots and lots of different responses to the bag question, but they can generally be grouped into the following categories:
Apologetic
Customers who want a bag even though they know they shouldn’t take one and feel like they should at least feel some fleeting guilt about taking one. ‘Normally I wouldn’t, but I’ve left mine in the car today.’
Mr and Mrs Average
Customers who genuinely consider the question and provide a direct answer – either yes or no. It’s probably about 50/50 either way, though this is often dependant on external factors – whether it’s raining, say, or the amount that they’re purchasing.
Eco-Warriors
Those who jump in and tell you they don’t need a bag before you’ve even had a chance to ask the question (sounds like me).
Ignorant
Customers who have no concept of the environment at all, responding with something along the lines of, ‘Of course I need a bag! Do you think I’m going to carry these around under my arm?!’ This is irritating because they talk to me as if I’m stupid. I’m not stupid – at the simplest end of the spectrum, I am simply doing my job as I have been trained to do by my company, never mind the environmental aspects.
Hypocritical
Customers who are carrying their own canvas bags, but seem to be doing so only as a fashion accessory. They take a plastic bag from each store they visit and then put each one inside the bigger canvas one – heaven forbid that their various purchases should all have to roll around together, touching each other. For me, these are some of the most irritating customers, because they’re pretending they’re eco-friendly by carrying their own bags, which often shout some anti-plastic message, yet they’re still using as much plastic as they would if they hadn’t brought their own bags.
Downright Annoying
‘Yes, if you don’t mind’ is one of the most annoying answers I get. I want to shout at them, ‘Yes, I do mind! You’re helping to destroy the world!’ But, meek as I am, I can’t help but do my job, smile politely and, simply, do as I’m told. ‘The customer is always right’ is the old saying after all. But what would happen if, one day, I rebelled? The company’s emphasis on customer service is so strong, that even contemplating the risk of alienating a customer over such an issue is enough to bring me out in a cold sweat.
The Waterstone’s Way
Carrier bags do seem to be a rather contentious subject at the moment, as I’m sure is the case among most high street retailers today. I attended a regional forum today, where the representatives from around ten stores gather together to share ideas and bring forward concerns or problems for later discussion at a higher level within the company.
‘Don’t talk to me about bags!’ our regional manager said toward the start of the meeting. Not because she didn’t want to discuss it, but because it’s already very much on the company’s agenda and griping about them at a regional level wasn’t going to achieve anything.
Whenever I want to talk about plastic bags, the discussion usually includes the word ‘ban’, and so my first assumption when other staff in the meeting brought up the subject was that this was what was on their minds as well. But, disappointingly for me, from the few comments that were made, I don’t think this was actually the case. Until about two years ago, the store used what could be described as classy bags. Good quality, strong, glossy, black bags. Today’s bags are much flimsier and they are white, but – and all credit to the company here – they are made from recycled plastic. I think this is fantastic. I believe that buying goods made of recycled plastic (actually, of recycled anything) is important because it helps to support the recycling industry. However, it seems that not everyone agrees with me.
‘They don’t look as nice,’ is a frequent comment. Or, ‘Can you double bag it because my boyfriend’ll be able to see what I’ve bought him,’ is another. Grumble, grumble is my general, internal, response. I can see their points, but nobody seems to respect the sound environmental decision that the company’s made to produce their bags from recycled plastic. Although I’d ultimately like to see them phasing out plastic bags altogether, I do think that until they do, their current policy is about as strong as it can be.
Carrier bags are on the agenda for the company’s upcoming Corporate Social Responsibility meeting. In what context, I don’t know, though obviously I’m eager to know whether or not the possibility of removing them altogether is under consideration – or charging for them, as WHSmiths currently does. I think probably not. Charging for bags can be viewed as being negative – it puts the customer in a bit of a bind, and those who don’t understand why the charge is in place (and my experiences tells me there will be plenty that fall into this category) are likely to view the company in a negative way as a result, which means that they’re less likely to come back and spend their money there in the future. And so Waterstone’s has gone for the carrot rather than the stick method. Instead of charging, they reward customers with extra loyalty card points for not taking a bag. Another idea that makes sound business sense. But does it work? Not every customer has (or wants) a loyalty card and of those that do, despite advertising the ‘eco-points’ scheme, most don’t realise it exists. I always try to make a point of telling customers who don’t take bags that I’m giving them extra points because of it, and nine times out of ten their response is surprise or mild bewilderment.
Plastic bags: valid issue or a distraction?
At today’s meeting, our regional manager did tell us that ‘bag costs are down by about half of what they were two years ago.’ She didn’t expand on the comment, but I assume this is a result of a combination of the change in bag production from glossy to recycled as well as the company-wide introduction of the ‘Do you need a bag?’ question. I wonder what the reduction in bags in terms of number are? Probably not as much as half, but I’m sure bag usage has gone down as it becomes a bigger and more widely acknowledged issue within our society. This, however, leaves me with two thoughts.
Firstly, when shopping in other stores on the high street I continue to be surprised by the number of companies who don’t appear to have a bag reduction policy in place – which, although I feel they could take the issue further, makes me feel proud to work for a company that is thinking about it.
And secondly I am reminded of an article written last year by The Guardian’s environmental commentator, Leo Hickman, on the subject of plastic bags. Is the ever increasing focus on them as an environmental concern detracting us from more serious environmental issues? Despite this being a subject that is close to my heart, I fear he is right. It’s easy to get wrapped up in one issue and forget about everything else. It’s also easy to forget that there’s a lot more to the issue of plastic itself than plastic bags – plastic bags are, after all, a long long way from being the only plastic pollution created by modern everyday living and I think there are lots of people out there who, while they may reject a plastic bag from their local Waterstone’s store, probably wouldn’t think twice about the fact that they’re buying a plastic booklight encased in plastic packaging, or that the cool cover of their new hardback copy of ‘C’ by Tom McCarthy is also plastic.
Oh dear, I’m never happy, am I?
Extra reading: Waterstone's carrier bag policy
Within every store we are strongly encouraged to promote the books we personally love, tailor the store to our own particular brand of customers, and strike up friendly conversations with customers left, right and centre in order to make them feel welcomed. However, in contrast to these freedoms, every member of staff is also expected to say a set of very specific lines to customers at the till point.
‘Do you have a Waterstone’s card? Would you like one of ours books of the week for only £4.49?’ And - my particular favourite - ‘Do you need a bag?’
Do you need a bag?
‘Do you need a bag?’ not, ‘Do you want a bag’ or ‘Would you like a bag?’ It’s an interesting choice of wording – the use of need rather than want is designed to make the customer think about their requirements rather than their wants. But does it work? Now that’s a loaded question. I get lots and lots of different responses to the bag question, but they can generally be grouped into the following categories:
Apologetic
Customers who want a bag even though they know they shouldn’t take one and feel like they should at least feel some fleeting guilt about taking one. ‘Normally I wouldn’t, but I’ve left mine in the car today.’
Mr and Mrs Average
Customers who genuinely consider the question and provide a direct answer – either yes or no. It’s probably about 50/50 either way, though this is often dependant on external factors – whether it’s raining, say, or the amount that they’re purchasing.
Eco-Warriors
Those who jump in and tell you they don’t need a bag before you’ve even had a chance to ask the question (sounds like me).
Ignorant
Customers who have no concept of the environment at all, responding with something along the lines of, ‘Of course I need a bag! Do you think I’m going to carry these around under my arm?!’ This is irritating because they talk to me as if I’m stupid. I’m not stupid – at the simplest end of the spectrum, I am simply doing my job as I have been trained to do by my company, never mind the environmental aspects.
Hypocritical
Customers who are carrying their own canvas bags, but seem to be doing so only as a fashion accessory. They take a plastic bag from each store they visit and then put each one inside the bigger canvas one – heaven forbid that their various purchases should all have to roll around together, touching each other. For me, these are some of the most irritating customers, because they’re pretending they’re eco-friendly by carrying their own bags, which often shout some anti-plastic message, yet they’re still using as much plastic as they would if they hadn’t brought their own bags.
Downright Annoying
‘Yes, if you don’t mind’ is one of the most annoying answers I get. I want to shout at them, ‘Yes, I do mind! You’re helping to destroy the world!’ But, meek as I am, I can’t help but do my job, smile politely and, simply, do as I’m told. ‘The customer is always right’ is the old saying after all. But what would happen if, one day, I rebelled? The company’s emphasis on customer service is so strong, that even contemplating the risk of alienating a customer over such an issue is enough to bring me out in a cold sweat.
The Waterstone’s Way
Carrier bags do seem to be a rather contentious subject at the moment, as I’m sure is the case among most high street retailers today. I attended a regional forum today, where the representatives from around ten stores gather together to share ideas and bring forward concerns or problems for later discussion at a higher level within the company.
‘Don’t talk to me about bags!’ our regional manager said toward the start of the meeting. Not because she didn’t want to discuss it, but because it’s already very much on the company’s agenda and griping about them at a regional level wasn’t going to achieve anything.
Whenever I want to talk about plastic bags, the discussion usually includes the word ‘ban’, and so my first assumption when other staff in the meeting brought up the subject was that this was what was on their minds as well. But, disappointingly for me, from the few comments that were made, I don’t think this was actually the case. Until about two years ago, the store used what could be described as classy bags. Good quality, strong, glossy, black bags. Today’s bags are much flimsier and they are white, but – and all credit to the company here – they are made from recycled plastic. I think this is fantastic. I believe that buying goods made of recycled plastic (actually, of recycled anything) is important because it helps to support the recycling industry. However, it seems that not everyone agrees with me.
‘They don’t look as nice,’ is a frequent comment. Or, ‘Can you double bag it because my boyfriend’ll be able to see what I’ve bought him,’ is another. Grumble, grumble is my general, internal, response. I can see their points, but nobody seems to respect the sound environmental decision that the company’s made to produce their bags from recycled plastic. Although I’d ultimately like to see them phasing out plastic bags altogether, I do think that until they do, their current policy is about as strong as it can be.
Carrier bags are on the agenda for the company’s upcoming Corporate Social Responsibility meeting. In what context, I don’t know, though obviously I’m eager to know whether or not the possibility of removing them altogether is under consideration – or charging for them, as WHSmiths currently does. I think probably not. Charging for bags can be viewed as being negative – it puts the customer in a bit of a bind, and those who don’t understand why the charge is in place (and my experiences tells me there will be plenty that fall into this category) are likely to view the company in a negative way as a result, which means that they’re less likely to come back and spend their money there in the future. And so Waterstone’s has gone for the carrot rather than the stick method. Instead of charging, they reward customers with extra loyalty card points for not taking a bag. Another idea that makes sound business sense. But does it work? Not every customer has (or wants) a loyalty card and of those that do, despite advertising the ‘eco-points’ scheme, most don’t realise it exists. I always try to make a point of telling customers who don’t take bags that I’m giving them extra points because of it, and nine times out of ten their response is surprise or mild bewilderment.
Plastic bags: valid issue or a distraction?
At today’s meeting, our regional manager did tell us that ‘bag costs are down by about half of what they were two years ago.’ She didn’t expand on the comment, but I assume this is a result of a combination of the change in bag production from glossy to recycled as well as the company-wide introduction of the ‘Do you need a bag?’ question. I wonder what the reduction in bags in terms of number are? Probably not as much as half, but I’m sure bag usage has gone down as it becomes a bigger and more widely acknowledged issue within our society. This, however, leaves me with two thoughts.
Firstly, when shopping in other stores on the high street I continue to be surprised by the number of companies who don’t appear to have a bag reduction policy in place – which, although I feel they could take the issue further, makes me feel proud to work for a company that is thinking about it.
And secondly I am reminded of an article written last year by The Guardian’s environmental commentator, Leo Hickman, on the subject of plastic bags. Is the ever increasing focus on them as an environmental concern detracting us from more serious environmental issues? Despite this being a subject that is close to my heart, I fear he is right. It’s easy to get wrapped up in one issue and forget about everything else. It’s also easy to forget that there’s a lot more to the issue of plastic itself than plastic bags – plastic bags are, after all, a long long way from being the only plastic pollution created by modern everyday living and I think there are lots of people out there who, while they may reject a plastic bag from their local Waterstone’s store, probably wouldn’t think twice about the fact that they’re buying a plastic booklight encased in plastic packaging, or that the cool cover of their new hardback copy of ‘C’ by Tom McCarthy is also plastic.
Oh dear, I’m never happy, am I?
Extra reading: Waterstone's carrier bag policy
Sunday, 1 August 2010
All the King's horses
Another great, informative little talk from Captain Charles Moore:
"All the King's horses and all the King's men," he says, "will never gather up all the plastic and put the ocean back together again."
Solution 101: reduce the pollution at it's source - i.e. us.
"All the King's horses and all the King's men," he says, "will never gather up all the plastic and put the ocean back together again."
Solution 101: reduce the pollution at it's source - i.e. us.
Friday, 30 July 2010
On Banning Plastic Bags - Part 2
A couple of weeks ago, in 'On Banning Plastic Bags', I posted on here a letter I sent to UK Secretary of State for the environment, Caroline Spelman, asking for details on her waste and plastic bag policies, along with the somewhat disappointing reply I recieved from her department, DEFRA.
This is the letter that I sent back following DEFRA's response:
Dear Mr. Hands,
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and for your reply. However, I do not feel that you read my letter fully, or that you have answered my questions.
1. I am aware of Ms Spelman's current review of waste policies and the aim of this to move England toward a zero waste society. The first question I asked in my letter was regarding more detail on how Ms Spelman and Defra plan to achieve the ideal of a zero waste society. What waste policies are under consideration in order to achieve this aim? And how are they going to be structured? For instance, are you investigating the policies of other countries (e.g. Germany) to see how they have achieved what they have?
2. You say that the government's aim is to end the "needless distribution" of the single-use carrier bag. Please could you define for me the term, "needless distribution"? Your use of this term implies that there are circumstances under which the distribution of single-use carrier bags is necessary, a statement with which I would have to strongly disagree.
3. You write, “We would like to see the single-use carrier bag, issued free at the point of sale, become a thing of the past.” Excellent. But how do you plan to achieve this? You provide some interesting statistics further on in your letter regarding the voluntary agreement of a number of supermarket chains to reduce their carrier usage. You explain that the supermarkets involved have agreed to a 50% reduction and that these supermarkets account for 85% of the grocery market. Taking these two numbers together, it accounts for only a 42.5% reduction in carrier bags within the grocery market.
Firstly, this is less than a 50% reduction of carriers bags within the grocery market alone – while, as you say, those who have made this agreement may represent a large portion of the UK’s carrier bag usage, and while a 42.5% reduction is a good start (everything has to start somewhere, after all), this is still an extremely long way from the making the single-use carrier bag “a thing of the past”. How do you plan to make up the 57.5% shortfall?
Secondly, it is important to note that this 50% target is a pledge and only a pledge. It is not written in stone that the signatories will meet this target, and if they don’t meet it, there won’t be any consequences because it is not a legal agreement – it is a ‘pledge’. Thirdly, this pledge does not take into consideration retail outside the grocery market – what about book shops, gift shops, music shops, chemists, etc etc?
4. You write, "The key to reducing the number of bags we use is reuse of bags of all varieties." I take this to mean that the manner in which you plan to end "needless distribution" of the single-use carrier bag is by making them multiple use? I take this to mean that the government’s main plan to reduce carrier bags is simply to encourage people to re-use them? Re-use is a good initiative, and I would agree that it would need to be an integral part of any policy, but re-use on its own does not a policy make. And how do you plan to encourage people to simply re-use all their carrier bags? A lot of people are likely to embrace this idea, but without a more solid injunction, you will never achieve a 100% reduction through this method alone.
5. You write, "The results of this earlier agreement were a 26% reduction in numbers of bags distributed by participating retailers, and a 40% reduction in the environmental impact of carrier bags." Please can you tell me how this figure of a “40% reduction in the environmental impact” was obtained?
6. The Defra website link included in your letter does not work. Using this link simply takes me to a page that informs me that the page I was looking for no longer exists (“error 404”). Please could you provide me with the correct link.
7. Lastly, the question which I felt to be the main gist of my letter was whether or not Defra has any plans (or has considered) introducing either a tax or an outright ban on plastic bags. I provided with my first letter an example of the success of a plastic bag tax, and a list of regions throughout the world where a ban is already in place (also attached here). In your reply, you have deftly avoided providing a direct answer to this question. I would be grateful if you could give me an answer please. And if you are not able to answer this or any of my other questions, I would appreciate you forwarding my letter to someone who can.
With thanks,
Isabel Popple
And here is the second reply I recieved:
Dear Ms Popple
Thank you for your reply of 1 July.
We intend to publish the detailed Terms of Reference for the Review shortly along with a Call for Evidence. As the Terms of Reference has not been finalised, I cannot answer as to which policies we will be looking at.
It is recognised that there will always be circumstances where it will be necessary to use a single use bag. For instance, if your own re-usable bags are full, then a single use bag may be appropriate. However, the Courtauld Commitment pledges that single use bags are kept to a minimum.
The 50% reduction in plastic bags only applies to signatories of the Courtauld Commitment. As this is a voluntary agreement it is up to each company to decide on their own strategy for the aims to be achieved. Whilst this is a voluntary agreement, the Government has reserved the right to take steps if the terms of the agreement are not met, though this will be subject to the Review.
The Courtauld Commitment covers 85% of the market. The Association of Convenience Stores (mainly small shops) has agreed to a ‘second tier’ agreement for smaller retailers and others who were not party to the main voluntary agreement. This ‘second tier’ did not bind signatories to specific targets but included a pledge to reduce the number of bags they give out via appropriate measures. This approach could be pursued, though any decision will be subject to the Review.
The first voluntary agreement on carrier bags (2006-2008) aimed to reduce the environmental impact of all carrier bags by 25%. The Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) collected and analysed data from the retailers' procurement statistics and monitored sector progress. Data submitted by retailers was reviewed by WRAP to check for any major anomalies and ongoing trends.
The target of ‘25% reduction in the environmental impact of carrier bags’ was measured by looking at a reduction in the number of carrier bags issued and the amount of virgin plastic used, which provided a simple way to measure environmental impact. The participants achieved a 26% reduction in the total number of carrier bags used and a 40% reduction in the amount of virgin polymer used. The total weight of bags was also recorded and reported separately.
Lastly, you asked whether or not there are any plans to introduce either a tax or an outright ban on plastic bags, this will also be subject to the Review.
Yours sincerely,
David Hands
Customer Contact Unit
Defra
This is the letter that I sent back following DEFRA's response:
Dear Mr. Hands,
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and for your reply. However, I do not feel that you read my letter fully, or that you have answered my questions.
1. I am aware of Ms Spelman's current review of waste policies and the aim of this to move England toward a zero waste society. The first question I asked in my letter was regarding more detail on how Ms Spelman and Defra plan to achieve the ideal of a zero waste society. What waste policies are under consideration in order to achieve this aim? And how are they going to be structured? For instance, are you investigating the policies of other countries (e.g. Germany) to see how they have achieved what they have?
2. You say that the government's aim is to end the "needless distribution" of the single-use carrier bag. Please could you define for me the term, "needless distribution"? Your use of this term implies that there are circumstances under which the distribution of single-use carrier bags is necessary, a statement with which I would have to strongly disagree.
3. You write, “We would like to see the single-use carrier bag, issued free at the point of sale, become a thing of the past.” Excellent. But how do you plan to achieve this? You provide some interesting statistics further on in your letter regarding the voluntary agreement of a number of supermarket chains to reduce their carrier usage. You explain that the supermarkets involved have agreed to a 50% reduction and that these supermarkets account for 85% of the grocery market. Taking these two numbers together, it accounts for only a 42.5% reduction in carrier bags within the grocery market.
Firstly, this is less than a 50% reduction of carriers bags within the grocery market alone – while, as you say, those who have made this agreement may represent a large portion of the UK’s carrier bag usage, and while a 42.5% reduction is a good start (everything has to start somewhere, after all), this is still an extremely long way from the making the single-use carrier bag “a thing of the past”. How do you plan to make up the 57.5% shortfall?
Secondly, it is important to note that this 50% target is a pledge and only a pledge. It is not written in stone that the signatories will meet this target, and if they don’t meet it, there won’t be any consequences because it is not a legal agreement – it is a ‘pledge’. Thirdly, this pledge does not take into consideration retail outside the grocery market – what about book shops, gift shops, music shops, chemists, etc etc?
4. You write, "The key to reducing the number of bags we use is reuse of bags of all varieties." I take this to mean that the manner in which you plan to end "needless distribution" of the single-use carrier bag is by making them multiple use? I take this to mean that the government’s main plan to reduce carrier bags is simply to encourage people to re-use them? Re-use is a good initiative, and I would agree that it would need to be an integral part of any policy, but re-use on its own does not a policy make. And how do you plan to encourage people to simply re-use all their carrier bags? A lot of people are likely to embrace this idea, but without a more solid injunction, you will never achieve a 100% reduction through this method alone.
5. You write, "The results of this earlier agreement were a 26% reduction in numbers of bags distributed by participating retailers, and a 40% reduction in the environmental impact of carrier bags." Please can you tell me how this figure of a “40% reduction in the environmental impact” was obtained?
6. The Defra website link included in your letter does not work. Using this link simply takes me to a page that informs me that the page I was looking for no longer exists (“error 404”). Please could you provide me with the correct link.
7. Lastly, the question which I felt to be the main gist of my letter was whether or not Defra has any plans (or has considered) introducing either a tax or an outright ban on plastic bags. I provided with my first letter an example of the success of a plastic bag tax, and a list of regions throughout the world where a ban is already in place (also attached here). In your reply, you have deftly avoided providing a direct answer to this question. I would be grateful if you could give me an answer please. And if you are not able to answer this or any of my other questions, I would appreciate you forwarding my letter to someone who can.
With thanks,
Isabel Popple
And here is the second reply I recieved:
Dear Ms Popple
Thank you for your reply of 1 July.
We intend to publish the detailed Terms of Reference for the Review shortly along with a Call for Evidence. As the Terms of Reference has not been finalised, I cannot answer as to which policies we will be looking at.
It is recognised that there will always be circumstances where it will be necessary to use a single use bag. For instance, if your own re-usable bags are full, then a single use bag may be appropriate. However, the Courtauld Commitment pledges that single use bags are kept to a minimum.
The 50% reduction in plastic bags only applies to signatories of the Courtauld Commitment. As this is a voluntary agreement it is up to each company to decide on their own strategy for the aims to be achieved. Whilst this is a voluntary agreement, the Government has reserved the right to take steps if the terms of the agreement are not met, though this will be subject to the Review.
The Courtauld Commitment covers 85% of the market. The Association of Convenience Stores (mainly small shops) has agreed to a ‘second tier’ agreement for smaller retailers and others who were not party to the main voluntary agreement. This ‘second tier’ did not bind signatories to specific targets but included a pledge to reduce the number of bags they give out via appropriate measures. This approach could be pursued, though any decision will be subject to the Review.
The first voluntary agreement on carrier bags (2006-2008) aimed to reduce the environmental impact of all carrier bags by 25%. The Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) collected and analysed data from the retailers' procurement statistics and monitored sector progress. Data submitted by retailers was reviewed by WRAP to check for any major anomalies and ongoing trends.
The target of ‘25% reduction in the environmental impact of carrier bags’ was measured by looking at a reduction in the number of carrier bags issued and the amount of virgin plastic used, which provided a simple way to measure environmental impact. The participants achieved a 26% reduction in the total number of carrier bags used and a 40% reduction in the amount of virgin polymer used. The total weight of bags was also recorded and reported separately.
Lastly, you asked whether or not there are any plans to introduce either a tax or an outright ban on plastic bags, this will also be subject to the Review.
Yours sincerely,
David Hands
Customer Contact Unit
Defra
Sunday, 18 July 2010
Degradable Bin Bags?
The biodegradability of biodegradable-classed plastics is a subject that I have a multitude of questions about. ‘100% degradable’ plastic products shout – but so often it turns out that this is not exactly true. For starters, they will often only degrade under very specific conditions and, secondly, ‘100%’ seems to be a description that is open to interpretation.
100%?
Take this photo (courtesy of Corbis), which shows how a biodegradable plastic fork disintegrates over a period of months. Cool huh? Ironically, though, the caption for the image on Corbis’ website reads ‘….. completely degrades’. Errr… Sorry to burst the photographer’s bubble, but there’s still quite a bit of visible material left in the final picture there, so I’m thinking it hasn’t ‘completely degraded’ at all. Maybe it’s no longer recognisable as a fork, but its basic materials are still pretty much in existence.
A biodegradable minefield
As far as I can tell, there are lots of different approaches that manufacturers of purportedly degradable plastics can take – some of them, I believe, are genuine; some not so. It’s certainly a minefield, and one that I’m still trying to find a safe path through, so I won’t go into a lot of detail here today. But, there are bio plastics that are completely composed of natural materials (rather than oil-based, though oil is, technically, a natural material). And then there are plastics that are made up of a web of traditional plastic molecules which are held together by degradable materials – the strands holding them together degrade, leaving lots of teeny tiny pieces of non-degradable plastic still floating around in the environment. The difficulty for us as consumers is figuring out which are really degradable, and which are pseudo-degradable.
And so to bin bags
Which brings me to the initial point of this particular post: degradable bin bags.
To be honest, degradable bin bags are a bit of a misnomer. This is because in order for fully biological bioplastics to degrade properly, they really need some good composting conditions: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, heat and water. Without these, nothing will degrade – think of the permafrost men, frozen forever in virtually their original state. And in your average landfill, where most of our household bin bags wind up, these conditions are severely lacking. So even if you’re good and green and buy those special degradable bin bags, chances are they’ll never have the opportunity to degrade.
Unfortunately, Bron and I have yet to reduce our waste to a zero point – we’re not too bad, all told, but we still have our weekly deposit on the lawn for the bin men to collect, mostly thanks to the cat who, even in the summer weather, still steadfastly uses her litter tray. So when it came to deciding whether to use degradable bin bags or not, I really wasn’t sure whether there much point to it or not. Bron thought “no”, but I figured at least it’s slightly better than a completely non-degradable one. Off to Archie Browns I went, one of my local health stores, where they sell bags produced by Symphony Environmental.
The D2W additive
‘Fact,’ the packaging on these bin bags states. ‘This plastic really is 100% degradable. Fantastic!’
How? I wondered. ‘Our d2w® additive put into the plastic at the extrusion stage will make the finished product "oxo-biodegradable" so that it will degrade and disappear in a short timescale, leaving no fragments, no methane and no harmful residues,’ explains their website, www.degradable.co.uk
‘The degradation process is initiated at the time the polyethylene or polypropylene is extruded by the inclusion of a small amount of a special additive.’ So they still contain traditional polymers then? They’re not made from corn starch, or a similar alternative.
But wait, this is a good thing, they say, because it means the bags do ‘not need a biologically active environment to start degrading - this will happen even if the plastic is left in the open air! … For this reason in particular, d2w™ 'totally degradable' plastic is superior to 'bio-degradable' which requires the plastic to be in a biologically active environment (for example, by being buried in the ground) before the degradation process is initiated.’ Which gets us over the compostable-plastic-doesn’t-compost-in-the-landfill issue I suppose.
I’m really not sure what to think at this point. Is this stuff good or bad? Apparently the additive used speeds up the natural degradation of plastic that would otherwise take tens or hundreds of years, so that the bags quite quickly break down into flake-sized pieces. At this point, because the polymer chains have been reduced in length, oxygen is able to bond with the carbon in the chain, forming CO2. Is this just theory or does it actually happen in the environment? The next bit I don’t quite understand – the formation of CO2 further reduces the flakes in size which makes them ‘water wettable’. Water wettable? What does that mean? Despite my science degree, my biology and chemistry knowledge, I have never heard this term before. Apparently being water wettable means that micro-organisms can access the chemicals in the polymer chains.
Am I any the wiser? I still don’t know. It all sounds quite reasonable, yet I can’t help having my suspicions. Or am I just being negative? After everything I’ve read about how difficult it is for polymers to break down, this just sounds a bit too easy. I believe that the bags will break down into flakes, but I wonder how persistent those flakes ultimately are in the environment? Even if the bags don’t need composting conditions to get to this stage, thanks to the D2W additive, if the flakes then need micro-organisms to further degrade them, that does imply a composting situation – which, I mentioned earlier, won’t be found in a typical landfill situation.
The debate continues
Perhaps these bags aren’t the ultimate solution, but are they better than the standard bin bag? Is this ‘100% degrading’? What about the microscopic bits of plastic that wind up in the environment waiting for some happy micro-organism to munch on? When exposed to wider ecosystems, these are arguably more damaging to wildlife than more solid forms of the material are, as Professor Richard Thompson can attest. I am yet to be convinced by the eco-credentials of this particular brand of degradable plastic.
100%?Take this photo (courtesy of Corbis), which shows how a biodegradable plastic fork disintegrates over a period of months. Cool huh? Ironically, though, the caption for the image on Corbis’ website reads ‘….. completely degrades’. Errr… Sorry to burst the photographer’s bubble, but there’s still quite a bit of visible material left in the final picture there, so I’m thinking it hasn’t ‘completely degraded’ at all. Maybe it’s no longer recognisable as a fork, but its basic materials are still pretty much in existence.
A biodegradable minefield
As far as I can tell, there are lots of different approaches that manufacturers of purportedly degradable plastics can take – some of them, I believe, are genuine; some not so. It’s certainly a minefield, and one that I’m still trying to find a safe path through, so I won’t go into a lot of detail here today. But, there are bio plastics that are completely composed of natural materials (rather than oil-based, though oil is, technically, a natural material). And then there are plastics that are made up of a web of traditional plastic molecules which are held together by degradable materials – the strands holding them together degrade, leaving lots of teeny tiny pieces of non-degradable plastic still floating around in the environment. The difficulty for us as consumers is figuring out which are really degradable, and which are pseudo-degradable.
And so to bin bags
Which brings me to the initial point of this particular post: degradable bin bags.
To be honest, degradable bin bags are a bit of a misnomer. This is because in order for fully biological bioplastics to degrade properly, they really need some good composting conditions: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, heat and water. Without these, nothing will degrade – think of the permafrost men, frozen forever in virtually their original state. And in your average landfill, where most of our household bin bags wind up, these conditions are severely lacking. So even if you’re good and green and buy those special degradable bin bags, chances are they’ll never have the opportunity to degrade.
Unfortunately, Bron and I have yet to reduce our waste to a zero point – we’re not too bad, all told, but we still have our weekly deposit on the lawn for the bin men to collect, mostly thanks to the cat who, even in the summer weather, still steadfastly uses her litter tray. So when it came to deciding whether to use degradable bin bags or not, I really wasn’t sure whether there much point to it or not. Bron thought “no”, but I figured at least it’s slightly better than a completely non-degradable one. Off to Archie Browns I went, one of my local health stores, where they sell bags produced by Symphony Environmental.
The D2W additive
‘Fact,’ the packaging on these bin bags states. ‘This plastic really is 100% degradable. Fantastic!’
How? I wondered. ‘Our d2w® additive put into the plastic at the extrusion stage will make the finished product "oxo-biodegradable" so that it will degrade and disappear in a short timescale, leaving no fragments, no methane and no harmful residues,’ explains their website, www.degradable.co.uk
‘The degradation process is initiated at the time the polyethylene or polypropylene is extruded by the inclusion of a small amount of a special additive.’ So they still contain traditional polymers then? They’re not made from corn starch, or a similar alternative.
But wait, this is a good thing, they say, because it means the bags do ‘not need a biologically active environment to start degrading - this will happen even if the plastic is left in the open air! … For this reason in particular, d2w™ 'totally degradable' plastic is superior to 'bio-degradable' which requires the plastic to be in a biologically active environment (for example, by being buried in the ground) before the degradation process is initiated.’ Which gets us over the compostable-plastic-doesn’t-compost-in-the-landfill issue I suppose.
I’m really not sure what to think at this point. Is this stuff good or bad? Apparently the additive used speeds up the natural degradation of plastic that would otherwise take tens or hundreds of years, so that the bags quite quickly break down into flake-sized pieces. At this point, because the polymer chains have been reduced in length, oxygen is able to bond with the carbon in the chain, forming CO2. Is this just theory or does it actually happen in the environment? The next bit I don’t quite understand – the formation of CO2 further reduces the flakes in size which makes them ‘water wettable’. Water wettable? What does that mean? Despite my science degree, my biology and chemistry knowledge, I have never heard this term before. Apparently being water wettable means that micro-organisms can access the chemicals in the polymer chains.
Am I any the wiser? I still don’t know. It all sounds quite reasonable, yet I can’t help having my suspicions. Or am I just being negative? After everything I’ve read about how difficult it is for polymers to break down, this just sounds a bit too easy. I believe that the bags will break down into flakes, but I wonder how persistent those flakes ultimately are in the environment? Even if the bags don’t need composting conditions to get to this stage, thanks to the D2W additive, if the flakes then need micro-organisms to further degrade them, that does imply a composting situation – which, I mentioned earlier, won’t be found in a typical landfill situation.
The debate continues
Perhaps these bags aren’t the ultimate solution, but are they better than the standard bin bag? Is this ‘100% degrading’? What about the microscopic bits of plastic that wind up in the environment waiting for some happy micro-organism to munch on? When exposed to wider ecosystems, these are arguably more damaging to wildlife than more solid forms of the material are, as Professor Richard Thompson can attest. I am yet to be convinced by the eco-credentials of this particular brand of degradable plastic.
Thursday, 1 July 2010
On Banning Plastic Bags
On 19th June, I sent the following letter to Caroline Spelman, the UK's new Secretary of State for the Environment:
Dear Caroline,
This week you called for the UK to become a zero waste society, an issue which I whole heartedly support.
I am currently researching and writing a book about plastic. Loosely titled ‘A Life Less Plastic’, it will chart the story of plastic, from its manufacture, to the myriad plastic products we find in our homes, to its disposal, and all of the environmental concerns surrounding it. I was therefore particularly interested in your comments about encouraging manufacturers to reduce their packaging materials, which are often comprised of single use plastics, and was hoping that you would be able to tell me more about this proposal and how you will achieve it.
As Environment Secretary, please could you also tell me what plans, if any, you have regarding plastic bags. Although plastic now features strongly in every aspect of the average westerner’s daily lifestyle, from the packaging on the food we eat, to the technology we use, and even the activities we undertake in our leisure time, the plastic bag is probably the most widely recognised form of plastic pollution. Many countries have already taken steps to ban single use plastic bags, with often astounding results, or to introduce taxes on them. The Republic of Ireland, for instance, introduced a tax on plastic bags in 2002, which resulted in a 90% reduction in plastic bag usage as well acquiring significant extra revenue for the government. Are you considering a similar tax, or an outright ban, for the UK? For your interest, I attach a list of worldwide bans and taxes on plastic bags currently in place.
I understand that you are a person who is very much in demand and with a heavy workload, but I would very much like to enter a conversation with you on these subjects. As you are aware, zero waste and plastic waste are subjects very much in the public sphere at the moment, and they are obviously on the new government’s agenda as well, and it is in the public’s interest – and in the interest of the environment and our swiftly depleting resources – to tackle these issues openly and quickly.
I look forward to hearing from you and learning more about your own and the government’s plans and thoughts on this important issue.
Yours truly,
Isabel Popple
And here is the reply I have just recieved:
Dear Ms Popple
Thank you for your email of 19 June to the Secretary of State. I have been asked to reply.
It is encouraging to hear of your interest in this issue. You may have seen that the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, has recently announced a full review of waste policies in England. The overarching purpose of the Review will be to ensure that the correct waste policies are in place to enable us to move towards a ‘zero waste society’.
In line with the European Union’s revised Waste Framework Directive, the Government's aim is to end the needless distribution of carrier and, over the longer term, we would like to see the single-use carrier bag, issued free at the point of sale, become a thing of the past. The key to reducing the number of bags we use is reuse of bags of all varieties. All bags have an environmental impact - reusing them as many times as possible and disposing of them in an appropriate way minimises this impact. This could include a final use as a bin liner – displacing the need for a new bag/liner to be used instead.
The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) monitor the number of bags given out by the main supermarkets, and will present their next full set of data this summer.
On 18 December 2008, Britain's leading supermarkets, represented by the British Retail Consortium (BRC), signed up to an agreement pledging a 50 per cent cut in the number of carrier bags given out by the end of May 2009, based on a 2006 baseline, and to aspire to a longer term reduction of 70 per cent. The agreement covered seven of Britain's major supermarket chains in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and targeted both paper and plastic single-use carrier bags provided by the supermarkets involved. The supermarkets committed to the agreement account for more than 85 per cent of the UK grocery market and, therefore, a significant proportion of the UK's carrier bag usage. Bags will still be available, but retailers will be introducing various measures to reduce the number they give out, and encourage consumers to reuse the bags they have - whatever sort of bags they are.
The voluntary agreement builds on an earlier agreement with 21 leading retailers to reduce the environmental impact of carrier bags by 25 per cent between May 2006 and December 2008. The results of this earlier agreement were a 26 per cent reduction in numbers of bags distributed by participating retailers, and a 40 per cent reduction in the environmental impact of carrier bags.
More information on WRAP’s work on reducing waste and increasing resource efficiency in businesses and public organisations can be found on its website at www.wrap.org.uk.
For more information on Defra’s programme on reducing waste arising from carrier bags, please visit our website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/litter/bags/index.htm.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
David Hands
Customer Contact Unit
Defra
First reactions
My first response to the David Hands' reply is: did he actually read my letter?
"You may have seen that the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, has recently announced a full review of waste policies in England," he writes. Err, well, had he read my letter properly, he may have seen that an acknowledgement of this forms the opening sentence of my letter, "This week [Caroline Spelman] called for the UK to become a zero waste society." Ok, so maybe my comment doesn't directly refer to an overview of waste management policy, but I do think it demonstrates that I'm aware of the review and the Secretary of State's movements on it.
Second reactions
"The Government's aim is to end the needless distribution of carrier and, over the longer term, we would like to see the single-use carrier bag, issued free at the point of sale, become a thing of the past." Ok, that's a start. But how does he define "needless distribution", and how does the government actually plan to end this needless distribution?
"The key to reducing the number of bags we use is reuse of bags of all varieties." I take this to mean that the manner in which the government plans to end "needless distribution" of the single-use carrier bag is by making them, errr, multiple use? So, no bans, no taxes, just encouraging people to re-use them? Doesn't sound like a very solid plan really does it? And how are they going to encourage people to re-use them?
"On 18 December 2008, Britain's leading supermarkets, represented by the British Retail Consortium (BRC), signed up to an agreement pledging a 50 per cent cut in the number of carrier bags given out by the end of May 2009, based on a 2006 baseline, and to aspire to a longer term reduction of 70 per cent..." Some nice figures here, that might be enough to satisfy a lot of people with similar queries. But it rather feels like he is simply quoting figures he's been told to brag about, rather than having properly read my letter and considered the issues I tried to raise within it.
Are you kidding me?
"The results of this earlier agreement were a 26 per cent reduction in numbers of bags distributed by participating retailers, and a 40 per cent reduction in the environmental impact of carrier bags." A 40% reduction in the environmental impact of carrier bags? How on earth can he quantify or prove this figure? Where does this figure come from and how was it obtained?
And finally...
The Defra website link doesn't work. At least, not today anyway. Which means I am unable to look at "more information on Defra’s programme on reducing waste arising from carrier bags."
Dear Caroline,
This week you called for the UK to become a zero waste society, an issue which I whole heartedly support.
I am currently researching and writing a book about plastic. Loosely titled ‘A Life Less Plastic’, it will chart the story of plastic, from its manufacture, to the myriad plastic products we find in our homes, to its disposal, and all of the environmental concerns surrounding it. I was therefore particularly interested in your comments about encouraging manufacturers to reduce their packaging materials, which are often comprised of single use plastics, and was hoping that you would be able to tell me more about this proposal and how you will achieve it.
As Environment Secretary, please could you also tell me what plans, if any, you have regarding plastic bags. Although plastic now features strongly in every aspect of the average westerner’s daily lifestyle, from the packaging on the food we eat, to the technology we use, and even the activities we undertake in our leisure time, the plastic bag is probably the most widely recognised form of plastic pollution. Many countries have already taken steps to ban single use plastic bags, with often astounding results, or to introduce taxes on them. The Republic of Ireland, for instance, introduced a tax on plastic bags in 2002, which resulted in a 90% reduction in plastic bag usage as well acquiring significant extra revenue for the government. Are you considering a similar tax, or an outright ban, for the UK? For your interest, I attach a list of worldwide bans and taxes on plastic bags currently in place.
I understand that you are a person who is very much in demand and with a heavy workload, but I would very much like to enter a conversation with you on these subjects. As you are aware, zero waste and plastic waste are subjects very much in the public sphere at the moment, and they are obviously on the new government’s agenda as well, and it is in the public’s interest – and in the interest of the environment and our swiftly depleting resources – to tackle these issues openly and quickly.
I look forward to hearing from you and learning more about your own and the government’s plans and thoughts on this important issue.
Yours truly,
Isabel Popple
And here is the reply I have just recieved:
Dear Ms Popple
Thank you for your email of 19 June to the Secretary of State. I have been asked to reply.
It is encouraging to hear of your interest in this issue. You may have seen that the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, has recently announced a full review of waste policies in England. The overarching purpose of the Review will be to ensure that the correct waste policies are in place to enable us to move towards a ‘zero waste society’.
In line with the European Union’s revised Waste Framework Directive, the Government's aim is to end the needless distribution of carrier and, over the longer term, we would like to see the single-use carrier bag, issued free at the point of sale, become a thing of the past. The key to reducing the number of bags we use is reuse of bags of all varieties. All bags have an environmental impact - reusing them as many times as possible and disposing of them in an appropriate way minimises this impact. This could include a final use as a bin liner – displacing the need for a new bag/liner to be used instead.
The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) monitor the number of bags given out by the main supermarkets, and will present their next full set of data this summer.
On 18 December 2008, Britain's leading supermarkets, represented by the British Retail Consortium (BRC), signed up to an agreement pledging a 50 per cent cut in the number of carrier bags given out by the end of May 2009, based on a 2006 baseline, and to aspire to a longer term reduction of 70 per cent. The agreement covered seven of Britain's major supermarket chains in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and targeted both paper and plastic single-use carrier bags provided by the supermarkets involved. The supermarkets committed to the agreement account for more than 85 per cent of the UK grocery market and, therefore, a significant proportion of the UK's carrier bag usage. Bags will still be available, but retailers will be introducing various measures to reduce the number they give out, and encourage consumers to reuse the bags they have - whatever sort of bags they are.
The voluntary agreement builds on an earlier agreement with 21 leading retailers to reduce the environmental impact of carrier bags by 25 per cent between May 2006 and December 2008. The results of this earlier agreement were a 26 per cent reduction in numbers of bags distributed by participating retailers, and a 40 per cent reduction in the environmental impact of carrier bags.
More information on WRAP’s work on reducing waste and increasing resource efficiency in businesses and public organisations can be found on its website at www.wrap.org.uk.
For more information on Defra’s programme on reducing waste arising from carrier bags, please visit our website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/litter/bags/index.htm.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
David Hands
Customer Contact Unit
Defra
First reactions
My first response to the David Hands' reply is: did he actually read my letter?
"You may have seen that the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, has recently announced a full review of waste policies in England," he writes. Err, well, had he read my letter properly, he may have seen that an acknowledgement of this forms the opening sentence of my letter, "This week [Caroline Spelman] called for the UK to become a zero waste society." Ok, so maybe my comment doesn't directly refer to an overview of waste management policy, but I do think it demonstrates that I'm aware of the review and the Secretary of State's movements on it.
Second reactions
"The Government's aim is to end the needless distribution of carrier and, over the longer term, we would like to see the single-use carrier bag, issued free at the point of sale, become a thing of the past." Ok, that's a start. But how does he define "needless distribution", and how does the government actually plan to end this needless distribution?
"The key to reducing the number of bags we use is reuse of bags of all varieties." I take this to mean that the manner in which the government plans to end "needless distribution" of the single-use carrier bag is by making them, errr, multiple use? So, no bans, no taxes, just encouraging people to re-use them? Doesn't sound like a very solid plan really does it? And how are they going to encourage people to re-use them?
"On 18 December 2008, Britain's leading supermarkets, represented by the British Retail Consortium (BRC), signed up to an agreement pledging a 50 per cent cut in the number of carrier bags given out by the end of May 2009, based on a 2006 baseline, and to aspire to a longer term reduction of 70 per cent..." Some nice figures here, that might be enough to satisfy a lot of people with similar queries. But it rather feels like he is simply quoting figures he's been told to brag about, rather than having properly read my letter and considered the issues I tried to raise within it.
Are you kidding me?
"The results of this earlier agreement were a 26 per cent reduction in numbers of bags distributed by participating retailers, and a 40 per cent reduction in the environmental impact of carrier bags." A 40% reduction in the environmental impact of carrier bags? How on earth can he quantify or prove this figure? Where does this figure come from and how was it obtained?
And finally...
The Defra website link doesn't work. At least, not today anyway. Which means I am unable to look at "more information on Defra’s programme on reducing waste arising from carrier bags."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)