Index of this Section Front page of Site
Donate to Sovereignty Join e-mail List Subscribe to Printed Journal


Alistair McConnachie published Sovereignty from July 1999 to its 120th consecutive monthly issue in June 2009, and he continues to maintain this website.
Alistair McConnachie also publishes Prosperity - Freedom from Debt Slavery which explains a solution for the economic crisis and A Force For Good which makes a positive case for the UK Union.
To find out more go to the about who is Alistair McConnachie page.
Buy the Complete 10-Year, 120 Back Issue Set of Sovereignty - worth £162.50 - for only £89 inc p+p, a 45% discount. Cheques to Sovereignty, at 268 Bath St, Glasgow, G2 4JR or go to the Sovereignty home page and click "Buy Now".

Francis Elliott
Deputy Political Editor
Householders to be Fined
Not Recycling Rubbish
Sunday Telegraph
30 March 2003

Ministers have approved plans to fine householders more than £500 a year if they do not prove that they are recycling enough of their rubbish.

The proposals have been agreed after John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, has dropped his opposition to what some ministers have dubbed the "poll tax on rubbish".

Mr Prescott, who had previously refused to allow legislation establishing the charge in a Local Government Bill currently before Parliament, has given way after strenuous lobbying by Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary.

The scheme was finally approved at a ministerial meeting two weeks ago and could now be in place by next year. Michael Meacher, the environment minister, and John Healey, a junior Treasury minister, are among those thrashing out the details.

"It is just an extension of the 'polluter pays' principle," said one minister. "Why should the person who conscientiously sorts out their paper and bottles for recycling pay the same as those who just lob everything out?"

However, some ministers are still wary of opposition to the plan, which comes in a week that will see householders hit by two sets of tax rises: the "double whammy" of national insurance increases and higher council taxes.

The one per cent rise in NI and the freezing of allowances will take effect next week and will cost the average wage earner on an annual salary of £22,000 more than £200 extra a year.

Householders, meanwhile, face average council tax bill rises of around 13 per cent, with some local authorities hiking rates by as much as 45 per cent. The increase in council taxes has led to a nationwide campaign of defiance by householders who are refusing to pay the increases and vowing to go to jail if necessary.

Ministers will seek to limit the political fall-out from the rubbish tax by presenting the new levy as a discount that rewards good behaviour. The Government also intends to pass to local councils the final decision on whether to impose the new charge.

Nevertheless, the scheme will be highly controversial as it will also require dustmen to "snoop" on each home's recycling performance. Councils will set down rules as to the amount of recycling required per household and those adjudged not to be meeting the standards will face fines of £10 a week.

The proposal was first raised in a Downing Street policy paper last year but was initially shelved amid concerns at the growing burden of taxation on middle England.

Typical of the control-freakish UK government's recent legislation is their presumption of "guilt" unless the public (who in theory are meant to be the masters - not the servants - of those same politicians) can prove its own innocence!
There are several ecologically sound means of sensible recycling while at the same time producing both bio-fuels and electricity far more efficiently and cost-effectively than by the government's present countryside-despoiling fetish for windfarms.
David Harrison
Environment Correspondent
Swedes Trash Myth
Refuse Recycling
Sunday Telegraph
2 March 2003

Throw away the green and blue bags and forget those trips to the bottle bank: recycling household waste is a load of, well, rubbish, according to leading environmentalists and waste campaigners.

In a reversal of decades-old wisdom, they argue that burning cardboard, plastics and food leftovers is better for the environment and the economy than recycling.

They dismiss the time-consuming practice - urged on householders by the Government and "green" councils - of separating rubbish for the refuse collectors as a waste of time and money.

The claims, which will horrify many British environmentalists, are made by five campaigners from Sweden, a country renowned for its concern for the environment and advanced approach to waste.

They include Valfrid Paulsson, a former director-general of the government's environmental protection agency, Soren Norrby, the former campaign manager for Keep Sweden Tidy, and the former managing directors of three waste-collection companies.

The Swedes' views are shared by many British local authorities, which have drawn up plans to build up to 50 incinerators in an attempt to tackle a growing waste mountain and cut the amount of rubbish going to landfill.

One deputy council leader in the south of England said: "For years recycling has been held up as the best way to deal with waste. It's time that myth was exploded."

A spokesman for East Sussex council, which plans to build an incinerator at Newhaven, said: "It's idealistic to think that everything can be recycled. It's just not possible. Incineration has an important role to play."

The Swedish group said that the "vision of a recycling market booming by 2010 was a dream 40 years ago and is still just a dream".

The use of incineration to burn household waste - including packaging and food - "is best for the environment, the economy and the management of natural resources", they wrote in an article for the newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

Technological improvements had made incineration cleaner and the process could be used to generate electricity, cutting dependency on oil.

Mr Paulsson and his co-campaigners said that collecting household cartons was "very unprofitable". Used bottles and glass cost glass companies twice as much as the raw materials, and recycling plastics was uneconomical, they said. "Plastics are made from oil and can quite simply be incinerated."

The Swedes said that glass mixed with household waste improved the quality of slag residue and could be used for landfill. Tin cans could be removed by magnets and sent for recycling.

The Swedes stressed that the collection of dangerous waste, such as batteries, electrical appliances, medicines, paint and chemicals "must be further improved".

They added: "Protection of the environment can mean economic sacrifices, but to maintain the credibility of environmental politics the environmental gains must be worth the sacrifice."

The Environmental Services Association, which represents the British waste industry, agreed that the benefits of incineration had been largely ignored. Andrew Ainsworth, its senior policy executive, said: "This is a debate that we need to have in this country. Recycled products have got to compete in a global market and sometimes recycling will not be economically viable or environmentally sustainable.

"In remote areas, for example, it would not be viable to transport waste long distance for recycling. It would make more sense to burn it locally and use the process to generate electricity."

David Lidington, the Tories' shadow environment secretary, said: "We have to look at these claims closely. Incineration is cleaner than it used to be, although there is still public concern about it.

"Britain's recycling rates are lower than most other European countries, so we can certainly improve there, but recycling is not enough."

A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said incineration was "way down the list" because "it causes dangerous emissions, raises public concern and sends out a negative message about re-use".

In an attempt to reduce landfill the Government has told local authorities to recycle 30 per cent of waste by 2010, but admits that many councils are not on target.

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "It's a nonsense to say incineration could ever be better than recycling. That would be a regressive step."

Sweden's Environmental Protection Agency said that it disagreed with the views of its former director-general. A spokesman said: "Recycling is a better option than incineration. It is a resource for new material. If you burn it, you cannot use it again.

"Incineration technology has improved, but you must separate waste or you will produce dangerous toxins."

Donate to Sovereignty Join e-mail List Subscribe to Printed Journal
Index of this Section Front page of Site