In a message dated 12/20/2006 6:38:53 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bill@no.address writes:
I wouldn’t get discouraged by this news from Australia. The Australian
federal government is a lot like the Bush Administration in the U.S. – right wing
conservatives doing industry’s bidding (many of course from industry).
Three members of the Product Policy Institute were invited to give talks on
Extended Producer Responsibility in four cities in Australia this past
September. We were impressed with what we saw. The good news is that the states
and local governments are uniformly more progressive than the federal
administration. For example, the state of Western Australia is poised to pass EPR
framework legislation, with first up being a container deposit system.
/Bill
*************************************
Bill Sheehan, Director
Product Policy Institute
P.O. Box 48433
Athens, GA 30604 USA
Tel: 706-613-0710
Email: _bill@no.address (mailto:bill@no.address)
Web: _www.productpolicy.org_ (http://www.productpolicy.org/)
*************************************
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--- Begin Message ---
- Subject: RE: [GAIA] Australia - Federal Government claim zero waste goals 'unrealistic'
- From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill@no.address>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:30:51 -0500
- Thread-index: AcckPWplb2lM0ToOThmNo5N+3qPr2wABHeqg
I wouldn't get discouraged by this news from Australia. The Australian
federal government is a lot like the Bush Administration in the U.S. - right
wing conservatives doing industry's bidding (many of course from industry).
Three members of the Product Policy Institute were invited to give talks on
Extended Producer Responsibility in four cities in Australia this past
September. We were impressed with what we saw. The good news is that the
states and local governments are uniformly more progressive than the federal
administration. For example, the state of Western Australia is poised to
pass EPR framework legislation, with first up being a container deposit
system.
/Bill
*************************************
Bill Sheehan, Director
Product Policy Institute
P.O. Box 48433
Athens, GA 30604 USA
Tel: 706-613-0710
Email: bill@no.address
Web: www.productpolicy.org <http://www.productpolicy.org/>
*************************************
_____
From: Alan Watson [mailto:alanwatson@no.address]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:47 AM
To: GAIA Members
Subject: [GAIA] Australia - Federal Government claim zero waste goals
'unrealistic'
Below is just one of several recent attacks on Zero Waste. Another can be
found at:
http://www.gov.gg/ccm/policy-and-hr/billets--resolutions/2007/blllet-detat--
-xiv-2006.en
In the Download agenda Billet D'etat I. This includes a rebuttal of the high
recycling rates claimed for various zero waste administrations. I haven't
had time to go through these in detail yet and wonder whether anybody has
collected recent (and validated/ referenced) data on the actual diversion
rates which could be used as a rebuttal?
Many thanks and best wishes
Alan
Australia - zero waste goals 'unrealistic'
The Australian Federal Government has taken a swipe at State and Territory
Governments for adopting "zero waste" strategies as costly and unrealistic.
The Herald Sun newspaper reports that the report by the Productivity
Commission released on December 19 found many had adopted "inappropriate and
inconsistent" objectives.
The commission, charged with the study by Treasurer Peter Costello attacked
government policies of charging extra landfill taxes as a way of cutting
waste and boost revenue, and described many alternative waste technologies
as expensive with "questionable" environmental benefits.
The commission also found local governments should not be disposing of
rubbish in large urban centres, that "pay-as-you-throw" charges should be
introduced for kerbside collections, and that container deposits - such as
those in place in South Australia were too costly.
Key points
* State and territory waste management policies contain some
inappropriate and inconsistent objectives. These have led to some
jurisdictions adopting unrealistic, and potentially very costly, waste
minimisation targets
* These policies are giving rise to some unsound interventions
including: - using landfill levies to achieve waste diversion targets and
raise revenue; - subsidising waste recovery options, such as alternative
waste technologies, that are costly and have questionable environmental
benefits; and - introducing mandatory product stewardship or extended
producer responsibility schemes, where disposal problems have not been
adequately demonstrated.
* Waste management policy should be refocused on the environmental and
social impacts of waste collection and disposal, and supported by more
rigorous cost-benefit analysis, if it is to best serve the community.
* As a general rule, policy makers should not use waste management
policies to address upstream environmental impacts. Where warranted, these
are much more effectively and efficiently addressed using direct policy
instruments, and often already are.
* Directly addressing relevant market failures and distortions
throughout product life cycles will assist markets to achieve the right
balance between waste avoidance, resource recovery and disposal.
* Regulation of disposal has improved considerably in recent years,
and where complied with, appears to have been very effective. However,
compliance with landfill regulations could be improved considerably.
* Waste disposal fees should be based on the full social,
environmental and financial costs involved. For landfills, this will
require: - tightening regulatory compliance so that landfill gate fees
include the costs of the regulatory measures needed to address disposal
externalities; but - abolishing landfill levies (taxes) as these are not
based on legitimate costs.
* Basic forms of pay-as-you-throw pricing for kerbside waste and
recycling services, should be more widely adopted, with information on the
actual costs for these services better communicated to households.
* In most large urban centres, for reasons of scale and planning (as
with sewage and electricity), managing waste disposal is no longer best
handled by local governments.
* The Australian Government should play a leadership role in
facilitating (relevant) reforms, and where appropriate, developing sound,
nationally consistent waste management policies.
The study found Australians generated 32.4 million tonnes of solid waste
each year, with about 15 million tonnes recovered for recycling.
Copies of the inquiry report (2.2 MB) can be downloaded from the
Commission's website at:
<http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/waste/finalreport/waste.pdf>
http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/waste/finalreport/waste.pdf
<http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/waste/finalreport/waste.pdf>
Alan Watson C.Eng
Public Interest Consultants
Oakleigh
Wernffrwd
Gower
Swansea SA4 3TY
Wales
UK
Tel: + 44 (0)1792 851599
Fax: +44 (0)1792 850056
P
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Gaia-members@no.address
To unsubscribe, email gigie@no.address
--- End Message ---
|