Is "Pay-As-You-Throw" feasible in Singapore?
May Chan always uses disposable containers and cutlery. She hates washing dishes - not only do they use water -hey, don't forget that the cost of water mounted in 2017- but they also risk damaging her fingers. And she wastes time and effort scrubbing them.
Furthermore, she can buy a pack of a hundred paper plates for $1.40. Even an extra 20 cents per styrofoam container for dabao is okay. Just don't increase the water bill and waste more time.
When she started to learn about the harms of plastic on the environment and the mounting waste crisis at Semakau Landfill, she felt slightly concerned. But everyone around her was still dabaoing and tossing and laughing, so she laughed and pushed that weeny discomfort to the back of her mind and never thought about it very much. If it was a big problem, the big people will solve it.
When someone suggested "pay-as-you-throw" for waste disposal, she joined the troop of netizens online condemning it. She was outraged by the online meme that you'd have to deposit coins each time you threw your rubbish. She was furious that more of her rights to live were being infringed upon, charged.
The suggested "pay-as-you-throw" idea is far from the coin deposit meme; it was conceived based on radio frequency identification technology to track the volume of waste in each household.
Therein lies the reason for the public anger against the proposal. Instead of a variable rate charging scheme, it is perceived as a new tax, joining the army of taxation, of fuel taxes and water taxes and COEs in Singapore.
But it is not a tax. Unlike taxes, this one promises us that we can pay even less - if we recycle and reduce our waste.
Which is easier said than done.
I believe the pay-as-you-throw should eventually be assimilated into Singaporeans' lifestyle. But hurrying to implement it now, making Singaporeans feel forced to recycle, would do more harm than good. We need to firstly, introduce similar schemes at smaller scale first by having compulsory recycling in schools, offices and in the public sector (Just like how the public sector led the way in Green Buildings and other sustainable measures). This would ensure people pick up the right recycling habits. Then secondly, we need to have additional measures to buffer the impact on people who produce more waste - but not unnecessarily, so we do not penalize them.
Issue with status quo
Our public education approach to nudge people into going green and zero-waste is indeed critical to gain public support, but when not accompanied by zero-waste practices in settings other than isolated eco-events, waste reduction remains sidelined. People see and think subconsciously: it's not so important. It's not a critical issue affecting national security. It's just unchangeable. Everyone's doing it, so why can't I.
That is why we have been stagnating domestic recycling rate hovering at 20-22% for years.
Go Firm with Small Scale First
To begin with, Singapore lacks a strong recycling culture. Just sixty percent of households recycle regularly. And securing the knot of the problem is the question of whether one recycles correctly. In a survey of over 70 respondents that I conducted, just 53% of people wash their recyclables, the other 47% person not doing so either due to misunderstanding or finding it inconvenient. Another survey by Black Dot Research found that close to one-third of Singaporeans mistakenly thought that used paper cups, plastic cutlery and plastic straws were recyclable.
That is why it is essential to learn recycling right at a young age - starting from making it the norm in school and offices. Schools create shared learning experiences that aim to equip an individual with the knowledge to better society. Offices are the place where adults work for the benefit of society. Naturally, recycling - an act of conserving limited resources - falls under being a responsible and civic-minded citizen.
Shared experiences in these two institutions can motivate and inform people to recycle right. The same survey by NEA found that one important motivator for recycling was the feeling that one must match up to other’s recycling efforts. This shows that peer pressure plays a key role in changing one’s behaviour.
A lifetime of encouragement is likely to be significantly less effective than a recycling law implemented in schools and offices. Researchers from Vanderbilt University found that, “both water bottle deposits and recycling laws foster recycling through a discontinuous effect that converts reluctant recyclers into diligent recyclers” and “policies have their greatest effect among those who would not already choose to recycle.” Otherwise, after dunking the incentives, do we expect people to eagerly embrace an activity that is not already a norm, and adds a layer of inconvenience to life?
Introducing pay-as-you-throw when Singapore is still struggling with more than 40% contamination in the blue bins also makes one sceptical of its effects on improving recycling rates. Without high levels of awareness on recycling right, more recycling contamination could occur - a phenomenon that is wasteful in every way, from water to diesel to money, and it finally downgrades the market value of recyclables tremendously. It might even be better for households who throw in contaminants to not recycle at all, to save the clean and proper ones.
In view of this issue, NEA has organized the Recycle Right campaign, and Zero Waste SG has also unveiled the Let's Recycle Together campaign. Yet, the continued high levels of contamination suggest that there is still either insufficient awareness or plain lack of concern for one's actions. To tackle this, making recycling the norm in schools or offices would develop a community spirit of supporting one another in recycling.
Buffer measures
Without buffer measures, pay-as-you-throw would unfairly penalize people that produce higher amounts of waste. For example, a family of five would churn out substantially more waste than a person living alone. Even a couple with a newborn would generate large amounts of waste as they frequently change soiled nappies. It would also discriminate between families that cook and those that don't. And people looking not to pay a single cent can always toss their trash into one of Singapore's many green bins below the HDB block.
Hence, before the implementation of the radio frequency identification (RFID) technology plus the ensuing variable volume charge, we should first have RFID minus the charge, but with a letter informing us what the charge would potentially amount to. It would also be good to know what is the average waste volume for a two-person, three-person, four-person etc household. All this information would provide some mental preparation for the charge in future, and allow time for adjustment of habits...
"Wah, our waste volume is higher than the average for a five-person household leh... now what did I do wrong?"
Pay-as-you-throw must also be accompanied by or preceded with a slew of other recycling or reusable initiatives. Like the UK's Real Nappy Initiative, that seeks to promote reusable nappies hygienically.
Food waste recycling initiatives should also be integrated into the policy. Currently a meagre 16% of food waste in Singapore is recycled. We must first transform our food waste industry, so that the tax doesn't discriminate against people that have more food waste, such as those who buy a whole pineapple versus those that buy a cut pineapples.
We could also design our bins with smaller openings so that it would prevent people wanting to evade the waste charge from placing bagged household waste inside there.
Getting to know yourself first
Before being charged for the waste volume you produce, a trial run, spanning from a few weeks to a few months, should be first conducted for all, so that people are first aware of the amount of waste they produce per day. Studies should also assess the national average waste volume per person each month.
This allows them to realize their waste production habit, and allows them time to adjust and amend. A simple realization of the quantity can change consumer behaviour, similar to how PUB's smart water meters helped households to have water savings of about 5 per cent due to early leak detection and the adoption of water-saving habits.
Pay less than current flat rate in long run
In an online survey by the Straits Times, it found that most of the respondents were willing to accept the policy as long as there were no exorbitant increase in waste disposal prices, and significant savings in the long run.
In my perspective, it is guaranteed that people will enjoy large savings. As waste volume reduces considerably, the load on trucks shuttling to and fro incineration plants and housing estates eases as well. This translates into less consumption of diesel - a win for the environment and Singaporeans, since the lower costs of transport are transmitted to Singaporeans. It may even eventually result in less trucks being needed to circle the island daily.
As our waste volume drops, neither do we need to invest in a fifth incineration plant to burn our waste.
Higher numbers of litter cases?
In 1980, Woodbury, New Jersey was the first state to mandate recycling. People threw litter on their lawn in protest at first, but in three months there was an eighty per cent compliance.
And that was in 1980, when environmental consciousness was still relatively low.
It's hard to argue that littering will suddenly be second nature for the relatively docile Singaporean populace, when the plight of Semakau Landfill is clear to most.
Higher risk of contamination?
As more people recycle (likely by necessity), it is probable that more people will dispose of what should not be in the recycling bin.
Our commingled blue bins, that already suffer tremendously high contamination rates, will take on a further blow.
Encouraging people
See my change in campaigning suggestion.
Why Pay-as-you-throw is so important!
Where in so many areas we blame industries for our environmental issues, from oil spills to global warming, waste production is one aspect that glaringly stands out as an exception. Pay-as-you-throw would catalyze household recycling. Industries beat households in almost every aspect of recycling. A report by Eunomia Research and Consulting found that in Denmark, on average, "the amount of waste collected in municipalities with weight-based schemes is 359 kg less per household compared to municipalities without weight-based schemes".
In the same report, it also concludes that the 'pay-as-you-throw' system puts the " 'polluter-pays' principle into practice, since economic benefits are provided to those who sort and bring waste to recycling".
Some argue that waste is a by-product of city living. It is a human right and we should not be charged for disposing it. But this argument fails to remember that water and electricity, also basic human rights, have variable rate charging in order to disincentivize people from using more than necessary. The notable absence of variable rate charging for waste production also suggests that waste reduction is of lesser importance than saving water, electricity or fuel.
Excessive waste is perhaps the most urgent concern for Singapore, given that the end is already looming in sight. Everyone talks about going "Zero Waste." No one talks about "Zero Water", "Zero Electricity" or "Zero Fuel", and rightly so because we mostly use them out of necessity. But waste can easily be reduced by practising the three Rs, and today still too few Singaporeans incorporate that into their lifestyle, every step of the way.
There is a limited supply of resources; we must decrease unnecessary demand. Singapore has limited land space. Yet our waste generation demands we build new incinerators every seven to ten years, and keep hunting new landfill space. (Unfortunately we are already en route to our fifth waste incinerator.) To be truly conservative with our resources and prevent wastage, Singapore's lifestyle habits and business practices must change.
With this system, more people would be used to thinking about the after life of their purchases. Is it recyclable, reusable or must I bin it? It catalyzes the reversal in consumer expectations. Shifting trends would spur businesses to develop easy-to-recycle products and minimize on fancy packaging. Some might argue that this might decrease profits for businesses, but I see it plainly as bettering quality, not appearance, to keep the business running.
Singapore's throwaway culture must be thrown away. It places permanent stress on our limited resources; it facilitates the growth of poor business practices. The sole benefit of giving people short-term pleasure of convenience will haunt people into lifelong regret.