The ASI's Tom Clougherty has sent in a response to Matt:
"Firstly, thank you Peter Franklin for linking to the Adam Smith Institute's latest report, The Waste of Nations. The ASI has been called many things in its time, but "interfering, eco-fascist lefties" is a definite first, even in jest. I think I'll put it in our promotional materials from now on!
Secondly, thank you Matthew Sinclair for your fisk of the report. All publicity is good publicity, as they say. I would, however, like to respond to some of the points you raise.
Your main issue with the report seems to be the question of whether we should recycle more. The point that report makes, I think persuasively, is that recycling makes sense both in economic and environmental terms.
It makes sense economically because recycling generally costs less than the simple disposal of waste, since recyclables have a value. A central tenet of the report is that in a free market (with liberalized waste collection and freer trade in recyclables) there would be far more recycling and far more recycled goods, because those things would appeal to people's self interest.
The obvious environmental benefits are the decreased use of landfill and incinerators – both of which are enormously unpopular – along with lower emissions and saved resources. What is important is that we don't think there need be any "conflict between good economic stewardship and good environmental stewardship" – with the right policy framework, recycling is a win-win.
On this basis, the report does argue that pay-as-you-throw waste charges should be permitted (the UK is virtually unique in prohibiting them) since they are the best way to encourage more recycling and less waste.
However, our proposals are entirely different from those being trialled by the government. They are not about fining or rewarding households within a state-controlled system. They are about getting people to pay directly for a service they use, which would be provided by a private company of their choice. A competitive system like that would also have the benefits of keeping costs down and increasing customer satisfaction (no more fortnightly collections unless people actually wanted them).
Your second point is that pay-as-you-throw will increase fly-tipping. We found little evidence to support this. The primary reason for fly-tipping is not cost but convenience – our state-controlled waste system often does not provide adequate services or facilities. A liberalized, competitive waste collection system like the one advocated in our report can be expected to change that.
The main issue though, from the Taxpayers' Alliance perspective, will of course be the financial burden on households. I would maintain, however, that being able to choose who collects your rubbish and paying according to how much you throw away is actually an opportunity to reduce household bills. And we are very explicit that the introduction of liberalized refuse collection and pay-as-you-throw charging must be accompanied by a corresponding fall in local taxes, since councils would no longer play any part in waste management.
Yes, there are problems with local government accountability (the TPA does a great job highlighting them). But that should not prevent us from adopting sensible, beneficial, free-market reforms. So long as pay-as-you-throw is accompanied by the full liberalization of the waste sector (something the report devotes considerable attention to) it will certainly not "cost households a fortune"."
