by Peter Jones
8 minute read
For a couple of years now it has been clear that the Daily Mail, despite being printed on largely recycled newsprint, is no fan of recycling. As regular Isonomia readers will know, on occasion I’ve been able to force it to withdraw some of its more egregious claims.
Since I last wrote on this topic I’ve pursued further complaints through the now defunct Press Complaints Commission (PCC) and its successor the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – which in practice is the same people, operating the same code of practice, but with a worse website. IPSO also seems more energetic than its predecessor in finding reasons not to uphold complaints. There’s still no appeal process, and no way to complain if you think a decision is wrong. I’ll summarise a couple of recent war stories for your edification at the end of this article.
Landfill of hope and glory
However, unprompted by any action on my part, the Mail has tackled the big question left hanging by its advocacy of weekly refuse collections, opposition to measures that might mean more bins (food waste collections, source separated recycling) and implication that recycling is a waste of effort: what would they have us do with our waste?
The answer came in November in an article by James Delingpole, better known for his strident denunciations of the claim that the actions of human beings are causing climate change.
Delingpole is no mug, and the article, while polemical, for the most part trades on omissions and distortions rather than downright errors. His view is also closely aligned with UKIP’s waste policy, although their European election material (all we have to go on at the moment) was scant on details and Delingpole offers more of a rationale.
The proposal is a simple one: scrap the Waste Framework Directive’s targets and the Landfill Tax (LFT) that has pushed up UK recycling rates, make existing landfill space available cheaply to all and rely on the aggregate industry to keep creating new voids to fill. This, he claims, is “the system that worked perfectly well for us before our politicians and the EU stuck their oars in”.
The piece is framed in the context of rising waste crime, and in particular a huge fly-tipping incident in Essex. This he attributes to the cost and inconvenience of disposing of waste legitimately. It’s an issue that should trouble all of us in the waste sector, because it is clearly true that making waste disposal expensive is part of what opens up the opportunity for waste crime.
However, waste isn’t the only area where laws and taxes create incentives for crime: smugglers thrive on avoiding the duties on alcohol and cigarettes, while the prohibition on recreational drugs has given rise to vast criminal enterprises. The Mail’s attitude in these cases, though, is not to repeal the laws or taxes: they castigate the criminals and call for stronger enforcement, presumably because they think that the benefits of these laws outweigh the costs. Isn’t the same true of LFT?
The hole truth?
Not according to the Delingpole. He says that getting waste out of landfill was never an environmental issue. The real reason for the Waste Framework Directive was not environmental but economic: the Netherlands and Denmark, who “for geographical reasons had less landfill space than Britain” lobbied for landfill restrictions to remove the UK’s “competitive advantage of cheaper rubbish disposal.” Who knew these two countries – both less densely populated than England, both having introduced their own high LFTs and (along with the rest of Europe) closed down many landfill sites over the last decade – were so influential!
He considers and rejects just two environmental arguments. First, he states that “once our carefully sifted rubbish has been collected — and duly noted as ‘recycled’ under the EU’s definitions — it ends up either being buried like ordinary landfill or shipped to places like China.” This is a glorious jumble of errors: the claim that any significant amount of the material collected for recycling is landfilled is (as the Mail previously accepted) just plain wrong; he completely ignores the UK’s reprocessor industry, and erroneously implies that exporting recycling is the environmental equivalent of simply burying it. It’s the one paragraph on which I think IPSO might just be persuaded to act.
Secondly, he dismisses the idea that we need to worry about the potent greenhouse gas methane being released from landfill because (a) we now have landfill gas capture systems and (b) “there has been no recorded global warming since 1998”. Taking on Delingpole’s views on global warming would be beyond the scope of this article, but let’s just note the irony that the reason we have widespread landfill gas capture is EC legislation.
Delingpole doesn’t find room to consider the CO2 emissions saved when we recycle because of the avoided need for primary materials, but given his views on climate change he’d be unlikely to be impressed. Nor does he consider the resource security benefits that come from recycling, reducing our need for imported virgin material – perhaps because he mistakenly believes that all recycling is either exported or landfilled. The risks around leachate and the likely opposition from residents living near all the new landfill sites that would be required also escape his attention.
IPSO factor
In all, it’s a Daily Mail classic, packed with obfuscation and elision, with just enough basis in fact to make it plausible. While those working in the resources sector will immediately recognise the flaws in the argument, Delingpole offers an appealingly simple solution that will speak strongly to the atavistic, anti-EU instincts that are propelling UKIP’s rise: expect to hear it widely repeated, and be prepared to argue against it.
However, I can’t necessarily recommend taking the argument forward through IPSO. My two most recent complaints took so long to resolve that, while submitted to the PCC, one was eventually dealt with by its successor.
The first addressed another foray by the Mail into the argument that the separate collection requirements under the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations would mean every household receiving extra bins. The article was occasioned by Defra’s release of its draft guidance on the regulations under a Freedom of Information Act request. True to form, the Mail stitched together a bunch of inaccuracies and half-truths, which I unpicked in a letter. Having previously won an argument on the key point (separate collection does not entail separation by householders) it seemed this might be an easy victory. Not so.
After much correspondence, all I was able to secure was an amendment to one of the subheaders: “An earlier version of this article wrongly said that Brussels had set a target of 50% of waste to be recycled per home. In fact, as the sub-heading now makes clear, the target is for 50% of the total amount of waste to be recycled.” IPSO said it was satisfied that the Mail’s statement that “many homes will need more bins” was presented as conjecture rather than fact.
I also challenged the Mail’s use of the term “compulsory recycling scheme”, which the paper now admits means compulsory for local authorities, not for residents. This usage, IPSO said, was “ambiguous” but not “misleading”. I fail to see how someone who took the wrong meaning from an ambiguous term could help but be misled…
Sloppy thinking
The second concerned a scare story under the bizarre headline “How your slop bucket could poison your family”. Here the Mail picked a new target, and claiming science was on its side set about measuring levels of bacteria on a kitchen work-surface near a food waste caddy.
My letter of complaint succeeded in pushing the Mail to correct a misquotation of the WRAP Separate Food Waste Collection Trials – they said that “a quarter of those taking part reported terrible smells and infestations of maggots”. In fact, the trial reported that 24 per cent of people cited concerns about hygiene, odour and vermin as their reason for not participating in the trials. Only 6 per cent of those who had participated actually experienced such problems.
However, my main point was that the test the Mail had used was far from scientific and no reliable conclusion could be based on it. This was a bust: IPSO concluded that “the term ‘scientific’ was not being used as a technical term to describe the rigour or reliability of the experiment” and that because the article explained how the test was done, it was not misleading since readers could decide whether the conclusions drawn were valid. I confess that I lack IPSO’s trust in Mail readers’ grasp of the logic of control group studies.
As the pre-election battle of ideas hots up, I expect we’ll see UKIP and the Mail take up the cudgels against recycling again, and we shouldn’t expect them either to fight fair or be held to account by someone else. It’s up to the recycling sector to make the environmental and economic case for our industry. It may not impress ardent contrarians like Delingpole, but it’s critical that we provide the ammunition needed to prevent the centre ground of the debate moving in their direction.
Do you not feel you are a bit of a ****? Telling tales like a primary school pupil?
Hi Jim,
Nice to have visitors over from the Spectator to raise the tone of debate!
In answer to your question – no. This isn’t the school yard. The factual claims and opinions put forward in the national press influence how public policy is made. When the claims made are incorrect, that needs to be sorted out, or we get policies based on prejudices, not on what works in practice. I’ve tried writing to editors to ask for corrections, and nothing happens. IPSO exists to rectify problems like the ones I’ve identified, and while I’d say it tends to err on the side of backing the press, it’s better than nothing.
Would you prefer that newspapers printed things that are untrue with impunity?
Toby:
Yes, it gets frustrating educating the public in whole,too many agendas. What we are doing here in my State of Michigan is focusing on a regional approach, one city at a time.The goals are the same for each or even added together in a regional solution involving everyone. The approach is simple for a city to understand: 1,. decrease energy costs by utilizing all wastes wastes no body wants 2. Abate environmental contamination from landfills such as runoff, CO2 and Methane. 3. Classify all wastes and recycle everything which usually provides a reduction in landfill space by 90% with 1 an 2.
4. Eliminate hazardoud working condition in working with wastes by treating them first of all. 5.. Provide economic incentives to a city by offering new jobs in the harvesting, clssification and creation of energy; that when lowered in cost helps every person, industry, and entities.
So, it is easy to sell this to a community because no one can refute the advantages, most of which are inherently passed on.
Some will say prove it. OK we can because the technology to do this has been in design and proof for 25+ years on three continents, just becoming noticed because of the need for a real solution for all wastes of a region, some of which could never be used before. For sure, let me know how I can help.
Former airman at Brise Morton
Ted Johnson, PIC
Energyflex. USA
Hello Peter, all the best for 2015. How depressing but a great detailed post and thank you for tackling the Daily Mail. Let’s be hopeful about this. The mainstream media is dying. All the more reason for putting resources and energy into appealing directly in positive ways to the public about reducing consumption and waste.
Thanks Hilary,
Happy New Year to you too, and thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, while print may be in decline the Daily Mail’s website is one of the top 100 websites in the world. They’ve got a lot of reach and influence, compared with the fragmented world of social media…
Peter Just realise that the Daily Mail(the paper that is everyone’s guilty pleasure much like radio phone in shows) is always extremely sure of what it is against but not very sure of what it is for (unless we are talking raspberry goji juice being the new cure for cancer). The aim of the Daily Mail is to find outrageous things for everyone to haruumph about loudly. It is a populist paper which publishes stories that interest people but not necessarily with much fact checking or room for any alternative opinions.
Unfortunately not everything in the world can be as simple as a Daily Mail headline (or a Daily Mail journalist). Waste and recycling are tricky and often have solutions that due to having to work in the real world where money is limited, politicians may not always be able to give the backing things need and different interest groups cannot necessarily agree on the right ways of doing things and science and technology can only give a view that something is slightly less bad than something else means that we do not always get the ideal solutions that we would wish to have.
Explaining these things to journals such as the Daily Mail who want a one word answer are challenging. Scientists and engineers are particularly bad at communicating things to newspapers (but possibly not as bad as social workers) because we can normally see more than one way to do things but have to choose the one that we may not totally agree with. We like to hedge our answers and this annoys journalists looking for a simple answer to fling at their readers so they will go to the nearest eejit (normally a politician but it can also be a pundit of any kind but as we all know a pundit is a jelly type organism with venomous tentacles that sits under sewage outfalls in rivers eating the unwary) who can provide a clear answer because there brains are unaffected by thought in any way.
Finally money talks and the Daily Mail is known for backing things that play into the interests of their business owners and advertisers. One would almost think that the packaging industry might have a vested interest in less onerous regulations for recycling. Might be worth selling shares in recycling companies to the owners of the Daily Mail in order to see if there is any change in these things. Good luck with changing their views but the Daily Mail has not succumbed to rational thought in 100 years of publication most notable due to their backing of the Nazi’s and any brief read of their laughable Science and Technology Reporting. Much though I loathe the fact that influences many people’s opinions it is also part of free speech which is why we are better off for it as sometimes they do point out things which do need to be improved.
Hi Toby,
Thanks for your thoughts – I’ve no wish to interfere with anyone’s freedom of speech, but national newspapers are signed up to a code of practice that commits them to not publishing misleading or inaccurate statements, and to correcting any that slip through. As you say, the Mail is (unaccountably) influential, and I feel that it should be called account for its… let’s call them errors.
Hi Peter
Thanks for replying. I agree that newspapers should be held to account and I for one am grateful that you do this. Ben Goldacre (and many others before him) has been trying to hold the Daily Mail to account for years. However I have yet to see any reduction in the amount of nonsense that is published yet although they seem to be a little less strident on their cures for cancer recently as they continue to compile the worlds largest of things that cause cancer and things that prevent cancer (some of which are on both lists). Who knows? It might happen but I sincerely doubt it! I suspect that the answer lies best in satire (Private Eye, the Onion, The Daily Mash etc all do a fantastic job and the development of critical thought in people. We can of course help by writing in whenever we see them put out nonsense. Most of all we must realise that the majority of people who do come out spouting the opinions represented in the Daily Mail can normally be reasoned with normally by asking them how they would do it and why do they think that we recycle and do they care about the environment or do they want a landfill building next to their house or on their favorite golf course etc . I would say that there is only a hardcore of maybe 5% of people that genuinely don’t want to recycle. The majority of the people understand the reasons behind it but just like many other things (exercise, Dieting) find it hard to get the will power together to do it properly. The Daily Mail provides there excuse not to do it. If you understand that then you can design better recycling schemes that nudge people towards making the right choices rather than get there through compulsion and fines.
As you point out James Dellingpole did manage to ignore the fact that fly tippers are making an awful lot of money from avoiding the law rather than complying with it and as a libertarian conservative who no doubt admires the free market system it would be better to point out to him information such as the recent report by the OECD on green laws and its impact on growth and poroductivity and why we need to put sufficient money into policing fly tipping (no doubt all those cuts in EA and LA funding have contributed to a lack of enforcement of fly tipping) rather than decry the fact that we are forcing respectable (ahem) companies to fly tip because compliance is so expensive. Personally having read a few of Dellingpoles articles he does not come across in my opinion as someone who has benefited from his expensive education and there is a lot of lazy thinking there. Certainly he needs to be challenged more in order to ensure he does at least come out with well thought out arguments and he might even relish the opposition. Good things can only come from debate and I suspect that sometimes criticism can help improve the way that public services are provided. There is often a lack of understanding as to why we do things the way we do them. We as waste professionals need to realise that we can always improve the way we deliver our services and if they are getting criticised then maybe we need to realise that the public may have a point. At what point are too many bins too much? Does it depend on how big your house is? Can we reduce the number of bins and still get a high recycling rate? At what point do we need to start doing weekly rather than monthly collections? Are weekly collections something that local residents should be deciding in local referendum based on their appetite for increased taxes or is it a national issue? Why do people think all the recycling goes abroad? Have markets changed permanently to favor waste recycling in the UK or will things change again if wages go up and prices for material go down? These are the interesting questions and if we do have answers will they be received well or badly? Let us understand what questions the public really have and why.
Oh Peter! I was trying so hard to get into a positive frame of mind for 2015. This is a depressing tale. I thought the mad idea that England had a competitive advantage because of our limitless supply of empty holes which could be filled with waste had died out in the late 1980’s. I wonder what the Mail’s view on small boys and chimneys is?
Full marks for keeping up the battle for corrections – particularly hard against opinion pieces.
Is it therefore too late to wish you a Happy New Year, Phillip? I hope not. On the positive side, the ideas about waste put forward by UKIP and the Mail are still far from mainstream, and the arguments needed to counter them are far easier to convey than, for example, in the case of climate change. I just think that the resource sector needs to be ready to deploy them (simply pointing out that there is a substantial UK reprocessing sector would tend to prick the “it’s all exported or landfilled” argument around recycling).
Perhaps it isn’t surprising that ideas that (for most of us) died out in the 1980s are in ripe good health amongst those aspiring to a return to the values of the 1950s?