They're lying to you about the bins

No, not the government, this time it's the media

Ha ha, went the journalists. Isn’t Rishi Sunak silly. Saying he has cancelled things that never existed. Things that were never considered by the government. Seven bins ha ha. Taxing meat ha ha. What a LIAR. I’m very clever.

Yes almost exclusively across the media in the last twelve hours we have seen senior and respected journalists took to their laptops to proclaim that:

• “the Prime Minister *invented* several policies that were *never* going to become law in order to *scrap* them”

• The “Prime minister boasts about scrapping stuff that wasn’t happening.”

• He’s also stopping compulsory nude Morris dancing, mandatory nose jobs and a whole bunch of other things no one ever suggested doing in the first place

I could go on. The big joke was that the Prime Minister has invented things to abolish. The meme was uncritically swallowed hook line and sinker.

There’s only one problem. It isn’t true.

Astonishingly, the seven bins mandate is actually UK statute.

The Environment Act (2021), lists rules for English waste collection authorities. Among these rules is a that recyclable household waste must be collected separately, and a helpful list of “recyclable waste streams” into which waste must be divided:

• (a)glass;

• (b)metal;

• (c)plastic;

• (d)paper and card;

• (e)food waste;

• (f)garden waste

Numerate readers will realise that added together with non-recyclable waste, this totals seven bins.

Indeed, the Act demands that “recyclable household waste in each recyclable waste stream must be collected separately, except so far as provided by subsection (6).”

Subsection 6 contains a get out clause saying fewer separate bins may be used in place of seven where seven is not “technically or economically practicable” to mandate, but the wording of the act is clear. This is the exception rather than the rule. The Government had legislated to mandate for seven bins.

As The Data City’s Tom Forth took to Twitter to explain:

“Seven bins was and is law. And was just about to go into force. And lots of local authorities have spent a lot of money preparing, after spending years pleading with the government not to force the seven bins things on them. Environment Act 2021. Section 45A.”

But it doesn’t stop there.

Boris Johnson’s National Food Strategy review (part one) promoted pricing carbon intensive food - which comprises mainly meat - at a higher level to account for climate externalities. Under the heading “Getting serious about externalities”, the strategy said:

“The food system is riddled with negative externalities: polluted water and air, greenhouse gas emissions, antibiotic resistance, biodiversity loss, even the cost of diabetes treatments. All of these are costs imposed on third parties – namely, all of us – by the food system. In theory, they should all be costed into the system.”

That’s Boris Johnson’s initial food strategy review. It goes on to say “We eat too much salt, red meat, saturated fat and sugar”, and suggests the carbon externality of food, namely meat, be “costed into the system”. There’s your meat tax.

But it gets significantly worse.

Let’s turn to the Climate Change Committee and their carbon budgets.

Parliament passed the Climate Change Act in 2008, which created the world of ‘carbon budgets’ we live in today. Carbon budgets are legally binding, five-year caps on emissions. In parallel with the carbon budgets, the Act also established the Climate Change Committee to oversee them. By law, the CCC advises the government on the level of each budget and the policies that could be used to get there. We’ve had six of these budgets so far.

The CCC is very powerful. As Shadow Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband wrote in his book:

“the Climate Change Committee [was] set up under the Climate Change Act of 2008, which I piloted through parliament. This committee of experts makes recommendations about what action government should be taking to tackle the climate crisis, including proposing five-year carbon budgets, providing expertise, long-term thinking and non-partisan analysis. This means that even though government makes the final call on what to do, the independent recommendations of the body are hard for them to push aside and strongly shape their decisions.”

It matters therefore, that the Climate Change Committee’s sixth climate budget policy document lists 209 pages of policy that the government should accept in order to meet its carbon budget goals.

This document is after all, where the petrol and diesel car ban came from. It sets out that “A zero-emission vehicle mandate should be introduced, requiring car and van manufacturers to sell a rising proportion of zero-emission vehicles, reaching nearly 100% by 2030, with only a very small proportion of hybrids allowed alongside until 2035.”

It also highlights the desirability of meat taxes, saying in black and white “Policies are needed to encourage consumers to shift diets”, aiming for “a 20% shift away from all meat by 2030 rising to 35% by 2050, and 20% shift from dairy products by 2030”. It suggests both “low cost” actions such as “the public sector taking a lead in providing plant-based options with all meals”, adding that “a second stage will need to look at stronger options, whether regulatory or pricing.”

On aeroplane taxation, the committee also promotes “taxes that increase as people fly more often and as they fly further”, complaining that “aviation fuel faces no taxes at all”.

And on cars too, the CCC states that “measures to make it less attractive to drive, are needed”, alongside “barriers to be addressed” including “Barriers to ride-sharing”.

Even expanded working at home and reduced road building is suggested for the sake of the climate. “The public sector should lead the shift to other positive behaviours that reduce travel demand (e.g. encouraging homeworking), facilitated through prioritising broadband investments over road network expansion.”

To reiterate, the government accepts the CCC’s climate budgets. The most recent one was whisked through the House of Commons after just 17 minutes of debate.

The committee are the powerful, statutory advisors to the government on the climate budgeting process. Its recommendations and policy papers matter. As Ed Miliband wrote, “the independent recommendations of the body are hard for [the government] to push aside". And ordinarily the media understands this.

Yet over the last twelve hours it has been fascinating to see how the CCC, ordinarily referred to in the media as “the governments own advisers” .

It was interesting therefore to see Sky News suddenly dismiss the CCC as “some body has made suggestions”, when up until now they were happy to promote it as a headline grabbing organisation, the government’s own advisors, the government’s official watchdog.

Whatever you make of Sunak’s decision to rule out these policies, to pretend that they were never suggested, never entertained, or never pushed for within the corridors of power - all for the sake of a dunk tweet - is just bad journalism. Frankly, the media should strive to do better.