The ETS consultation findings have been published, and the Government continues to be in positive listening mode following the recognition that to ensure accuracy and fairness in its deployment, then better data is required to make informed decisions.
By pushing the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) back to 2028 it will give the government and the sector more time to analyse the potential implications of ETS both environmentally and economically leading to informed policy deployment.
A genuine fear which was highlighted in the consultation feedback related to ensure that by imposing ETS we didn’t end up with any perverse outcomes such as shifting waste from EfW to landfilling or waste export if that became the cheaper option. The Government has recognised this legitimate concern and promises to manage any “leakage” risk through the introduction of other policy drivers which is sensible.
The looming significant cost implication of the imposition of the ETS regulation on residual waste, especially for Local Authorities, has been at last properly recognised and here we see the potential and power of the EPR regulations to decarbonise at source via better segregation of carbon emitting packaging. By using modulated fees to target fossil-based packaging, EPR can create greater funds to both deliver a reduction in waste volumes and extract more through better funded recycling collections and treatment.
I have always advocated for the policy of EPR and here we can see the power that this fundamental legislation has on steering the behaviour to deliver better environmental outcomes. Better to give “waste a second life” as we say at CIRQLR rather than try to capture the resultant carbon emitted through the incineration of poorly sorted waste. Carbon capture remains a costly alternative and some time off in the future so let’s use the positive power of EPR to decarbonise at source and in a timescale that delivers positive results more quickly and cost effectively.