In 2002 Ireland introduced a levy on plastic carrier bags – since when customers have been obliged to pay for plastic bags which hitherto had been provided free of charge.  The use of plastic bags dropped by somewhere close to 90% according to many estimates.  As a result, this scheme has been hailed as a success by many, and the example is often cited as a positive approach to dealing with problems in the environment and consumer behaviour.  Through the use of a levy, the consumer is effectively being asked to make a personal choice to reduce waste and to re-use manufactured goods – all of which is an important part in the move towards a better environmental policy – and yet a levy only targets the individual consumer.  This policy is a prime example of the individual being made responsible for the implementation of key governmental decisions, and although asking individuals to take responsibility for their actions is a good thing – aren’t we missing something? Isn’t there anyone else who should take responsibility?  Or should the responsibility for decisions always come down to the consumer?

35 years ago, the consumers of the United Kingdom were able to have their morning milk delivered to them in glass bottles; the glass bottles were then collected when empty by the same delivery service; the bottles were then washed and re-used for the next delivery cycle.  This industry has since suffered at the hands of the large supermarkets, whom, with a broader product base, and with lower per capita logistical costs, could afford to sell the milk at half the price of that sold by the milk rounds; under which conditions the market has reduced from 89% of households having milk delivered in the 1980s to just 3% today.  Arguably, the demise of the milk round is because consumers chose to purchase their milk elsewhere, yet to what extent can we say that a consumer had a choice?

Two of the primary factors dictating a consumer’s choice are: cost and availability.  Cost is a factor because freedom of choice is inherently limited by the money that you have in your pocket.  If I only have £10 in my pocket, I can only buy something which costs £10 or less.  I cannot purchase items for more money than I have unless I borrow money, and since I do not choose whether or not I am allowed to borrow (that is the prerogative of the lender), I do not have complete freedom of choice.  Even within my budget however availability is a factor; because what I want may not be offered in the marketplace.  An example of this is car production; in 1909 the Ford Motor Company changed its production methods to speed up production and subsequently decided to offer the cars in black only (having previously been offered in many colours), as the paint was faster drying than other colours.  Of this decision Henry Ford remarked “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black”.  This throw-away line illustrates very clearly the point that the consumer (even where they have enough money) can only choose from the options provided. (It is also apparent from this example that manufacturers will invariably only provide those options which are profitable to them – so not all options will be provided!)

If (because of the above) we accept then that individual consumers do not have complete freedom of choice, is it reasonable that individual consumers be tasked (solely) with the responsibility for decisions which affect the whole planet?  Policy decisions such as environmental protection are arguably amongst the most important decisions that can be made.  These are decisions which will affect the future of the Earth and all of its inhabitants for generations to come; surely then we should be ensuring that the decisions we have to make are made by those best able to implement them?

If so, who has a greater capacity to implement decisions than the consumer?  In this example, the commercial enterprises who produce and/ or distribute the plastic bags both have a greater disposable income than the consumer, and are directly involved in the distribution chain.  If a supermarket for example simply stopped handing out bags, then consumers would not be able to buy them at all, so there would be nothing to recycle.

But this is not about plastic bags, this is about the fact that we are not making and implementing decisions at the level which is best able to enact them, and we are not ensuring that all those who act take responsibility for their actions.  The bodies who contributed in great part to and who have the greatest influence over the situation, are protected from having to take action – all under the guise of giving the consumer choice.

If we really want to reduce waste, then we could choose to target the unnecessary layers of packaging that surrounds the products that the consumer carries home in the carrier bags.  If there are five or six items in each bag, then surely a policy which targets the packaging could have an exponentially greater effect than the plastic bags.  After all, less packaging is not only a reduction in resources used, but it also leads to a reduction in the transportation needed to carry those goods to the supermarkets for sale; not to mention the fact that the consumer would need less bags to carry home the same amount of goods.

Individuals can only make decisions for individuals – and that in a limited capacity (cost and availability).  If we really wish to make decisions for the planet as a whole, then we have to target the correct level of implementation.  I would argue that part of the role of government is to take responsibility for decisions for the greater good, not to pass the responsibility back to individual consumers.  Passing responsibility for implementing decisions down to those who have a limited capacity to implement them is quite simply stupid.