Recycling campaign by the tfl
The Transport for London are currently running a campaign to encourage their passengers to recycle the free newspapers they get at tube stations. This seems like a good initiative. But is it really? I commute every day and never take the freesheets that distributors literally put on my face when I approach a tube station. I know that there are plenty of London Lite, thelondonpaper and metro left in the carriages anyway. The tfl is arguing that we protect the environment if we take our newspapers with us, so that we can recycle them. But obviously, more the passengers take the newspapers with them, less likely they will find newspapers left in the transport, more they will pick up new newspapers at station entrances. Where is the contradiction?
I think the answer lies both in the tfl key performance indicators and in the consumerist philosophy of recycling.
A great thing about the Transport for London is that you can consult their strategy, objectives and results online. Here is their environment strategy for 2008 – 2013. The objective is to “understand, manage and effectively control the impact our business has on the environment”. So far, so good. The fact that the tfl has an environment strategy is in itself very positive. The flaw of the strategy starts a little later in the document: “Although we have limited control over the waste our customers leave on our trains and in stations, we will work with Metronet and Tube Lines to consider systems for improving how we manage this waste.” This is where everything goes wrong. The tfl has a huge influence on what their customers leave on their trains. In the case of freesheets, it has a huge influence on what they consume in the first place. Assuming the opposite is reducing considerably the actions that could be taken.
The tfl strategy leads to the following recycling KPI to be minimized: “Proportion of station, depot and office waste recycled (%) “. No mention is made on reducing the consumption of paper by passengers. Which is logic if you follow the previous assumption. The fact that people might get twice more newspapers is not important, as long as they recycle few more percents of them. On page 46 of the environment results of 2008, you can see that the percentage of recycled waste has been improved even though the total amount of waste never stopped increasing. The recycling campaign says it all: ” 1.6 million newspapers are given out in London every day.”
Did the tfl have an interest on narrowing down their environment actions? Their campaign is promoted pretty well on the News International and Associated Newspapers freesheet publications. People taking home their newspaper might read it a little more or share it with their family. More copies would have to be printed out but it would not impact that much the readership ratio (number of times a newspaper copy is read), so ad revenues would increase. This would mean more money for the London Underground, who gets free annual payments from the publishers.
The tfl recycling campaign also reveals an important fact: “Help us to recycle by taking yours with you”. I would have thought quite naturally that the London underground recycled all the newspapers left in the carriages. They represent the vast majority of waste left by passengers. But by reading the tfl reports, I discovered they don’t. The total amount of recycled waste is 40%. It has been considerably improved during the last years but this is clearly not enough yet.
The actions of the tfl don’t explain everything though. I have surfed quite a lot on the blogosphere and there seems to be a genuine belief in the public that it is better to recycle than reuse. The argument is that:
- people tend to throw away freesheets on the streets, limiting any reuse
- it is a myth that a freesheet you leave is read by someone else
- It is not respectful for the tfl personal who has to clean it up everyday
I saw some posts from people saying that they leave their freesheet so that someone else can read it. But they get back tens of accusations of laziness or stupidity. I keep wondering why. I like to share magazines when I’m in the waiting room of a doctor. Why could it not work on the underground? Those considerations might seem unimportant but they lead to an essential aspect. Recycling can be seen as another form of consumerism and individualism. If the goal of a society is to consume products. It is then of the society interest to recycle as much as possible, because too much trash would block further consumption. An individualistic society will also always prefer to rely on everyone recycling its OWN trash than to share its assets. Recycling freesheets favours consumerism: it is good for the publishers, for the consumers, for the tfl. Don’t get me wrong, I’m usually in favour of recycling and am a big recycler myself. But I can also see when it is not the optimal solution, when it actually promotes what it should fight against.
Let me give a final example to demonstrate that things could be different. What if the tfl decided to guarantee its passengers they will find left freesheets on any carriage? Freesheet distributors would dispose their papers on carriages at some key stations. They would not distribute it directly to the public anymore (surveys would be used to figure out which publication is the most popular so that they could still get ads). Campaigns would encourage passengers to leave their papers in carriages, which should not be too difficult knowing it is the most common behaviour. The tfl would in fact present the freesheets as a service to their customers. Let’s say the total journey of a underground train is two hours. The average time for someone to read his freesheet is 20 minutes. So, a freesheet could be reused 6 times. Thus publications could be cut by 6. And the employees who would otherwise distribute newspapers could largely suffice to recycle old newspapers at end stations.
What would be wrong with this idea? What do you think of tfl’s position? Is it uncivil to leave your newspaper on a train’s blanket or is it an act of sharing? Feel free to post your point of view.
