Advertisement

The Reader: Take more drastic steps to stem the tide of plastic pollution

Tougher action needed: plastic waste in Indonesia (Photo by Aditya Irawan/NurPhoto via Getty Images): NurPhoto via Getty Images
Tougher action needed: plastic waste in Indonesia (Photo by Aditya Irawan/NurPhoto via Getty Images): NurPhoto via Getty Images

Although we absolutely welcome a ban on straws, stirrers and cotton buds, the Marine Conservation Society is concerned this is a basic action aimed at low-hanging fruit. Many outlets have already stopped providing straws, many manufacturers are producing cotton buds with cardboard sticks and a number of fast food chains only provide wooden stirrers. That’s all been done without Government action, just pressure from the public and organisations like ourselves.

What is really needed, right now, is a whole raft of long-term measures, the only way we will be able to tackle, at source, the current plastic pollution crisis facing our oceans. Those must include actions like levies on other avoidable single-use plastic items, a bottle deposit return scheme (one that includes all materials and sizes and is coherent across the UK) and fundamental changes to the way we produce and consume plastics. The Government must work towards a system in which 1) we reduce the amount of plastic in circulation 2) we reuse the plastic produced and 3) we recycle it, with the long term goal of all new plastic being made from recycled materials and is recyclable.

Consultations are welcome democratic tools, but action can no longer be postponed if we really are to stop the plastic tide.
Sandy Luk
CEO, Marine Conservation Society

EDITOR'S REPLY

Dear Sandy

You’re right that huge progress has already been made in reducing the use of plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds. You’re also right this has come about through the campaigns of organisations like yours and newspapers like ours, raising public awareness and changing behaviour.

Government action wasn’t required to get this far, but it can now act as a back-stop to voluntary action and bring the remaining retailers who have refused to change into line. That’s why we welcomed Michael Gove’s recent announcement of a ban on these plastic products.

As you say, there is still much more to do to reduce plastic use. Your letter suggests the onus is on the Government to do that. But surely the lesson of recent progress is that the public and business community can be mobilised to act long before the state has to step in? We should be encouraging supermarkets and drinks manufacturers to be starting plastic bottle deposit schemes and the like right now.

George Osborne, Editor

EU nationals here also face hostility

THe Windrush scandal is disgraceful but it’s hardly a surprise. We know the Government has been deliberately making life difficult for migrants for years. After Brexit, 3.7 million EU nationals living in the UK also look set to be exposed to Theresa May’s “hostile environment”.

Used as negotiating bargaining chips, left in the dark on their rights and freedoms, EU nationals here already know how it feels treated as second-class citizens in the country they call home. After March 29 next year, this is only going to get worse.

The Government must remember we in the European Parliament have a say on the final Brexit agreement and will not hesitate to vote against any deal that threatens to significantly reduce citizens’ rights.
Jean Lambert, MEP for London, Green Party

We don’t need all these tower blocks

I disagree with your editorial [“London’s looking up” April 19] .

You now endorse a virtual free-for- all for developers and your article [“London’s soaring skyline” April 18] talked of 500 towers of more than 20 storeys. This is madness.

Without sensible zoning the skyline of west London will be wrecked, as Nine Elms and most of the riverside has been already.

Paris achieves high density with an average of six storeys and the use of mansion blocks. We do not need tall towers. Unlike share prices, once they go up, they never come down.

London is in peril. The Evening Standard (and the Mayor Sadiq Khan) should defend it, and not be cheerleaders for the property industry. In this respect we compare unfavourably with Copenhagen or Paris.
Sam Dunkley

Risk makes letting more expensive

In response to Susannah Butter’s article [“Dear landlady, I’m in it for the long run, so can I please have a fair rent?” April 18], I am a landlord and I made a decision to buy a flat as an investment six years ago.

My intention is to give the flat to my son when he is older. This plan involved much deliberation, planning and sacrifice, but I considered it worth it. I continue to put in a huge amount of effort with the management of my investment.

I entirely agree that many things can be improved in housing in England: stamp duty, supply, exorbitant estate agents’ fees and rogue landlords. However, the simple fact remains that renting is relatively expensive because another party is shouldering much of the effort, risk and sacrifice that comes with property ownership.
S Shrestha

Lords vote was anti-democratic

I write further to your editorial [“Lords are right to vote for a customs union” April 8], in which you predicted that the House of Lords would vote against the Government’s plans to leave the EU customs union.

Whether one supported Remain or Leave, within a mature and modern democracy such as the UK it is unacceptable for laws to be made by unelected peers who owe their positions either to accident of birth or political appointment, and whom the electorate has no power to remove.

The peers who voted against have given the impression that, whether myopically or arrogantly, they care so little for public opinion that they can challenge the result of a democratic referendum. Wiser peers may consider that the Lords may have today commenced the process of its own abolition.
Keeley-Jasmine Cavendish