IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecstat/estat_0336-1454_1995_num_290_1_6021.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Politique des déchets : l'approche du Royaume-Uni

Author

Listed:
  • David Litvan

Abstract

[fre] Politique des déchets : l'approche du Royaume-Uni . L'évolution récente de la réglementation européenne en dématière de déchets risque d'entraîner des coûts importants pour les États membres. L'exemple britannique est d'autant plus intéressant pour la France que les deux pays présentent des similitudes : quantité presque identique de déchets ménagers (environ 20 millions de tonnes), faible capacité des incinérateurs existants et normes insuffisantes des installations par rapport aux nouvelles exigencesuropéennes. Des différences dans les politiques nationales font cependant diverger les perspectives d'évolution des coûts de. traitement entre les deux pays : en France, la mise en charge des déchets qui n'auront pas fait l'objet d'un traite- ment préalable doit être supprimée d'ici 2002. Les coûts d'une telle politique, qui recourt en particulier à l'incinéra- tion, apparaissent très élevés : entre 60 et 1 00 milliards de francs. La politique britannique repose au contraire da- vantage sur la mise en décharge, même si elle cherche à en diminuer la part nettement prépondérante (90 %). De ce fait, la mise en décharge restant en général moins onéreuse que le traitement (incinération et recyclage), l'aug- mentation des coûts de la politique des déchets devrait rester plus modérée au Royaume-Uni. [eng] The Waste Policy in the United Kingdom . Recent changes to European waste regulations may provoke high costs for the Member States. The approach taken by the United Kingdom is especially interesting for France since the two countries have certain similarities: virtually identical amounts of household waste (approximately 20 million tonnes), low incinerator capacities, and installation standards that fall short of the new European requirements. . However, national policy differences lead to divergent growth forecasts for treatment costs in the two countries. In France, the 1 992 law sets the year 2002 as the deadline . for an end to the dumping of waste that has not been previously treated. The costs of such a policy, with a large incineration content, appear to be very high: between 60 billion and 100 billion French francs. The UK policy, on the other hand, concentrates more on dumping even though it aims to reduce this dominant 90% share mainly through taxation. As dumping is still generally less costly than treatment (incineration and recycling), the increase in waste policy costs should remain more moderate in the United Kingdom. [ger] Abfallpolitik: der Ansatz GroBbritanniens . Die jùngste Entwicklung der europâischen Reglemen- tierung im Bereich der Abfallentsorgung kônnte fur die Mitgliedstaaten betrâchtliche Kosten zur Folge haben. Das britische Beispiel ist um so interessanter fur Frank- reich, als zwischen diesen beiden Làndern Àhnlichkeiten bestehen: nahezu identische Menge an Hausmùll (ca. 20 Millionen Tonnen), geringe Kapazitât der bestehenden Verbrennungsanlagen sowie unzureichende Normen fur die Anlagen im Verhàltnis zu den europâischen Anfor- derungen. . Aufgrund der Unterschiede bei den einzelstaatlichen Politiken weichen die Perspektiven der Kostenent- wicklung bei der Entsorgung zwischen den beiden Lândern allerdings voneinander ab: in Frankreich zielt das . Gesetz von 1992 darauf ab, bis zum Jahre 2002 die Lagerung auf Deponien von zuvor nicht behandelten Abfâllen zu untersagen. Die Kosten einer solchen Politik, bei der insbesondere die Verbrennung zum Einsatz kommt, sind sehr hoch: zwischen 60 und 100 Milliarden Franc. Die britische Politik beruht dagegen vielmehr auf der Lagerung auf Deponien, auch wenn sie versucht, diesen ùberprozentualen Anteil (90%) zu senken, insbesondere im Wege von steuerlichen MaBnahmen. Da im atlgemeinen die Lagerung auf Deponien allerdings nach wie vor billiger als die Entsorgung (Verbrennung und Recycling) ist, werden die durch die Abfallpolitik entstehenden Kosten in GroBbritannien wahrscheinlich nur geringfugig ansteigen. [spa] Polftica de los desechos : el enfoque del Reino Unido . La evolucion reciente de la reglamentacion europea en lo que se refiere a los desechos puede acarrear unos costes importantes para los Estados miembros. El ejemplo britânico es tanto mâs interesante para Francia cuanto que ambos pafses ofrecen rasgos similares : una casi idéntica cantidad de desechos domésticos (aproxima- damente unos 20 millones de toneladas), capacidad limitada de los incineradores existentes, normas insuficientes de las instalaciones respecte a las nuevas exigencias europeas. Unas diferencias en las polfticas nacionales hacen que difieren las perspectivas de evolucion de los costes de tratamiento entre los dos pafses : en Francia, la ley de 1 992 tiene como meta la supresiôn de aquf a 2002 de la puesta en vertedero de aquellos desechos que no hayan tenido un tratamiento previo. Los costes de semejante politica, que se vale mâs que todo de la incineraciôn, aparecen sumamente elevados : entre unos 60 000 y 100 000 millones de francos. Por lo contrario la polftica britânica descansa mayormente en la puesta en vertedero, aunque intente disminuir una cuota demasiado fuerte (el 90 %) mediante la fiscalidad, ante todo. De hecho, ya que sigue siendo menos onerosa la puesta en vertedero que el tratamiento (incineraciôn y reciclaje), el aumento de los costes de la polftica de los desechos deberfa permanecer mâs moderado en el Reino Unido.

Suggested Citation

  • David Litvan, 1995. "Politique des déchets : l'approche du Royaume-Uni," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 290(1), pages 81-90.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_1995_num_290_1_6021
    DOI: 10.3406/estat.1995.6021
    Note: DOI:10.3406/estat.1995.6021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.1995.6021
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/estat_0336-1454_1995_num_290_1_6021
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/estat.1995.6021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249, September.
    2. Gérard Bertolini, 1992. "Les déchets : rebuts ou ressources ?," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 258(1), pages 129-134.
    3. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    2. Sam Fankhauser & Cameron Hepburn, 2009. "Carbon markets in space and time," GRI Working Papers 3, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    3. Managi, Shunsuke & Opaluch, James J. & Jin, Di & Grigalunas, Thomas A., 2006. "Stochastic frontier analysis of total factor productivity in the offshore oil and gas industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 204-215, November.
    4. Panos Hatzipanayotou & Sajal Lahiri & Michael S. Michael, 2002. "Can cross–border pollution reduce pollution?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 805-818, November.
    5. Chuang Li & Subhash C. Ray, 2021. "Opportunity Cost and Employment Effect of Emission Reduction: An Inter-Industry Comparison of Targeted Pollution Reduction," Working papers 2021-13, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    6. David A Keiser & Joseph S Shapiro, 2019. "Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 349-396.
    7. Sushama Murty & Resham Nagpal, "undated". "Weighted index of graph efficiency improvements for a by-production technology and its application to Indian coal-based thermal power sector," Centre for International Trade and Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Discussion Papers 18-08, Centre for International Trade and Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
    8. Greenstone, Michael & Gayer, Ted, 2009. "Quasi-experimental and experimental approaches to environmental economics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 21-44, January.
    9. Pierre-André Jouvet & Philippe Michel & Jean-Pierre Vidal, 2002. "Effets des permis de pollution sur l’accumulation du capital dans le cadre des modèles à générations imbriquées," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 156(5), pages 63-72.
    10. Patrick Criqui, 2009. "Au coeur du futur régime climatique international : taxes ou quotas CO2 ?," Post-Print halshs-00436709, HAL.
    11. Gary Koop & Lise Tole, 2008. "What is the environmental performance of firms overseas? An empirical investigation of the global gold mining industry," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 129-143, October.
    12. Dominique Finon, 2006. "The Social Efficiency Of Instruments For The Promotion Of Renewable Energies In The Liberalised Power Industry," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 77(3), pages 309-343, September.
    13. Daigee Shaw & Ming-Feng Hung, 2001. "Evolution and evaluation of air pollution control policy in Taiwan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(3), pages 141-166, September.
    14. Pierre Rainelli & Dominique Vermersch, 1997. "Les pollutions d'origine agricole et l'application du principe pollueur-payeur," Working Papers hal-01594277, HAL.
    15. Déprés, Christophe & Grolleau, Gilles & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2005. "Analyse exploratoire de quelques stratégies de fourniture ‘non publique’ des biens ‘publics’," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 74.
    16. Imane Bounadi & Khalil Allali & Aziz Fadlaoui & Mohammed Dehhaoui, 2023. "Water Pollution Abatement in Olive Oil Industry in Morocco: Cost Estimates and Policy Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-19, February.
    17. Vaughan, William J. & Ardila, Sergio, 1993. "Economic Analysis of the Environmental Aspects of Investment Projects," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 6300, Inter-American Development Bank.
    18. Requate, Till, 2005. "Environmental Policy under Imperfect Competition: A Survey," Economics Working Papers 2005-12, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    19. Murty, Sushama & Russell, R. Robert, 2010. "On modeling pollution-generating technologies," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 931, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    20. Don Fullerton & Ann Wolverton, 2002. "The Case for a Two-Part Instrument: Presumptive Tax and Environmental Subsidy," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 10, pages 175-200, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_1995_num_290_1_6021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/estat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.