Rebate presents win-win situation on plastic bags in Singapore

Letter from Howard Shaw Executive Director Singapore Environment Council
Today Online 7 May 10;

ent Council (SEC) thanks Ms Tong Jee Cheng for "Ditch the rebate, charge for bags" (April 27).

The SEC is happy to receive feedback on the Bring Your Own Bag scheme (BYOB), and have been working with our partners in the retail sector to fine-tune the scheme. Both options of providing a rebate for not taking a bag and that of charging for one were considered in our discussions in terms of the impact of incentive versus disincentive on consumer behaviour.

The final decision was for a rebate because the BYOB originated as a voluntary scheme, so a natural progression to an incentive (of offering a rebate) would be more effective in winning the hearts of the public in changing their behaviour.

At the same time, SEC aims to garner the mass participation of retailers to support this scheme. Offering a rebate has provided retailers with the flexibility to choose the final format in which the rebate is extended to the consumers.

SEC is greatly encouraged by the feedback from existing retailers on the BYOB scheme. For example, NTUC FairPrice has seen an overall reduction in usage of 43 million plastic bags since it introduced the rebate scheme in 2007. FairPrice's customers enjoy a 10-cent rebate under their Green Rewards Scheme to promote environmental sustainability. Retailers save cost on providing plastic bags and the environment benefits from being less polluted by plastic. This presents a win-win situation for all.

We welcome Ms Tong and anyone who have further comments or suggestions to improve the adoption of reusable bags by shoppers to write in to SEC at info@sec.org.sg or to call 6337 6062.

Ditch the rebate, charge for bags
Letter from Tong Jee Cheng
Today Online 27 Apr 10;

I REFER to "Bring your own bag every day" (April 24-25).

The National Environment Agency's (NEA) proposal to get supermarkets to offer a token sum as a rebate to those who take their own bags to the supermarket may not work.

People are more adverse to parting with money than being rewarded monetarily. Charging shoppers for each bag issued will be more effective than giving a rebate.

NEA could gauge the effectiveness of their proposal through statistics from NTUC FairPrice which encourages folk to bring their own bag on Wednesday.

The rebate strategy would not work if statistics reveal that there are fewer folk shopping on Wednesday or if there are fewer shoppers bringing their own bags that day than those who do not.

It might mean that people avoid shopping because they have to bring their own bag and the rebate does not entice them at all.

Bags are part of business costs
Letter from Tan Meng Lee
Today Online 29 Apr 10;

"DITCH the rebate; charge for bags" (April 27) misses the point. First, bagging is part of the cost of doing business. Non-bagging for environmental reasons reduces business costs and this saving should be passed on to consumers, as it is not viable to fractionally reduce selling price of each product by, say, 0.1 cent.

Second, rewarding eco-friendly behaviour sends the correct social message. The roll-out of rewards for non-bagging wasn't well managed because some supermarkets only charge on a specific weekday and others reward every day. Consumers get confused as to who is offering what on which day.

If the reward scheme applied to all supermarkets every day, public outreach would be much more effective. Over time, such public consciousness would move from plastic bags to other forms of environmental efforts, such as recycling, careful disposal of batteries and so on.

Encouragement doesn't hurt education. Widespread implementation will gain acceptance traction until it becomes habit. That eventually defines our social value.

Why not have a refund system?
Letter from Galen Yeo
Today Online 30 Apr 10;

IF WE are going to charge for plastic bags, why not look seriously at a bottle/can refund system as well?

Plastic bottles, cans and glass are equally eco-unfriendly by-products of our consumer culture.

In American states like Michigan, consumers pay an extra 5 or 10 cents for a canned or bottled drink.

To encourage recycling, this amount is refunded to the customer when the bottle or can is returned.

I would say the scheme worked well as no-one wanted to carelessly throw away a can that was worth money. As a result, new habits were shaped.

Two decades ago, I asked a beverage retailer why Singapore did not have a similar rebate system here.

He said it was too expensive for beverage companies to implement such a system here.

Is that really the case? Has anyone tried? It is perhaps time for us to come up with more holistic and imaginative measures.

Are the relevant ministries and agencies studying new solutions?