On the 1st of July 2023, the Dutch government implemented the Single Use Plastic (SUP)-Tax (Rijksoverheid, 2023). In this article, we analyse this policy by looking at broader processes of neoliberalism and responsibilization. Neoliberalism, in this instance, refers to the way in which the Dutch government utilizes a market-based solution to the environmental challenge of plastic pollution. With this method of governing, economics are valued over citizen welfare. The plastic tax places a financial burden on individuals, where they are made responsible for their consumption habits, as well as for the health of their environment. This form of responsibilization is reminiscent of the way in which care relations function within neoliberal societies. Neoliberal societies rely on the internalized responsibility of individuals to care for themselves and each other. Care work is often unpaid and pushed onto families (Fraser, 2017). These elements lead to a ‘crisis of care’, because citizens cannot provide unpaid care work properly on top of their paid labor, one possible reason being exhaustion (Fraser, 2017). We will analyse how the SUP-Tax functions in a similar fashion to this crisis of care, by seeing the tax as a measure of climate care. We will answer the following question: in what way does the Dutch government’s implementation of the SUP-tax policy make citizens responsible for performing climate care? To illustrate the arguments made in this article, we interviewed a small business owner who is affected by the policy.
The Policy
The SUP-Tax policy is a result of increasing concerns about the Earth’s climate, and it is implemented according to the European Guideline on Single Use Plastic (Milieu Centraal, 2023). Therefore, the SUP-Tax is aimed at reducing the nationwide pollution caused by plastic litter (Rijksoverheid, 2023). Supermarkets, restaurants and any other businesses that sell disposable plastic cups and food packaging are now obliged to charge additional costs for any products made out of single-use plastic (Rijksoverheid, 2023). The guidelines published by the Dutch government on how to increase the prices are the following: €0,25 for a plastic cup, €0,50 for plastic food packaging and €0,05 for smaller plastic containers. However shopkeepers can decide for themselves how much they want to charge for these products (Rijksoverheid, 2023). Furthermore, businesses are also obliged to provide alternative options that are more sustainable, such as recyclable cups or cardboard food boxes (Rijksoverheid, 2023). The intention is that the profits generated through the tax are invested by businesses into sustainability goals, but as of yet there is no regulatory agency checking this (RTL Nieuws, 2023).
So, in theory the SUP-Tax should discourage the mass consumption of single use plastic, while simultaneously funding innovation towards sustainability. However, in practice the situation is a bit more complicated. Due to the fact that it is not mandatory to charge the price directly to the customer, many Dutch supermarkets choose to cover the bill themselves (RTL Nieuws, 2023). They artificially increase the prices of their SUP containing products by €0,05, but it is not calculated into the final price (RTL Nieuws, 2023). Other supermarkets such as Albert Heijn charge €0,01 per SUP containing product (Albert Heijn, 2023). Due to this tame application, some individuals fear that the policy will lack in effectivity, one stating that “If all you see is a small amount of money on the bottom of your receipt, which you don’t pay for yourself, then I don’t think that is going to encourage conscious consumption” (RTL Nieuws, 2023). A company which also expressed their opinion regarding the policy is McDonald’s, which stated that they are concerned that the SUP-Tax will not be sufficient to reach the government’s environmental goals (Verpakkings Management, 2023). As well as, that the implementation of such measures would be extremely complicated on a logistic and financial level (Verpakkings Management, 2023).
Crisis of Care
Care work refers to acts of sustaining a healthy life for oneself and others, like doing the dishes, having clean laundry, cooking, taking care of your parents, and so forth. These acts are seen as necessary for social reproduction, which is to say: the way in which a society keeps itself working. Care work is needed for people to do their paid work, for example when a person needs clean clothes for a job interview.
While this care work is important, it is also highly undervalued, often unpaid, and mostly unseen in neoliberal societies (Fraser, 2017). Furthermore, considering that neoliberal governments are focused on reducing investments in social welfare, care work mostly comes to rest on the shoulders of families. Families are thus made responsible for care. Fraser (2017) also states that in current times people are often less capable of performing care work, because people have less time and energy after doing their paid work. The general argument here is that since care is so crucial to maintaining a functioning society, having people not being able to perform that care can be seen as a crisis.
Climate Care
Globally there is a focus on the pressing question: how do we maintain a healthy planet? The idea is that if we do not change our polluting practices, the earth will become more and more uninhabitable. One of the suggested solutions is to change the behavior of the masses through policies. Citizens are required to do climate care work, such as separating garbage, not wasting food, and buying eco-friendly products. We argue that similarly to care work, climate care is based on individual contributions to maintaining a functioning planet. Individuals are thus made responsible for climate care. However, Frayne (2016) argues that this climate care is also being hindered by neoliberal paid work societies. A concrete example of this is how people eat take-away food because they lack the time to cook for themselves, and therefore they produce more waste. The SUP-tax is meant to make people more climate aware when making purchases, and it relies on raising prices in doing so. This could cause problems for low-income families, who already deal with higher prices in general (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2023). Furthermore, because the Dutch government stated that they will not be regulating how the tax is implemented, the policy might be misused to generate profit. We interviewed a small business owner to see how the SUP-tax policy works in practice. He stated the following when asked if he implemented a fee for plastic use:
“We charge about 5-10 cents extra. I do not want to charge any more than that because I don’t want my customers to suffer from these measures.”
This illustrates a concern for his customers and an indication that people potentially suffer from these prices. Which became even more clear when we asked how his customers react to the tax:
“They think it’s bullshit and they are shocked. We’re living in a crisis, prices keep increasing, first it was due to Covid, then gas, and now this.”
This reinforces one of the previously mentioned concerns that low-income households are likely impacted the most by such measures. Furthermore, it showcases the emotional response of consumers to the responsibilization of climate care, who appear to be unhappy with this burden in the midst of rising financial concerns. Lastly, we asked if the business owner was able to invest any of the profits into sustainability goals, to which he responded:
“I do not have any room to invest. I barely make any profit off of it. My bills also became much more expensive. For this they need to look at production on a larger scale”
In this excerpt the business owner implies that the policy fails to reach its intended goal. The costs of running a business increased, which makes it hard for small businesses to put money aside to invest into sustainable alternatives. The interview concludes with a statement by the entrepreneur stating that the climate problem needs to be tackled on a national and corporate level instead of on an individual level.
Conclusion
To answer the main question: citizens are made responsible for climate care through the passing on of costs from businesses to customers. the Single Use Plastic-Tax is a result of neoliberal governing within Dutch politics. The responsibility of making climate conscious decisions is placed at the level of the individual, and this behavior is stimulated and self-regulated through market mechanisms. The result is a financial burden on consumers in a time that is marked by inflation. Moreover, as Frayne (2016) argues, people tend to consume in a less sustainable manner when they are preoccupied with a full-time job. This functions in a similar way to the ‘crisis of care’: when people are exhausted from paid labor they cannot do proper care work, whether that is for their own health or the health of the planet.
Discussion
Finally, we would like to ask you a question. We are interested to see: to what extent do you feel stimulated to consume more consciously by the implementation of climate care policies such as the SUP-Tax policy?
Feel free to leave a reply in the comment section below.
References
Albert Heijn. (2023). Nieuwe regels voor wegwerpplastic. https://www.ah.nl/informatie/wegwerpplastic#:~:text=Bij%20voorverpakte%20pro
ducten%20in%20een
,Verwerkt%20in%20de%20huidige%20verkoopprijs.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2023). Inflatie 10 procent in 2022.
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2023/02/inflatie-10-procent-in2022#:~:text=De%20prijsstijging%20van%20goederen%20en,4%20procent%20in%202022
Fraser, N. (2017). Crisis of Care? On the Social-Reproductive Contradictions of Contemporary Capitalism. In Social Reproduction Theory (p. 21–36). Pluto Press.
Frayne. (2016). Stepping outside the circle: the ecological promise of shorter working hours. Green Letters, 20(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/14688417.2016.1160793
Milieu Centraal. (2023). SUP-richtlijn: Europese regels tegen wegwerpplastic. https://www.milieucentraal.nl/minder-afval/voorkom-afval/sup-richtlijn-regels-tegen-wegwerpplastic/#:~:text=Nieuwe%20regels%20voor%20wegwerpplastic,snel%20in%20het%20milieu%20terechtkomen.
Rijksoverheid. (2023). Vanaf 1 juli betaalt u extra voor wegwerpbekers en -bakjes met plastic. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2023/06/01/vanaf-1-juli-betaal-je-extra-voor-wegwerpbekers-en–bakjes-met-plastic
RTL Nieuws. (2023). Wie verdient aan de plastic-heffing? “We worden er niet rijk van.” RTL Nieuws. https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5399143/waar-gaat-het-geld-van-de-plastic-heffing-naartoe
Verpakkings Management. (2023). Impact SUP-regeling op ketens als McDonald’s: “zorgen om doelstellingen.” Verpakkings Management. https://www.verpakkingsmanagement.nl/opinie/impact-van-sup-wetgeving-op-fastfoodketens#:~:text=Volgens%20de%20nieuwe%20regels%20moet,overheid%3B%2025%20cent%20per%20beker.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.