October 4, 2023
Mr President, thank you.
Measures against climate change and biodiversity loss will not make any difference if we continue to produce and consume more and more things that we do not need at all. The consumer society that has gone crazy must therefore make way for a circular society.
But to make this change, necessary choices must be made. It cannot therefore be the case that 14 billion euros in fossil subsidies go to the plastic sector, because no excise duty has to be paid on oil. 14 billion! That’s absurd. Why is no effort being made yet to abolish this bizarre advantage for the plastic sector? In this context, the budget memorandum states that it is possible to abolish this fossil subsidy by introducing a separate national tax, outside the excise duty. Where then is the proposal to introduce such a tax?
I find it really incomprehensible that the decision is not made to immediately tackle this fossil subsidy on plastic. Jetten has simply promised to abolish all fossil subsidies in the long term. Then get started with that. I would like to receive a letter explaining exactly how this fossil subsidy on plastic works and what a separate national tax looks like, with which this fossil subsidy can be abolished. I would like to receive that letter before the EZK budget (next week).
I am also curious why this cabinet does not choose to impose a tax on virgin plastic. Can the State Secretary explain this? And how does a tax on virgin plastic compare to the separate national tax mentioned in the million note regarding the fossil subsidy on plastic?
Then, Mr President, the deposit fiasco. How clear does it still need to be that the responsibility for a well-run, consumer-friendly deposit system cannot be placed with the business community? The fact that the collection target has not been achieved is a total failure. We have warned so many times that things were not going in the right direction and that measures needed to be taken. But the Secretary of State refused and watched this accident unfold. Why does the State Secretary still give the Waste Fund the freedom to come up with measures itself?! As far as the Party for the Animals is concerned, that point has really been passed. I call on the State Secretary to take back control and take the following measures, which she is not hearing from me for the first time:
- Provide more collection points where consumers can get their money back, such as cinemas, AH to go’s, hardware stores and gas stations.
- Introduce a collection obligation, so that stores that sell deposit packaging must also take them back.
- Provide a higher deposit amount to encourage more people to return their deposit packaging.
- Eliminate the weird exceptions. It is inexplicable that there is no deposit on plastic bottles of juice, dairy and alcohol, while there is a deposit on all cans. This means that there is no deposit on chocolate milk in a bottle, but there is a deposit on chocolate milk in a can.
- And finally, deposits are extended to all beverage packaging, including beverage cartons.
Mr President, according to the State Secretary, there would be no shift from plastic bottles to beverage cartons. She bases this on a comparison with figures from 2016/2017. Why is the number of beverage cartons compared with 2016/2017 and not with 2020, like plastic bottles? I ask this because the State Secretary’s finding is at odds with a recent study by the Zwerfinator and the Plastic Soup Surfer. They conclude that more beverage cartons do end up as litter since the introduction of deposits on plastic bottles. I would like a response from the State Secretary on this study ‘Project Pakzooi’. (possibly in a letter)
Finally, Chairman. Cigarette filters end up in large numbers in litter, but are extremely harmful to the environment. According to CE Delft, a ban on filter cigarettes is the most effective means of reducing the share of cigarette filters in litter.(6) The State Secretary has indicated that he will explore the options for a national ban on cigarette filters. How is this going now? And can the State Secretary promise that if there is any room to impose a national ban, she will take action?