The Big Question: Does halving rubbish collections really help the environment?

It doesn't sound like it. Why should it?

Because according to the Government and many local authorities, switching to alternate weekly collections - picking up your general rubbish once a fortnight instead of once a week, as been done in most places for more than a century - is a very good way of boosting rates of waste recycling, something which Britain has historically been very bad at, and which is now increasingly necessary.

Related articles

• MPs sign up to the campaign against excess packaging
• Leading Article: No time to waste

How do fewer collections improve recycling rates?

The idea is that general rubbish, which is to be sent to landfill, or rubbish dumps, is collected one week, and recyclable waste the next (so there is a fortnight's gap between either bag being collected). This encourages people to be much more pro-active in sorting out their recyclable waste and putting it into the proper bag.

Does this work?

According to the Local Government Association (LGA), new research shows that councils with the new system in place have a recycling rate more than 30 per cent higher than those who do not. The study shows that, on average, 30 per cent of household waste is recycled or composted in councils with alternate weekly collections, or AWCs (officialdom hates the term "fortnightly collections").

For councils that still use the old system of collecting everything every week, an average of only 23 per cent of household waste is recycled or composted. The LGA says that all 10 of the councils with the highest recycling rates in the country have adopted alternate weekly collections, and eight out of 10 of the councils with the most improved recycling rates also use the new system.

Some areas have seen a threefold increase in the amount they are recycling following the introduction of alternate week collections, says the LGA.

Why do we need higher recycling rates?

Because we dispose of more rubbish per person in rubbish dumps than any other country in Europe, and as the domestic waste mountain produced by Britain's throwaway society grows bigger and bigger - 30 million tons annually and going up at 3 per cent a year - we are rapidly running out of dump space. At present rates of use, according to the LGA chairman, Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, we will run out in nine years.

Furthermore, a fierce new European law, the Landfill Directive, is putting a very tight legal squeeze on just how much waste we will be allowed throw into holes in the ground. It requires that, by 2010, rubbish disposed of in dumps be reduced to 75 per cent of the 1995 level and by 2020 to 35 per cent. These are huge reductions, and only two options are realistically open to the Government: either a vast rise in incineration, or a massive increase in recycling. Given that any planning application for a new refuse incinerator meets ferocious local opposition, choosing the recycling route might justifiably be called a no-brainer for the Government.

Are there any other considerations?

Yes - finance. Councils are increasing being penalised for dumping, by the Government's aggressive raising of the landfill tax, the levy on every tonne of waste send to be landfilled. From the start of this month it increased to £24 per tonne, and this will increase to £32 next year, a rise of 33 per cent.

By 2010, councils (and consequently council tax payers) are facing fines of up to £150 per tonne of rubbish that is sent to be dumped into landfill sites over a set quota. According to the National Audit Office, by 2013 fines of up to £200m could hit taxpayers for the failure to cut the amount that is thrown in landfills.

How do we compare with the rest of Europe on recycling?

Pretty badly, though things are rapidly improving. In 1996/97, Britain recycled a mere 7 per cent of household waste, which meant we were languishing very much at the bottom of the European recycling league, light years behind countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, which were recycling more than half their waste.

But the introduction in 2000 of statutory recycling targets for local councils, by the then Environment minister, Michael Meacher, brought about a doorstep rubbish revolution, and rates started to soar.

They have now more than quadrupled in a decade and latest figures show the national rate has gone up to 26.7 per cent. However, this is still a very long way behind most of our European counterparts.

So what's all the fuss about?

The new system, which has now been introduced into about 140 of the 354 local councils with responsibility for waste, is proving intensely unpopular with householders in many areas.

For all the official spin about "alternate weekly collections", the new system is predominantly seen by the pubic as a fortnightly collection replacing a weekly collection of the rubbish from any given bin - the number of collections of rubbish from Bin X is being halved. This means that bags full of rubbish lie around people's houses, gardens and driveways for two weeks instead of one, starting to smell and attracting pests from maggots to rats.

If, as is possible, Britain has its hottest summer ever this year, a bag of rubbish lying by your gate for a fortnight in August is likely to become an insufferably disgusting object. People will in no way see that this change is benefiting their environment - quite the opposite.

Any other objections?

Yes, the alleged loss of democratic accountability over rubbish. There is a move to set up Joint Waste Authorities, which will take over the refuse responsibilities of several councils at a time - but will not face the prospect of being punished at the ballot box for bringing in measures that prove unpopular, such as ending weekly collections.

Will the Government and local councils just ride out the storm?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. There is evidence that people in Government, both national and local, have not properly appreciated how attached ordinary people are to the idea of the weekly rubbish collection - for many residents, it is the only beneficial council service which is directly visible, and halving it is intuitively seen as a step backwards, whatever the clever arguments out forward in its favour.

It is a classic illustration of the difference between policy and politics. The policy may seem fine, but the politics in the end may prevent it from being carried out.

So should we welcome the new system?

Yes...

* It seems to be a clear way of boosting local authority waste recycling rates

* Increasing the proportion of Britain's waste that gets recycled is an absolute priority

* It will bring down the cost of the waste disposal service which ratepayers have to fund

No...

* It is likely to lead an increased risk of health problems from rotting waste left lying around for twice as long

* Despite what Whitehall and the town halls say, it is a major reduction in an essential public service

* The new bodies set up to bring it in may not be democratically accountable