Plastic bag loophole means billions still being used despite 10p levy
Nearly a billion plastic bags are still being used in the UK each year because of an online delivery loophole, according to a new analysis.
Although the plastic bag charge has been hugely successful since its introduction in 2015, the levy has not been applied to the booming industry of online purchases.
When the charge first came into effect in England a decade ago, it was set at 5p, before being increased to 10p in 2021.
But while it led to high-street plastic bag use falling by 98 per cent over the last ten years, the number being delivered to people's doorsteps remains on the rise.
Analysis by Development Economics, commissioned by sustainable packaging business DS Smith, found that online fashion retailers delivered 941 million plastic bags to UK shoppers in 2024.
As consumers continue to migrate online, this figure is expected to increase, hitting 1.3 billion a year by 2030.
The UK is now the largest individual market for e-commerce plastic delivery bags in Europe and is estimated to have used 150 million more than second-placed Germany last year.
The new analysis comes despite the research finding that half of British shoppers feel guilty about the amount of plastic their orders arrive in.
Two-thirds of Brits want plastic bags to be phased out where replacements are available, and three in five say they prefer to receive their shopping wrapped in cardboard or paper.
But some online fashion brands have already made the switch.
Zalando, a major European online retailer for fashion and lifestyle, has been using paper shipping bags made from recycled content and FSC-certified virgin fibres instead of plastic bags since 2020.
Stefano Rossi, of DS Smith, said other online fashion retailers should follow suit.
She said: 'While online shopping has grown, e-commerce retailers lag high-street stores when it comes to replacing plastic bags.
'Brands like Zalando have proved change is possible, but there is a blocker; there simply aren't enough paper alternatives available and our industry needs to step up to provide them.
'It will be tempting for businesses to fixate on price, but sticking with plastic comes at a cost – consumers don't want it, and brands risk their reputation by ignoring that.
'We think legislation can and should be more demanding of us all – phasing out certain plastics to help create a level playing field that encourages innovation, investment, and generates healthy competition to replace plastic.'
Only 9 per cent of the fashion e-commerce bags delivered across the UK are currently being reused or recycled, with 857 million bags ending up in landfill or incineration last year, according to the research.
The analysis found that growth in e-commerce and slow progress on increasing recycling rates mean that by 2030, more than 1 billion plastic bags annually will end up being burned or in landfill.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
32 minutes ago
- UPI
Britain, U.S. warn Iran against Strait of Hormuz blockade
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (R) and Britain's Foreign Secretary David Lammy (L) at a meeting at NATO Headquarters in Brussels in April. File Photo by NATO/UPI | License Photo June 23 (UPI) -- Britain cautioned Iran Monday that attempts to block the Strait of Hormuz or to strike at American military facilities in the Middle East could lead to escalation, even as Israel continued its strikes on Iran. British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Monday that such actions would be a "catastrophic mistake." "It would be a huge, catastrophic mistake to fire at U.S. bases in the region at this time. We have forces in the region at this time," said Lammy in an interview with BBC Breakfast. The Iranian parliament moved Sunday to approve a measure to close the Strait in response to the American strikes on Iran over the weekend. The strait serves as a critical route for oil being shipped from Persian Gulf countries, but ultimately it will come down to whether Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei decides to move forward with such a plan. Close to 30% of the world's seaborne oil shipments are moved through the strait. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also commented Sunday against Iranian interference with movement through the strait. He spoke with Fox News and called on China to prevent Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz. "I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that, because they heavily depend on the Straits of Hormuz for their oil," said Rubio, as China is a key oil customer of Iran. "The Persian Gulf and nearby waters are important route for international trade in goods and energy. Keeping the region safe and stable serves the common interests of the international community," Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun said in a press conference Monday. "China calls on the international community to step up effort to promote de-escalation of the conflict and prevent the regional turmoil from having a greater impact on global economic growth." Meanwhile, Israel Defense Forces announced Monday on social media that it "struck routes in order to obstruct access" to the Fordow nuclear enrichment site in Iran's Qom province. The IDF also proclaimed it attacked six Iranian airports "across western, central, and eastern Iran, destroying runways, underground hangars, refueling aircraft, F-14, F-5 and AH-1 aircraft." It further alleged the strikes "impaired takeoff capabilities from these airports, as well as the Iranian military's ability to operate its air force from them."
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Stocks making the biggest moves premarket: Tesla, Northern Trust, DoorDash, Northrop Grumman, Exxon Mobil and more
Check out the companies making headlines before the bell. Northern Trust – Shares rose more than 6% after the Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that Bank of New York Mellon approached Northern Trust last week to convey interest in a merger between the two rivals. The report also said that BNY is considering its next steps, which could include a formal bid to Northern Trust. However, the people cautioned that the talks might not result in a deal. Fiserv — Shares of the financial services firm jumped almost 5% after it revealed plans to broaden its presence in the stablecoin space. The company plans to launch a stablecoin and digital-asset platform for banking clients. It also stuck partnerships with Circle and Paypal to further these efforts. Circle shares were up 5%, while Paypal gained almost 1%. Novo Nordisk – The pharmaceutical stock plummeted more than 5% after the latest results for the company's next-generation obesity drug CagriSema were disappointing and suggested no clear advantage over Eli Lilly's Zepbound. The company also announced that it has ended its collaboration with Hims & Hers Health , citing compounding and marketing concerns. Hims shares fell about 20%. Estee Lauder – The cosmetics stock popped 2% on the back of Deutsche Bank's upgrade to buy from hold. The bank now has the highest price target on Wall Street of analysts polled by LSEG. DoorDash – The food delivery company moved 2% higher. Raymond James upgraded the stock to strong buy from outperform. The firm said the synergy potential with British food delivery service Deliveroo, which DoorDash is acquiring, is underappreciated. Energy stocks – Shares of energy companies were higher after Iran's parliament backed closing the Strait of Hormuz , a key trade route for crude oil. The U.S. has since called on China to prevent Iran from closing the route. Exxon Mobil rose nearly 2%, while Marathon Petroleum and ConocoPhillips each advanced more than 1%. Others linked to nuclear energy like Centrus Energy and Uranium Energy Corp. also gained more than 3% and 1%, respectively. Tesla — Shares gained nearly 1%, after Tesla rolled out its robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, over the weekend. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said a ride in the taxi exceeded his expectations . RTX , Northrop Grumman , Kratos Defense and Security – Defense stocks ticked higher on Monday after the United States struck Iranian nuclear facilities. Shares of RTX and Northrop Grumman each added around 1%. Military tech stock Kratos gained 2%. — CNBC's Alex Harring, Jesse Pound, Sarah Min, Christina Cheddar Berk and Michelle Fox contributed reporting.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Opinion: Offshore balancing – The proper solution to Trump's whims with Europe
Over the past few months, Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw the United States from NATO, citing concerns about a lack of European defense investment. Later on, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Secretary Hegseth confirmed Trump's sentiments, stating that they were 'pushing our allies in Europe to own more of their own security — to invest in their defense, things that are long overdue' so 'we can increase our focus on the Indo-Pacific, our priority theater.' This is the perfect time to begin planning a new grand strategy, one that replaces our long history of firm interventionism in favor of a restrained approach that preserves US national security, reduces costs, and empowers allies. The most promising option appears to be offshore balancing. What is Offshore Balancing? Offshore balancing is a selective, interventionist approach. It advocates for withdrawal of US forces from regions without a great power or a firm national security interest. Instead, the United States would equip and strengthen local forces – with arms, training, and intelligence – as a counterweight to regional powers. But, if regional allies are ineffective in deterrence or a local country grows too powerful, the United States would intervene into the region to protect its and its allies' security. Europe is a perfect place for the United States to exercise restraint. Due to large equipment and personnel losses, Russia is weak and unable to pursue attacks against other nations. This presents a unique window of opportunity for the US to shift the burden of defense onto Europe. Why Offshore Balancing? Currently, the United States faces threats in three, main global theaters: the Persian Gulf, South China Sea, and Europe. For years, this 'three-war standard' has significantly strained the US military and industrial base. In fact, signs of trouble have already started to show. The number of defense contractors in the US has dwindled to less than 10 due to consolidation, thus hurting product quality, while the United States is struggling to 'to maintain robust munitions levels' and supply our allies adequately. At the same time, our allies are particularly under-equipped. Europe is overly dependent on the United States for its technological capabilities, has limited interoperability across weapon systems, and invests a limited amount of money into its own defense. Overall, this situation is dangerous as it provides our adversaries – China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran – an opportunity to mount a challenge against the liberal international order the United States has worked so tirelessly to create. Under current geopolitical situations, Washington would be unable to defend all regions simultaneously, forcing a tradeoff between abandoning hegemony or quickly ramping resources (at a great financial cost) to defend regional allies. By employing a grand strategy of offshore balancing in Europe, the United States can find a balance between credible deterrence and military overstretch. First, by significantly withdrawing from Europe, the US military would free up resources (weapon systems, personnel, money) that they can instead commit against China, the biggest threat to US national security. While Russia does pose considerable risks to the US, its status quo engagement in Ukraine limits its overall influence and strong regional allies can counterbalance against them. Additionally, in Europe, the United States would shift some of the defense burden to its allies, forcing them to act as a unified front (something lacking right now) and work together for collective security. If successful, in the advent of a conflict, Europe can support the US military by leveraging its own capabilities (weapons production, technology sharing, etc) and taking control of a majority of the fighting in Eastern Europe, thus maintaining US hegemony. Concerns? At first glance, this proposal may seem as if we are abandoning NATO and endangering our alliances globally. However, the baseline for comparison shouldn't be the status quo, rather the future. Due to military overstretch, the ability for the United States to maintain military presence in Europe is rapidly decreasing, negatively affecting our ability to protect our alliances in the long-term. Offshore balancing, if designed right, can not only address the aforementioned long-term threats to our alliances, but can also cushion any international fallout the US might face. By gradually withdrawing US forces, our European allies can be given plenty of time to ramp up their own defense production and military capabilities. By maintaining our nuclear deterrent and a limited ground presence in the region, the United States can firmly demonstrate commitment to its allies. Absent offshore balancing however, European allies have no i55ncentive to share the defense burden: despite agreeing in 2006 to spend 2% of the GDP on defense, most NATO member states only reached that target now, after Trump's threats. At the same time, harsh rhetoric on Europe should be avoided. Earlier, Trump had stated he would not protect and instead encourage Russia to attack non-paying NATO member states. This language distances our allies and weakens our ability to form a regional bloc to counter a rising and revisionist Russia. The Future As new global threats gain traction, the United States will need to calibrate its military grand strategy accordingly. Offshore balancing is a realistic solution that simultaneously empowers allies and bolsters US defense capabilities. For Europe, there is a limited window of opportunity for it to build its defense up. Maj. Gen. Davis (rtd.) estimates that only 3 to 5 years after Ukraine, Russia will have the capabilities to mount another challenge against a European state.
