The government should, for example, introduce targets for local councils for the reduction of domestic waste produced per head, as they have been made to do by the European Union for recycling. As a result, "reduce" remains the Cinderella element of the "Reduce, Re-use, Recycle" mantra. It is seen as easier to try top-down solutions such as incineration or installation of recycling infrastructure.Yet it is possible to encourage "bottom-up" solutions as well. This is because reducing waste is dependent on thousands of individual decisions by people in businesses and homes across the country, which are hard to influence. The government needs thorough regulation to assist the creation of healthy markets for all the materials being recycled.But while millions of us now recycle, the real stumbling-block remains: how to reduce the waste we produce in the first place. Yet it is still almost impossible to find recycled photocopying paper in high-street stationers and the criminal use of virgin paper for toilet tissue continues unabated. Lewisham is introducing a prize draw to encourage its residents to recycle more and Enfield has introduced fines of up to £1,000 for those who consistently refuse to recycle.To be fair, the UK government has had remarkable success in encouraging recycled paper use in the newspaper industry In 1997 the recycled content of newspapers was 41 per cent.

Through a voluntary agreement with the government, it has now risen to 75 per cent, thus creating a market for the paper we recycle at home and saving millions of tones of CO2 emissions. Some local-authorities, such as Southwark, which had an appalling recycling rate three years ago of 3 per cent, have quadrupled their rate to over 12 per cent by introducing door to door and council-estate based recycling services. Even the US, under arch climate-crisis sceptic George Bush, manages over twice our rate, at 28 per cent. Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands already have rates of over 50 per cent. The UK currently languishes with one of the lowest European recycling rates at 13 per cent. Currently, nine million cars are dumped every year across the European Union.Targets have also been set for national recycling rates.

From next year, all electrical goods will have to be recycled and from 2007 the EU will also require that car manufacturers provide for the recycling costs of all new cars. In addition there is no knowing what other dangerous chemicals are being emitted that we have not yet identified from the thousands of chemical reactions produced by burning our extraordinarily complex modern waste-streams.Thankfully, the European Union is taking the lead on getting a hold on this wasteful and dangerous disposal culture. Through its waste and recycling directives it is putting pressure on European governments and is also taking on some of huge vested interests, such as the motoring and electrical goods industries. They are still emitted by incinerators when they fail to act at optimum operating levels, which even the most modern plants frequently do. Fifteen years ago, scientists were unaware that incinerators emitted dioxins and so did not test for them. These are now recognised as among the most dangerous known chemicals. However, while modern incinerators are cleaner than their predecessors, they destroy the incentive for recycling, produce toxic ash and are invariably placed in poorer communities, which do not have the political clout to protect themselves.

With current landfill sites scheduled to be almost completely filled by 2010, urgent action is needed. To feed this huge waste stream, we are destroying rainforests in our search for more metals and fossil fuels; our mining conglomerates are polluting rivers with toxic run-offs; and our burgeoning incinerators and rapidly filling landfill sites are emitting poisonous chemicals.The UK government's response is to propose a massive expansion in waste incineration, from the current 15 to over 115 plants. The waste mountain continues to rise, despite modest increases in recycling rates, because the amount of rubbish we produce outpaces recycling efforts. We have gone from an almost zero waste society - in our grandparents' time - to a resource-hungry rapacious-disposal consumer lifestyle The consequences go far beyond the threat of climate change. According to government figures obtained by the Liberal Democratic MP Norman Baker, in 2003 we dumped six billion disposable nappies, 972 million plastic bottles and 468 million batteries. We spend nearly £3bn every year collecting and disposing of this waste And the problem is getting worse.

The combined contents of all our overflowing rubbish bins in the UK add up to a shocking 180 million tons of waste a year. It is hard to believe that there is a connection between the innocent-looking waste-bins in our kitchens and the alarm bells shrieking about the impending global climate crisis. But the truth is that all the rubbish we throw away has inbuilt emission costs, which include those involved in its manufacture and transport to and from our homes and workplaces; and those involved in its disposal, whether by landfill, incineration or recycling. However, it is also true that the airline industry can now create fuel efficient planes. The Sustainable Aviation Group, which includes BA and Virgin, aims to introduce new aircraft producing 50% less CO2 than 2000 models.These efficiency improvements will not keep pace with the growing demand for flights. But the airline industry can and must be further incentivised by the EU to reduce emissions by being required to buy permits to cover their carbon emissions in 2008 or before. This is being implemented by the European Emissions Trading Scheme.