Gary Haq: More carrots and fewer sticks will make a greener world

The coalition Government recently ruled out plans for a "pay as you throw" bin tax that would have penalised households who put out the most non-recycled rubbish. Instead, they want to reward people for the amount they recycle – for example, by giving them points which can be redeemed at shops, restaurants and sports centres.

As a child growing up in the 1970s, I would regularly return empty glass soft drink bottles that had contained dandelion and burdock and lemonade to my local shop, where I was rewarded with a few pence for my efforts. Unknowingly, at this early age, I was being introduced to the concept of recycling. Nowadays such simple bottle deposit schemes seem to be few and far between. Yet in Germany, the Netherlands and other European countries deposit systems are still used for beer bottles and drink containers. People who recycle bottles are rewarded with a deposit via automated machines at supermarkets.

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) suggests that an approach based on saving money and giving the public control would be more effective in engaging people in greener lifestyles. However, this would require convincing the public that they can save money, do the right thing and look good without having to be an environmentalist.

Rewarding people for green behaviour is an approach that has been tried and tested but is only sparingly used. Tax incentives for buying greener cars and installing renewable energy technologies exist. The national Act on CO2 campaign has encouraged people to voluntarily change their behaviour by highlighting the potential benefits to be gained in daily activities such as saving energy in the home.

Cutting home energy use reduces both carbon emissions and energy bills. This argument has been used to encourage people to lower their carbon footprint. However, unlike the immediate reward received when I returned my glass soft drink bottles decades ago, the financial reward on saving energy is only gained over time.

Households who have invested in micro-generation technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels and geothermal pumps have to wait years to receive a return on their investment. In April 2010 the feed-in tariff (FIT) was introduced to encourage the adoption of renewable home energy technologies. The FIT programme pays homeowners and businesses who generate their own electricity through the use of accredited low-carbon technologies. Individuals who generate their own electricity using solar technology can receive 41.3p for every unit of electricity generated. They either use the electricity they produce or feed it back into the national grid.

It is estimated that an average household could generate an income of up to 960 a year through the use of solar panels. However, critics of the scheme see it as a "scam" because it is an expensive and grossly inefficient way to reduce emissions.

While rewarding people for recycling can play a key role in reducing the amount of household waste going to landfill, charging households for generating waste in the first place is equally as important if we are to tackle our throw-away culture.

The environmental think tank, Green Alliance, suggests adding "inefficiency charges" on products such as disposable batteries and cameras, garden sprinklers and incandescent light bulbs to encourage people to consume less of them. Prominent messages about the reason for the charge would be displayed on the targeted products.

A common complaint of many people who want to be greener is that low impact actions are either more expensive, for example in public transport, or the infrastructure is not available to support the action, as in recycling collections, bicycle lanes and public transport connections.

Equally, information on green actions, such as the installation of renewable technologies, is not always clear or the return on the investment is too long, as seen with investment in solar panels, in the absence of installation grants. Due to many people leading busy lives they do not have the time or inclination to explore the options or benefits of going green.

In an age where there is high public scepticism over climate change, concern over rising costs, cuts to welfare benefits and threat of unemployment, the public seem less receptive to the green message. While "sticks" such as congestion charging, passenger air duty and fuel tax have affected behaviour, they have been unpopular. It is perhaps the right time to use more "carrots" to demonstrate the benefits of a greener lifestyle. As I discovered so early on in my life, the biggest incentive to changing my behaviour was the benefit it had on my pocket.

Dr Gary Haq is a Human Ecologist at the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York.