Recycling is a cause which few, if any, will speak against. It is widely acknowledged to be a good thing. The difficulty comes in trying to get citizens and companies to practise what they preach. David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, deserves some credit, therefore, for his attempts to raise consciousness.

The emphasis on waste prevention is especially welcome. Big strides will be taken in October when previously announced obligations on industrial and commercial waste makers, who generate three quarters of the total, come into force.

It is a mistake, however, to assume that the recycling of household waste will be helped if local authorities levy charges on individuals. Mr Miliband is adamant that the financial penalties that might be incurred do not equate to taxes because no extra revenue would be raised, either for central or local government. At the same time, he is not making the mechanism mandatory. It is only enabling local authorities to use the financial penalties if they want to. Yet whatever the nomenclature, the charges will be seen as a tax.

Goodwill is the greatest ally of recycling and, since tax has such unpleasant associations, the fees will besmirch the popularity of recycling. Besides, the administration of any such system will create painful and expensive headaches. Neither local nor central government is noted for bureaucratic efficiency. Debt collection would be complex. Measuring waste will be more troublesome.

Local authorities that use the new powers to levy fines will quickly find out whether they are workable. If they fail, and they will fail if they are unpopular, proponents will be punished at the next election. The uproar might invigorate local democracy, just as the outpourings against fortnightly rubbish clearance invigorated local politics. But it will do nothing to enhance recycling.

The implications for public hygiene and public order cannot be forgotten. Fly-tipping will become more prevalent if household budgets are threatened. More refuse will end up on the side of country roads while disorderly personal disputes will arise between neighbours suspicious of unfair or unauthorised use of dustbins.

Although thoughts of fines on householders is wrongheaded, money does come into the recycling equation. Mr Miliband must answer questions about who will pay for the 124 pages of initiatives published yesterday. Huge benefits, meanwhile, will come if the profit motive is yoked to the cause of recycling. At present, a tiny £1 billion (equivalent to about 0.1 per cent of national income) of rubbish is recycled per year. If volumes rise, so will the economies of scale, and recycling will become more profitable and more self-sustaining. At present, waste collection companies recover some of their costs selling recycled materials. The market in recycled paper, benefiting from a broad network of intermediaries buzzing between waste paper collectors and reusers of recycled raw material, is relatively sophisticated. Trading in recycled metals, thanks to their relative value, is pretty efficient too. But the markets in different recycled materials are far from uniform. Trade in recycled plastics, for example, is primitive.

Recycling volumes will rise most quickly if the Government smooths the path of those who make a living from reuse and reclamation. There is no place yet for fining or taxing those individuals yet to appreciate the benefits of an afterlife for their rubbish.