is pay by weight the best solution

the_pen_turner

given that we are trying to reduce the amount of waste dumped .
is charging by the weight to the end user really the best strategy

Wanderer78

the_pen_turner wrote:

given that we are trying to reduce the amount of waste dumped . is charging by the weight to the end user really the best strategy

I think I've made my opinion fairly clear on this matter before on this site, but I 'll say it again, the polluter pays is a good idea, but our overall thinking on waste and waste management is fundamentally flawed, not only should we have the polluter pays, we should also have the 'creator pays' and probably the 'transporter pays' policies as well, amongst other things. By placing the burden of our waste issues on the shoulders of the end user, it allows us to largely ignore the other aspects of what creates our waste and waste management issues. I think British economist Kate raworth sums it up very well with her idea of 'donut economics'.

boardsuser1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

and probably the 'transporter pays'

Why the transporter if they are the so called middle man?

Wanderer78

Cork Truck Driver wrote:

Why the transporter if they are the so call middle man?

Why not? Please be aware, I'm not just singling out the obvious trucking and delivery companies, when I use that term, I do realise these companies get hammered periodically with taxes etc, I'm in fact including the whole logistics network from the very beginning of the life of materials, I.e. mining etc, to the very end of its life. I do believe we are, in ways, focusing too much on just the end user, in relation to these issues, and not looking at the overall system as a whole, I do believe this is what raworth is getting to in her work.

Each division, each section, each element of a materials life span needs to be incorporated into our overall thinking regarding the existence of that material, and how we should process it, particularly at the end of its useful life. We currently don't do this for most, if not all materials. Raworth believes we need to create an economic system whereby every material created, must be 100% recycled and recyclable, indefinite, I agree with her, hence the term 'donut economics'.

I 'll just digress a little, I obviously have an interest in these issues, including macro economic theory, sadly I believe, our current most predominant macro economic theory, I.e. neoclassical theory is in fact anti-environmental, amongst other things, people such as raworth would have similar views, I'd imagine.

boardsuser1

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Why not? Please be aware, I'm not just singling out the obvious trucking and delivery companies, when I use that term, I do realise these companies get hammered periodically with taxes etc, I'm in fact including the whole logistics network from the very beginning of the life of materials, I.e. mining etc, to the very end of its life. I do believe we are, in ways, focusing too much on just the end user, in relation to these issues, and not looking at the overall system as a whole, I do believe this is what raworth is getting to in her work.

Each division, each section, each element of a materials life span needs to be incorporated into our overall thinking regarding the existence of that material, and how we should process it, particularly at the end of its useful life. We currently don't do this for most, if not all materials. Raworth believes we need to create an economic system whereby every material created, must be 100% recycled and recyclable, indefinite, I agree with her, hence the term 'donut economics'.

I 'll just digress a little, I obviously have an interest in these issues, including macro economic theory, sadly I believe, our current most predominant macro economic theory, I.e. neoclassical theory is in fact anti-environmental, amongst other things, people such as raworth would have similar views, I'd imagine.

The first half of your first paragraph i agree with, thereafter i am completely lost, mostly the reason being is i wouldn't be as in depth with my knowledge of the area.

Now, granted i did drive a bin lorry for a while, but what went on after i tipped the load wasn't something i got involved in but i did see it going on.

The amount of gases from waste is mad, and i witnessed gas emanating from the waste itself while it was stored awaiting to be baled up and shipped off on the back of an artic.

To come back to the thread title, what i did see happening, not in the bins themselves, but in the truck when i was emptying it, was the amount of waste people are putting into the recycling to avert extra costs as the recycling bins are free.

I'm gone out of it now thank god, but it was an experience i won't forget.

the_pen_turner

i think pay by weight is the correct thing eventually but we are not there yet.

we need some laws to reduce packaging say by 2020 to no excess packaging
and a law that all packaging has to be recyclable or biodegradable by 2025.

boardsuser1

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i think pay by weight is the correct thing eventually but we are not there yet.

we need some laws to reduce packaging say by 2020 to no excess packaging
and a law that all packaging has to be recyclable or biodegradable by 2025.

The local Penny's i collected from were disposing of some serious packaging on a twice weekly basis, never any waste.

They have 8 x 1100 litre bins, they are emptied every Wednesday and Saturday, and each time there was excess.

Another truck came around to collect the multiple bales of cardboard then.

So yes you are right on the packaging issue, how can it be done though is the thing.

the_pen_turner

I'm sure it could be done. most stuff in shops comes through only a handful of wholesalers and a lot is coming through the chains own system like Dunnes or Tesco's etc.
a simple law banning unessesory packaging would be easy enough. a big fine and spot checks would reduce a lot very fast.

its the bag ,inside a box ,Inside a box ,inside a box ,inside a box carry on that's the problem. its not the consumers fault but they must pay for it (twice in fact)

boardsuser1

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I'm sure it could be done. most stuff in shops comes through only a handful of wholesalers and a lot is coming through the chains own system like Dunnes or Tesco's etc.
a simple law banning unessesory packaging would be easy enough. a big fine and spot checks would reduce a lot very fast.

its the bag ,inside a box ,Inside a box ,inside a box ,inside a box carry on that's the problem. its not the consumers fault but they must pay for it (twice in fact)

A giant box for something small, i know exactly what you mean, a complete waste.

the_pen_turner

look at easter coming up. a huge amount of pointless cardboard for no reason.