Only within the past year or so has my family actually been recycling – not very long ago we simply through everything in the dumpster indiscriminately, certainly causing a good deal more waste than we needed to. Why would we do such a thing? Well, because it's more convenient. To toss stuff into a landfill really doesn't cost a thing as far as my parents' checkbook could tell, and it certainly didn't require any additional effort on their part. Perhaps the government could help by giving people incentive to recycle and produce less waste; in many places, this is just what's happening.
In Roncade, Italy, the local government has begun to facilitate recycling to providing each household with five different garbage bins, color-coded for the type of material they are used to dispose of. Most of these bins are for various types of recycling – glass, paper, garden waste, food – but there is one for non-recyclable waste. There is a catch to this fifth container: every time non-recyclable waste is put out, the owner of the bin incurs an additional fee. This system has proven very effective in encouraging recycling, improving recycling rates in the area from 14% to 80% in five years.
A similar system exists in Flanders, Belgium, where each non-recyclable waste bin is equipped with a chip that weighs the garbage and charges its owner accordingly. If the owner has not put forth sufficient funds to pay, the garage bin will not be emptied. Here's another thing: the garbage bin is TINY compared with what most of us have in the US! The "dumpster" actually looks more like a large briefcase. According to Agnus Meeus, a local, "it's a fair system" and has worked better than expected.
In Seoul, South Korea, citizens must purchase each trash bag separately in order to dispose of non-recyclable waste. This has caused recycling rates to double since 1995.
According to recent BBC polls, more than 70% of British men and women believe they should be rewarded financially for wasting less and recycling more, and a smaller majority agrees that those who throw away more should be forced to pay more. Unfortunately, pilot programs for a "pay-as-you throw" scheme have been relatively unsuccessful. Furthermore, as a Conservative party spokesman points out, the loss of weekly garbage collections had led to £213 million rise in "fly-tipping" (illegal trash dumping).
In the US, the city of Seattle has begun to make progress toward sustainability by giving each household three bins for recycling, garden waste, and landfill-bound trash. The size of the third container is optional, however; families save money by producing less garbage and ordering a "small" or "medium" service. Although recycling is free, the other services come together at around $40/mo for a family of four.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7746001.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's just more convenient...
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Convenience is what governs our society rather than looking after the well being of society. We used to recycle our cans and take the snap top off the top to recycle as well. It was annoying to have to take all the cans to the recycling center once they were stacking up outside in the recycling bin. As gas prices went up we just stopped taking the cans to the center since the cost in driving to the center was more than what we would get through recycling. And the garbage man would come to our house to pick up the garbage instead of us having to drop it off. It was just more convenient and cheaper to just throw it away. There really are no government incentives to recycle. If there were some sort of tax break or something to make people want to recycle they would do it more. But in the end when there are none it is just convenient to throw it away.