[LINK] Surveillance in extremis

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Karl Auer wrote:
>>...separating paper from containers for recycling doesn't work either
> 
> 
> Funny, it works in LOTS of other countries.
> 
> The way many countries do it is not by weight. They just sell garbage
> bags. The more garbage you produce, the more you will pay in garbage
> bags. If it isn't in a sanctioned garbage bag (the pay-for bags are
> emblazoned with the local authority's name and logo), it will not be
> picked up. If non-sanctioned bags are found in skips and things, they
> are opened and the contents used to track down the malefactor, who is
> then fined heavily. The only way to avoid this is to anonymise your
> garbage. However, since the authorities can and do go as far as
> fingerprinting the bags (!) and staking out repeat sources, very few
> people get away with it for long. The penalties then include the costs
> of the stakeouts...
> 
> 
>>there has to be a benefit passed onto users...reduce your waste and pay 
>>lower rates...but it is more likely that it is the opposite...reduce 
>>your waste, but higher rates for systems to monitor waste and which 
>>won't work because those doing the right thing will continue to do so 
>>and the others will circumvent the measures - if the systems work at all.
> 
> 
> The above system works extremely well, especially as paying consumers
> take a very dim view of non-payers. The benefit is very direct - less
> garbage, less cost. It is extremely simple for consumers, so it works.
> 
> The best way to tackle waste, however, is one that few places if any
> have had the courage to implement, namely a requirement on manufacturers
> to take absolute responsibility for their products and packaging. This
> would be three pronged - you (the producer) MUST accept all packaging
> and the product itself back for disposal at no cost (the cost can be
> built into the sell price though). You MUST provide reasonable means for
> the return of your packaging and your product, and YOU are responsible
> for any of your discarded products or packaging. For imports, read
> "importer" for "producer". Only if another person - a specific person -
> can be not only shown to be responsible but actually be held
> responsible, can the producer escape that last one (so littering by
> others is still an offence).
> 
> Production of anonymous products would need to be made illegal - the
> producer's name must be in the substance of the item and the packaging
> (embossed, watermarked, whatever). The sale of anonymous products would
> also need to be made illegal. The interesting thing is that pretty
> water-tight laws could be drafted relatively easily (trivial compared
> with the current laws and regulations covering product identity and
> packaging).
> 
> There would be a EXTREMELY rapid move by manufacturers of all stripes to
> biodegradable packaging, deposit systems and above all LESS packaging.
> And it would probably cause a renaissance in local production, and many,
> many new markets.
> 
> Regards, K.
> 
What can I say....AGREED AGREED AGREED!

All they have to do is issue garbage bags with RFIDs...then it will be 
easy to track the source of the contamination....

On the topic of Garbage, I live and am secretary/treasurer for a block 
of four units....in recent years three have had a turn over of 
tennants...but we compost, recycle and barely half fill our shared 240l 
bin each week.

However, as owners we are charged for waste collection on the basis of 
two 240l bins.

Presumebly we also paid for an extrac 240l bin +_3 yellow and 3 blue 
bins...looks like the garbage is generating waste  itself.

I see red, every time a whole lot of packaging is dumped near the bins 
from the latest household gadget and have come to expect a lot of 
garbage when tennants move out.

M
-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
Ramin Communications
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: 0414-869202
Email: marghanita at ramin.com.au