[LINK] Surveillance in extremis

[Kim Holburn]

Well, in SA they do this with all drink containers.  Works brilliantly.

I have thought for a while that they should introduce a tax on all  
packaging (well on everything that has to go into landfill).  The tax  
should go to local councils who have to make room it.  Buy the non- 
packaged product and save on the packaging.

On 2006 Aug 28, at 9:22 PM, 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.



--
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +61 2 61258620 M: +61 417820641  F: +61 2 6230 6121
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
Cacert Root Cert: http://www.cacert.org/cacert.crt
Aust. Spam Act: To stop receiving mail from me: reply and let me know.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD] http://www.saqqara.demon.co.uk/ 
datefmt.htm

Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
                           -- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961