In the northern suburbs of Sydney, Australia, Adam Bushell has saved about $10 a month in waste collection fees since his local council swapped flat fees for a “pay-as-you-throw” system four years ago. While recycling is collected free of charge, microchipped bins for general waste are weighed, and households receive a monthly statement listing how much they threw out and what they owe.

The new approach has changed the way Bushell thinks about household waste, not least when it comes to food.

“The pay-by-weight concept has made me very conscious of the amount of food that we waste and has really made me want to dispose of less,” says Bushell, who runs an electrical services company. “The personal financial cost definitely makes you think in a different way on what you discard. It makes it immediately, physically cost-effective to waste less.”

The system works thanks to several factors, first and foremost the clear financial incentive and rules, says Graham Matthews, head of content at U.K. commercial waste management company Business Waste. “Residents know and understand that the less trash they produce, the less they will pay. The system adheres to the principle of ‘polluter pays,’ meaning those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it.”

  • InevitableList@beehaw.org
    1·
    5 days ago

    How much waste is burnt in back gardens, flushed down toilets and dumped in the countryside? The article reads as if someone summarised a series of press releases and social media comments and didn’t ask any meaningful questions.

    For example, we send the “recycling” to developing countries where it is burnt in primitive incinerators and contaminates the air, water, soil and food with harmful chemicals and micro plastics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPyRAcdZHDo

  • TehPers@beehaw.orgEnglish
    2·
    6 days ago

    Didn’t the Netherlands do something along these lines? At least when I was there most recently, there were waste bins for dumping residential waste, and while the ones near us weren’t tracking who was dumping or how much, some did require a NFC or something along those lines to access and I believe charged based on weight (could be wrong about this though).

    Edit: article briefly mentions this it seems

  • qupada@fedia.io
    1·
    7 days ago

    Unclear why weight is the metric they chose there. For things you’re stuffing into a landfill, surely that’s primarily a volume concern?

    My city council has (for the entire 20 years I’ve lived here) used user-pays rubbish collection; you buy branded plastic bags at your local supermarket / corner store (60 litre bags, about $3.50 each) which covers the cost of the weekly collection from the roadside. Not enough rubbish to fill an entire bag that week? No problem. Had a cleanout of your house and need three bags? Also just fine.

    • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
      1·
      6 days ago

      Weight is much easier to measure than volume. Because of this, landfills charge by weight. The trucks gets weighed in and weighed out, and the landfill charges based on the difference. Since the waste collection company is paying based on weight, it makes sense for them to charge based on weight as well.

  • HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish
    10·
    7 days ago

    I would love recycling to be done right around me and I like this idea but do worry it will lead to an increase in illegal dumping.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    6·
    7 days ago

    Since most of the weight is water, I can already see people buying electric waste dryers 🤦