Tim Worstall

Waste Collection by Weight

I read the story in this morning’s paper about the collection of domestic waste and the idea of charging for it by the bag. I then pottered on thinking, yes, the polluter pays and so on, terribly sensible idea.

The I read this from EU Referendum. Bugger, me, the man’s right. Why didn’t I think of that?

What these morons do not understand is that domestic waste collection in this country is first and foremost a public health issue.
To that effect, collection became a statutory responsibility of local
authorities by virtue of the Public Health Act 1875, introduced as a
measure to help reduce diseases spread from flies and vermin.

Then
and ever since, the collection has been funded out of the general rate
(tax) for the very good reason that, if a direct charge was levied,
some people would dispose of their waste in an insanitary manner.

In

11 responses

  1. Mark T Avatar
    Mark T

    they would also dispose of it on other people’s doorsteps. Another case of muddle headed bureaucrats thinking they are using the market and wondering why their schemes don’t work.

    Reply
  2. Jock Coats Avatar
    Jock Coats

    I disagree. I think there’s a world of difference between being unable to avoid squalor as in 1875 and encouraging people to consider the real cost of the waste we currently produce.
    If we charge by weight, however, it would only be right to allow people to choose their supplier of waste disposal services and we could see firms touting for business on competitive terms or on unique selling points.
    Why should dumping it in next door’s garden be any less anti-social behaviour to be dealt with by enforcement as any other anti-social behaviour. Councils could still contract in a “default” service that they would be able to recover through enforcement action.

    Reply
  3. MrS Avatar
    MrS

    This has very little to do with the environment. It’s all tied in with local government financing. Local councils have squeezed their electorate to the point where some people can’t afford to pay their council tax. However, town halls just can’t resist expanding their remit. Likewise, the government can’t resist foisting more statutory responsibilities on councils in order to shift the burden of general taxation. Because of all this, local authorities must look to local stealth taxes to fund their bloated existence. This is one way of doing it. The answer is simple: alongside the reduction in domestic waste, councils must seek to reduce their own waste and expenditure. We need to install waste chips in local councils that trigger rebates to tax payers when councils are wasteful. We must punish them for overspending.

    Reply
  4. triticale Avatar
    triticale

    Even without a direct charge for waste disposal, people will dispose of their excess in a predatory manner. I’m a USian dumpser (skip) diver, and often find residential trash, up to the size of busted sofas, in the business waste stream in which I seek old computer equipment. This is motivated simply by convenience as far ass I can tell.

    Reply
  5. cityunslicker. Avatar
    cityunslicker.

    I had my say on Conservative home for a national domestic waste strategy.
    We need to reduce landfill, it is a terrible legcay to leave to future generations; we need the land for development; it is a waste of resources; it poisons the rivers.
    Localg goernment will abuse its position and come up with silly ideas. This needs to be regulated nationally. It is Conservative to provide public goods. This is one of them.

    Reply
  6. sortapundit Avatar
    sortapundit

    What these morons do not understand is that domestic waste collection in this country is first and foremost a public health issue.
    That fact definitely seems to have been forgotten of late. We now have five, count ’em, 5 separate bins here at the Taylor household (domestic waste, garden waste, glass, cardboard and plastic). As a result we have several different collection dates – and domestic waste is only collected once a fortnight.
    Think about that. There are 6 people living in my house, and much as we try to keep the waste to a minimum it unavoidably builds up. The black wheelie bin outside is full long within a fortnight, and we’re not allowed to leave loose rubbish bags outside. So, over the summer we got maggots in the brimming kitchen bin. Before we knew it we had a bunch of flies buzzing around, and then you have a whole new set of problems – poliomyelitis, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, cholera, diarrhea and dysentery for starters.
    We keep a clean house here. We don’t leave rubbish to fester for days on end. If the council can’t handle the simple matter of removing the domestic waste of an average 6 person household in less time than it takes for that waste to become a serious health issue then what makes them think they should be tackling 4 other types of waste?

    Reply
  7. Bruce Avatar
    Bruce

    I frequently have to load my car with the sort of rubbish (including normal household waste) I thought I paid my taxes to be collected and drive the four miles to the nearest tip. A stupid waste of my time and petrol. Doubtless the environmental cost of the trip outweighs any efforts I make to sort and recycle it.

    Reply
  8. Tim Almond Avatar
    Tim Almond

    MrS,
    It’s to do with EU targets on recycling, which are very simplistic. Which is why they want to stop everything from going in the bins, even things that just aren’t an issue, like food and paper.
    It doesn’t even matter that there are environmental impacts through the recycling industry. The cost of making all the recycling bins, the fuel to collect the extra recycling collection.
    If landfill is an issue, just burn it and generate electricity from the process.
    No doubt some states will miss their targets, and they’ll be very bad Europeans for doing so. And they’ll probably get a very stern letter telling them not to do it again.

    Reply
  9. Neil Craig Avatar
    Neil Craig

    Litter removal & public health generally are areas where capitalism breaks down. Since disease vectors are relatively unconcerned about the individual they have to be fought by society acting as a whole.
    The introduction of municipal water, waste removal & health programmes may have had as much to do with popularising socialism in Victorian terms as Marx & all his compatriots.

    Reply
  10. David Hadley Avatar
    David Hadley

    It will, of course, end up costing more as councils will have to clear up all the rubbish that is fly-tipped and dumped, by people not wanting to pay, go over their quota or whatever, thereby causing more environmental damage.
    Not only that, it seems a great deal of ‘my’ rubbish is not mine at all, but merely the packaging that my stuff came in that I am merely passing further along the chain.
    Rather than punishing people for passing this stuff along, perhaps they ought to look at ways of reducing the amount of unneccessary rubbish that is produced by such things as packaging, junk mail, ‘free’ newspapers and so on.
    Oh, and a return to the deposit on pop bottles would do wonders too.

    Reply
  11. Jock Coats Avatar
    Jock Coats

    Someone mentioned public health and that public rubbish collection was fundamental to that.
    Who privatised the water and sewerage systems then? They were far more fundamental to the great Public Health Acts than refuse collection.
    Do you not belileve that the private sector could do better than the Taylor family’s five bins?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading