This isn't a problem that municipalities with "better in the landfill than the river" policies have. This is the kind of problem you get when a bunch of the let them eat cake crowd run amuck. It's literally the "why is our city covered in trash". "I don't know Karen, maybe because you voted to have everyone pay per bag so nobody picks up litter the blows into their yard because it literally costs them" problem but in truck sized increments.
Yes, dumping trash costs money, as it should, how else do you wish to account for the externality of creating trash? Either through taxes or paying per disposal.
It seems to work pretty well here in Sweden (it's free at the point of collection, paid by taxes), it's a bit annoying to go to the proper recycling center for anything that isn't normal household trash but people still do it, it's not perfect but bigger recycling stations accepting tyres, furniture, electronics, etc. are properly used to dispose of anything that isn't paper/plastics/metal/glass from day-to-day usage, for those there are always a nearby recycling station to dispose at.
Also looks like it works well in the Netherlands, in Denmark, and other countries with similar wealth to the UK. Perhaps it's culture the problem, not policy, fix the culture.
It's very easy to screech about overregulation as the cause of anything, like a boogeyman you can use for all sorts of issues, this issue in particular is quite properly solved in similar countries so stop with the screech, please. If the regulations in place do not work, change it, do away with paying for collection and use taxes for it so people don't feel the pain when they need to throw the trash out, it's already "paid".
The biggest environmental scandal in Sweden in the past years was the Think Pink[0] case where a company ("Think Pink") lied about properly disposing of the trash they were responsible for, founder and directors of the company are in jail for that.
And before there's any talk of unfair waste disposable taxes or costs, it cost money to run a landfill. Maybe it's expensive to the most person, but simply dumping on the side of the road is not an excuse nor solution.
This is no different than the massive piles of clothing in the desert of Chile, the rivers of Southeast Asia that have more trash than water, or any other place. We can burn it, bury it, recycle it, but if we don't do something it's going to eventually overwhelm and sicken everyone.
Anytime the cost is > $0 (and it always is! Even if the actual cost at the dump is $0, transport takes time and money), there is an incentive to be lazy and just dump stuff wherever. It’s not uncommon in rural areas that someone even has a dump ‘hole’ on their property in many places, due to the time and cost of making a trip to the actual dump.
Fines often help (digging through trash to find out whose stuff it is has real benefits if you can turn around and fine someone for it!), as does social pressure. It never completely stops happening though, which is why public cleanups also are important sometimes (see broken window theory, which isn’t completely wrong!).
You know why? Because if it fits in the bin the truck takes it. And every address gets one bin paid for via property taxes. It literally costs nothing at the point of use to "do the right thing"
You only get problems like this when a bunch of habitually compliant "let them eat cake" people either intentionally craft policy or through ignorance let nefarious interests dig their claws in and rent seek and just assume that people will bend over and take it rather than throwing their old tires in the river.
Reminds me of Deus Ex, where the newsreader reports the news with a slant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpK9DusUy_I .. Although of course way too many TV "news"-readers in real life do it too.
For the unaware, the accepted standard is that using quote marks in titles make it fine, because it means the news article is quoting someone's words.
This isn't a problem that jurisdictions with competently run waste logistics have. When you hear about illegal dumping in the NYC area it's not literal mountains of trash like this. It's tires or hazmat or something that's genuinely expensive to get rid of for good reason.
Take a step back and think about the economics of bulk material hauling whether it's dirt or trash, the fact that the risk-reward calculation here pencils out should throw a massive "something deeper is wrong" red flag.
I propose we kick all of the people who talk like you out, and then find a solution in peace, without all the screeching and "something must be done"-isms. I bet we not only solve this in short order, but a whole other bunch of issues too.
red75prime•1h ago
PaulRobinson•1h ago
This is particularly sensitive at the moment because there is a heightened awareness of damage being done to inland waterways in the UK: a popular TV show involving two comedians fishing has raised awareness of the value of rivers (chalk streams in particular); and, water companies (privately owned for-profit entities in the UK), have been reporting record discharges of sewage into rivers and the sea while also paying record payouts to shareholders and executives.
I think most people know of a local fly-tipping issue in the UK. This is particularly awful though, as it's clearly very professionally done, and it's also right next to an important river.
potato3732842•1h ago
Do you want tires and TVs in the river and woods? Charging $20 a pop at the dump is how you get tires and TVs in the woods.
This is the same problem but in larger increments.