What about the police, state and local government doing their job and fining those responsible instead of penalising everyone for the actions of a few?
3 Likes
I vote for a new law to force every business, supermarket and so on to have a recycle bin(s) for us, customers. McDonalds creates an enormous amount of rubbish that can and should be recycled.
3 Likes
@matthew While I agree they should/could be more active in this area, the problem is such that it needs a multi-pronged approach. Do you, I, or anyone for that matter see everyone who litters? The police, State and local Govt need to catch the culprit in the act or have very solid proof to fine them after the fact. So a levy is one, deposit refund schemes another, fines for littering another, making sure goods are packaged in such a way that waste is minimised is another, providing appropriate refuse/recycle facilities and bins another, using only recyclable and or renewable goods as well, and I am sure there are other ways of improving the situation eg education of our very young about not littering.
A levy is a cost that would increase the cost of us all buying goods and I agree adds to all our costs in a what could be termed unfair shared cost manner but others would see it as a shared community cost to keep our “Streets” clean… It would be great if our Authorities could catch them all and recover the costs. This shared cost approach is repeated in the cost of goods when we pay extra because shoplifters take goods from businesses, is that fair? I don’t steal so why should I pay more because a business doesn’t catch all shoplifters, the answer is because they can to cover their costs of replacement, security and all the associated costs and also because they can’t catch them all. Littering is the same, there are costs of clean-up, the provision of waste bins, the collection, sorting & disposal of the rubbish.
@Tanya Again I agree it should be mandatory and it should be mandatory that all containers, straws and packaging should be made of biodegradable, renewable and or recyclable materials and they should be made in such a way that if not degradable to an acceptable standard that they are easy to recycle. By easy to recycle I mean designed to be recycled completely. As an example of what I mean of poor design would be the different plastic used on bottle caps to the bottle that while both may be recyclable are combined in a way that each contaminates the other’s recycle stream.
You also need every person to 1) use the bins 2) use the bins correctly, of this an example…our local shopping area provides recycle and ordinary waste bins. They have done so for some time so everyone or nearly so understand what these bins are and they are very clearly labelled. There are still people who place non-recyclable material in the recycle bins (which again I note clearly state what should go in them). This non recyclable stuff contaminates the recyclable material (eg soiled nappies placed in a recycle bin) so all of it must be disposed of as general rubbish ie it doesn’t get recycled. The shopping centre also recycles food waste from the food establishments. By the by calling the disposable nappies “disposable” is correct in one way ie we throw them away but they remain in the environment as a problem for a very very long time.
So while they, Maccas etc, may have a lot of waste that can be recycled, it also requires the user of that product to use the proper recycle bins each and every time. This is obvious that the users don’t or won’t. We need to educate users of the products to dispose of them correctly, we need to encourage them to successfully recycle eg Deposit refunds, fines for litter, we need to stop wrapping so much stuff in ways and in stuff that inhibits/precludes successful recycling, reuse, or renewing (degradable to a decent standard), we need to make businesses to be responsible for the waste streams they help produce.
4 Likes
A solution in addition to more bins may be installation of motion triggered video cameras and signage that area is under video surveillance and any litterers caught on video will be prosecuted.
As most visits fast food outlets is by car, it would be simple to identify any offenders. A lot of littering also comes from individuals within a vehicle. They use similar approach for fly tippers so there is a legal precedent to allow such to occur.
The only disadvantage is it may only reduce littering in areas near outlets where video surveillance is likely and not areas removed from the outlets. It may however, encourage litterers to use the bin if they eat near the outlet reducing the likelihood of littering elsewhere.
There are many sudies which have been done in to why individuals litter and what could be done to change behaviours…none of which have proven to be full successful. If a litterer say receives a $100+ fine in the mail, then news will get out and may change the behaviour of some. Others still won’t care.
This would also place the responsibility and consequences of littering on the litterer, rather than the majority (99%?) of the community which do the right thing.
Councils could also move the cameras around their shires covering areas where littering is a problem.
4 Likes
A solution in part for sure, as you say “It may however, encourage litterers to use the bin”. There is not one answer to this vexation. As I said above it has to be a multi-pronged response (an arsenal of tools) to curb the problem to a greater extent. It is no good telling people and expecting all then to comply, it is patently clear this doesn’t and hasn’t worked. It is no good to put a recycle bin in and expect everyone is then going to use it correctly, and the same for every part solution/answer/response to the problem we face. What we do need is more consistency in applying all the responses in every suitable place they can be used and not 1/2, 1/8 or whatever part someone decides to implement instead.
3 Likes
The biggest problem I see here is that people appear happy to defile their surroundings and act like dirtbags with no social conscience, where are they getting values like this from and why? But I digress…
No one party should shoulder the burden for this problem. A short term solution requires 4 players; FF outlets (if a by product of their business has a negative impact they should want to be part of the solution), local governments, the community, and consumers (of which litterers are a subset).
Apply a % levy on every item sold. Given the volume of sales the levy would be so small most people wouldn’t care and it can come and go with the severity of the problem. Consumers provide the levy, FF outlets collect the levy, councils use the levy to organise bins, cleaning and nab a few offenders, and the community lobbies council.
Kind of a tax on consumers of fast food. It’s not perfect but no tax is, the speed camera down the road was part paid for with my taxes but I haven’t been caught speeding for 30 years so I’m not the reason it’s there. It’s the 80/20 rule but that’s the way it’s generally always been.
5 Likes
I do not believe it’s the companies responsibility to ensure the waste they create is disposed of correctly. Surely it’s individuals who think it ok to to use this planet as a trash can. On my daily dog walks I pick up so many alcoholic bottles thrown from cars ? Perhaps cameras can be installed and offenders reported to the correct council and ensure offenders are reported and fined.
3 Likes
" We need to educate users of the products to dispose of them correctly…"
When I hear we need to be educated, I cringe. How much education one needs in his/ her lifetime?
While in Europe I saw big containers in many public places, next to each other, labelled: For clothes, For metal, For paper, and so on. Smart Europeans seem have no problem with recycling.
7 Likes
I agree with you, @paul.bonniface
What would be the logical connection
between buying an item which comes in a lot of wrapping, and therefore feeling justified to street litter.
That’s purely antisocial behaviour.
4 Likes
Because they have been taught perhaps more about civic responsibility than we have?? If in the home children are not taught then it has to be done elsewhere, such as schools, education can include penalties as that is negative consequences to an action and hopefully most learn quickly. I agree there can be education overload but there are still lots who really don’t see or understand the consequences of litter. They need education.
5 Likes
Maybe re-education.
Maybe it might also be don’t care, dont live there and it is someone else’s problem.
4 Likes
Quote from my desk calendar:
Children don’t usually listen to their
elders, but they never fail to imitate them.
Toddlers throw things on the floor, even their own food. Then they learn not to.
It does come down to education and example.
3 Likes
Regardless of how it’s disposed of, it still costs a great deal of money and effort for this waste to be taken care of. Even if we presume fast food giants are in no way responsible for litter, they cost the environment and the local councils who have to empty the bins far more than most other businesses do. In my opinion they should be forced to do at least SOMETHING to offset that.
And even then, if we gave them at least some responsibility for where their rubbish ends up, maybe they’d be more inclined to do something. Because at the end of the day they don’t really give a damn how much their rubbish winds up as litter. We have to make them
7 Likes
Even if a levy was applied the cost would be passed on to consumers. This would not stop people from disposing of waste correctly, the majority of people I witness doing this are aged between 16-25. Perhaps this is direct result of letting society not wanting to upset the fragile minds of children when what they need is a good hard smack in the face.
2 Likes
Do you have a source for that statistic beyond anecdotal? I see plenty of older people littering so it may just be what you’ve noticed in a small area after perception bias. As mentioned I work in a shop immediately opposite a McDonalds. I think a levy would be an option because it would make it profitable to actively reduce litter through either packaging changes or their own initiatives
I know I’m commenting here a lot but this issue really works me up. It 100% obvious McDonald’s (and other fast food chains) are perfectly happy to destroy the environment and ruin things for nearby residents and businesses. So we need to face the reality that they need to play a part in the solution, and they’re currently not. For a company like McDonald’s giving them some sort of monetary reason to reduce their environmental impact is the only thing that will work. Just telling them hasn’t done anything whatsoever
3 Likes
Yes there would be a cost to the consumer of the goods and no it wouldn’t stop the litter but there would be some extra money to help clean up after those who did litter.
Yep they do, a levy is a possible part of the solution, fining litterbugs is another and there are more possible avenues to help resolve the problem or make it much less a problem.
Is it 100% obvious that FF establishments want to destroy the environment? That part I think is drawing a very long bow. They provide bins, they have staff cleaning areas around their buildings, some encourage staff to participate in the Clean Up Australia Day but they can’t control what others do with their stuff after it leaves their control. Could they do more about changing the littering that happens and on that yes I agree they can.
5 Likes
Totally agree.
More of the solution lies with the FF outlets. True, it may need some help through regulation.
The big FF chains apply behaviour modifying strategies in their marketing. It is how the sell product. Pure manipulation of emotion.
Most of us would agree the FF products are not as healthy or as economical or as valued as a sit down roast home cooked meal or backyard BBQ. However most of us still frequent the FF outlets day and night every week and come away feeling happy enough to want to go back again and again.
If TV adverts are to be believed we now associate having a good time (with family, with friends, with romance), by turning a bad moment into a celebration, with eating product from a FF outlet. KFC - ‘ I don’t Care!’, best expressed with fat laden fried fowl, greasy fries, and over priced water, added syrup optional?
The same power in advertising could be applied to encouraging change and more responsible behaviours. Every FF advert could contain at least ten seconds or 25% of it’s content devoted to responsible recycling and waste management. It needs much more than a 1 second sound bite at the end like a ‘gamble responsibly’ token at the end as part of that industry’s social conscience.
There is no reason not to ask the same of all advertisers promoting products or services that have a waste component.
It all comes back to us consumers to find ways to influence political will and gain public acceptance of like strategy.
5 Likes
I think that the phrase ’ I don’t Care’ says it all, both from the point of view of the sellers and the buyers of FF.
But, unfortunately, littering is not limited to just those purchases.
People litter with bottles, tissues, scraps of paper, cigarette butts, paper cups, and some unmentionables too.
5 Likes
This is a profound statement and very true. There have been many studies done on the types of litter and the highest litter incidence is not usually fast food packaging…it is cigarette butts. Maybe a levy should be placed on every cigarette sold?
https://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/litter/article/item/8d0ba68c7e6e9a6.aspx
If one looks at the list on the Gelong City website (which uses data from the Victorian Litter Alliance), fast food packing isn’t in the top type of items littered.
Other states such as Queensland have similar litter lists…
Maybe if there is to be target programs to reduce litter, other more prevalent sources of litter should be targeted first. Otherwise it could be money spent without much overall benefit.
3 Likes
Definitely necessary to look at the whole of the problem.
And given the power of MacDonalds, KFC etc to be socially adept influencers, with more pulling power than a cartel of political parties, it would seem a great place to start. If they could change attitudes to how so many of their dependent customers handle FF waste, surely it could be delivered as a broader message for change?
TV and public adverts, ‘authorised by the def.gov.au government for better ‘xyz’ usually fail. The one exception perhaps being the ‘Grim Reaper AIDS’ adds which were soon banned.
Whose money is to be spent?
The FF giants as part of their duty as socially responsible corporate citizens. What next? Sugar free food!
3 Likes
