Opinion - Talking Point: Waste minimisation plan flawed - Deborah Burnside

Deborah Burnside says larger waste disposal bins won't work. Photo Supplied

Since 1986 we've been committed to cutting tonnages to landfill disposal, initiating curbside green waste recycling and commercial wood waste recycling – for which we won the local environmental awards, business category.

This is something we've always done, choosing to engage in local, genuine recycling, reuse or diversion, rather than shipping product offshore.

What we've never done in 32 years of continuous collection and disposal of waste is supply an 80-litre wheelie bin … not to anyone. Not one single residential user has ever asked for one.

That's why it's a curiosity that the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee has concluded an 80L bin is apparently the preferred option and will solve or halve the region's waste-to-landfill tonnages.

No, it won't. If collecting waste at the kerbside in a 60L bag hasn't reduced waste to landfill in the past 25 years then collecting waste at the kerbside with a larger bin won't either.

It's difficult to "hide" prohibited waste in a 60L bag or carry it to the kerbside if it's overweight. An 80L bin though… it's larger, there's the first flaw in this "minimisation" plan. It makes no sense to determine an objective of "less waste to landfill" then provide a larger receptacle to every single household - whether you need it or not, whether you want it or not.

The bin also has wheels – weight? Not a problem, it can simply be pushed to the kerbside, where an automated vehicle empties the bin directly into the compactor without any human intervention. Without regard for what is contained within.

Potentially the pre-printed booklet, widely distributed, that showed a lower price for the "A" option, the 80L bin option, is what residents ticked. Omitted from the pre-printed brochure entirely was any costing of the current or continued bag collection, so that tick was not an informed tick, not by any measure.

What's been overlooked is that waste output is entirely consumption-driven. Everything we choose to buy creates waste at the domestic doorstep.

That's why in 25 years of continuous submissions to the council we've always advocated for the least costly, minimal option suited to the majority, rather than catering to the high-consumption users who can arguably pay for their excessive waste output themselves.

Councils also pay the landfill dump fees on top of any estimated charges for bin services. At present, those who need a bin have one, ie, if you make a lot of waste, you become responsible for and pay for that. The committee's recommendation is that the council now bear the entire cost of every domestic kilogram of waste sent to landfill. To become a bin supply company, despite multiple options existing in the private sector catering to that need already.

When it is green waste and organic material that is the problematic product in a landfill it's somewhat heartening that incentivising "going green" has finally been recognised as necessary to change behaviour.

Unfortunately, what is proposed in regard to waste is similar to the system rolled out in Christchurch, funnily enough by the same provider as the Hastings District Council's incumbent provider, which was the only contractor to promote the bin options advocated by the committee.

The same system that cost Christchurch ratepayers an additional $4.2 million in bin tracking and, only this week, another $3.2m to bail out the council's failed recycling service.

Here is the opportunity to be innovative, to really make a difference, to serve the environment and ratepayers both. Let's hope it's not wasted.

* Deborah Burnside is a businesswoman, author, environmentalist and owner-operator of Clean Earth Ltd.