Blue Bag Banditry or A Commitment to the 3 Rs?
The Halifax Scavenger Society has rightfully placed the issue of the prohibition on scavenging on the public radar screen again. HRM’s Solid Waste by-law prohibits scavenging, or strictly speaking, prohibits anyone "from picking-over, removing, disturbing or otherwise interfering with any solid waste material that has been set-out for municipal collection."
HRM spokesperson John O’Brien has explained that the intent of the scavenging prohibition is to ensure that community blight is reduced, that scavengers do not create unsightly messes in picking-over waste and that scavengers take away some $ 150,00 - $ 200,000 from municipal coffers in bottle deposits each year.
The Scavenger Society makes legitimate argument that scavenging is a necessary function of a wasteful society and promotes environmental sustainability. Through scavenging curbside items are reused or recycled. Interestingly, analogies can be drawn to the ravens, coyotes and vultures who have a natural tendency to scavenge. Through scavenging they preserve the natural ecosystem.
Good laws emerge from the consensus of the governed. It strikes me that the prohibition of scavenging is not a good law. What public good is served through issuing tickets or laying charges against scavengers? I would argue that the public good is better served by the scavengers who aid recycling, re-using and reducing the amount of waste materials that go to the landfill.
On a weekly basis, I place my materials curbside for disposal. When reflecting upon this issue, I suggest that to most homeowners the method of disposal is of little or no consequence. Most environmentally minded citizens would welcome someone to find use for something that they no longer need. It makes imminent sense for someone to re-use or recycle my old barbeque rather than it to be transported by the municipality to the landfill. It could be argued that scavengers would reduce the amount of waste being transported to the landfill and the $150,000 in lost revenues could be offset by more effective recycling and re-use of materials.
When I place my recyclable bottles curbside, my intention is not to contribute to municipal coffers, but to recycle the bottles and help those in need. I often pass my bottles to scavengers with the belief that I am redistributing a small amount of refund monies to some of our city’s most vulnerable citizens. I would rather do this than have the monies entering the HRM’s general revenue stream.
The answer to the scavenger issues does not lie with municipal policy wonks. It rests with those of us who place materials curbside for disposal. We need to make a conscious and informed decision and indicate whether materials we leave curbside are set-out for municipal collection or for scavengers.
If homeowners decide that the curbside materials can be recycled or re-used, mechanisms similar to those used by other charitable organizations (i.e. taping an "x" on the bag) should be introduced. As such, the Solid Waste by-law prohibition on scavenging should be removed, and replaced with wording that enables the citizens of the HRM to make a conscious choice about how their waste is removed.
HRM spokesperson John O’Brien has explained that the intent of the scavenging prohibition is to ensure that community blight is reduced, that scavengers do not create unsightly messes in picking-over waste and that scavengers take away some $ 150,00 - $ 200,000 from municipal coffers in bottle deposits each year.
The Scavenger Society makes legitimate argument that scavenging is a necessary function of a wasteful society and promotes environmental sustainability. Through scavenging curbside items are reused or recycled. Interestingly, analogies can be drawn to the ravens, coyotes and vultures who have a natural tendency to scavenge. Through scavenging they preserve the natural ecosystem.
Good laws emerge from the consensus of the governed. It strikes me that the prohibition of scavenging is not a good law. What public good is served through issuing tickets or laying charges against scavengers? I would argue that the public good is better served by the scavengers who aid recycling, re-using and reducing the amount of waste materials that go to the landfill.
On a weekly basis, I place my materials curbside for disposal. When reflecting upon this issue, I suggest that to most homeowners the method of disposal is of little or no consequence. Most environmentally minded citizens would welcome someone to find use for something that they no longer need. It makes imminent sense for someone to re-use or recycle my old barbeque rather than it to be transported by the municipality to the landfill. It could be argued that scavengers would reduce the amount of waste being transported to the landfill and the $150,000 in lost revenues could be offset by more effective recycling and re-use of materials.
When I place my recyclable bottles curbside, my intention is not to contribute to municipal coffers, but to recycle the bottles and help those in need. I often pass my bottles to scavengers with the belief that I am redistributing a small amount of refund monies to some of our city’s most vulnerable citizens. I would rather do this than have the monies entering the HRM’s general revenue stream.
The answer to the scavenger issues does not lie with municipal policy wonks. It rests with those of us who place materials curbside for disposal. We need to make a conscious and informed decision and indicate whether materials we leave curbside are set-out for municipal collection or for scavengers.
If homeowners decide that the curbside materials can be recycled or re-used, mechanisms similar to those used by other charitable organizations (i.e. taping an "x" on the bag) should be introduced. As such, the Solid Waste by-law prohibition on scavenging should be removed, and replaced with wording that enables the citizens of the HRM to make a conscious choice about how their waste is removed.
posted by Pete at 3:08 PM
<< Home