Hacker News Reader

Comment by dsfyu404ed | Hacker News Reader

>In Toronto, Sidewalk sketches out a picture of a neighborhood where intelligent “pay-as-you-throw” garbage chutes separate out recyclables and charge households by waste output

I don't understand why the "city of the future" types have such a fetish for pay per use. It either winds up being cheap enough that nobody cares or if it's expensive enough for people to care it will be a serious drag on poor people. Sure you can come up with various voucher and aid systems but those have administrative overhead and their own unique downsides. It's better to just ensure that utilities (like trash pickup and tap water) are so cheap they're basically free and just eat the cost of the over-users because there's less harm in that than any other option.

View on HN

I agree largely with the sentiment, but I do think that "pay-per-use" broadly is useful for any habit that you want others to be cognizant of (and, through awareness, reduce).

I do find this "pay-as-you-throw" concept off-putting as I don't like cooking; take-out bags and food wrappers are something I frequently dispose of. But if it was something I was more cognizant of I'd likely ask for less in the first place (don't need a bag for one item) or otherwise put pressure on the business (washable/returnable items) where doing so now would just be unnecessary and impractical.

That being said, being that many things such as waste, water, etc. are largely unavoidable I think providing a general credit such that it shouldn't harm average users is entirely practical. Bonus points if it's a transactional credit - you could sell your excess waste allotment to your neighbor at below regulatory rate if you're not using it.

As you say, much waste is unavoidable. Would "pay-as-you-throw" encourage people to litter if you make the Right Thing (throwing away and recycling) not free and the Wrong Thing free? I've lived in apartment buildings where tenants who leave trash bags on the floor of the trash room because they can't even be bothered to lift their bags into the dumpster. Or they dump mattresses on the floor of the trash room or on the sidewalk instead of scheduling a (free!) bulk trash pick-up.

I can't speak for Canada but littering is fined in most of the 'States [0]. Mind you, this is for freeways but I don't see how it couldn't be applied to residences that are already being actively monitored. Then the behavior is just a matter of risk/reward - is saving $x this month worth an y% chance that I'll have to pay $z? Adjust variables until the answer is "no" in the majority of cases.

[0]: http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resourc...

Yeah, I also wondered How does this help? Pay per what? Cubic foot? Pound? Contiguous item? A box full of paper is much cheaper to dispose of than that same box full of mercury.

As it stands, my city (and pretty much everyone else's) averages the total cost and we already pay as we go (per curbside container).

I just don't see what problem this solves...

Rich people who eat out every night don't have to subsidize the commoners throwing away an empty box of pasta.

That's a good point.

This is the same problem the Internet of Things had - too much sensing with too little value. Most of what they're talking about doesn't do anything. It just watches.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com