Silent Posted July 21, 2012 at 08:57 AM Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 at 08:57 AM A pay as you throw system is a good way to reduce rubbish. It's also a very good way to increase litter as some people prefer to dump their waste somewhere for free instead of getting it processed properly at a cost. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scandinavian Posted July 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM a fine for littering will counter that problem, provided it is enforced and high enough to make people think about it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liuzhou Posted July 21, 2012 at 10:51 AM Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 at 10:51 AM a fine for littering will counter that problem, provided it is enforced and high enough to make people think about it Yadda Yadda Yadda. It won't happen! China has been trying to stop people spitting for near on 70 years. Total fail. Even Mao couldn't deal with that one! To be honest, annoying as it is, I don't think littering is their number one priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Posted July 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM a fine for littering will counter that problem, provided it is enforced and high enough to make people think about it How do you want to enforce that? Post a policemen 24/7 every few meters of every countryroad? It would surely solve all unemployment. It's better to tax for wastedisposal on purchase and to let the producer pay for removal of the waste they produce at the consumer level. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scandinavian Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:52 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:52 AM How do you want to enforce that? There is plenty of police on the streets, if they would write a fine once in a while when they saw people littering, then that would be a good start. At least it would make people more aware of where they are littering. Wasn't it Mao who introduced spitting to China? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realmayo Posted July 22, 2012 at 06:24 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 06:24 AM Scandinavian, you give the impression that you think that littering, for instance, is a simply behavioural problem where you are right, the other side are wrong, and if you could just open their eyes and make a couple of tweaks to their behaviour they would quickly see that they indeed were wrong and that you were right and the world would be fine again. But people aren't laboratory rats, even though economists probably wish they were. Reasons for behaviour in one society will often be different than reasons for the same behaviour in another society. Your ideas might work in some kind of 'Brave New World' police-state European future. But, for me, it seems like you're trying to use the structural mechanisms of one society to influence behaviour on another, different society. Yes this a thread started by someone complaining that things are different in China compared to what he's used to, but at least that's within the context of him trying to work out how best to handle these differences to make his own current situation easier. If people act in one way, shouldn't you spend time working out why before proposing a solution? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pancake Posted July 22, 2012 at 06:51 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 06:51 AM realmayo: If having fines for littering would make China a Brave New World-esque police state then...I guess Sweden already qualifies as one too? EDIT: In fairness, I should also note that in my opinion China already feels a lot cleaner overall than places like India and Egypt. Pointing out that it could be cleaner still is hardly an expression of pernicious cultural arrogance. I think a lot of Chinese people would agree that some work is needed in this area. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realmayo Posted July 22, 2012 at 07:23 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 07:23 AM ... but I'm guessing most Swedes think that littering is a bad thing? Didn't realise Sweden had police on every street corner though. Look, I'm sure most people in China or in whatever country would prefer to live in a clean nice-looking environment. But the view that says "we must tell these people not to litter, explain the problem to them, and then everything will be better " kind of suggests that Chinese people can't see the connection between throwing litter on the ground, and the place looking a mess. I'm guessing they can see the connection. I don't think you can look at littering in isolation. If you live somewhere with a tradition and stable history of property ownership, home ownership, you have a house, you make it look nice, a nice place to live, work on the garden, also work on the front of the house, your neighbours do the same, everything's nice, walking down the street to your house you see a bit of litter that's blown over, you might pick it up and throw it away because you and your neighbours have invested time and effort into making your environment nice. I haven't been inside many Chinese homes for the last few years but: bare light bulb, an out-of-date wall calendar and a couple of pages torn out of a magazine pasted to a damp crumbling wall were different ideas of home decoration to what I'd experienced in the West, and suggested that people had different priorities in their lives than prettifying their own homes, or that such prettification had been frowned on at some stage. Now, if that's the case, or was until very recently, doesn't it suggest that the motives that we in the west might have when we avoid litter are different from the motives that might be at play in China? Or, pancake, is the only reason Swedes don't litter because they don't want to be fined? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scandinavian Posted July 22, 2012 at 07:28 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 07:28 AM But people aren't laboratory rats, even though economists probably wish they were. Lab rats can be trained to have specific reactions e.g. if they get a shock 5 seconds after each time they hear a sound, then they will know that the sound means, something bad will happen. People, if they know that there is a chance of a substantial fine for littering they would not do so. In a country like China, where the gap between poor and rich is so great, fines could be adjusted to the individuals income. Most European countries uses economic penalties to adjust behavior, and when done correctly it works. Some people will still chose to disobey, but if more people find their way to the trashcan, it will be a cleaner world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realmayo Posted July 22, 2012 at 07:49 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 07:49 AM Yes! You've put your finger on what made me feel a bit awkward about this thread. I've got no problem about someone saying that a particular culture or society is shit, I'm sure lots of societies are. But you are suggesting that people are as easy to manipulate as lab rats. And that you have the same level of understanding about how people function and a society functions, as a scientist has about how a much simpler animal (a rat) and a much simpler society (a cage) functions. And that you have the same confidence to "play god". Is it rude to draw parallels between this way of thinking, and that of some of the 20th century's Big Guys (e.g. Mao, Pol Pot, et al...)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scandinavian Posted July 22, 2012 at 08:24 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 08:24 AM I do think there is a fine line between playing God and fining people from littering. If you look at the countries around China and in Hong Kong, they are littered (pun intended) with posters touting desired behavior. And fining people for littering is no different than e.g. the part of the traffic rules that say to drive on the right, and most people follow this as it has a consequence for them if they don't. I would find it rude if you compared my thinking with the people you mention. None of those did anything good for this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pancake Posted July 22, 2012 at 08:36 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 08:36 AM realmayo: Um...not sure how to respond to this. Clearly, you feel that littering is somehow an intrisic part of what it means to be Chinese. But Singapore has a significant Chinese minority? Hong Kong, similarly, is spotless? Is it "playing god" to suggest that people's actions can be influenced using the legal system? Is it rude to draw parallels between this way of thinking, and that of some of the 20th century's Big Guys (e.g. Mao, Pol Pot, et al...)? No, but it does make me question your sanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realmayo Posted July 22, 2012 at 08:37 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 08:37 AM Scandinavian: In the UK, there are fines for speeding. But people break the speed limit all the time. There are TV advertisements to encourage people not to drive too fast. But: these adverts don't mention fines. Instead, they show the possible consequences of driving too fast, i.e. killing a small child. It's not the economist-think fine that will change behaviour here, but something else (making it socially unacceptable). I think people are far, far more influenced by the people around them & social pressure than they are by a fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realmayo Posted July 22, 2012 at 08:55 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 08:55 AM pancake: I'm not saying that the legal system can't influence people's actions. I'm simply saying it's naive to think that you can dive into a society, make one little change (i.e. a fine for littering) and expect it to be effective, without knowing the reasons behind the behaviour that you're trying to change, without knowing the bigger picture. Consider: cane toads in Australia. You can look them up on Wikipedia. They are not native to Australia, but were introduced from elsewhere to deal with a pest. They dealt with the pest. But the people who introduced the cane toads didn't see the bigger picture, that these newly-introduced toads had no natural predator. Consequence: the toads themselves are now an unloved pest in Australia. Of course I'm not suggesting that if you introduce fines for littering in China you'll unleash some vast plague of toads. But do you see my point? That applying solutions that work in one environment (in their native environment those toads had natural predators) shouldn't be applied in a new environment without understanding the differences between the two environments. And to come back to litter: I think that the reasons people do or don't litter in the UK, say, are different from the reasons people do or don't litter in China. Do you disagree? Is the main reason Swedish people don't litter because they don't want to pay a fine? Clearly, you feel that littering is somehow an intrisic part of what it means to be Chinese Completely untrue! I never said that at all. How can a tendency to litter be linked to ethnicity? Cultural upbringing -- of course. But ethnicity??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scandinavian Posted July 22, 2012 at 09:04 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 09:04 AM Obviously it would be great if TV could show a clip of the PM throwing an empty bottle in a waste-bin, but that seems like an unlikely scenario. Showing some kind of role model would be good. The distance from the leaders to the people is too vast, they can never become role models, they can however introduce a fine for littering. You are right that getting a behavior to become socially unacceptable is a good method. Then people standing with a piece of trash in hand would not only look to see if there are any police around, but would look to see if there are any people at all. However, a person who gets fined for littering (or anything else) will most certainly tell friends and family about this, then as this happens it will become rooted in peoples mind that littering has a consequence and you have the seed for a change in behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pprendeville Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:09 PM Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:09 PM Actually in some places in the countryside there’re people who are paid to carry the waste from various roadside 垃圾屋 to the landfill at regular intervals. Who pays them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pprendeville Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:16 PM Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:16 PM Disposal of garbage is a serious issue over here. Currently we dump our rubbish in the landfills but we need to find other alternatives. Recycling, charging and incineration, etc. There is great difficulty in pursuing incineration as people just object to it and cannot be convinced that it is not dangerous no matter what technology/precaution is to be adopted. Agree with you. It's a problem all over the world (what to do with the rubbish). Onus should be to provide recyclable packaging materials which at worst decompose in a relatively short period of time. I use Killeen biodegradeable bags in the bin at home which degrade in a few years. If only they came up with nappies that decomposed quickly we'd be sorted as that's what mainly goes into our bin at home. We're pretty green. Incineration is also a problem in terms of getting planning permission due to locals putting in objections and i guess you can't blame them. Is there such a thing as planning permission in China, i.e. do you have to go to a local council for example if you're building a new house to get permission from them for the go-ahead. Also, I assumed with it being a one party system if the will to set up incinerators was there it wouldn't be a problem if people objected, they'd just go ahead and do it anyway for the benefit of the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pprendeville Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:22 PM Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:22 PM The locals here in my current location of rural Hubei used to pay for a refuse service before eventually deciding to bin it. The system now works like this: recyclable items are sold on whilst any remaining items are either buried in the garden, or thrown by the roadside into makeshift dumping areas. The locals simply view any open land as ripe for property development and so may as well use it while they still can. Was it expensive and how did the system work? Was it based on a pay-per-lift basis? That's the way it works back home now and it has gone private. €6 per lift and an anual fee in the region of €100. I was cycling along a relatively nice area 2 weeks ago and went back there again yesterday and there seemed to have been stuff dumped along the side of the road. Makes me wonder do people appreciate the natural beauty that surrounds them or does that bother them at all. I've stopped looking out bus windows recently as I get depressed looking at the amount of pollution on the side of roads and the rivers of sludge. It is really sad to see that some people only seem to care about making money and that they are doing serious damage longterm to the ecology system which we are so dependent on. Illegal dumping at home has fairly hefty fines although I'm sure most people slip through the net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liuzhou Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:25 PM Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:25 PM Both the UK's and Ireland's waste and rubbish is largely exported to China. they'd just go ahead and do it anyway for the benefit of the majority Doesn't sound like anything in China I've ever experienced. They only do things for the benefit of the party - a minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pprendeville Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:33 PM Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 at 02:33 PM If there was the will to do anything about rural rubbish removal it could be done, and it is well within the capabilities of Chinese society if there was the will to do so. this is a very good diplomatic response that you can't negatively comment on while at the same time giving the receiver the sense of confidence that it can actually be done (rubbish removal). i wish i could argue like this with my in-laws to get them on-side. where there's a will there's a way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.