**TL;DR The 'pay as you throw' scheme has been proven to reduce the personal waste generated by people and increases rates of recycling. It should be implented worldwide in order to reduce the amount of unnecessary waste across the globe.** The [‘pay as you throw’ scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_as_you_throw#:~:text=Pay%20as%20you%20throw%20(PAYT,the%20municipality%20or%20local%20authority.) has seen a great reduction in the amount of residual household waste when compared to its similar communities. It has also been connected to a significant increase in people sorting their waste and recycling correctly. The benefits of the scheme evidence that it could help reduce excess waste from people if implemented across the globe. ‘Pay as you throw’ (PAYT) programs allocate waste fees are based on the weight or volume of the rubbish generated, making the producer of the waste financially responsible for the collection and treatment of their specific waste only. By doing this, households have a greater economic incentive to reduce and recycle their waste appropriately, helping ensure that people become more thoughtful about the waste they produce and [how much of that waste is unnecessary.](https://www.interregeurope.eu/policylearning/news/550/pay-as-you-throw-schemes-increase-recycling-rates/) Evidence proves that PAYT systems directly increase recycling rates whilst reducing the overall waste per household. When the program was tested in Treviso, Italy, the town reached an [85% municipal recycling rate](https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2018/02/cheaper-more-efficient-pay-as-you-throw-kerbside-collection/), a significant increase in the rates before the introduction of ‘pay as you throw’. Similarly a [study in France](https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/pay-as-you-throw-cuts-waste-and-encourages-recycling/) exhibited positive results. After an initial breaking-in period of the PAYT program, the amount of household waste per person was 28% less than the national average and amount of sorted and recycled waste per person increased and ended up being 33% more than the national average. The pay-as-you-throw scheme has the ability to have a great impact on waste reduction and could overall help the world become more aware of the damages to the environment that unnecessary waste can cause. All countries should at least trial the scheme and see how much waste could potentially be reduced worldwide.

**TL;DR- In theory, I think that 'pay as you throw' schemes sound like a great idea, however, in practice they may prove to be a problem as so many people just cannot afford to live sustainably. Instead of individual waste, we should focus on making big companies green.** It can be very tricky to live a sustainable and zero-waste lifestyle if you're not considerably rich. This is because of zero-waste products costing a lot more than their disposable counterparts, and whole-food shops with all-sustainably packaged groceries being generally much more expensive than Lidl. In fact, the cheapest foods usually come in plastic packaging (i.e. instant ramen, bread, and digestives) and this is not the fault of the consumer, especially if that's all they can afford. If a PAYT scheme was introduced everywhere, many already struggling families would have that extra financial burden. Therfore, it just isn't the right solution to landfill, sea plastic, etc. Instead, we need to turn our attention to how large, billion-dollar corporations can reduce their waste. Around [71% of the world's emissions are produced by just 100 companies] (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change), and 4 big companies alone [produce 6 million tons of plastic every year](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/these-4-companies-produce-6-million-tons-of-plastic-every-year/). Focusing on making big companies like these green will have a much bigger positive impact on the environment.

**TL;DR – What is so great about *pay as you throw* is that it provides multiple options for waste reduction rather than only doing its namesake – payment for waste reduction.** Unit-based pricing (PAYT) has [shown](http://payasyouthrow.org/solutions-2/) to be the most environmentally and financially effective option to reduce waste. Waste reduction was down 44% percent as compared to waste reduction when plastic bag laws were implements (-.5%) or enforced mandatory recycling was in practice (-12%). Communities who have been considering *pay as you throw* have only been actively utilizing two options, carts and bags with or without automated collection, to dispose of waste. Regardless of the PAYT options used in communities, it has always shown to be effective. What varies is how [favorable](http://payasyouthrow.org/about-pay-as-you-throw/#toggle-id-1) one option over another based on its convenience. There is most likely a feasible option for every community and country on a larger scale.

**A good idea for industries, but may lead to an increase in flytipping and criminalise the poor who cannot afford to utilise the scheme** - For large industries, I support the notion of a 'pay to throw' scheme for it may encourage them to reduce excessive waste and be more environmentally conscious. - Approximately [97% of waste is industrial](https://www.postcarbon.org/what-a-waste/), and individuals/domestic households are only responsible for 3%. - Those who cannot afford something as basic as to dispose of their waste will be villainised and scapegoated for a problem that is caused on a drastically larger scale by industries rather than the average individual. - As a result of not being able to afford to dispose of waste, individuals may resort to fly-tipping which is not only environmentally harmful and an eyesore in local communities, but [criminalises](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05672/) the poor. - Even wealthy individuals and large corporations may be inclined to dispose of their waste improperly as opposed to paying. - Alternatively, schemes that offer rewards for recycling or reducing waste may provide a better incentive and solution.

I can't imagine this being great for poor people while its similar to alcohol and cigarette taxes it basically makes it a privilege to be able to do these things a lot of places don't have access to recycling or its limited so quickly becomes to much to recycle and they are forced to throw things out. I can see this increasing flytipping and burning of trash as a result in order to escape fines.

While personal responsibility does indeed play a role, and Pay As You Throw could help reduce waste, I would argue the issue is less in the hands of the consumers and more in the hands of producers themselves. For instance, everyone buys kitchen supplies. In the richest countries or the poorest countries. The difference is that the richest countries have individually-plastic-wrapped utensils inside a box inside another box inside packing peanuts inside another box that is twice as large as it needs to be. In the poor country, there's the spoon, unpackaged. Grab it, buy it, and wash it before you use it. This is similar to water usage. Often blamed on individuals while a single company can use more water in production than their entire respective society combined. Similarly, if the goal is to incentivize recycling, the recycling pipeline needs to be improved. Currently, the vast majority of recycled materials are ultimately mixed in with the rest of the waste and thrown into the same landfill.