「34分別」とか、日本の自治体はおかしなことをしているね。
行政とそこに住む住民との意思の疎通が全くできていないことが原因だとも言えるが、住民がマスコミと自己の利権（権利）しか考慮せず、科学的（合理的）な判断をしていないことも問題です。
ゴミ問題が環境問題と捉え直された時点で、廃棄物の処理は地方自治体ではなく、国の業務とするべきだったかもしれません。自治体の迷走は、国が作った法律と住民の意識と自治体の首長の利権との板挟みが原因ですから。
マスコミが正しい情報を提供すること、首長は住民に選ばれたのだから利権にこだわることなく住民に正しい情報を与えながら話し合う姿勢が必要です。民主主義が正しく機能していれば、こんなことはないはずです。最終的にはそれらのつけは住民にかかってくるのですからね。
この本には書かれていなかったのですが、ゴミの有料化でゴミが減ることになっているのですが、その減った分のゴミはどこに行ったのでしょう。人間が行動変容に時間がかかるのは自分のことを考えれば分かるでしょう。まして、どんどん増えている貧困階層の人たちはもともと必要最小限のものしか購入していないのですから、ゴミは減りようがないはずです。ただゴミの有料化によって支出が増えるか、有料化の分だけ購買力がなくなるかしかないのです。基本的に私は「お金」で行動変容をさせるという発想そのものが「非人間的」だと思っています。
かと言って新型コロナのように、人々の恐怖を煽る「デマ」も許せませんが。
レジ袋有料化ですが、レジ袋というのは「容器包装」に当たるのでしょうか。容器包装リサイクル法第2条では、「この法律において「容器包装」とは、商品の容器及び包装であって、当該商品が費消され、又は当該商品と分離された場合に不要になるものをいう。」とあります。レジ袋は「商品の容器及び包装」に当たるとは思えません。マイバックを「商品の容器及び包装」だと言ったら違和感があるでしょうし、レジ袋を他の用途に再度使う場合は「不要になる」とは言えないと思います。マイバックだって、いつかは使えなくなりますし、その製造にはレジ袋とは比較にならないほどの資源とエネルギーが使われます。なにか国民の善意を利用して国民を騙しているとしか思えないのですが。
それにしても、マスコミは科学的（合理的）な情報ではなく、政府の政策のみを宣伝し続けるのでしょうかね。国民が勉強したくても正しい情報がなければ自分で考えて判断することができません・
⟨impressions⟩
"34 sorts" and the Japanese municipalities are doing strange things.
It can be said that it is because there is no communication between the administration and the residents who live there, but the residents make scientific (rational) decisions by considering only the media and their own interests (rights). It's also a problem.
At the time when the problem of garbage was regarded as an environmental problem, it might have been the responsibility of the national government to dispose of the waste rather than the local government. Municipal strays are due to the gap between the legislation created by the country, the consciousness of the residents, and the interests of the mayor of the municipality.
It is necessary for the media to provide the correct information, and because the chief has been chosen by the residents, it is necessary to have an attitude of giving the correct information to the residents and not discussing the interests. If democracy is working properly, this should not be the case. In the end, it's up to the people to turn them on.
Although it was not written in this book, it is supposed to be reduced by paying for garbage, but where did the reduced garbage go? You can see that humans take time to change their behaviors. Moreover, since the people in the poor, who are increasing in number, originally purchase only the minimum necessary amount, there should be no way to reduce garbage. However, the cost of the garbage will increase, or the purchasing power will be reduced by the amount of the charge. Basically, I think that the idea of changing behavior with “money” is “inhuman”.
However, like the new Corona, I can't forgive the hoaxes that fuel people's fear.
The shopping bag is charged, but is the shopping bag equivalent to "container packaging"? According to Article 2 of the Containers and Packaging Recycling Law, "the term "containers and packaging" in this Act means containers and packaging for goods that become unnecessary when the goods are consumed or separated from the goods. .. ". I don't think plastic shopping bags are "containers and packaging" for products. It would be uncomfortable to say that My Bag is "container and packaging for products," and I wouldn't say that it would be "unnecessary" if the shopping bag were to be reused for other purposes. Even My Bag will become unusable some day, and its production uses resources and energy that are incomparable to plastic bags. I can only think that they are using the goodwill of the people to deceive them.
Even so, will the media continue to advertise only government policy, not scientific (rational) information? Even if people want to study, they cannot make their own judgment without the correct information.
"34 sorts" and the Japanese municipalities are doing strange things.
It can be said that it is because there is no communication between the administration and the residents who live there, but the residents make scientific (rational) decisions by considering only the media and their own interests (rights). It's also a problem.
At the time when the problem of garbage was regarded as an environmental problem, it might have been the responsibility of the national government to dispose of the waste rather than the local government. Municipal strays are due to the gap between the legislation created by the country, the consciousness of the residents, and the interests of the mayor of the municipality.
It is necessary for the media to provide the correct information, and because the chief has been chosen by the residents, it is necessary to have an attitude of giving the correct information to the residents and not discussing the interests. If democracy is working properly, this should not be the case. In the end, it's up to the people to turn them on.
Although it was not written in this book, it is supposed to be reduced by paying for garbage, but where did the reduced garbage go? You can see that humans take time to change their behaviors. Moreover, since the people in the poor, who are increasing in number, originally purchase only the minimum necessary amount, there should be no way to reduce garbage. However, the cost of the garbage will increase, or the purchasing power will be reduced by the amount of the charge. Basically, I think that the idea of changing behavior with “money” is “inhuman”.
However, like the new Corona, I can't forgive the hoaxes that fuel people's fear.
The shopping bag is charged, but is the shopping bag equivalent to "container packaging"? According to Article 2 of the Containers and Packaging Recycling Law, "the term "containers and packaging" in this Act means containers and packaging for goods that become unnecessary when the goods are consumed or separated from the goods. .. ". I don't think plastic shopping bags are "containers and packaging" for products. It would be uncomfortable to say that My Bag is "container and packaging for products," and I wouldn't say that it would be "unnecessary" if the shopping bag were to be reused for other purposes. Even My Bag will become unusable some day, and its production uses resources and energy that are incomparable to plastic bags. I can only think that they are using the goodwill of the people to deceive them.
Even so, will the media continue to advertise only government policy, not scientific (rational) information? Even if people want to study, they cannot make their own judgment without the correct information.
[出演者(プロフィール)]
杉本/裕明
1954年滋賀県生まれ。早稲田大学商学部卒業。全農を経て朝日新聞社記者。廃棄物、自然保護、地球温暖化など環境全般をフォロー。石原産業のリサイクル偽装「フェロシルト事件」を発掘、刑事事件に持ち込む。国と地方自治体の環境政策・行政に精通し、環境カウンセラーとして政策提言など市民活動を展開
服部/美佐子
1952年東京都生まれ。明治大学文学部卒業。環境ジャーナリスト。環境カウンセラー。東京都日の出町の埋め立て処分場問題をきっかけに環境問題に取り組み、ごみやリサイクルをテーマに全国各地で講演活動を行う。環境省の検討会や葛飾区清掃審議会の委員などを歴任
分別すればごみが減り、再生品も増え、環境にやさしいと信じる人は多い。だが現実は矛盾と弊害だらけである。世界一の分別数34を誇る“徳島県上勝町”の哀しき結末から、細かく分けてもリサイクル率が上がらない“愛知県碧南市”、業者と自治体の癒着で収集費に巨額の税金をかける“東京23区”など、日本各地の呆れた実態を徹底レポート。エコ推進の合い言葉「混ぜればごみ、分ければ資源」を再検証する。
目次
第1章 分別するとごみが減るって誰が言った!?
第2章 焼却、埋め立て…知られざる分別後の世界
第3章 リサイクルにかかるムダ金の、これが実態
第4章 分別界の問題児、プラスチックを考える
第5章 エコPR活動は謎だらけ
第6章 外国はどこまでお手本になるか
ごみ分別界の用語集
目次
第1章 分別するとごみが減るって誰が言った!?
第2章 焼却、埋め立て…知られざる分別後の世界
第3章 リサイクルにかかるムダ金の、これが実態
第4章 分別界の問題児、プラスチックを考える
第5章 エコPR活動は謎だらけ
第6章 外国はどこまでお手本になるか
ごみ分別界の用語集
[拡大] [ISBN-13: 978-4344981331]
