It isn’t the solution to overconsumption, it’s a symptom of it

September 23, 2024 4:36 pm(Updated 4:38 pm)

I am famous among my family and friends for scavenging. Basically all the furniture in the billions of flats I lived in during my twenties was hoiked off the street. In my (admittedly middle-class) neighbourhood, I am constantly walking past cardboard boxes full of dusty nicknacks and battered flatpack bookcases, offered for free; days later, often drenched by rain and having been damaged or dirtied, they are still there.

This is what’s become known as “middle-class fly-tipping” – that is, leaving things on the street with a little “PLEASE TAKE ME” note, as opposed to the sort of fly-tipping which ditches a washing machine on waste ground by a railway line. On the whole, it feels like a neighbourly, communal spring-cleaning ritual, a way to keep useful objects from the landfill. But some people who’ve done it have found themselves slapped with £500 fixed-penalty notices.

Now the local government and social care ombudsman has announced there will be new guidance about this sort of thing, intended to stop local authorities from dealing too harshly with people who leave unwanted items outside their homes.

It seems like a step in the right direction. Yet, while putting out useful objects and furniture for passersby to pick up might seem helpful, what’s “useful” is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. And as the queen of middle-class fly-tipping I should know. I am part of the problem. I must do better.

It’s just so very hard to stop. While I have become a little more discerning with age, I still cheerfully adopt shoes, clothes and books, not just from beneath “PLEASE TAKE ME” signs but also the, er, ground.

My best finds include several silver rings, a rabbit fur muff someone had left on snowy Primrose Hill, and an Anglepoise lamp still in its box.

Luckily, considering how small my current flat is, I’m just as fond of getting rid of stuff as I am of obtaining it – but assuming that my trash will be another person’s treasure, let alone to the extent that it excuses blocking paths and littering garden walls, is ultimately as arrogant as it is entitled.

Read Next

I am entirely invested (nay, embedded) in the ecosystem of strangers passing junk between each other. But we’ve got to stop doing it via the pavement.

While it’s a bore to dispose of things properly – who wants to drive to the tip or organise a waste collection? – that doesn’t mean that your neighbours should have to clamber over your ratty old sofa for weeks just because it’s got a “FREE TO A GOOD HOME” Post-It on it.

There are lots of ways of getting your old stuff to people who actually want it. Sell things on Vinted or Ebay or Depop, put them on Facebook Marketplace or Freecycle! Give them to charities, or easier still, organise a collection by one! Ring your friends who are moving home and see if they need your bed frame, or fancy any of your old books! Just please don’t put them on the road, to get rained on and manky.

No question, we are too quick to trash things that still work, to the extent that the planet is on fire/underwater thanks to the effects of our thoughtless overconsumption. But giving things away like this doesn’t divorce you from that cycle.

I am the biggest fan of buying second-hand, but leaving things on the street is littering, no matter how hard we try to flatter ourselves with lofty notions of a circular economy. We’re so accustomed to getting new stuff that we’ve stopped thinking about how to dispose of the old. “Middle-class fly-tipping” isn’t the solution to our problem; it’s a symptom of it.

It’s time to admit that my personal convenience (or self-indulgent fantasy of providing someone with something they need, just by chance) doesn’t outweigh the fact that most stuff I don’t want won’t be of interest to anyone else either.

I promise I’ll get my act together. Meanwhile, if anyone wants a box of lightly dog-eared books, I’m your woman.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

California has filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil alleging it falsely promoted the recyclability of plastic, becoming the first US state seeking to hold an oil major accountable for plastic pollution.

The lawsuit alleges Exxon, one of the world’s largest producers of plastic, deceived the public for half a century about the sustainability of its plastic products. The lawsuit seeks damages from the oil group for harms inflicted from plastic production. 

“For decades, ExxonMobil has been deceiving the public to convince us that plastic recycling could solve the plastic waste and pollution crisis when they clearly knew this wasn’t possible,” said California attorney-general Rob Bonta in a statement. “ExxonMobil lied to further its record-breaking profits at the expense of our planet and possibly jeopardising our health.”

Exxon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The allegations arrive as plastics play a growing role in supporting oil demand and as the UN prepares to broker in late November the world’s first binding agreement to cut plastics pollution in South Korea, a deal that has been likened to the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Global consumption of plastic, a primary driver of petrochemicals demand, is expected to triple by 2060, according to the OECD, reaching 1.3bn tonnes. China was the largest producer of plastics last year, surpassing North America by a slim margin, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. 

The International Energy Agency cites the petrochemicals sector as the “single largest contributor” to oil demand growth for the next four years as the electrification of power and transport sectors curb the global thirst for crude. The plastics industry is expected to make up 10 per cent of global emissions by mid-century, up from 5 per cent in 2019, according to a report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

California’s lawsuit against Exxon follows the investigation it launched into the fossil fuel and petrochemicals sectors and their role in plastic pollution in 2022. A group of non-profit organisations including Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation filed a similar lawsuit on Monday targeting Exxon for misleading claims about its plastics business. 

State and local governments are increasing efforts to hold companies accountable for plastic waste. Earlier this year, New York attorney-general Letitia James sued PepsiCo, demanding the food and drinks company reduce its plastic pollution and pay for damages. 

Developing countries, environmentalists and businesses have called for a limit on plastic production to be included in the final UN plastics treaty expected by the end of the year, arguing that relying on waste management solutions such as recycling were inadequate. 

Karen McKee, head of Exxon’s product solutions business, told the Financial Times earlier this year that a limit on production would not solve the pollution problem and that UN negotiators needed to be “open-minded” about solutions. 

Exxon produced 11.2mn metric tonnes of polyethylene last year and operates a chemical recycling plant for plastic in Baytown, Texas.

About 10 per cent of all plastic is recycled, according to the OECD, which estimates investment in recycling must reach $1tn by 2040, up from less than $20bn today. 

Business & FinanceEnergyEnvironment

Market Impact

Supply concerns at First Quantum’s Panama contributed to copper prices jumping to two-month highs traders said while First Quantum shares extended fall to drop as much as 5.7% on the news.

A court case involving harassment claims against a Lexington councilwoman has been unsealed and is now available again through the Kentucky’s online court system, Courtnet or KyECourts.

The Lexington-Herald Leader published a story last week questioning why the case was sealed.

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Councilwoman Denise Gray was awarded a temporary emergency protection order against Councilwoman Brenda Monarrez on Aug. 8.

In her petition, Gray alleges Monarrez was sexually aggressive towards her on two different occasions over three years.

Fayette Circuit Judge Traci Brislin ordered during an Aug. 20 hearing Monarrez attend council meetings virtually and work from home until an Oct. 16 hearing, which will determine if the protection order will remain in place.

Both women can testify at that hearing.

Monarrez has denied the allegations, calling them baseless, vile and politically motivated.

An interpersonal protection order is a civil matter. No criminal charges have been filed.

After the Aug. 20 hearing, the case was removed from Courtnet. The Herald-Leader attempted to access the paper file at the Fayette Circuit Clerk’s office on Sept. 18 and was told the case was confidential or sealed.

On Saturday, the case reappeared on Courtnet.

On Aug. 21, there is a note in the case file that shows the case is now confidential. However, there was no motion from Gray or Monarrez’s attorneys asking the case be sealed. The note appears to come from “judicial staff,” according to the court record.

Brislin conducted the initial hearing on Aug. 20. But the case was originally assigned to District Judge Ross Ewing, according to the court record. Brislin’s staff confirmed Monday the case had been unsealed.

Brislin was not immediately available for comment.

Michael Abate, a lawyer for the Kentucky Press Association, questioned how the case was sealed. Under the law, a hearing must be held to determine if a case can be sealed and media has to be noticed, Abate has said. There was no hearing listed in the court record.

On Sept. 20, two days after the Herald-Leader ran a story questioning why the case was no longer public, there’s an entry in the court record showing the case be returned to the public docket.

“The Herald-Leader is concerned about what appears to a fast-and-loose policy related to secretly sealing and then unsealing this case without an initial hearing,” said Executive Editor Richard Green. “Kentucky law is very clear about how the process is supposed to work. We will continue to look into this matter and remind those in the courthouse of the law of the commonwealth.”