“Pay as your throw”, that is, charging households for disposing of non-recyclable waste is what the Brits are currently discussing.
Julie Hill of the Green Alliance was quoted “… I think that’s a much more rewarding way of going about it than say, for instance, compulsory recycling and the threat of penalties.”

But is it? The chain of production, consumption and waste is complex and can’t be successfully addressed in its last links, so to say.
In Rubbish 101, we learn about the three R’s: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Changing habits of reducing and reusing results in overall less rubbish, recyclable and not, and from a behavorist perspective that might be all that’s needed to improve the situation. Is that enough?
How deep into the subject does the average household need to go to be informed enough? How much do we need to know and who decides? Seatbelt wearing became compulsory; cigarette smoking will eventually be outlawed in most public places. Most of us know relatively little about either, but we know enough to decide what we’ll do and for the most part, why.
Interestingly, many people still smoke, knowing what we do about it, suggesting perhaps that simply knowing or being informed isn’t enough to learn. There must be other ways of knowing–socially, emotionally, intellectually conjoined knowing, to effect some change in behavior. There’s also evidence suggesting that one’s beliefs play a significant role in one’s understanding.

For example, many people, including me, incorrectly think that as we back away from a mirror in which we can only see our upper torso, we see more and more of ourselves. Even after the fallacy was illustrated in an experiment, I still went back to my office, to prove it to myself with my little mirror. I did not want to or could not believe it. Why?