Syeda Farwa Raza Shirazi 500534393

Short Essay Assignment

“Paper and plastic cups, grocery bags, bottles and foam containers are

carelessly and nonchalantly tossed out of open car windows” (Nick,

2007). Littering has been a common issue within our society for over

many decades and still is not fully resolved. There have been many

measures taken over the years to encourage a change within the

society. There has been an introduction of elements such as advisement

campaigns, increase in fines, more convenient garbage bins,

receptacles and many more yet the issue of littering still persists.

In the essay I will attempt to explore these elements through the four

modalities presented by Lawrence Lessig in the book The code 2.0. Lessig

explores the direct and indirect roles in regulating individuals of a

society emphasizing that there should be less indirect regulations. I

agree that direct regulation should be used to enforce a positive

change in the society in regards to regulating individuals but at

times the indirect method is more effective than the direct method.

When examining the issue of littering we can start by analysing the

constraints that are place on us to prevent us from littering. The

most influential one might be the fines that are placed when caught

littering in certain places such as the TTC, Ontario Highways, or

1CMN 317

Syeda Farwa Raza Shirazi 500534393

public property. Here are a few examples of laws that are in place to

prevent littering:

Figure 1: Not allowed to take pictures of TTC property of ads or signs, some stations have signs up

These laws are not applicable in all places and therefore only

controlled to a certain extent. As Lessig stated about smoking that

“There are no smoking police, and smoking courts are still quite

rare.” (Lessig, 122). Nearly the same stance can be applied to

littering, as there are no litter police and littering cases rarely go

to court. There are other means that prevent us from overflowing our

roads with garbage such as social norms and etiquettes.

We expect the social norms towards littering have changed over the

years due to the knowledge that is being provided to us. Below are

some examples of litter you might still find in your streets.

2CMN 317

Syeda Farwa Raza Shirazi 500534393

Figure 2

We now know how harmful littering can be to our future and our

environment. Though this education and knowledge we are expected “to

learn live together with fellow citizens, and above all to learn to

obey the law” (Lessig, 129). Despite this information being provided

to us in our social norms there is still a lack is discipline in

littering. There are “some things never change, like the perpetual

pile of trash between the fences at the TTC customer parking lot on

Bishop Ave.” (Lakey, 2014). There is no doubt that in 2014 individuals

in society know of the concern regarding saving our environment but

there is still the social norm to throwing garbage when you are in a

rush to get somewhere. Since these are not the practices that we want

or expect from our society there is still room for us to change these

norms. If the government places cost effective “Laws [they] can change

social norms” (Lessig, 129).

3CMN 317

Syeda Farwa Raza Shirazi 500534393

Companies have been using marketing strategies to encourage members in

our society to be aware of the environmentally friendly initiative

adopted. This is due to pressure placed by governments on companies to

control the pollutants. Even though this does not directly affect

littering but in an indirect way does play in part in encouraging

individuals to recycle or compost certain things. A good example would

be this plastic water bottle below. This might not directly tell the

water bottle buyer not to litter but it states that this was recycled

before and still can be recycled.

Figure 3

This method of indirect regulation, in my opinion is not necessarily

attempting “use nontransparent means when transparent means are

available” (Lessig, 136) since it is known to the regulated individual

that purpose of the regulation. This particular indirect method of

preventing littering is at time more effective than the laws that are

in place. There is also a second alternative that the market provides

refunding when recyclable item is returned, as stated in Figure 3.

4CMN 317

Syeda Farwa Raza Shirazi 500534393

This might not be common with water bottles but is fairly common with

beer or alcoholic beverages. This initiative taken by the market seems

to be a little more effective in reducing litter.

Lastly the fourth modality is also very effective in reducing litter.

The government has also used architecture in some means to promote

anti littering. One of the main complains in the past of

environmentalist/Reports was the lack of garbage, recycle bins or

receptacles. In 2010 at TTC Kipling station the main excuse of smokers

was lack of receptacles available “saying they wouldn't flick their

butts on the ground if receptacles were available.” (Nick, 2010). Most

of the garbage bins at now replaced with this new design allowing not

only trash but also recycling paper, plastic and also cigarette. This

design is attractive allowing individuals an excuse to throw their

garbage in the bin instead of the floor. An example of this new

garbage bin is provided in Figure 4 below.

5CMN 317

Syeda Farwa Raza Shirazi 500534393

Figure 4

Overall, I find that the regulators are using both indirect and direct

means of promoting and encouraging individuals which has resulted to a

decreased in overall littering but has not completely alter the social

norms. All of Lessig’s modalities of regulation have been used to

implement anti-littering but it is not completely effective yet. I

find that there is still more means of regulation that can be placed

to enforce anti-littering movement.

6CMN 317

Syeda Farwa Raza Shirazi 500534393

Bibliography

Lakey, J. (2014, Sep 04). Commuters' trash piles up near TTC lot.

Toronto Star Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?

url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1559583423?accountid=13631

Lakey, J. (2010, Nov 16). Cigarette butt snowstorm at kipling TTC.

Toronto Star Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?

url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/788841926?accountid=13631

Lessig, L. (2006). Code version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.

Nick Marino, T. (2007, Aug 08). Littering hurts our world. The Spectator

Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/

docview/270286751?accountid=13631

7CMN 317