Categories
Lytton Advisory

Hot Take on Queensland’s New Waste Strategy: good diagnosis, harder delivery

Queensland’s Less Landfill, More Recycling 2035 strategy gets one big thing right: the state has stopped pretending this is just a “household behaviour” problem. Queensland is second-last nationally on recycling, household recycling has slipped from 32% in 2015 to 28% in 2024–25, and the 2035 ambition is to lift the overall recycling rate to 65%. 

Three bouquets.

First, the strategy is honest about the scale of the problem. It calls out low recycling performance, rising household landfill, and the fact that almost half of the red-lid bin is food and garden organics. 

Second, it recognises Queensland is not one market. A statewide infrastructure roadmap, regional transport options, local-scale processing and energy-from-waste planning are all sensible responses to a decentralised state. 

Third, it finally gives end markets the attention they deserve. Recycling does not work unless someone buys the output. The proposed procurement policy, supplier listing, recycled-content trials and end-of-waste reform are all practical levers. 

Three brickbats.

First, the strategy is stronger on direction than delivery. Too many actions are framed as “support”, “consider”, “investigate” or “work with”. Councils will need funding certainty, not just partnership language.

Second, the waste levy remains politically and financially sensitive. The strategy says levy settings underpin the approach, but local governments will want to see whether levy revenues are recycled into the infrastructure and behaviour-change work they are being asked to deliver. 

Third, energy from waste is now clearly in the tent, but the sequencing matters. It should manage genuine residual waste after avoidance, reuse, recycling and organics diversion — not become a shortcut around better resource recovery. 

Immediate action items for councils.

Councils should consider moving now on five fronts.

  1. Build the local evidence base. Update waste audits, red-bin composition, contamination rates, illegal dumping costs, transfer station flows, landfill airspace and levy exposure. The strategy is target-driven, so councils need their own baseline.
  2. Prepare kerbside options and business cases. Model yellow-lid expansion, green-lid or FOGO pathways, bin-lid harmonisation, home and community composting, and multi-unit dwelling solutions. The strategy specifically flags more yellow and green-lid bins and organics diversion. 
  3. Get shovel-ready infrastructure projects into the pipeline. Councils should identify regional processing gaps, land, approvals, transfer station upgrades, organics capacity, glass/crushing options, and shared procurement opportunities before the state infrastructure roadmap hardens. 
  4. Use procurement as market-making. Review council specifications for roads, civil works, parks, drainage and buildings to identify where recycled content can be used without compromising performance or cost. 
  5. Treat priority wastes as operational risks. Batteries, mattresses, tyres, textiles, e-waste, plastics and organics need local collection points, contracts, education and enforcement pathways — especially where they create fire, dumping or transport-cost risks. 

The bottom line: this is a good strategy. But the real test will be whether councils can convert it into bankable projects, lower red-bin tonnes and credible local circular-economy markets.

#WasteManagement #CircularEconomy #LocalGovernment #Queensland #Recycling #FOGO #Infrastructure #ResourceRecovery

Categories
Lytton Advisory

The first trillionaire is not just a wealth story

Earlier this year I was in Tuvalu, one of the world’s smallest sovereign economies in the middle of the South Pacific.

Its annual GDP is roughly USD 60–70 million.

This week, Elon Musk reportedly became the first individual with personal wealth of more than USD 1 trillion.

Put differently, that is equivalent to more than 14,000 years of Tuvalu’s annual economic output.

That comparison is imperfect. GDP is a flow. Wealth is a stock. Economists should be careful about comparing the two too casually.

But the scale still matters.

The significance of a trillionaire is not that one person can “spend” USD 1 trillion in any ordinary sense. The deeper significance is institutional.

It means one private individual has accumulated resources on a scale normally associated with states, central banks, sovereign wealth funds or whole national economies.

That matters in at least four ways.

First, capital allocation.

A trillionaire can influence investment at a sovereign scale: space, AI, energy, transport, media, defence-adjacent technology, biotech and political ventures. Even where the wealth is illiquid, ownership, control rights, pledged shares, debt capacity and investor confidence can amplify influence.

Second, market structure.

Trillion-dollar fortunes do not usually emerge from ordinary competitive markets. They tend to arise from dominant platforms, network effects, intellectual property, scarce infrastructure, regulatory advantage or winner-take-most dynamics. That may reflect extraordinary innovation. It may also reflect weak competition policy.

Third, democratic accountability.

A trillionaire is not just a rich citizen. They can become a quasi-sovereign actor: able to fund campaigns, shape media narratives, influence regulation, support think tanks, direct philanthropy and potentially control infrastructure used by governments.

Fourth, social legitimacy.

At ordinary levels of wealth, society may read success as reward for risk, innovation or entrepreneurship. At USD 1 trillion, the question changes.

It is no longer simply: “Did this person earn it?”

It becomes: “What kind of system allows one individual to capture this much economic surplus?”

That is why the emergence of a trillionaire is not merely a story about private luxury. It is a story about institutional power.

The key question is not whether Elon Musk is admirable or objectionable.

The key question is whether democratic societies are comfortable with one person having state-like economic capacity while being governed mainly by private incentives, corporate law, securities markets, tax planning and personal discretion.

The arrival of a trillionaire will intensify debates about wealth taxes, monopoly regulation, campaign finance, inheritance, corporate governance, media ownership, philanthropy and democratic accountability.

No individual, however capable, should be expected to resolve those questions privately.

They are questions societies need to address collectively.