5 ms·

You have a lot of allegations. Do you have any data/sources? You sound a bit... passionate? I honestly don't think you're making stuff up, but just expecting pe

You have a lot of allegations. Do you have any data/sources? You sound a bit... passionate? I honestly don't think you're making stuff up, but just expecting people to join your ranks in a "war" without evidence is wishful thinking in my opinion. I hope that doesn't sound harsh, because what you are saying is confirming my suspicions so I'm actually trying to help your case.

andrewstuart 9y ago
All I want it for people to see that recycling is what prevents us from holding the packaging industry to account. Once you stop believing in recycling, you start questioning why we accept the infinite flow of garbage that this industry creates.
- hvidgaard 9y ago
  It is not that simple. All that packaging reduces the amount of stuff that gets thrown out because it goes bad. That alone is worth more than the packaging, but it requires the packaging to either be recycled or burned. I'm at work so I cannot give you a source, but look at the environmental impact of producing meat vs the packaging. Switching to reusable containers sounds wonderful, but it's a very hard sell. Standardized sizes would waste a lot of energy in transporting, and proper washing and sanitization will add a significant environmental impact as well, either by energy use, or production of chemicals. Whether or not this is a net positive remains to be determined. /edit: spelling mistakes
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > Standardized sizes would waste a lot of energy in transporting Why? All I can see is how this would save a lot of energy in transporting by making it easier to stack things together, as well as making it a little more difficult for companies to play games with packaging size and form factor.
    - hvidgaard 9y ago
      Today packaging is designed to be the minimal it can be. Less cost in production, less space use for transport, less weight, and tailored to the product inside. If you use standard reusable sizes, cleaning and sanitazation requirements must come first, and it will inevitably be heavier as well.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Packaging of what? For some foodstuffs, yes - but not for many (if most) of them. Definitely not for beauty and personal hygiene stuff, where packaging is used to cheat consumers into thinking they're buying more stuff than they are (even more extreme than with groceries). Definitely not for appliances and consumer electronics, which use absurd amount of packaging for... I don't know, the unboxing experience, I think. I suppose the situation is much different in B2B and bulk orders (like gastronomy), when the packaging is not also fulfilling a marketing role. > If you use standard reusable sizes, cleaning and sanitazation requirements must come first, and it will inevitably be heavier as well. Yes. But it will not be throwaway anymore. It would be great if someone did the math on that. My gut tells me that even the repeated extra cost of shipping additional mass around is much less than it costs to make and dispose of packaging (the bulk of it being probably in the disposal, which producers externalize on the society, and so they prefer churning out new packaging).
        hvidgaard 9y ago
        I was mainly talking about food packaging, but you do have a point with cosmetics and the like. For consumer electronics I do not agree. Everything I've bought over the last 5 years have come in as small packages as possible. Suddenly shipping phones or whatever in standardized sized containers will just mean it will have to accommodate the largest phone and the void will need some single use filling to prevent damage during shipping.
s_kilk 9y ago
> You sound a bit... passionate? Thinking that emotion invalidates any argument, the dumbest fallacy of all.
- positivecomment 9y ago
  He/she doesn't say that it does. I read the whole thing as "you sound passionate about this, I agree with your suspicions, why not bring some sources".
  - s_kilk 9y ago
    In my reading, the ellipses imply a certain condescension, which is a fairly typical response used to de-legitimise the other participant in a conversation.
    - egeozcan 9y ago
      I didn't mean that (not a native speaker). Did you read the rest of my comment? I thought it would be clear. Anyways, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
      - s_kilk 9y ago
        It was a misunderstanding then, all cool :)
tbihl 9y ago
Can you articulate what data you're asking for? Everything in parent's comment seems to be logic; I'm not sure what part would be played by data.
- patates 9y ago
  > At least in Australia, the "recycling industry" is owned by the "packaging industry". Maybe name them? > manufacturing industry has in fact worked out how to "own" the environmental movement by pushing "recycling" as the "balance" to the spewing forth of garbage from the packaging industry Maybe this is just to save costs? This can't be presented as a fact unless there is hard proof. > Seems to me that world MUST eventually move to a solution which is a set of standardized containers for all products, which are durable, washable, have a refund value attached, and may have paper corporate brand stuck on them after being washed This is just throwing out a solution. How heavier a standard package would be? What about special cases like materials which are shock sensitive, leaky, smelly, corrosive, ... How costly would be washing them? > They're all filling every nook and cranny of this earth with garbage. There must be some data about how are we filling the earth with garbage. Is recycling really useless to combat this?

andrewstuart 9y ago

All I want it for people to see that recycling is what prevents us from holding the packaging industry to account. Once you stop believing in recycling, you start questioning why we accept the infinite flow of garbage that this industry creates.

hvidgaard 9y ago
It is not that simple. All that packaging reduces the amount of stuff that gets thrown out because it goes bad. That alone is worth more than the packaging, but it requires the packaging to either be recycled or burned. I'm at work so I cannot give you a source, but look at the environmental impact of producing meat vs the packaging. Switching to reusable containers sounds wonderful, but it's a very hard sell. Standardized sizes would waste a lot of energy in transporting, and proper washing and sanitization will add a significant environmental impact as well, either by energy use, or production of chemicals. Whether or not this is a net positive remains to be determined. /edit: spelling mistakes
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > Standardized sizes would waste a lot of energy in transporting Why? All I can see is how this would save a lot of energy in transporting by making it easier to stack things together, as well as making it a little more difficult for companies to play games with packaging size and form factor.
  - hvidgaard 9y ago
    Today packaging is designed to be the minimal it can be. Less cost in production, less space use for transport, less weight, and tailored to the product inside. If you use standard reusable sizes, cleaning and sanitazation requirements must come first, and it will inevitably be heavier as well.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Packaging of what? For some foodstuffs, yes - but not for many (if most) of them. Definitely not for beauty and personal hygiene stuff, where packaging is used to cheat consumers into thinking they're buying more stuff than they are (even more extreme than with groceries). Definitely not for appliances and consumer electronics, which use absurd amount of packaging for... I don't know, the unboxing experience, I think. I suppose the situation is much different in B2B and bulk orders (like gastronomy), when the packaging is not also fulfilling a marketing role. > If you use standard reusable sizes, cleaning and sanitazation requirements must come first, and it will inevitably be heavier as well. Yes. But it will not be throwaway anymore. It would be great if someone did the math on that. My gut tells me that even the repeated extra cost of shipping additional mass around is much less than it costs to make and dispose of packaging (the bulk of it being probably in the disposal, which producers externalize on the society, and so they prefer churning out new packaging).
      - hvidgaard 9y ago
        I was mainly talking about food packaging, but you do have a point with cosmetics and the like. For consumer electronics I do not agree. Everything I've bought over the last 5 years have come in as small packages as possible. Suddenly shipping phones or whatever in standardized sized containers will just mean it will have to accommodate the largest phone and the void will need some single use filling to prevent damage during shipping.

s_kilk 9y ago

> You sound a bit... passionate? Thinking that emotion invalidates any argument, the dumbest fallacy of all.

positivecomment 9y ago
He/she doesn't say that it does. I read the whole thing as "you sound passionate about this, I agree with your suspicions, why not bring some sources".
- s_kilk 9y ago
  In my reading, the ellipses imply a certain condescension, which is a fairly typical response used to de-legitimise the other participant in a conversation.
  - egeozcan 9y ago
    I didn't mean that (not a native speaker). Did you read the rest of my comment? I thought it would be clear. Anyways, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
    - s_kilk 9y ago
      It was a misunderstanding then, all cool :)

tbihl 9y ago

Can you articulate what data you're asking for? Everything in parent's comment seems to be logic; I'm not sure what part would be played by data.

patates 9y ago
> At least in Australia, the "recycling industry" is owned by the "packaging industry". Maybe name them? > manufacturing industry has in fact worked out how to "own" the environmental movement by pushing "recycling" as the "balance" to the spewing forth of garbage from the packaging industry Maybe this is just to save costs? This can't be presented as a fact unless there is hard proof. > Seems to me that world MUST eventually move to a solution which is a set of standardized containers for all products, which are durable, washable, have a refund value attached, and may have paper corporate brand stuck on them after being washed This is just throwing out a solution. How heavier a standard package would be? What about special cases like materials which are shock sensitive, leaky, smelly, corrosive, ... How costly would be washing them? > They're all filling every nook and cranny of this earth with garbage. There must be some data about how are we filling the earth with garbage. Is recycling really useless to combat this?