5 ms·

A tax seems the fair solution, if it costs X to dispose of a plastic bottle then tax X each bottle, use the money to dispose of the bottle, adjust X if costs ch

A tax seems the fair solution, if it costs X to dispose of a plastic bottle then tax X each bottle, use the money to dispose of the bottle, adjust X if costs change.

alkonaut 8y ago
I don't think the cost is known. If the consequence is microplastics in the oceans it's probably so high that any number assigned as the cost is equivalent to a ban. You wouldn't buy a $10 plastic bag at the grocery store.
- simion314 8y ago
  It is like a ban but I think it has the advantage that does not make things illegal so you don't get the "state tells me what to do" people complaining because you explain it is a fair "capitalist/free market" measure. Y0u are right that is hard to measure the exact costs, but we don't measure how much it costs if the bottle lands in water but how much it costs to have the bottle collected and placed in the right place(some special disposable facilities) this will mean have the stores implement ways to collect the bottles to be properly disposed, you can add Y on top of the cost and return it to the customer when the bottle is restored to have most of the objects returned , though I know some people will not like to keep the empty bottles and bring them back to the store
  - tehwebguy 8y ago
    It’s not about the cost
dingaling 8y ago
But such a tax gives no incentive for companies to change their packaging. The tax is paid by the customer who usually has few or no options. For example in the UK plastic one-litre milk pitcher bottles are ubiquitous. Even the few remaining door-to-door milkmen deliver them, instead of the old one-pint reusable glass bottles. I simply can't buy fresh milk in anything else and i have a recycling bin full of them. Reverting to glass would add weight, breakages and collection costs to the companies. So they wouldn't have any incentive to change under a tax scheme when they don't pay it. Only a ban will change their behaviour.
- mrob 8y ago
  If they have no incentive to change then the tax is too low. A tax that's sufficiently high to offset all the externalities is better than a ban because it gives people more flexibility. If somebody is unusually harmed by a ban they might choose to pay the tax even if it's high. And tax is fungible, so the money can be used to prevent other sources of environmental damage, and the overall outcome is better than if it was banned outright.
  - social_quotient 8y ago
    Thanks for making this point. I feel like most taxes miss the point of externalities. Taxes used to dissuade an activity should be high enough to matter. I tend to not trust low tax amounts on policies meant to lessen an activity. They “look good” but often they just become a hidden money maker for something else not really designed to make a difference.
- simion314 8y ago
  If plastic bottle costs more then a glass/metal one then you will buy the metal one, metal can be recycled, glass can be reused, the company that sells plastic will go out of business in a short time. I am OK with a ban too but I think some political ideology will hate that but will allow a fiar costs that includes the price of cleanup/recycling
  - maccard 8y ago
    > If plastic bottle costs more then a glass/metal one then you will buy the metal one There is truth in that, but the consumer situation in the UK is currently that plastic is the only choice. Not that it's the cheapest.
- jstanley 8y ago
  > Reverting to glass would add weight, breakages and collection costs So how exactly is glass superior to plastic in this application? Seems to me that they moved to plastic because plastic is the better material for the job.
simula67 8y ago
In Bangalore, supermarkets used to give away plastic bags for free. Then a law got passed requiring shops to charge for plastic bags. People, however, just kept paying the price for plastic bags and disposing them once they were done with them. Now there is a ban on plastic [1] and people seems to be carrying their own bags into supermarkets and reusing them. But your solution would have been better. It would have given people more flexibility [1] https://www.thebetterindia.com/48844/plastic-ban-bangalore-karnataka/ https://www.thebetterindia.com/48844/plastic-ban-bangalore-k...
- cup 8y ago
  More flexibility to litter?
- mrob 8y ago
  Here in the UK a law was passed requiring shops to charge 0.05GBP for each plastic bag, and it successfully reduced the number of bags used: "Our data indicates that the 7 main retailers issued around 83% fewer bags (over 6 billion bags fewer) in 2016 to 2017 compared to the calendar year 2014" https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carrier-bag-charge-summary-of-data-in-england/single-use-plastic-carrier-bags-charge-data-in-england-for-2016-to-2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carrier-bag-charg... The bags are called "single-use", but the shops also changed the bags to use thicker plastic (maybe so people feel they're getting their money's worth), and now they are much better for re-use too.
  - inertiatic 8y ago
    Exact same situation here in Greece. I very rarely see people asking for bags at the supermarket after a similar law was passed, although there are no official statistics yet.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Here in Portugal the bags at the supermarket dropped a lot after a similar law, but the black garbage bags increased by 40%, since the supermarket bags were typically re-used for garbage disposal.
raverbashing 8y ago
A lot of places have a deposit on drink containers. You get 5c/10c/20c (something to that order) added to the price but if you take it back to where you bought it/supermarket/etc your money gets returned
freeflight 8y ago
Bottle deposit works way better and doesn't punish people with less money as much as a tax would.

A tax seems the fair solution, if it costs X to dispose of a plastic bottle then tax X each bottle, use the money to dispose of the bottle, adjust X if costs change.

alkonaut 8y ago

I don't think the cost is known. If the consequence is microplastics in the oceans it's probably so high that any number assigned as the cost is equivalent to a ban. You wouldn't buy a $10 plastic bag at the grocery store.

simion314 8y ago
It is like a ban but I think it has the advantage that does not make things illegal so you don't get the "state tells me what to do" people complaining because you explain it is a fair "capitalist/free market" measure. Y0u are right that is hard to measure the exact costs, but we don't measure how much it costs if the bottle lands in water but how much it costs to have the bottle collected and placed in the right place(some special disposable facilities) this will mean have the stores implement ways to collect the bottles to be properly disposed, you can add Y on top of the cost and return it to the customer when the bottle is restored to have most of the objects returned , though I know some people will not like to keep the empty bottles and bring them back to the store
- tehwebguy 8y ago
  It’s not about the cost

dingaling 8y ago

But such a tax gives no incentive for companies to change their packaging. The tax is paid by the customer who usually has few or no options. For example in the UK plastic one-litre milk pitcher bottles are ubiquitous. Even the few remaining door-to-door milkmen deliver them, instead of the old one-pint reusable glass bottles. I simply can't buy fresh milk in anything else and i have a recycling bin full of them. Reverting to glass would add weight, breakages and collection costs to the companies. So they wouldn't have any incentive to change under a tax scheme when they don't pay it. Only a ban will change their behaviour.

mrob 8y ago
If they have no incentive to change then the tax is too low. A tax that's sufficiently high to offset all the externalities is better than a ban because it gives people more flexibility. If somebody is unusually harmed by a ban they might choose to pay the tax even if it's high. And tax is fungible, so the money can be used to prevent other sources of environmental damage, and the overall outcome is better than if it was banned outright.
- social_quotient 8y ago
  Thanks for making this point. I feel like most taxes miss the point of externalities. Taxes used to dissuade an activity should be high enough to matter. I tend to not trust low tax amounts on policies meant to lessen an activity. They “look good” but often they just become a hidden money maker for something else not really designed to make a difference.
simion314 8y ago
If plastic bottle costs more then a glass/metal one then you will buy the metal one, metal can be recycled, glass can be reused, the company that sells plastic will go out of business in a short time. I am OK with a ban too but I think some political ideology will hate that but will allow a fiar costs that includes the price of cleanup/recycling
- maccard 8y ago
  > If plastic bottle costs more then a glass/metal one then you will buy the metal one There is truth in that, but the consumer situation in the UK is currently that plastic is the only choice. Not that it's the cheapest.
jstanley 8y ago
> Reverting to glass would add weight, breakages and collection costs So how exactly is glass superior to plastic in this application? Seems to me that they moved to plastic because plastic is the better material for the job.

simula67 8y ago

In Bangalore, supermarkets used to give away plastic bags for free. Then a law got passed requiring shops to charge for plastic bags. People, however, just kept paying the price for plastic bags and disposing them once they were done with them. Now there is a ban on plastic [1] and people seems to be carrying their own bags into supermarkets and reusing them. But your solution would have been better. It would have given people more flexibility [1] https://www.thebetterindia.com/48844/plastic-ban-bangalore-karnataka/ https://www.thebetterindia.com/48844/plastic-ban-bangalore-k...

cup 8y ago
More flexibility to litter?
mrob 8y ago
Here in the UK a law was passed requiring shops to charge 0.05GBP for each plastic bag, and it successfully reduced the number of bags used: "Our data indicates that the 7 main retailers issued around 83% fewer bags (over 6 billion bags fewer) in 2016 to 2017 compared to the calendar year 2014" https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carrier-bag-charge-summary-of-data-in-england/single-use-plastic-carrier-bags-charge-data-in-england-for-2016-to-2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carrier-bag-charg... The bags are called "single-use", but the shops also changed the bags to use thicker plastic (maybe so people feel they're getting their money's worth), and now they are much better for re-use too.
- inertiatic 8y ago
  Exact same situation here in Greece. I very rarely see people asking for bags at the supermarket after a similar law was passed, although there are no official statistics yet.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Here in Portugal the bags at the supermarket dropped a lot after a similar law, but the black garbage bags increased by 40%, since the supermarket bags were typically re-used for garbage disposal.

raverbashing 8y ago

A lot of places have a deposit on drink containers. You get 5c/10c/20c (something to that order) added to the price but if you take it back to where you bought it/supermarket/etc your money gets returned

freeflight 8y ago

Bottle deposit works way better and doesn't punish people with less money as much as a tax would.