4 ms·

Taxing plastic would make it cost effective for manufacturers to switch to cardboard packaging. I.e. how things were packaged before 1960.

jessaustin 8y ago
A switch to cardboard packaging would be fine in nations with lots of forests like USA. It would be a calamity in e.g. India, however.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  Why? The US can't find uses for all the recycled paper after China stopped taking it.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Are you suggesting that India and similarly deforested nations will decide they need paper so badly that they'll pay to ship it from USA? Rather than just cutting down the last trees they have, or (more likely) continuing to use plastic? They can't afford virtue-signaling frivolities like we can. If recycled cardboard packaging makes so much sense why are we shipping paper waste to China and anywhere else that will take it? Answer: landfills overseas aren't as embarrassing for "recycling" programs as landfills in the same county. Personally I have nothing against paper/cardboard packaging. However, I note that people in USA have chosen plastic packaging for many applications. We can assume that the same reasons that motivate us, also motivate others. They also have other issues, like poverty. More regressive taxes on these populations will lead to more children dying of starvation. As another comment noted, the way to actually fix the plastic pollution problem (distinct from the plastic cleanup problem that TFA targets) is to identify the watersheds that produce 95% of the plastic, and then help them set up modern garbage handling at price points that those people can actually afford to use. They are very poor, which is why they're polluting in the first place. Also many of these watersheds are islands with few suitable landfill locations. Instead of talking about silly things like laws that should be passed in other nations, let's talk about how much aid will be required to actually fix this problem.
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      The US has to pay to deal with the recycled paper, and I'm pretty sure it was cheaper to pay to ship it to China. So why not ship it to India? Container ships are very cheap. > I note that people in USA have chosen plastic packaging for many applications. Because it's cheaper. Taxing it fixes that. > more children dying of starvation. Geez, use the taxes to subsidize the paper packaging. This isn't all that difficult to figure out.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        You seem to think this will be easy, this taxing-and-cross-subsidization. It has been proposed often enough to imagine that might be the case. Where has it been implemented? How did it work there? Might there be reason to suspect that it would be easier in a place where complicated tax laws already exist and most residents already pay taxes? Please note, the watersheds producing the bulk of this pollution are not such places. If you can't convince Americans to implement this scheme, why do you expect it will be easy to convince people in Southeast Asia?

jessaustin 8y ago

A switch to cardboard packaging would be fine in nations with lots of forests like USA. It would be a calamity in e.g. India, however.

skookumchuck 8y ago
Why? The US can't find uses for all the recycled paper after China stopped taking it.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Are you suggesting that India and similarly deforested nations will decide they need paper so badly that they'll pay to ship it from USA? Rather than just cutting down the last trees they have, or (more likely) continuing to use plastic? They can't afford virtue-signaling frivolities like we can. If recycled cardboard packaging makes so much sense why are we shipping paper waste to China and anywhere else that will take it? Answer: landfills overseas aren't as embarrassing for "recycling" programs as landfills in the same county. Personally I have nothing against paper/cardboard packaging. However, I note that people in USA have chosen plastic packaging for many applications. We can assume that the same reasons that motivate us, also motivate others. They also have other issues, like poverty. More regressive taxes on these populations will lead to more children dying of starvation. As another comment noted, the way to actually fix the plastic pollution problem (distinct from the plastic cleanup problem that TFA targets) is to identify the watersheds that produce 95% of the plastic, and then help them set up modern garbage handling at price points that those people can actually afford to use. They are very poor, which is why they're polluting in the first place. Also many of these watersheds are islands with few suitable landfill locations. Instead of talking about silly things like laws that should be passed in other nations, let's talk about how much aid will be required to actually fix this problem.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    The US has to pay to deal with the recycled paper, and I'm pretty sure it was cheaper to pay to ship it to China. So why not ship it to India? Container ships are very cheap. > I note that people in USA have chosen plastic packaging for many applications. Because it's cheaper. Taxing it fixes that. > more children dying of starvation. Geez, use the taxes to subsidize the paper packaging. This isn't all that difficult to figure out.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      You seem to think this will be easy, this taxing-and-cross-subsidization. It has been proposed often enough to imagine that might be the case. Where has it been implemented? How did it work there? Might there be reason to suspect that it would be easier in a place where complicated tax laws already exist and most residents already pay taxes? Please note, the watersheds producing the bulk of this pollution are not such places. If you can't convince Americans to implement this scheme, why do you expect it will be easy to convince people in Southeast Asia?