3 ms·

> Maybe as more people become aware of recycling inefficiencies, we'll start diverting dollars go businesses that focus on longevity and reusability of their pr

> Maybe as more people become aware of recycling inefficiencies, we'll start diverting dollars go businesses that focus on longevity and reusability of their products? Sounds good to me in theory, but the confusion for me has always been: how do you overhaul the packaging of all these small consumable items (like Pepsi and Coke) so they're either more easily recyclable or reusable and also benefit the manufacturer at the same time? I'm sure the government can create incentives but will that be enough? Will people be willing to pay more money for a more environmentally friendly option if a less environmentally friendly but more affordable option exists?

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
I think you’re over constraining the solution. Why does the solution need to benefit the manufacturer? Coca Cola is a corporation with no feelings. The environment is a real living entity. If the costs of the corporation go up but the environment benefits this seems like a win. The corporation will balance out operations whatever costs are unless the restrictions are so onerous it can no longer operate, and I don’t think that’s the case. If anything the cost of soda would rise, which some places are already doing for public benefit through consumption taxes. If people drink less soda because the cost is slightly higher, that wouldn’t really be a negative outcome.
- FillardMillmore 7y ago
  You're certainly correct, a solution does not require a benefit to the manufacturer. I suppose I was thinking about it from more of a laissez-faire point of view - that is essentially, how can we have our cake and eat it too (or in this case, our cheap soda)? If the government passed laws/regulation that mandated certain packaging requirements for companies like Coca Cola, that would be a top-down solution and Coca Cola would have to comply, lest they wish to face steep fines and litigation. In regards to soda, you're right - consumption taxes have proven effective. I believe cigarette taxes have proven effective in the same way. But an environmentally effective top-down solution would of course apply to many more consumables that just soda, sugar cakes and other generally unhealthy items. It's possible that top down regulation could push costs higher for smaller companies that offer healthy options in environmentally unfriendly packages. If costs are too high for smaller companies like these, then there may be fewer healthy alternative options (because we know Little Debbie and Coca Cola aren't going anywhere, regulations or not). This is obviously a very generalized example - in reality, many of the healthy/organic foods items already come in environmentally-friendly packaging.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    You could tax all garbage, including recycling (at a slightly lower rate). If people start having to pay for garbage processing by weight or volume, people would change their tune pretty quickly, in the same fashion that instituting small charges on bottles and cans boost recycling of those products.
    - smileysteve 7y ago
      You do have to pay based off weight and volume. Curbside fees just decide to obfuscate that. The downside is that those that are charged directly often dump wherever they won't be caught. Example: mattresses, they're a dumping problem, often, bulk items are even included in curbside pickup with the minium effort of scheduling a pickup.
    - zxcmx 7y ago
      Just charge for disposal at the point of production. The consumer still pays but at least the manufacturer "feels" it.
- tracker1 7y ago
  Corporations don't pay taxes... their customers do. Other than that, I do think some level of optimizations should happen in the space of recycling... either similar to what I understand German regulations are on recycling what you produce... and/or going back to glass bottles. Then again, I'm not sure how bad plastics are in general, other than what gets dumped into the oceans, for the most part, my understanding is plastics in modern waste facilities aren't so bad and mfg is mostly a petroleum byproduct of what would otherwise be waste anyway.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    IEA says plastics will be a third of fossil fuel growth by 2030 and half by 2050: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778665357/the-u-s-natural-gas-boom-is-fueling-a-global-plastics-boom https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778665357/the-u-s-natural-gas...
im3w1l 7y ago
A "loyalty bottle" that you refill at the store.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago

I think you’re over constraining the solution. Why does the solution need to benefit the manufacturer? Coca Cola is a corporation with no feelings. The environment is a real living entity. If the costs of the corporation go up but the environment benefits this seems like a win. The corporation will balance out operations whatever costs are unless the restrictions are so onerous it can no longer operate, and I don’t think that’s the case. If anything the cost of soda would rise, which some places are already doing for public benefit through consumption taxes. If people drink less soda because the cost is slightly higher, that wouldn’t really be a negative outcome.

FillardMillmore 7y ago
You're certainly correct, a solution does not require a benefit to the manufacturer. I suppose I was thinking about it from more of a laissez-faire point of view - that is essentially, how can we have our cake and eat it too (or in this case, our cheap soda)? If the government passed laws/regulation that mandated certain packaging requirements for companies like Coca Cola, that would be a top-down solution and Coca Cola would have to comply, lest they wish to face steep fines and litigation. In regards to soda, you're right - consumption taxes have proven effective. I believe cigarette taxes have proven effective in the same way. But an environmentally effective top-down solution would of course apply to many more consumables that just soda, sugar cakes and other generally unhealthy items. It's possible that top down regulation could push costs higher for smaller companies that offer healthy options in environmentally unfriendly packages. If costs are too high for smaller companies like these, then there may be fewer healthy alternative options (because we know Little Debbie and Coca Cola aren't going anywhere, regulations or not). This is obviously a very generalized example - in reality, many of the healthy/organic foods items already come in environmentally-friendly packaging.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  You could tax all garbage, including recycling (at a slightly lower rate). If people start having to pay for garbage processing by weight or volume, people would change their tune pretty quickly, in the same fashion that instituting small charges on bottles and cans boost recycling of those products.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    You do have to pay based off weight and volume. Curbside fees just decide to obfuscate that. The downside is that those that are charged directly often dump wherever they won't be caught. Example: mattresses, they're a dumping problem, often, bulk items are even included in curbside pickup with the minium effort of scheduling a pickup.
  - zxcmx 7y ago
    Just charge for disposal at the point of production. The consumer still pays but at least the manufacturer "feels" it.
tracker1 7y ago
Corporations don't pay taxes... their customers do. Other than that, I do think some level of optimizations should happen in the space of recycling... either similar to what I understand German regulations are on recycling what you produce... and/or going back to glass bottles. Then again, I'm not sure how bad plastics are in general, other than what gets dumped into the oceans, for the most part, my understanding is plastics in modern waste facilities aren't so bad and mfg is mostly a petroleum byproduct of what would otherwise be waste anyway.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  IEA says plastics will be a third of fossil fuel growth by 2030 and half by 2050: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778665357/the-u-s-natural-gas-boom-is-fueling-a-global-plastics-boom https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778665357/the-u-s-natural-gas...

im3w1l 7y ago

A "loyalty bottle" that you refill at the store.