4 ms·

Why couldn't jam manufacturers just use returnable bottles? The beer companies in Ontario do, soda bottles are returnable and reusable in many places.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
They could, but no one wants to pay extra effort and energy cost when it's easier to make new glass from dirt.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  No one wants to breath polluted air or drink polluted after, yet here we are. Rich producers just keep moving further away from the problems they create. Or they maintain their ignorance through a delicately balanced series of mental gymnastics.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    Corporations don't have feelings... negative externalities need to be priced or there's no reason to expect a corporation to pay attention to them.
- justinph 6y ago
  Then this is a perfect case for regulation, to make it cost more to make new glass than re-use existing containers. It worked in the past just fine. But the first world incentivized energy production so much that we drove down the need to be efficient.
  - sp332 6y ago
    For glass bottles, I don't see the point. There's no glass shortage, and glass debris doesn't kill anything or leech into the soil from landfills.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    The environmental cost of collection, transport, inspection and cleaning, and transport to be filled would outweigh the cost of manufacture and transport to be filled. So that regulation would make jam more expensive and/or the environment worse.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  Glass is actually the most recyclable material with the highest difference in energy put in between new and reclaimed. I think the issue is not many plants are set up for recycling, and it is extra work to make pretty glass from reclaim glass.
masklinn 6y ago
I expect most of them are large companies unconcerned with that in the first place (so it'd have to be mandated), but more importantly jam containers tend to have pretty thin walls and somewhat odd shapes. They're solid enough when full and sealed but I expect they're much weaker when empty, so I don't know that the cost/benefit would break even unless the cost of the alternative was way increased. > The beer companies in Ontario do, soda bottles are returnable and reusable in many places. Reusing beer bottles is much more traditional so I expect they're designed for this specifically, and there's usually either an incentive scheme to encourage or outright legislation to mandate container deposits (germany even has legislation for single-use container deposits).

srtjstjsj 6y ago

They could, but no one wants to pay extra effort and energy cost when it's easier to make new glass from dirt.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
No one wants to breath polluted air or drink polluted after, yet here we are. Rich producers just keep moving further away from the problems they create. Or they maintain their ignorance through a delicately balanced series of mental gymnastics.
- shawnz 6y ago
  Corporations don't have feelings... negative externalities need to be priced or there's no reason to expect a corporation to pay attention to them.
justinph 6y ago
Then this is a perfect case for regulation, to make it cost more to make new glass than re-use existing containers. It worked in the past just fine. But the first world incentivized energy production so much that we drove down the need to be efficient.
- sp332 6y ago
  For glass bottles, I don't see the point. There's no glass shortage, and glass debris doesn't kill anything or leech into the soil from landfills.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  The environmental cost of collection, transport, inspection and cleaning, and transport to be filled would outweigh the cost of manufacture and transport to be filled. So that regulation would make jam more expensive and/or the environment worse.
R0b0t1 6y ago
Glass is actually the most recyclable material with the highest difference in energy put in between new and reclaimed. I think the issue is not many plants are set up for recycling, and it is extra work to make pretty glass from reclaim glass.

masklinn 6y ago

I expect most of them are large companies unconcerned with that in the first place (so it'd have to be mandated), but more importantly jam containers tend to have pretty thin walls and somewhat odd shapes. They're solid enough when full and sealed but I expect they're much weaker when empty, so I don't know that the cost/benefit would break even unless the cost of the alternative was way increased. > The beer companies in Ontario do, soda bottles are returnable and reusable in many places. Reusing beer bottles is much more traditional so I expect they're designed for this specifically, and there's usually either an incentive scheme to encourage or outright legislation to mandate container deposits (germany even has legislation for single-use container deposits).