3 ms·
They could, but no one wants to pay extra effort and energy cost when it's easier to make new glass from dirt.
by 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 agoNo 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 agoCorporations 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 agoThen 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 agoFor 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 agoThe 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 agoGlass 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.