5 ms·

Let the costs increase then. All food containers must be recyclable or compostable. This should be a rule across the globe. We should also ban single-use plas

Let the costs increase then. All food containers must be recyclable or compostable. This should be a rule across the globe. We should also ban single-use plastic. If costs need to go up, then let them go up. Consumers need to understand the costs of their consumption and we can’t destroy our planet so that corporations can be more profitable.

II2II 6y ago
> We should also ban single-use plastic. If costs need to go up, then let them go up. Consumers need to understand the costs of their consumption and we can’t destroy our planet so that corporations can be more profitable. The hitch is affordability for people with lower incomes. While it is easy to be critical about single serving beverages and over packages potato chips, the vast majority of goods found in most grocery stores are packaged.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > While it is easy to be critical about single serving beverages and over packages potato chips, the vast majority of goods found in most grocery stores are packaged. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we need to do away with packaged foods entirely. the fundamental relationship between surface area and volume means we can improve things substantially just by using bigger containers. a plastic quart-sized container of apple sauce still uses a lot less plastic than two four packs of single-serving cups. once you're buying and selling food in larger containers, the material cost of the container contributes less to the total cost of the product, leaving some headroom to use more expensive materials.
  - II2II 6y ago
    That makes sense, and I was thinking along similar lines in terms of the cost of food, but it is also something that has to be driven by consumers. Government regulation may help, but it may not. Getting ride of single serving packaging cannot really be done through the initiative of individual businesses. Consumers will simply switch to products providing single serving packages if that is what they desire. What has to be changed is the desire. You also have to consider that there are cases when small package sizes are legitimate, such as when someone uses very little of a product. Regulation may not solve the problem either. Some people simply prefer single use packaging over cleaning and reusing smaller containers. Consider something like school lunches. When schools ask families to pack lunches using reusable containers, there is often a backlash and a few who simply don't understand the concept of reusable packaging. Quite often, things get sent in baggies or plastic wrap or inexpensive containers that are only used a handful of times before being tossed. This is ignoring the world of adult lunches, where adults often do the same or worse (e.g. ordering food in disposable packaging). As simple as the solutions may sound, getting people to go along with it is a difficult problem.
- KptMarchewa 6y ago
  It's easily solvable for liquids, the only issue is upfront cost. https://interestingengineering.com/drug-store-in-czechia-brings-plastic-free-vending-machine-to-prevent-pollution https://interestingengineering.com/drug-store-in-czechia-bri...
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
That's real easy to say when you work in an air conditioned office and shop at whole foods. Sure the demographics most represented here could absorb the cost but these demographics are a minority in the first word and a tiny minority globally. Economic stability is what permits people to have the free time to care about abstract things like "the environment". Raise the cost of food, raise the cost of fuel, "internalize the externalities" or whatever the doublespeak of the day is, and you're gonna have a hell of a lot more people living on the edge and those people are gonna care a hell of a lot more about their immediate needs than about the environment (and they'll vote accordingly). These changes might look small at a micro level but at a macro level anything that decreases standard of living makes people prioritize their short term needs over the long term.
- Klinky 6y ago
  We're in an era of companies worth trillions and their owners worth billions. It's silly to say we have too few resources to provide enough economic stability for people to care about the environment, meanwhile mega yachts are being made and islands are being purchased by an uber wealthy elite class, and there are people who will defend that behavior, all because they have a lot of money, so it must be okay. Market driven economies that do not take into account environmental destruction and which cannot come to terms with wealth inequalities will be a huge danger to the future plight of humanity. Waiting for the market to "naturally" react by raising prices due to resource scarcity and destruction of supply chains due to environmental hazards will be too slow, and too little too late.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Those that buy yachts and islands are a lot less frequent though. It's obscene, I agree, but it's not like everybody was well-off if you just nationalized Jeff Bezoz' wealth. You don't have to wait for the market, you just need to make sure that proposed policies aren't massively affecting the lower classes. Food insecurity isn't a good foundation for a stable and peaceful society. When you're artificially generating it, you might want to take care of the poverty first, not the other way around.
dojitza1 6y ago
I agree. But an average human won't. A perceived cost increase or to put it more generally a perceived life standard decrease incurs a strong emotion in humans. Let earth and our future be be damned, I want more dopamine in my brain as soon as possible. This is the reason why most people live in debt, instead of an obviously optimal alternative of saving up for your purchases. We evolved in an unstable world, where future was uncertain and happiness now was worth a lot more than the possibility of happiness in the future.
- eloff 6y ago
  It doesn't matter if people like it or not, you just make it so companies or people have to pay for the negative externalities through taxes or regulation and the problem is solved. The market will naturally rebalance and innovate under the new constraints. If only we had responsible, effective government with the balls to do what has to be done to protect the future. This business of short term thinking and to hell with the future is not only ruining things it is very literally current generations stealing from future generations. I think we should make a law to compensate for that. Those social security obligations where the current working generations pay for past generations retirement? Let's reduce that considerably. Let's also raise estate taxes. It's fair, they created and benefited from this mess and then left it to us to bear.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    > It doesn't matter if people like it or not, Does if you want it done by elected politicians in a properly functioning democracy.
    - eloff 6y ago
      I don't think that policies like carbon taxes are that terribly unpopular (depends on the location.) But even then democratic governments do things that are unpopular all the time. I don't think it's untenable. But even if it cost politicians their re-election, it's still the right thing to do.
ch4s3 6y ago
One of the costs is weight, which means that transporting glass bottles releases more CO2. We also shouldn’t underestimate how dangerous glass can be when dropped.
asiachick 6y ago
It's not so corporations can be more profitable. It's so poor people can eat. Raise the price of food 20% for heavy but recyclable containers and suddenly 1 of 5 poor kids doesn't get enough to eat. This is why finding sustainable solutions that lower costs, not raise them is the dream solution.
beenBoutIT 6y ago
Syringes, urine cups, stool sample collection cups, catheters, condoms - these days nobody wants to go through the hassle of washing and sanitizing certain items for reuse. A single-use plastic ban would make dealing with biohazards an energy and chemically intensive cleaning nightmare.

II2II 6y ago

> We should also ban single-use plastic. If costs need to go up, then let them go up. Consumers need to understand the costs of their consumption and we can’t destroy our planet so that corporations can be more profitable. The hitch is affordability for people with lower incomes. While it is easy to be critical about single serving beverages and over packages potato chips, the vast majority of goods found in most grocery stores are packaged.

leetcrew 6y ago
> While it is easy to be critical about single serving beverages and over packages potato chips, the vast majority of goods found in most grocery stores are packaged. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we need to do away with packaged foods entirely. the fundamental relationship between surface area and volume means we can improve things substantially just by using bigger containers. a plastic quart-sized container of apple sauce still uses a lot less plastic than two four packs of single-serving cups. once you're buying and selling food in larger containers, the material cost of the container contributes less to the total cost of the product, leaving some headroom to use more expensive materials.
- II2II 6y ago
  That makes sense, and I was thinking along similar lines in terms of the cost of food, but it is also something that has to be driven by consumers. Government regulation may help, but it may not. Getting ride of single serving packaging cannot really be done through the initiative of individual businesses. Consumers will simply switch to products providing single serving packages if that is what they desire. What has to be changed is the desire. You also have to consider that there are cases when small package sizes are legitimate, such as when someone uses very little of a product. Regulation may not solve the problem either. Some people simply prefer single use packaging over cleaning and reusing smaller containers. Consider something like school lunches. When schools ask families to pack lunches using reusable containers, there is often a backlash and a few who simply don't understand the concept of reusable packaging. Quite often, things get sent in baggies or plastic wrap or inexpensive containers that are only used a handful of times before being tossed. This is ignoring the world of adult lunches, where adults often do the same or worse (e.g. ordering food in disposable packaging). As simple as the solutions may sound, getting people to go along with it is a difficult problem.
KptMarchewa 6y ago
It's easily solvable for liquids, the only issue is upfront cost. https://interestingengineering.com/drug-store-in-czechia-brings-plastic-free-vending-machine-to-prevent-pollution https://interestingengineering.com/drug-store-in-czechia-bri...

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

That's real easy to say when you work in an air conditioned office and shop at whole foods. Sure the demographics most represented here could absorb the cost but these demographics are a minority in the first word and a tiny minority globally. Economic stability is what permits people to have the free time to care about abstract things like "the environment". Raise the cost of food, raise the cost of fuel, "internalize the externalities" or whatever the doublespeak of the day is, and you're gonna have a hell of a lot more people living on the edge and those people are gonna care a hell of a lot more about their immediate needs than about the environment (and they'll vote accordingly). These changes might look small at a micro level but at a macro level anything that decreases standard of living makes people prioritize their short term needs over the long term.

Klinky 6y ago
We're in an era of companies worth trillions and their owners worth billions. It's silly to say we have too few resources to provide enough economic stability for people to care about the environment, meanwhile mega yachts are being made and islands are being purchased by an uber wealthy elite class, and there are people who will defend that behavior, all because they have a lot of money, so it must be okay. Market driven economies that do not take into account environmental destruction and which cannot come to terms with wealth inequalities will be a huge danger to the future plight of humanity. Waiting for the market to "naturally" react by raising prices due to resource scarcity and destruction of supply chains due to environmental hazards will be too slow, and too little too late.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Those that buy yachts and islands are a lot less frequent though. It's obscene, I agree, but it's not like everybody was well-off if you just nationalized Jeff Bezoz' wealth. You don't have to wait for the market, you just need to make sure that proposed policies aren't massively affecting the lower classes. Food insecurity isn't a good foundation for a stable and peaceful society. When you're artificially generating it, you might want to take care of the poverty first, not the other way around.

dojitza1 6y ago

I agree. But an average human won't. A perceived cost increase or to put it more generally a perceived life standard decrease incurs a strong emotion in humans. Let earth and our future be be damned, I want more dopamine in my brain as soon as possible. This is the reason why most people live in debt, instead of an obviously optimal alternative of saving up for your purchases. We evolved in an unstable world, where future was uncertain and happiness now was worth a lot more than the possibility of happiness in the future.

eloff 6y ago
It doesn't matter if people like it or not, you just make it so companies or people have to pay for the negative externalities through taxes or regulation and the problem is solved. The market will naturally rebalance and innovate under the new constraints. If only we had responsible, effective government with the balls to do what has to be done to protect the future. This business of short term thinking and to hell with the future is not only ruining things it is very literally current generations stealing from future generations. I think we should make a law to compensate for that. Those social security obligations where the current working generations pay for past generations retirement? Let's reduce that considerably. Let's also raise estate taxes. It's fair, they created and benefited from this mess and then left it to us to bear.
- michaelt 6y ago
  > It doesn't matter if people like it or not, Does if you want it done by elected politicians in a properly functioning democracy.
  - eloff 6y ago
    I don't think that policies like carbon taxes are that terribly unpopular (depends on the location.) But even then democratic governments do things that are unpopular all the time. I don't think it's untenable. But even if it cost politicians their re-election, it's still the right thing to do.

ch4s3 6y ago

One of the costs is weight, which means that transporting glass bottles releases more CO2. We also shouldn’t underestimate how dangerous glass can be when dropped.

asiachick 6y ago

It's not so corporations can be more profitable. It's so poor people can eat. Raise the price of food 20% for heavy but recyclable containers and suddenly 1 of 5 poor kids doesn't get enough to eat. This is why finding sustainable solutions that lower costs, not raise them is the dream solution.

beenBoutIT 6y ago

Syringes, urine cups, stool sample collection cups, catheters, condoms - these days nobody wants to go through the hassle of washing and sanitizing certain items for reuse. A single-use plastic ban would make dealing with biohazards an energy and chemically intensive cleaning nightmare.