4 ms·

It's really not something we can control effectively as consumers. My supermarket sells fruits and vegetables mostly pre-packaged. Fees are not enough, we need

It's really not something we can control effectively as consumers. My supermarket sells fruits and vegetables mostly pre-packaged. Fees are not enough, we need to make this kind of barely useful plastic containers illegal. Potatoes don't need to come in plastic containers.

corty 6y ago
Yes. The "make producers pay" trope is also a fallacy imho. Packaging cost is just passed through the price to the consumer. Packaging and recycling are quite cheap for most products, so unpackaged goods are barely cheaper (often even more expensive, since enviromentally conscious stuff is "premium"). And unpackaged goods are damaged more often than properly packaged ones, so they'll rot on the shelves to be thrown away in a higher proportion. Consumers like their products nice and undamaged in presentable packaging, so they will subconciously prefer packaged goods. Therefore even with a slight decrease in per-item profits, producers will choose prettier packaging. So with only a slight price increase like paying for recycling, packaging will stay. So to get rid of plastic packaging, we either need to ban it, make it vastly more expensive, far more than the consumer would want to bear, so they'd pick something unpackaged. But that is dangerous, because a cartel of producers could stay with packaging, then it is just another tax the consumer cannot avoid. Or we need to just ban certain kinds of packaging. Also, there are hurdles for the sale of unpackaged goods, e.g. meat: I cannot take my own (reusable) plastic or metal box to the butcher's and have it filled with meat because of hygiene regulations preventing the butcher from handling my box. Supermarkets also are ill-equiped to deal with unpackaged goods in great quantities, dispensers, scales and stuff needs vastly more space. Just imagine the jam-shelf taking up as much space as the produce section, with some sticky floor due to the drippings...
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > The "make producers pay" trope is also a fallacy imho. Packaging cost is just passed through the price to the consumer. Packaging and recycling are quite cheap for most products, so unpackaged goods are barely cheaper (often even more expensive, since enviromentally conscious stuff is "premium"). It’s not a fallacy. The tax is just too low. Keep raising the tax on plastic until it curbs behavior, problem solved. The real problem is this is an unpopular solution, as most people like the convenience of plastic, and therefore politically untenable. It’s always been a simple solution. Keep increasing tax on fossil fuels until it reduces consumption. But that means people giving up their large spread out homes and vacations and large vehicles and plastic wrapped goods. Therefore it hasn’t happened, and probably won’t until the environment changes enough to force people.
  - curryst 6y ago
    That's unpopular in part because it's extremely regressive. The amount you will have to change your life is going to be directly related to how wealthy you are. The rich are unlikely to change. They'll simply pay more and move on, or dodge it by refueling and shopping in other countries. The middle class will have some adjustments. Maybe running the heat less, maybe they trade in their SUV for a sedan, maybe they vacation less. They'll get by fine. The poor will be utterly destroyed by this. Their cars are often the worst polluters because they're old (and may have had the catyllitic converter stolen in a bad neighborhood). Food costs will go up due to increased transportation costs (and possibly packaging costs, if suitable green replacements can't be found). Their homes are extremely unlikely to have modern, energy efficient upgrades (things like windows, more modern insulation, even sealing around windows might be bad). Their appliances are likewise unlikely to be modern and energy efficient. And supply and demand is not a good answer. If it was, no one would be living in those anyways. No one wants to live with a draft, but sometimes your options are a drafty apartment in a bad part of town, or a drafty apartment in a worse part of town. I do think it's doable, but it needs to be a lot more nuanced than "tax fossil fuels until people cave". That foists most of the problem onto the people with the least means to change.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      > That's unpopular in part because it's extremely regressive. The amount you will have to change your life is going to be directly related to how wealthy you are. The rich are unlikely to change. They'll simply pay more and move on, or dodge it by refueling and shopping in other countries. Wealth inequality is a different problem, and has a different solution (taxes on wealth and income and otherwise redistribution of wealth). Want people to use fewer fossil fuels? Make fossil fuels more costly. Want people to have more equal lives? Make wealth inequality more costly. And this would have to be a global solution, with the quality of life for the people used to using tons of fossil fuels (America, Western Europe, etc) going down towards the quality of life of people in poorer countries who don’t use as many fossil fuels. And that is not acceptable to pretty much all people in the developed world, rich or poor.
sudobash1 6y ago
Whereas I agree, it is never so easy. For example, Oregon banned many single use plastic shopping bags. They went away briefly; however, a workaround has been found by stores. They are now using much heavier plastic bags and calling them "reusable". But most people seem to just treat them like the old disposable ones. So a well intentioned, but heavy handed law has put us a step back. We are now using more plastic per bag... The market is very creative, and bans must be made carefully to avoid making a situation worse.
- jamil7 6y ago
  In Germany you just pay for individual bags if you want them, sometimes they’re plastic and sometimes paper, depends on the shop. As far as I can tell this is way more effective than an outright ban, I hardly ever see people buying the bags unless they’ve really forgotten or are tourists.

corty 6y ago

Yes. The "make producers pay" trope is also a fallacy imho. Packaging cost is just passed through the price to the consumer. Packaging and recycling are quite cheap for most products, so unpackaged goods are barely cheaper (often even more expensive, since enviromentally conscious stuff is "premium"). And unpackaged goods are damaged more often than properly packaged ones, so they'll rot on the shelves to be thrown away in a higher proportion. Consumers like their products nice and undamaged in presentable packaging, so they will subconciously prefer packaged goods. Therefore even with a slight decrease in per-item profits, producers will choose prettier packaging. So with only a slight price increase like paying for recycling, packaging will stay. So to get rid of plastic packaging, we either need to ban it, make it vastly more expensive, far more than the consumer would want to bear, so they'd pick something unpackaged. But that is dangerous, because a cartel of producers could stay with packaging, then it is just another tax the consumer cannot avoid. Or we need to just ban certain kinds of packaging. Also, there are hurdles for the sale of unpackaged goods, e.g. meat: I cannot take my own (reusable) plastic or metal box to the butcher's and have it filled with meat because of hygiene regulations preventing the butcher from handling my box. Supermarkets also are ill-equiped to deal with unpackaged goods in great quantities, dispensers, scales and stuff needs vastly more space. Just imagine the jam-shelf taking up as much space as the produce section, with some sticky floor due to the drippings...

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> The "make producers pay" trope is also a fallacy imho. Packaging cost is just passed through the price to the consumer. Packaging and recycling are quite cheap for most products, so unpackaged goods are barely cheaper (often even more expensive, since enviromentally conscious stuff is "premium"). It’s not a fallacy. The tax is just too low. Keep raising the tax on plastic until it curbs behavior, problem solved. The real problem is this is an unpopular solution, as most people like the convenience of plastic, and therefore politically untenable. It’s always been a simple solution. Keep increasing tax on fossil fuels until it reduces consumption. But that means people giving up their large spread out homes and vacations and large vehicles and plastic wrapped goods. Therefore it hasn’t happened, and probably won’t until the environment changes enough to force people.
- curryst 6y ago
  That's unpopular in part because it's extremely regressive. The amount you will have to change your life is going to be directly related to how wealthy you are. The rich are unlikely to change. They'll simply pay more and move on, or dodge it by refueling and shopping in other countries. The middle class will have some adjustments. Maybe running the heat less, maybe they trade in their SUV for a sedan, maybe they vacation less. They'll get by fine. The poor will be utterly destroyed by this. Their cars are often the worst polluters because they're old (and may have had the catyllitic converter stolen in a bad neighborhood). Food costs will go up due to increased transportation costs (and possibly packaging costs, if suitable green replacements can't be found). Their homes are extremely unlikely to have modern, energy efficient upgrades (things like windows, more modern insulation, even sealing around windows might be bad). Their appliances are likewise unlikely to be modern and energy efficient. And supply and demand is not a good answer. If it was, no one would be living in those anyways. No one wants to live with a draft, but sometimes your options are a drafty apartment in a bad part of town, or a drafty apartment in a worse part of town. I do think it's doable, but it needs to be a lot more nuanced than "tax fossil fuels until people cave". That foists most of the problem onto the people with the least means to change.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > That's unpopular in part because it's extremely regressive. The amount you will have to change your life is going to be directly related to how wealthy you are. The rich are unlikely to change. They'll simply pay more and move on, or dodge it by refueling and shopping in other countries. Wealth inequality is a different problem, and has a different solution (taxes on wealth and income and otherwise redistribution of wealth). Want people to use fewer fossil fuels? Make fossil fuels more costly. Want people to have more equal lives? Make wealth inequality more costly. And this would have to be a global solution, with the quality of life for the people used to using tons of fossil fuels (America, Western Europe, etc) going down towards the quality of life of people in poorer countries who don’t use as many fossil fuels. And that is not acceptable to pretty much all people in the developed world, rich or poor.

sudobash1 6y ago

Whereas I agree, it is never so easy. For example, Oregon banned many single use plastic shopping bags. They went away briefly; however, a workaround has been found by stores. They are now using much heavier plastic bags and calling them "reusable". But most people seem to just treat them like the old disposable ones. So a well intentioned, but heavy handed law has put us a step back. We are now using more plastic per bag... The market is very creative, and bans must be made carefully to avoid making a situation worse.

jamil7 6y ago
In Germany you just pay for individual bags if you want them, sometimes they’re plastic and sometimes paper, depends on the shop. As far as I can tell this is way more effective than an outright ban, I hardly ever see people buying the bags unless they’ve really forgotten or are tourists.