6 ms·

Considering the alternatives are metal and glass, I'd assume that the cost difference would be exponential, especially if the most common alternative is banned

Considering the alternatives are metal and glass, I'd assume that the cost difference would be exponential, especially if the most common alternative is banned and transport will be much heavier.

bhouston 3y ago
Banning DDT was also incredibly inconvenient for farmers as DDT worked amazingly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring Human ingenuity knows no bounds and it will be a market opportunity for new entrants and innovators.
- Matticus_Rex 3y ago
  IIRC, cost-benefit analysis (even in terms of health and other human indicators) suggests we probably should have kept at least some uses of DDT, as a lot of people have died of malaria because we didn't.
  - jollyllama 3y ago
    I wonder if that factors in the health and ecological effects of atrazine, neonicotinoids, glyphosate, and other substances. Many of their effects are the same as the effects of the other substances being discussed ITT.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
You can add wax-coated cardstock (milk containers) and wax-coated bags (breakfast cereals) and just plain cardboard (quick oats).
addcommitpush 3y ago
Well then there are two straightforward questions: - are the overall costs of plastics (namely pollution and its environmental and health effects) higher than the costs of banning plastics? Seems like a clear yes. - what are the redistributive effects? Seems like: consumers are net winners (lower health effects, some or all financial costs of switching away from plastics are passed down to consumers through higher prices); some firms are losers (mainly those who produced plastics or used a lot of them) and some are winners (newcomers, producers of no plastics solutions, transporters).
AngryData 3y ago
Glass isn't really that expensive. It was cheap enough to be commonly used 100 years and it is only cheaper and easier to produce and transport today than it was then.

Considering the alternatives are metal and glass, I'd assume that the cost difference would be exponential, especially if the most common alternative is banned and transport will be much heavier.

bhouston 3y ago

Banning DDT was also incredibly inconvenient for farmers as DDT worked amazingly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring Human ingenuity knows no bounds and it will be a market opportunity for new entrants and innovators.

Matticus_Rex 3y ago
IIRC, cost-benefit analysis (even in terms of health and other human indicators) suggests we probably should have kept at least some uses of DDT, as a lot of people have died of malaria because we didn't.
- jollyllama 3y ago
  I wonder if that factors in the health and ecological effects of atrazine, neonicotinoids, glyphosate, and other substances. Many of their effects are the same as the effects of the other substances being discussed ITT.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

You can add wax-coated cardstock (milk containers) and wax-coated bags (breakfast cereals) and just plain cardboard (quick oats).

addcommitpush 3y ago

Well then there are two straightforward questions: - are the overall costs of plastics (namely pollution and its environmental and health effects) higher than the costs of banning plastics? Seems like a clear yes. - what are the redistributive effects? Seems like: consumers are net winners (lower health effects, some or all financial costs of switching away from plastics are passed down to consumers through higher prices); some firms are losers (mainly those who produced plastics or used a lot of them) and some are winners (newcomers, producers of no plastics solutions, transporters).

AngryData 3y ago

Glass isn't really that expensive. It was cheap enough to be commonly used 100 years and it is only cheaper and easier to produce and transport today than it was then.