3 ms·
Sure, that seems like a reasonable example to look at. The directive[0] isn't long and is pretty readable. The first thing to note that it was not a "redesign
by jsnell 3y ago
Sure, that seems like a reasonable example to look at. The directive[0] isn't long and is pretty readable.
The first thing to note that it was not a "redesign of the bottle cap" directive, that's just how you're spinning it to make it sound ridiculous. Instead it was just a minor part of the Single-Use Plastics Directive.
Second, it doesn't look like the primary purpose of that directive was to increase recycling, but to reduce marine litter. The product groups that were in scope for the directive were chosen based on being the cause of the majority of marine plastic litter.
For a lot of the product groups, they just banned the use of plastics entirely because there were viable sustainable alternatives. Bottle caps aren't being arbitrarily picked on here, it just appears that beverage bottles + caps are the one thing with no good alternative.
The directive did indeed set up goals for separate collection, you're right about that part. But it also set up requirements for the recycling, unlike what you claim.
Does the micro-optimization make sense? Think of how many plastic bottles must be sold in the EU each year. I couldn't find numbers quickly, but I would bet it's on the order of magnitude of 100 billion. Even the tiniest bit of optimization in something so common will pay of really quickly.
None of this seems particularly off. It's legislation addressing a specific concrete problem with solutions that seem pretty proportionate and actually solving the problem they set out to solve.
[0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj
- vjerancrnjak 3y agoFishing nets are 30%+ of waste. Switching to glass solves the problem instantly. It puts pressure on the companies and not the public. Tourists in Croatia do not bother collecting the 7 cent tax on plastic containers. Having a different bottle cap won’t improve that. A small percentage of collected plastic waste is recycled. All of the infrastructure that will never be built requires public funding and is more expensive than just switching to glass. Do we want to solve the marine waste problem or do we just want to spend money every year to try to avoid it? The paper straws with forever chemicals is a side effect of this single use plastic directive. How was this not predicted?
- jsnell 3y agoYes, fishing gear is a major contributor to marine plastic litter. It's not a coincidence that this directive then tackled that as well, not just bottle caps like you originally claimed. But obviously the solutions for fishing gear are very different than the solutions for plastic bottles. The tethered bottle cap is not supposed to solve the problem of making people recycle the bottles, other parts of the directive do that. It solves the problem of the bottle being separated from the cap, such that if the bottle gets recycled so does that cap. Or if the bottle gets thrown in the trash, so does the cap.
- vjerancrnjak 3y agoI'm not sure why you're reframing my statement. I still consider the bottle cap redesign as the weirdest recent directive, based on no evidence. Just because there's bottle caps on beaches, where are the bottles? Now we won't see bottle caps (if the design works) but where will the bottles with these caps be? I am aware that bottle cap redesign was part of a bigger directive. I am aware of that directive because we are already in the polluting paper straw world. Fishing gear proposal shows the same half-assed attempt at waste collection as is separating plastic, paper and rest. But that is less weird to me.