3 ms·

It’s a bit ridiculous that we’ve built a system to motivate change by distributing money, and that system fails flat when it comes to plastic use. In a healthy

• chrismcb 2y ago
  It is interesting you complain about money distribution and then your next statement talks about being cheaper. The reason paid is so prevalent is because it is cheaper and more convenient. I'm not sure what you mean by "healthy society" but the reason money is distributed is to try to make something else cheaper and more convenient. But that takes time and money.
  • kvark 2y ago
    I think you missed my point. The high level role of money is to direct people’s energy to activities beneficial for society. You come to work and help someone achieve their goals, you get paid back. If we collectively agree that plastic production and waste needs to stop, we ought to reflect this decision in our money distribution. In practice, it could mean government incentives and penalties.
• constantcrying 2y ago
  How could avoiding one of the greatest, most versatile materials humans have ever invented be "more convenient and cheaper"? Plastic is a literal miracle material, it is one of the most important ingredients to industrial society. Removing plastics is unthinkable, for most of its applications there are literally no alternatives.
  • Arn_Thor 2y ago
    It is amazing. And essential. And has gigantic external costs that either nobody is paying right now or that the government is picking up the bill for. I.e. the true cost is not being priced in
• strogonoff 2y ago
  I have been wondering why do some governments ban single-use utensils, straws, shopping bags, but not plastic bottles. They are perfectly replaced by superior (fully recyclable, etc.) glass, and yet not only are they not banned but, in fact, water or drinks in glass are so difficult to find in supermarkets. There can be an argument that banning avoidable use of plastic would mean more expensive packaging, and unless the government subsidizes it (which it probably does not want to spend money on?) then those costs will be passed to the consumer, so some products may become more expensive. Naturally, some of us could just buy less (and be better off), but 1) some perhaps could not afford it, and 2) general reduction in consumption is supposedly bad for some economy metrics. A more cynical argument is that there inevitably is a lot of interest from powers that be, invested in oil and plastic, to maintain the status quo and thicker margins. It seems not that there is no solution, but that there perhaps is not enough motivation to enact one.
  • constantcrying 2y ago
    >which are perfectly replaced by glass ones Are you kidding? No. Glass bottles aren't a suitable replacement. Plastic bottles are far superior in basically every aspect.
    • strogonoff 2y ago
      > Plastic bottles are far superior in basically every aspect. The only way in which plastic is better than glass is thicker margins for manufacturers. In every other way glass is better for me as a consumer.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • diffeomorphism 2y ago
    Glass is massively inferior. It is much heavier, broken glass is a mess to clean up and it does not just magically come into existence. Instead it is very energy intensive to produce and transport, much more so than plastic.