4 ms·

>The main idea of EPR is sensible: businesses that place packaging on the market should help finance its collection and recycling. it is not sensible at all be

by vlyan 1mo ago

>The main idea of EPR is sensible: businesses that place packaging on the market should help finance its collection and recycling. it is not sensible at all because businesses and individuals who dispose of that packaging already pay for the privilege.

dbdr 1mo ago
The problem now is that it's the producer that decides what the packaging is, but it's the consumer (or the state) who pays for the collection and recycling. By making the producer pay for it, you give them an incentive to make it more efficient.
- mbq77 1mo ago
  Except there is no incentive whatsoever; it is just pay bureaucrats with your consumer's money, so they can report improvement in fake eco-points. Most garbage collection money sinks have pricing like 1000 EUR yearly forever + 0.01 EUR per ton of arbitrarily unsustainable trash.
  - dvdkon 1mo ago
    > pay bureaucrats with your consumer's money Once the consumer has paid, it's your money now. The incentive is clear, less packaging means more money you keep. That only big producers will actually see the per-ton payments as significant instead of just having to pay absurd registration fees is a separate issue.
    - mbq77 1mo ago
      Literally, no; as a small producer, I would have to pay (yearly, per country!) WEEE and PPWR money regardless of my sales, while per-volume costs are so low that the optimisation of a product footprint is meaningless. There is no de minimis though, I have to fill out forms that I have produced like 0.8 kg of cardboard and 0.3 kg of e-waste, yet collected nothing since none of my users would like ever use 1:1 rule to send me an out-of-life USB dongle while buying a new one.
StrLght 1mo ago
It’s even less sensible when you consider the effect that small businesses have on this. But I guess it’s just another heavily lobbied law, sponsored by companies responsible for 80-90% of packaging.

by vlyan 1mo ago

dbdr 1mo ago

The problem now is that it's the producer that decides what the packaging is, but it's the consumer (or the state) who pays for the collection and recycling. By making the producer pay for it, you give them an incentive to make it more efficient.

mbq77 1mo ago
Except there is no incentive whatsoever; it is just pay bureaucrats with your consumer's money, so they can report improvement in fake eco-points. Most garbage collection money sinks have pricing like 1000 EUR yearly forever + 0.01 EUR per ton of arbitrarily unsustainable trash.
- dvdkon 1mo ago
  > pay bureaucrats with your consumer's money Once the consumer has paid, it's your money now. The incentive is clear, less packaging means more money you keep. That only big producers will actually see the per-ton payments as significant instead of just having to pay absurd registration fees is a separate issue.
  - mbq77 1mo ago
    Literally, no; as a small producer, I would have to pay (yearly, per country!) WEEE and PPWR money regardless of my sales, while per-volume costs are so low that the optimisation of a product footprint is meaningless. There is no de minimis though, I have to fill out forms that I have produced like 0.8 kg of cardboard and 0.3 kg of e-waste, yet collected nothing since none of my users would like ever use 1:1 rule to send me an out-of-life USB dongle while buying a new one.

StrLght 1mo ago

It’s even less sensible when you consider the effect that small businesses have on this. But I guess it’s just another heavily lobbied law, sponsored by companies responsible for 80-90% of packaging.