4 ms·

>> I don't get to choose how the stuff I buy is packaged, but somehow I'm responsible for dealing with it AND I have to pay for the privilege, while Coke goes

• Tloewald 11y ago
  Aside from the inherent foolishness of shipping water around in small containers to people with faucets, how is Coke the problem? Back when they had glass bottles, they reused them. They use recyclable packing for everything and along with the rest of the industry have relentlessly worked to make their packaging more efficient. If only everyone else did likewise. If you don't like dealing with recycling, consider the effort to be part of the cost of the product. I am all in favor of a "disposal tax" to be levied on goods to offset the societal cost of wasteful packaging, but it would still be passed on to consumers, and soft drink companies are hardly the worst offenders.
  • toyg 11y ago
    > how is Coke the problem? Back when they had glass bottles, they reused them. Yes, and then stopped. They just unloaded some of their costs on the community. They were then forced to try and clean up their act by public pressure. To be honest, I'm not singling out Coke -- all manufacturers are part of the problem, even tetrapack-toting ones: the whole "package $item in small $something" concept is environmentally expensive, and all industries must be forced to bear as much of these costs as we can.
    • Tloewald 11y ago
      I think the point is for consumers to bear the cost and vote with their wallet. The problem is that the disposal costs of stuff aren't borne directly by the consumer (e.g. as a disposal tax) but collectively by the community. It's a tragedy of the commons, but not the one you think it is. I pay a fixed waste collection tax, and the marginal cost of throwing stuff away (or "recycling" it) is 0.