Coke and Pepsi are getting sued for lying about recycling(vice.com)
vice.com
Coke and Pepsi are getting sued for lying about recycling
https://www.vice.com/en_asia/article/qjde3p/coke-and-pepsi-are-getting-sued-for-lying-about-recycling
176 comments
Look up the Pfand system in Germany. Most domestic beer comes in one of two brown glass bottle shapes with brewery-specific labels. Any brown glass bottle of that shape can be turned into a few cents (I think it was 12.5) at essentially any grocery store's machine. Bottles are washed/reused up to 40-50 times before they even need to be melted down and recycled. Because of the reward there are people who roam around and pick up bottles every day, so a glass bottle in a park has a lifetime of about 1/2 day max. A few other drinks come in those bottles, e.g. Spezi. But coke? Nope. Plastic and aluminum. Imported beer? Nope.
The system in Germany isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn good.
The system in Germany isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn good.
The pfand system in Germany also works for Coke and pepsi...
Yes, you get even more money for the plastic and aluminum, but this is recyling only; they don't reuse the bottles because they are bottled out of country and don't use standard bottles.
If we were actually serious about saving the planet, we'd just pass laws that mandate companies have to use certain specified bottles, and give them no choice.
But of course, lobbying and profits are more important.
But of course, lobbying and profits are more important.
How do you improve the bottles? Do we create a national bottle innovation center that creates bottles?
Not a cola company problem, but black plastics can't be read by the optical sorters that recycling plants use to read the 3 or 4 or whatever number on them. So they end up in the landfill stream.
They should be banned overnight. But we can't be having that!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/restaurants-coffee-pl...
They should be banned overnight. But we can't be having that!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/restaurants-coffee-pl...
Maybe upgrade the optical sorter?
It's not _that_ simple. Recycling doesn't care about shape, just material, and reusing has the problem of people putting random things in the bottle before sending it off - including toxic and/or corrosive materials, thus making reusing impossible.
Tons of countries throughout Latin America, Africa and Europe reuse large glass bottles for soda and beer and whatever else.
The bottles are thoroughly cleaned and sterilized between uses.
It is that simple. Make it a law, get on with it.
The bottles are thoroughly cleaned and sterilized between uses.
It is that simple. Make it a law, get on with it.
Not only does re-use take large amounts of water in the cleaning of containers, but glass is orders or magnitude more expensive to ship product in. You're shipping a ton of glass around when you could be using that weight to ship product. It drives up cost and increases fuel burn.
It is not that simple. Unfortunately.
It is not that simple. Unfortunately.
> glass is orders or magnitude more expensive to ship product in
That sounds like nonsense. For a filled ~300ml container of soda, a glass bottle would be ~20% (ballpark) heavier than an aluminum can. Even if shipping costs increased by a similar proportion (actually less, but whatever) and we include the cost of cleaning bottles, it seems we would still end up ahead compared to the song-and-dance of recycling, which is incredibly resource intensive.
That sounds like nonsense. For a filled ~300ml container of soda, a glass bottle would be ~20% (ballpark) heavier than an aluminum can. Even if shipping costs increased by a similar proportion (actually less, but whatever) and we include the cost of cleaning bottles, it seems we would still end up ahead compared to the song-and-dance of recycling, which is incredibly resource intensive.
Not only weight, but due to the breakable nature of glass you also need more protective packaging, and you still get more breakage than plastic, which drives cost up even more due to lost product.
With plastic, throw some shrinkwrap on them and you're good to go.
With plastic, throw some shrinkwrap on them and you're good to go.
I’m not concerned about price for non essential items like soft drinks. Having a functioning ecosystem is far more important than whether or not you have to pay an extra dollar for your coke.
Then refill plastic bottles, as is common in Germany.
Can’t you recycle the water?
The problem with this solution is that washing and sterilizing makes a heavy demand on the country’s own water sources, which may already be facing depletion. It works well in, say, Northern Europe which is very wet, but in Peru or India such a system is not so environmentally friendly. There, it may be better to use plastic containers that are recycled at a facility elsewhere.
Peru already re-uses glass bottles.. they were doing it in 2010 when I spent 2 months there.
It's shocking you'd propose single use plastic bottles to be recycled over glass bottles that can be re-used hundreds (thousands?) of times.
I'm sure they can capture and clean the water and re-use that too, it doesn't just have to go down the drain.
I just can't help feeling that with everything there are nine million reasons not to do something, so we end up doing nothing. Analysis Paralysis.
It's shocking you'd propose single use plastic bottles to be recycled over glass bottles that can be re-used hundreds (thousands?) of times.
I'm sure they can capture and clean the water and re-use that too, it doesn't just have to go down the drain.
I just can't help feeling that with everything there are nine million reasons not to do something, so we end up doing nothing. Analysis Paralysis.
There used to be hard plastic, reusable bottles.
You do realise they wash new bottles as one of the final steps in making them?
I can't find figures comparing the water used in production vs reuse.
I can't find figures comparing the water used in production vs reuse.
How much water is used to clean/sterilize a bottle? Compared to resources consumed making the container from scratch or attempting to crush/reprocess it?
FWIW India already has a robust bottle return and reuse system.
FWIW India already has a robust bottle return and reuse system.
> Compared to resources consumed making the container from scratch or attempting to crush/reprocess it?
Empty containers can be loaded onto container ships, where they can be recycled elsewhere, and new containers delivered the same way. While that may still not be environmentally optimal on a world scale, at least it would consume no extra water in regions that are arid or facing groundwater depletion.
> FWIW India already has a robust bottle return and reuse system.
The soft-drink industry in India has already been castigated for depletion of groundwater, so again, washing and sterilizing all these bottles only compounds the damage.
Empty containers can be loaded onto container ships, where they can be recycled elsewhere, and new containers delivered the same way. While that may still not be environmentally optimal on a world scale, at least it would consume no extra water in regions that are arid or facing groundwater depletion.
> FWIW India already has a robust bottle return and reuse system.
The soft-drink industry in India has already been castigated for depletion of groundwater, so again, washing and sterilizing all these bottles only compounds the damage.
I feel like we are stuck in a loop.
Perhaps we need question whether or not it still makes sense to transport food and drink in small, individual containers.
One solution might be to transport in bulk. You could take your own bottles to the supermarket that are whatever shape and material you desire and fill them up.
How do you preserve the carbonation of soft drinks, then?
In order for drinks to stay fizzy, the container has to be filled under pressure. Even if you offer customers some fancy machine that can fill their bottles under pressure, you still risk issues with customers bringing in old, flimsy containers that cannot withstand those pressures.
In order for drinks to stay fizzy, the container has to be filled under pressure. Even if you offer customers some fancy machine that can fill their bottles under pressure, you still risk issues with customers bringing in old, flimsy containers that cannot withstand those pressures.
Same kind of reusable bottle you'd buy kombucha in. Flip top, gasket seal.
I'm not sure what the solution to that would be. Maybe sodastreams will become popular again.
Use glass bottles. We used reuse glass soda and beer bottles all the time, part of your charge when purchasing these products was a bottle deposit that would be refunded upon return.
Okay, great, you solved the reuse of material problem.
Now what about the difference in weight your solution creates? The added weight means more fuel consumed in transport, both from bottling to store and during recycling...
I'm not saying your solution isn't better btw, I didn't do the math; just reminding you that it might not be as straightforward as "just do x".
Now what about the difference in weight your solution creates? The added weight means more fuel consumed in transport, both from bottling to store and during recycling...
I'm not saying your solution isn't better btw, I didn't do the math; just reminding you that it might not be as straightforward as "just do x".
It's not just the petroleum industry - Coca-Cola has also lobbied pretty strongly against a deposit system: https://theintercept.com/2019/10/18/coca-cola-recycling-plas...
It's because it eats into their profits.
I wish this went into what the factors are that make these products not recyclable. Contaminants attached to the product, I assume?
Siggi's yogurt containers (the large ones, at least) have a paper label and a tab you can tear to completely remove the paper from the plastic so they can be recycled properly. Which, of course, made me realize that probably nothing ELSE with a label on it is recyclable in the way we think they are.
Siggi's yogurt containers (the large ones, at least) have a paper label and a tab you can tear to completely remove the paper from the plastic so they can be recycled properly. Which, of course, made me realize that probably nothing ELSE with a label on it is recyclable in the way we think they are.
So, I wonder about these cardboard/paper containers that e.g. juice, milk, etc are being sold in. Are they biodegradable?
Nope, they have a plastic lining on the inside to make them waterproof.
Same is true of coffee cups, although there are a number of organizations (in Aus, at least) now that have processes for separating the plastic from the paper so it can be recycled.
E.g. https://www.simplycups.com.au/how-it-works
E.g. https://www.simplycups.com.au/how-it-works
It seems like this problem has only been allowed to get so bad because it's a silent failure. We throw things in the recycling, and without any feedback we assume they are recycled.
The failure should be pushed up the chain, at least to the consumer. The rules on what can be recycled should be realistic and consistently enforced, then people can make more informed choices (up to and including pushing for regulation on manufacturers).
The failure should be pushed up the chain, at least to the consumer. The rules on what can be recycled should be realistic and consistently enforced, then people can make more informed choices (up to and including pushing for regulation on manufacturers).
Not to come across as crass, but the popularity of inferior products and packaging (in light of the accumulated data) seem to be rooted in a bygone era that had little, if any quality standards (think pre-pink slime nugget accounting and profit scenarios).
It is a bit of a stretch in legal terms, but with the negligence in place for disposal processes/costs of a resource as mature as plastic, it is exactly like the fight against CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer.
Quantifiable damage from plastics and a strategy for reduction could/should mirror other successful campaigns to limit ecological damage.
Most of these brands are now invisible for the 1st world, cord-cutting, ad-blocker-loving generations, so my hope is that the next round of behemoths will learn from their environmental mistakes.
It is a bit of a stretch in legal terms, but with the negligence in place for disposal processes/costs of a resource as mature as plastic, it is exactly like the fight against CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer.
Quantifiable damage from plastics and a strategy for reduction could/should mirror other successful campaigns to limit ecological damage.
Most of these brands are now invisible for the 1st world, cord-cutting, ad-blocker-loving generations, so my hope is that the next round of behemoths will learn from their environmental mistakes.
That's the whole point of recycling, feeling good about ourselves. In reality the vast majority of the shit we throw away end up in open sky dump in Africa or China, but hey, I paid 80ct of "eco tax" on my $1k fridge so it's not my problem anymore.
Just like using a paper straw at starbucks is doing absolutely nothing at all if you don't change the rest of your lifestyle.
https://www.africanexponent.com/post/8588-the-west-is-dumpin...
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/06/s...
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/24/r...
https://www.africanexponent.com/post/8588-the-west-is-dumpin...
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/06/s...
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/24/r...
the first city-wide recycling projects in the USA were faced with this kind of brick-wall reasoning in the 1970s, and yet have built successfully over and over.. the sideways reference to "eco-tax" shows there is an ideological driver here
> the sideways reference to "eco-tax" shows there is an ideological driver here
Yes clearly, thinking a few cents of eco tax will outweigh your ecological impact is like thinking using paper straws makes up for taking the plane once a week. It's nice "feel good" idea but it doesn't have any real world impact. Just look at every pollution related threads on HN, there are always a lot of people blaming China and Asia for having the most polluting rivers, while the majority of the shit ending in their rivers was consumed in the EU/US. Recycling really isn't much more than "I'll put it far away and from now on act like it doesn't exist anymore".
Everything I read about recycling in the US, or anywhere else for that matter, is that it doesn't work very well and most of it is exported, so I'm not quite sure about which recycling projects you're talking about.
https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/blog/2019/3/6/1570...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-pla...
https://www.boell.de/en/2019/11/04/waste-exports-rubbish-dum...
https://www.statista.com/chart/18229/biggest-exporters-of-pl...
Yes clearly, thinking a few cents of eco tax will outweigh your ecological impact is like thinking using paper straws makes up for taking the plane once a week. It's nice "feel good" idea but it doesn't have any real world impact. Just look at every pollution related threads on HN, there are always a lot of people blaming China and Asia for having the most polluting rivers, while the majority of the shit ending in their rivers was consumed in the EU/US. Recycling really isn't much more than "I'll put it far away and from now on act like it doesn't exist anymore".
Everything I read about recycling in the US, or anywhere else for that matter, is that it doesn't work very well and most of it is exported, so I'm not quite sure about which recycling projects you're talking about.
https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/blog/2019/3/6/1570...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-pla...
https://www.boell.de/en/2019/11/04/waste-exports-rubbish-dum...
https://www.statista.com/chart/18229/biggest-exporters-of-pl...
plastics is not solved, so we agree on that.. paper and aluminum can easily pay for itself when done well.. lots of dense consumer products are somewhere in the middle.. product design and materials make the difference in many cases
" so I'm not quite sure about which recycling projects you're talking about" .. there are ample business case studies of materials recycling that work, in certain markets, but they do not tend to be at the top of the web-based news
It is unduly onerous to claim "recycling doesn't work" IMO
" so I'm not quite sure about which recycling projects you're talking about" .. there are ample business case studies of materials recycling that work, in certain markets, but they do not tend to be at the top of the web-based news
It is unduly onerous to claim "recycling doesn't work" IMO
Meanwhile, Oil companies like Shell, are investing in production facilities to supersize plastic production, now that oil prices have fallen. [0]
And they are also trying to control the negative fallout [1]
[0] https://qz.com/1689529/nurdles-are-the-biggest-pollution-dis... [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90295292/the-worlds-big-plastic-...
And they are also trying to control the negative fallout [1]
[0] https://qz.com/1689529/nurdles-are-the-biggest-pollution-dis... [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90295292/the-worlds-big-plastic-...
Is "somebody filed a lawsuit" really "news"? No.
It's really only news if it survives motions to dismiss.
shocked they aren't also getting sued for lying about having no sugar in diet/zero products
Can you explain what you mean?
artificial sweeteners just like real sugar are refined, processed, products that spike your insulin levels and cause all types of medical problems. To say that their product is zero sugar and zero calories is misleading and makes it seem as harmless as water.
I see, I wouldn't call it lying then. "Not sugar" does not imply "does not behave like sugar".
Overall, I think this is a good idea. a Lawsuit creates a financial incentive to behave better. However,
> It’s likely that less than 5% of plastic produced today is getting recycled
I've seen this repeated elsewhere, but what I really want to know is the % of plastics sent for recycling actually being recycled. Anything that wasn't turned in for recycling just doesn't count here, in my opinion.
> It’s likely that less than 5% of plastic produced today is getting recycled
I've seen this repeated elsewhere, but what I really want to know is the % of plastics sent for recycling actually being recycled. Anything that wasn't turned in for recycling just doesn't count here, in my opinion.
Recycling is such a farce. Anything where you have mixed streams going into the recycling bin is quite likely to end up buried somewhere in a developing country. Even when they are recycled they end up being turned into insulation or some other secondary product.
Growing up in Scotland we had a recycling system which was great. Irn Bru bottles were glass bottles with metal lids. The lid proudly announced that you could get 20p back for returning it (in the form of credit towards other purchases). The same trucks delivering stock took the empty bottles back to the distribution centre when they were cleaned, inspected and reused.
Growing up in Scotland we had a recycling system which was great. Irn Bru bottles were glass bottles with metal lids. The lid proudly announced that you could get 20p back for returning it (in the form of credit towards other purchases). The same trucks delivering stock took the empty bottles back to the distribution centre when they were cleaned, inspected and reused.
I grew up in Canada, several decades ago. At that time, everyone returned glass soft-drink bottles and beer bottles to the stores where the items were purchased. Milk was delivered in bottles, and the delivery person picked up the empty bottles we left on the porch the night before.
Nobody would have thought of throwing the glass into the trash, even if there were no refunds. I think part of this was that so many people had a memory of the great depression, and waste was viewed as sinful.
When plastic came in, the older folks washed plastic bags out so they could reuse them. You'd see them on the clothes lines, drying out. (Sure, people had indoor dryers, but clothes dried on the line not only saved on the electric bill but smelled so damned wonderful that it's hard to erase the memory of the delight in bringing things in off the line.)
Nobody would have thought of throwing the glass into the trash, even if there were no refunds. I think part of this was that so many people had a memory of the great depression, and waste was viewed as sinful.
When plastic came in, the older folks washed plastic bags out so they could reuse them. You'd see them on the clothes lines, drying out. (Sure, people had indoor dryers, but clothes dried on the line not only saved on the electric bill but smelled so damned wonderful that it's hard to erase the memory of the delight in bringing things in off the line.)
The problem is that environmental people bikeshed and argue about everything. They don’t like glass or reuse because water is used for washing and you need to haul the empty bottle.
Especially with the rise of e-commerce, there’s no reason why most consumer products couldn’t be delivered in reusable glass containers.
Especially with the rise of e-commerce, there’s no reason why most consumer products couldn’t be delivered in reusable glass containers.
I wouldn't be surprised if shipping plastic containers and then incinerating them consumes less petroleum and releases less carbon than shipping glass containers twice.
Perhaps with standardized containers and regional distribution centers? Sort of like the old-school beverage bottling plants, but for all variety of consumer products, and not tied to just one brand or class of product. I've no idea how you'd get such a thing bootstrapped, though.
Perhaps with standardized containers and regional distribution centers? Sort of like the old-school beverage bottling plants, but for all variety of consumer products, and not tied to just one brand or class of product. I've no idea how you'd get such a thing bootstrapped, though.
Zero-waste stores seem to be a recent development in Europe, I remember watching a DW segment on them:
https://wastelandrebel.com/en/the-first-zero-waste-bulk-stor...
https://www.bepakt.com/
https://wastelandrebel.com/en/the-first-zero-waste-bulk-stor...
https://www.bepakt.com/
Yeah, happy that even some major supermarkets in the US are even beginning to introduce bulk foods.
But I just don't see how waste reduction can be neatly reconciled with e-commerce. The typical situation seems to be that things are packed in retail-style packaging, then plastic wrapped, then placed in a plastic padded mailing envelope or placed in a cardboard box along with some plastic air pillows, and then shipped 2day, which, if it's not coming from Amazon, likely means jet fuel is being burned.
I'll say that for Amazon, they at least did an impressive job reducing the fuel waste inherent in ecommerce. It's too bad they're so happy to let the counterfeiters ruin it for us.
But I just don't see how waste reduction can be neatly reconciled with e-commerce. The typical situation seems to be that things are packed in retail-style packaging, then plastic wrapped, then placed in a plastic padded mailing envelope or placed in a cardboard box along with some plastic air pillows, and then shipped 2day, which, if it's not coming from Amazon, likely means jet fuel is being burned.
I'll say that for Amazon, they at least did an impressive job reducing the fuel waste inherent in ecommerce. It's too bad they're so happy to let the counterfeiters ruin it for us.
The problem is the return of the reusable containers. I've collaborating with several startups working on this problem. Shipping costs are 20-40% of COGS for many ecommerce catagories and you are basically doubling them when you require return for reuse and consumers don't want to pay the price premium that requires.
What number of items actually need rewashing?
Sure, foodstuffs. But why can we not refill our soaps, chemicals, etc. Laundry detergent? There is no need to wash those with water.
Sure, foodstuffs. But why can we not refill our soaps, chemicals, etc. Laundry detergent? There is no need to wash those with water.
I used to buy things like that in bulk, back when I lived near a co-op that offered them. I haven't seen something like that in a long time, though, and I wonder if it's even still a thing.
I suspect that the real problem with packaging reduction is that it favors a consolidated product stream. One of those bulk "fill your own containers" of shampoo probably took up the same amount of space as 6 or 8 different products in individual packaging. Which in turn means that you can't offer your customers a dizzying variety of scents and textures and customizations for your hair type and brands and varying levels of organic or biodynamic or being insert_ingredient_here-free or whatever.
And everyone buying the same shampoo - making it effectively a commodity - probably does a number on your ability to boost profits through price discrimination, too.
I suspect that the real problem with packaging reduction is that it favors a consolidated product stream. One of those bulk "fill your own containers" of shampoo probably took up the same amount of space as 6 or 8 different products in individual packaging. Which in turn means that you can't offer your customers a dizzying variety of scents and textures and customizations for your hair type and brands and varying levels of organic or biodynamic or being insert_ingredient_here-free or whatever.
And everyone buying the same shampoo - making it effectively a commodity - probably does a number on your ability to boost profits through price discrimination, too.
Even on Amazon, there are bulk-size containers for stuff like soaps and bleach. 5 gallon is usually readily available, and sometimes more.
Yes, we seem to have lost something in the last few generations. The mantra used to be reduce, reuse, recycle. The order is significant, recycling should be a last resort.
Glass and metal are a nightmare on the beach and in parks. Plastic sucks bad, but going back to glass isn't much better.
The system has been in place for at least 50 years. In my mum's day it was a common past time for her and her brothers to go hunting for what they called "glass cheques". The idea is to avoid it ending up where it shouldn't by incentivising good behaviour. If people can return the glass for money then few of them end up on the beach.
It's much better in almost every way besides weight. Much more reusable, not leaking any chemicals in soil/water/our bodies, &c.
Glass is inert and doesn't break down; anyone can pick up glass bottles that have been on the beach for decades, wash them out, and recycle them along with new glass.
Metal degrades slowly if it's ferrous (iron/steel), but that isn't environmentally harmful. And it can all be readily recycled.
Metal degrades slowly if it's ferrous (iron/steel), but that isn't environmentally harmful. And it can all be readily recycled.
I think the implication was what if some jackass smashes the bottles and you find them with your foot.
I feel like that is a pretty insignificant issue compared with 8-20 million tons of plastics ending up in the sea.
Not really. Both break down and are mostly inert.
There is still a societal cost to producing plastic, even if it isn't turned in for recycling. The article draws a comparison to smoking, and to (loosely) extend the analogy this cost would be similar to second-hand smoke.
Some companies are starting to take responsibility for the full lifecycle of their products (Terracycle comes to mind, which helps companies reclaim and reuse their products at end-of-life). More businesses need to have this mindset if we are going to move towards a sustainable economy.
Some companies are starting to take responsibility for the full lifecycle of their products (Terracycle comes to mind, which helps companies reclaim and reuse their products at end-of-life). More businesses need to have this mindset if we are going to move towards a sustainable economy.
> More businesses need to have this mindset if we are going to move towards a sustainable economy.
Capitalism says they won't. Consumers as a whole favor cheaper products over sustainable ones.
Regulation is how you solve that problem. Tax companies that use disposable packaging or don't manage their waste streams properly (however you define that) and they'll stop doing it.
Recycling has always been the feel-good system to shift the blame for disposable packaging from companies to consumers. The term "littering" was literally invented to do just that, just like "jaywalking" was a way to shift the blame for traffic problems to pedestrians.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/origins-anti-li...
Capitalism says they won't. Consumers as a whole favor cheaper products over sustainable ones.
Regulation is how you solve that problem. Tax companies that use disposable packaging or don't manage their waste streams properly (however you define that) and they'll stop doing it.
Recycling has always been the feel-good system to shift the blame for disposable packaging from companies to consumers. The term "littering" was literally invented to do just that, just like "jaywalking" was a way to shift the blame for traffic problems to pedestrians.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/origins-anti-li...
>Capitalism says they won't. Consumers as a whole favor cheaper products over sustainable ones.
I think we're seeing an increase of companies that are prioritizing sustainable practices, because both consumers and investors are demanding this. Not every company by any stretch of the imagination, but it's happening. See Blackrock's annual letter [1] for the investment side. One Percent for the Planet reports that Millennials are more willing to purchase products that have environmental or social benefits than the general public, which would suggest that this is a trend that's increasing[2].
>Regulation is how you solve that problem. Tax companies that use disposable packaging or don't manage their waste streams properly (however you define that) and they'll stop doing it.
Definitely agreed that this would solve things a lot quicker and more completely. But in the absence of fitting regulation, people need to decide to do the right thing within their companies and get progress started.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/blackrocks-larry-fink-says-s... [2] https://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/business-members
I think we're seeing an increase of companies that are prioritizing sustainable practices, because both consumers and investors are demanding this. Not every company by any stretch of the imagination, but it's happening. See Blackrock's annual letter [1] for the investment side. One Percent for the Planet reports that Millennials are more willing to purchase products that have environmental or social benefits than the general public, which would suggest that this is a trend that's increasing[2].
>Regulation is how you solve that problem. Tax companies that use disposable packaging or don't manage their waste streams properly (however you define that) and they'll stop doing it.
Definitely agreed that this would solve things a lot quicker and more completely. But in the absence of fitting regulation, people need to decide to do the right thing within their companies and get progress started.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/blackrocks-larry-fink-says-s... [2] https://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/business-members
This is a good question given rampant fraud in the recycling industry. Things that should be recycled often end up in landfill or shipped abroad to South East Asia and dumped.
I feel like the entire concept of recycling from the very beginning has been a lie. Now we're all paying for what we thought was being handled properly.
Edit: Plastic recycling.
Edit: Plastic recycling.
Reduce and re-use, as the slogan goes, were always preferred, but never seemed to be taken as seriously as the (apparently) largely-BS recycling efforts that got most of the attention. I guess because that was much easier and more visible than efforts at reduction and re-use.
Reduce and Re-use are not a great slogan for an economy that incentivizes increased consumption of new things unfortunately.
Maybe as more people become aware of recycling inefficiencies, we'll start diverting dollars go businesses that focus on longevity and reusability of their products?
Maybe as more people become aware of recycling inefficiencies, we'll start diverting dollars go businesses that focus on longevity and reusability of their products?
It doesn't help that plastics, in particular, derive a huge part of their utility from directly countering those two parts. They replaced other things because they were so cheap they were disposable (as in food packaging) and created new categories of ultra-cheap crap that couldn't have existed, or certainly not to that degree, without plastic, and often to dubious benefit to society—dirt-cheap toys, for example (dubious benefit to society because if not for marketing I very much doubt kids would be much less happy with a couple metal and wooden toys plus some rocks and sticks, versus a mountain of cheap plastic figures and playsets and such, source: have kids, have been a kid)
It's pretty interesting to contrast the old advertisements for disposable tablewares [0] ("Enjoy their beauty, use them --- throw them away!") with the result of decades of this approach (being stuck with mountains of throwaway crap).
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=serviset+ad&tbm=isch
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=serviset+ad&tbm=isch
> They replaced other things because they were so cheap they were disposable (as in food packaging)
Not really. Plastic was the more hygenic alternative and that was the main reason why it replaced the older packaging techniques.
Not really. Plastic was the more hygenic alternative and that was the main reason why it replaced the older packaging techniques.
> I very much doubt kids would be much less happy. . .
Perhaps they'd actually be happier. There's at least the beginnings of a body of research that suggests that owning a mountain of toys in childhood is associated with a lifelong increased risk of mood disorders.
Perhaps they'd actually be happier. There's at least the beginnings of a body of research that suggests that owning a mountain of toys in childhood is associated with a lifelong increased risk of mood disorders.
Pure anecdote, I attended a Waldorf school in which some of the students were the children of devout Anthroposophists, hence were strictly prohibited from owning cheap plastic toys.
Doesn't seem to have done them any harm, from what I recall.
Doesn't seem to have done them any harm, from what I recall.
very interested in reading more about this. do you have any pointers/links?
I'm afraid I don't have any handy links, but I've definitely read that kids with a few treasured toys play creatively with them, while children with a lot of toys move restlessly between them.
If you'd like a fairly short book, The High Price of Materialism by Tim Kasser isn't focused specifically on early childhood, but, if I recall correctly, it does touch on the subject.
It's all correlational, of course, so it's not like this is a scientific certainty. But still, interesting to see.
It's all correlational, of course, so it's not like this is a scientific certainty. But still, interesting to see.
As an adult, I'd definitely say that at some point we passed from "plenty of options" to "so many options it's actually worse than having fewer", at least when it comes to entertainment and information consumption and such. Probably passed the tipping point some time between the 70s and very early 2000s at the latest. But I'm getting old enough that that might just be a preview of the "back in my day!" stories that are surely in my future.
[deleted]
Sounds like the paradox of choice: https://medium.com/@FlorentGeerts/the-jam-experiment-how-cho...
And yeah, agree. I'm looking at you, enormous steam games list.
And yeah, agree. I'm looking at you, enormous steam games list.
Really, if all new recorded & digital entertainment stopped being created right now and I was stuck with only things already made, and even if I were born today, I'd easily have a lifetime's worth of material even if I were pretty picky, so the lack of new media, though a bit weird, wouldn't really harm my enjoyment of life that much. There are whole, giant genres of music I've barely listened to, hundreds of highly-regarded films from the last 140ish years I've not seen, more reputedly-excellent written works from the last ~3500 years than I've got time for even if that were my only entertainment.
Shit, as far as games go I'm still trying to catch up on top-tier or just-under-top-tier games from the 90s I missed the first time around, and I played quite a few games back then. Now that I have less time, a bunch of excellent-looking games I'd probably love slip by and land on the "to do... someday, maybe" list. Even for a medium that new, I'm overwhelmed with great options.
Shit, as far as games go I'm still trying to catch up on top-tier or just-under-top-tier games from the 90s I missed the first time around, and I played quite a few games back then. Now that I have less time, a bunch of excellent-looking games I'd probably love slip by and land on the "to do... someday, maybe" list. Even for a medium that new, I'm overwhelmed with great options.
> Maybe as more people become aware of recycling inefficiencies, we'll start diverting dollars go businesses that focus on longevity and reusability of their products?
Sounds good to me in theory, but the confusion for me has always been: how do you overhaul the packaging of all these small consumable items (like Pepsi and Coke) so they're either more easily recyclable or reusable and also benefit the manufacturer at the same time? I'm sure the government can create incentives but will that be enough? Will people be willing to pay more money for a more environmentally friendly option if a less environmentally friendly but more affordable option exists?
Sounds good to me in theory, but the confusion for me has always been: how do you overhaul the packaging of all these small consumable items (like Pepsi and Coke) so they're either more easily recyclable or reusable and also benefit the manufacturer at the same time? I'm sure the government can create incentives but will that be enough? Will people be willing to pay more money for a more environmentally friendly option if a less environmentally friendly but more affordable option exists?
I think you’re over constraining the solution. Why does the solution need to benefit the manufacturer? Coca Cola is a corporation with no feelings. The environment is a real living entity. If the costs of the corporation go up but the environment benefits this seems like a win. The corporation will balance out operations whatever costs are unless the restrictions are so onerous it can no longer operate, and I don’t think that’s the case. If anything the cost of soda would rise, which some places are already doing for public benefit through consumption taxes. If people drink less soda because the cost is slightly higher, that wouldn’t really be a negative outcome.
You're certainly correct, a solution does not require a benefit to the manufacturer. I suppose I was thinking about it from more of a laissez-faire point of view - that is essentially, how can we have our cake and eat it too (or in this case, our cheap soda)?
If the government passed laws/regulation that mandated certain packaging requirements for companies like Coca Cola, that would be a top-down solution and Coca Cola would have to comply, lest they wish to face steep fines and litigation.
In regards to soda, you're right - consumption taxes have proven effective. I believe cigarette taxes have proven effective in the same way. But an environmentally effective top-down solution would of course apply to many more consumables that just soda, sugar cakes and other generally unhealthy items. It's possible that top down regulation could push costs higher for smaller companies that offer healthy options in environmentally unfriendly packages. If costs are too high for smaller companies like these, then there may be fewer healthy alternative options (because we know Little Debbie and Coca Cola aren't going anywhere, regulations or not). This is obviously a very generalized example - in reality, many of the healthy/organic foods items already come in environmentally-friendly packaging.
If the government passed laws/regulation that mandated certain packaging requirements for companies like Coca Cola, that would be a top-down solution and Coca Cola would have to comply, lest they wish to face steep fines and litigation.
In regards to soda, you're right - consumption taxes have proven effective. I believe cigarette taxes have proven effective in the same way. But an environmentally effective top-down solution would of course apply to many more consumables that just soda, sugar cakes and other generally unhealthy items. It's possible that top down regulation could push costs higher for smaller companies that offer healthy options in environmentally unfriendly packages. If costs are too high for smaller companies like these, then there may be fewer healthy alternative options (because we know Little Debbie and Coca Cola aren't going anywhere, regulations or not). This is obviously a very generalized example - in reality, many of the healthy/organic foods items already come in environmentally-friendly packaging.
You could tax all garbage, including recycling (at a slightly lower rate).
If people start having to pay for garbage processing by weight or volume, people would change their tune pretty quickly, in the same fashion that instituting small charges on bottles and cans boost recycling of those products.
If people start having to pay for garbage processing by weight or volume, people would change their tune pretty quickly, in the same fashion that instituting small charges on bottles and cans boost recycling of those products.
You do have to pay based off weight and volume. Curbside fees just decide to obfuscate that.
The downside is that those that are charged directly often dump wherever they won't be caught. Example: mattresses, they're a dumping problem, often, bulk items are even included in curbside pickup with the minium effort of scheduling a pickup.
The downside is that those that are charged directly often dump wherever they won't be caught. Example: mattresses, they're a dumping problem, often, bulk items are even included in curbside pickup with the minium effort of scheduling a pickup.
Just charge for disposal at the point of production. The consumer still pays but at least the manufacturer "feels" it.
Corporations don't pay taxes... their customers do.
Other than that, I do think some level of optimizations should happen in the space of recycling... either similar to what I understand German regulations are on recycling what you produce... and/or going back to glass bottles.
Then again, I'm not sure how bad plastics are in general, other than what gets dumped into the oceans, for the most part, my understanding is plastics in modern waste facilities aren't so bad and mfg is mostly a petroleum byproduct of what would otherwise be waste anyway.
Other than that, I do think some level of optimizations should happen in the space of recycling... either similar to what I understand German regulations are on recycling what you produce... and/or going back to glass bottles.
Then again, I'm not sure how bad plastics are in general, other than what gets dumped into the oceans, for the most part, my understanding is plastics in modern waste facilities aren't so bad and mfg is mostly a petroleum byproduct of what would otherwise be waste anyway.
IEA says plastics will be a third of fossil fuel growth by 2030 and half by 2050: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778665357/the-u-s-natural-gas...
A "loyalty bottle" that you refill at the store.
Any time there is an attempt to specifically reduce plastic waste, such as banning or charging fees for plastic bags or plastic straws, people retort that this, too, is all a farce.
The argument always goes that people want to feel good while doing very little. But what I hear mostly are people who want to do nothing but still complain.
The argument always goes that people want to feel good while doing very little. But what I hear mostly are people who want to do nothing but still complain.
My issue with all the small scale stuff such as bags and straws is that we have limited time to try to correct the issue, and bags and straws and recycling aren’t going to make a lick of difference.
It’s the 30 mile commutes, single person occupied SUVs, flying for vacations, and living driving distance to everything in suburbs and exurbs causing exponentially greater than necessary usage of fuel to move mass that is the vast majority of our problem.
The only solution to the issue is to increase the cost of fuel. If we don’t accomplish that, all the other efforts are a waste of time and energy. If we do accomplish raising the cost of fuel, then everything else will fall in line, including costs of disposable plastic goods which will go up and cause people to consume less.
Except, of course, this is politically untenable because of all the investment assumptions requiring 10% ROI to meet debt obligations.
It’s the 30 mile commutes, single person occupied SUVs, flying for vacations, and living driving distance to everything in suburbs and exurbs causing exponentially greater than necessary usage of fuel to move mass that is the vast majority of our problem.
The only solution to the issue is to increase the cost of fuel. If we don’t accomplish that, all the other efforts are a waste of time and energy. If we do accomplish raising the cost of fuel, then everything else will fall in line, including costs of disposable plastic goods which will go up and cause people to consume less.
Except, of course, this is politically untenable because of all the investment assumptions requiring 10% ROI to meet debt obligations.
No, it's politically untenable because people don't want to change their lifestyles significantly. At least in the US (since you're talking about SUVs and exurbs and long commutes), it's a democratic society: campaigning on a platform that you're going to drastically raise fuel prices to force everyone to move into the city (which is already extremely expensive, due to many other long-standing factors like bad zoning, NIMBYism, lack of multi-use (combined commercial/residential) spaces, etc.) will mean you simply won't be elected.
Even in cities you have "the apartment problem".
The noise of the streets, neighbors, an even other residents in the same apartment (if sharing, because there's not enough single / studio places at good value) invade. The smells from neighbors and others invade. The shared garbage chute, elevator or stairwell where you interface with the lingering smoking, pet, or messes invades personal space as well.
The building code (at least in the US) in the cities isn't high enough to provide actual solitude and escape from being so close to everyone else.
Inside cities the rent seeking keeps rents there too high.
Outside of cities, rent seeking helps to prevent new home ownership (rather than temporary rental), while the lack of regulations and taxation for infrastructure (like transport of goods and people) undervalues and under-taxes the opportunity cost.
Much like many of the other social ills in the US the problems require a national framework and local solutions; but the balance and distribution of planning is out of scale and stuck decades if not a hundred years or more in the past when the speed of transportation provided pressures that made local management good enough.
The noise of the streets, neighbors, an even other residents in the same apartment (if sharing, because there's not enough single / studio places at good value) invade. The smells from neighbors and others invade. The shared garbage chute, elevator or stairwell where you interface with the lingering smoking, pet, or messes invades personal space as well.
The building code (at least in the US) in the cities isn't high enough to provide actual solitude and escape from being so close to everyone else.
Inside cities the rent seeking keeps rents there too high.
Outside of cities, rent seeking helps to prevent new home ownership (rather than temporary rental), while the lack of regulations and taxation for infrastructure (like transport of goods and people) undervalues and under-taxes the opportunity cost.
Much like many of the other social ills in the US the problems require a national framework and local solutions; but the balance and distribution of planning is out of scale and stuck decades if not a hundred years or more in the past when the speed of transportation provided pressures that made local management good enough.
While you have the right idea, that “every little bit counts” is bunkum, you stopped a little short: Car emissions only account for ~42-44% of total emissions from transportation in North America. Large trucks account for 56-58%.
Source: Sustainable energy, without the hot air. This book dives into the bigs that need to be tackled before the smalls.
Plus, penalizing fuel hurts the poor more than the rich. The poor are the ones driving long distances from cheap housing to city centres for work. They are the personal support workers, caregivers and Uber drivers. The rich can afford to live within 10 mins walking distance of work, and can also afford to move when changing jobs to maintain walkability.
Source: Sustainable energy, without the hot air. This book dives into the bigs that need to be tackled before the smalls.
Plus, penalizing fuel hurts the poor more than the rich. The poor are the ones driving long distances from cheap housing to city centres for work. They are the personal support workers, caregivers and Uber drivers. The rich can afford to live within 10 mins walking distance of work, and can also afford to move when changing jobs to maintain walkability.
I have never understood the argument that taxes on e.g. gasoline are regressive and this should not be raised. When we find an externality that is not accounted for in costs, are we to throw up our hands and say we cannot do anything because some of the increased costs will be passed on to consumers? The right amswer is not to avoid the tax but to compensate the mpst affected via redistributive policies like a negative income tax.
Tax it, put the money toward public transit.
Hell, I think that in an ideal world something similar would happen to traffic and parking tickets. More people parking illegally or speeding? More money goes to buses and trains.
Hell, I think that in an ideal world something similar would happen to traffic and parking tickets. More people parking illegally or speeding? More money goes to buses and trains.
Fuel (fossil) is causing the problem. It doesn’t matter if it affects rich or poor more or less, the only solution is to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Raising the cost will also reduce truck’s usage of fuel.
I don’t think sustainable fuel (non fossil fuel) is realistic on the timescale that humans need it to be. Fossil fuel is just so convenient with its portability and ease of use, that it will remain preferred for many uses.
I don’t think sustainable fuel (non fossil fuel) is realistic on the timescale that humans need it to be. Fossil fuel is just so convenient with its portability and ease of use, that it will remain preferred for many uses.
Fossil fuels are the bedrock of modern western civilization. Period, full stop. Moving away from fossil fuels requires us to take a huge hit in our current standard of living, at least in the short to medium term. Everything we purchase or interact with is dependent on fossil fuels. Those trucks you vilify are transporting all manner of goods. Taxing fuel raises prices on all goods, from fresh cauliflower to XBoxes.
There is no plastic without fossil fuels. All goods are dependent on plastic in some form or another; many goods are made entirely of plastic. Eliminating plastic requires anywhere from minor to major redesign of a given good and a correspondingly increased bill of materials, both for the cost of redesign and cost of sourcing the alternative, and these costs will be passed directly onto the customer, thereby raising the prices of everything. Put those two together, it will become apparent that living in a modern western society with the abundance we are used to becomes quickly unsustainable for everyone except the very wealthy. You may think you can bear the cost on an SV salary but most people in America cannot. You are asking people in America to accept a non-trivial downgrade in their standard of living and they will fight you tooth and nail to preserve it, at the ballot box and elsewhere. That’s just how human beings are wired. In terms of other countries, they are all looking to attain the same standard of life available in the west and will happily consume more fossil fuels to get there. Any lack of demand on the west’s side results in cheaper prices, spurring increased consumption in emerging markets.
Furthermore, lets say you do succeed in increased fuel costs, thus reducing our collective standard of living. It will probably backfire when that happens, as your SV salary depends on their high standard of living. If the avg person’s purchasing power plummets, their demand for tech goods also plummets. After all, the overwhelming majority of tech goods satisfy wants, not needs, and discretionary purchases of new phones, Alexas and Sonos speakers are the first things to go out the window when survival is at stake. There goes that large salary and vested stocks. Now you’re stuck fighting for survival too. It’s a race to the bottom.
There are only two real solutions: A source of energy more dense or portable than gasoline, or some form of population control. The first is difficult, the second is currently unthinkable for most people.
There is no plastic without fossil fuels. All goods are dependent on plastic in some form or another; many goods are made entirely of plastic. Eliminating plastic requires anywhere from minor to major redesign of a given good and a correspondingly increased bill of materials, both for the cost of redesign and cost of sourcing the alternative, and these costs will be passed directly onto the customer, thereby raising the prices of everything. Put those two together, it will become apparent that living in a modern western society with the abundance we are used to becomes quickly unsustainable for everyone except the very wealthy. You may think you can bear the cost on an SV salary but most people in America cannot. You are asking people in America to accept a non-trivial downgrade in their standard of living and they will fight you tooth and nail to preserve it, at the ballot box and elsewhere. That’s just how human beings are wired. In terms of other countries, they are all looking to attain the same standard of life available in the west and will happily consume more fossil fuels to get there. Any lack of demand on the west’s side results in cheaper prices, spurring increased consumption in emerging markets.
Furthermore, lets say you do succeed in increased fuel costs, thus reducing our collective standard of living. It will probably backfire when that happens, as your SV salary depends on their high standard of living. If the avg person’s purchasing power plummets, their demand for tech goods also plummets. After all, the overwhelming majority of tech goods satisfy wants, not needs, and discretionary purchases of new phones, Alexas and Sonos speakers are the first things to go out the window when survival is at stake. There goes that large salary and vested stocks. Now you’re stuck fighting for survival too. It’s a race to the bottom.
There are only two real solutions: A source of energy more dense or portable than gasoline, or some form of population control. The first is difficult, the second is currently unthinkable for most people.
I agree with everything you wrote, and hence why I think plastic bags and straws and recycling in general is a waste of time and energy (ironically).
Reducing consumption by increased taxes (worldwide), and/or by reduced population, and finding an alternate source of fuel are the only solutions. But I doubt an alternative to fossil fuels with equivalent properties can be discovered in sufficient time.
Reducing consumption by increased taxes (worldwide), and/or by reduced population, and finding an alternate source of fuel are the only solutions. But I doubt an alternative to fossil fuels with equivalent properties can be discovered in sufficient time.
[deleted]
Re-use may be "preferred", but it just isn't practical most of the time. How do you reuse a plastic bottle? They're not fit to be sent back to the bottler and reused; they degrade much too quickly. Basically, to get away from plastic bottles, we'd have to go back to glass, and there's a lot of problems associated with those (high weight (more fuel consumption to transport), easy breakage, etc.).
Re-use implies non-plastic containers. We only prioritize plastic because we accept the myth of recycling. If we do not accept that myth and we prioritized re-use, we’d choose glass for drink ware as some other countries have mandated. Yes there are different costs associated with glass, but the environmental cost of plastic is not insignificant either.
Ok, so if we switch to glass for everything, how much extra fuel do we burn, and how much carbon do we pump into the atmosphere, to move all that extra weight around? Glass is really, really heavy compared to plastic. Does the savings from being able to easily reuse glass more than offset all that extra fuel burned? What about broken glass and recycling? Do we still not bother recycling the glass? Glass requires extremely high temperatures to create and form, far higher than plastic. Making those high temperatures means burning more fuel. If we're too stupid to recycle glass effectively, just like we are with plastic, then that means we need to create all virgin glass, and we also need a lot of sand to do it. From what I've read, the world is running out of usable sand.
Well we could save fuel by making the sodas slightly smaller to account for the weight of the glass. Technically not the same but it might do the trick. And we wouldn’t be recycling them, we’d be washing and reusing them. We can charge deposit fees to stimulate this, something that Coca Cola has worked hard to oppose even for plastic recycling. But it could be done.
In all I bet someone has done or could do a detailed study on this. My internet comment isn’t going to make this a law so you needn’t worry about my lack of research, but a real proposal should examine these factors.
In all I bet someone has done or could do a detailed study on this. My internet comment isn’t going to make this a law so you needn’t worry about my lack of research, but a real proposal should examine these factors.
>And we wouldn’t be recycling them, we’d be washing and reusing them.
Ok, so how much extra fuel is used by trucking all this glass back to a handful of bottling plants that are hundreds of miles away? I guess the deposit fee thing might work.
Personally, I really wonder if using aluminum isn't more environmentally friendly than this. Aluminum cans/bottles are extremely thin and lightweight, and can be easily recycled, and are one of the few things we actually do recycle effectively today, even paying people for used cans. Of course, some people complain that aluminum cans add a flavor to the drink, and there's also the issue of the plastic coating used inside modern cans.
Personally, it seems to me that most of these issues would go away if we as a society actually committed to developing serious recycling infrastructure and using it, even if it means extra taxes somewhere (whether it's directly on end-users, or on producers of plastic products).
Ok, so how much extra fuel is used by trucking all this glass back to a handful of bottling plants that are hundreds of miles away? I guess the deposit fee thing might work.
Personally, I really wonder if using aluminum isn't more environmentally friendly than this. Aluminum cans/bottles are extremely thin and lightweight, and can be easily recycled, and are one of the few things we actually do recycle effectively today, even paying people for used cans. Of course, some people complain that aluminum cans add a flavor to the drink, and there's also the issue of the plastic coating used inside modern cans.
Personally, it seems to me that most of these issues would go away if we as a society actually committed to developing serious recycling infrastructure and using it, even if it means extra taxes somewhere (whether it's directly on end-users, or on producers of plastic products).
Like I said I do not know the answers to these questions, I am only describing a possible scenario. Someone would need to research the best solutions. Aluminum does use a lot of energy to refine.
I have seen 24 ounce aluminum cans for beer though so we could see large American sodas in big cans. Not resealable though.
I think if we are willing to commit to building infrastructure, there is a lot to like about washing glass bottles. In at least one of the Nordic countries they require the use of a standard glass bottle with paper labels that wash off. With this, bottles can be returned to the closest bottler even if it’s a different brand. This keeps travel low. If bottling plants are near population centers the carbon cost of bottle transportation can be kept low.
I have seen 24 ounce aluminum cans for beer though so we could see large American sodas in big cans. Not resealable though.
I think if we are willing to commit to building infrastructure, there is a lot to like about washing glass bottles. In at least one of the Nordic countries they require the use of a standard glass bottle with paper labels that wash off. With this, bottles can be returned to the closest bottler even if it’s a different brand. This keeps travel low. If bottling plants are near population centers the carbon cost of bottle transportation can be kept low.
Aluminum uses a lot of energy to refine, but not to recycle AFAIK. Notice that aluminum is easily the most profitable thing for people to recycle; people can collect cans and take them to a recycler and get paid a fair amount of money. The same just isn't true of almost anything else (except probably copper, and of course precious metals). Even steel, which is far more dense, doesn't fetch nearly as much in scrap value.
The thing about standard glass bottles sounds pretty good, but I can't imagine that ever being legislated here in the US. It would have to be Federal, and there's no way you'll get Congresspeople from across the country to agree to something like that. It can't be state-based because then it wouldn't work: you wouldn't be able to get the standard bottle adopted even within a single city, because part of the city is in one state and part is in another state or two.
The thing about standard glass bottles sounds pretty good, but I can't imagine that ever being legislated here in the US. It would have to be Federal, and there's no way you'll get Congresspeople from across the country to agree to something like that. It can't be state-based because then it wouldn't work: you wouldn't be able to get the standard bottle adopted even within a single city, because part of the city is in one state and part is in another state or two.
Well, for items like water you just don’t use anything but a reusable container. Ever.
I think it's also due to recycling being easier to integrate into our lifestyles than reducing or reusing. We have enough wealth to just buy another, and throw the excess in the recycling bin where someone else deals with the problem.
When you visit less wealthy countries, you see people reducing and re-using. They either don't have as easy of access to all these goods, or the cost of them makes the people re-use the stuff around the house.
For example, I could use empty beer cans to start seedlings for my garden, but I've instead bought those nice black gardening pots. I have the money to and it's easier than keeping beer cans around then modifying them to drain right.
When you visit less wealthy countries, you see people reducing and re-using. They either don't have as easy of access to all these goods, or the cost of them makes the people re-use the stuff around the house.
For example, I could use empty beer cans to start seedlings for my garden, but I've instead bought those nice black gardening pots. I have the money to and it's easier than keeping beer cans around then modifying them to drain right.
It's a bit like the "is trying to reduce food waste a useful endeavor?" discussion on here a few days ago—we waste a bunch of shit because it's so cheap it's not worth saving. If you put in extra effort to save it, probably that costs more than just buying what you wanted on the market, by the time you're done. If enough people do that and demand rises prices will go up a little and waste will drop a little, too.
So really if you want to effectively cut e.g. plastic use or increase its re-use you have to make it expensive, but that's kinda contrary to the whole point of using plastic in the first place.
Similarly, as industry's really gotten good at minimizing use of materials as a cost-saving measure (I assume CAD or something has enabled this? It's very noticeable since especially the late 90s) it's made re-use harder. I've seen those good, thick old department store plastic bags live for decades as a container for occasionally-accessed stuff in storage, and plastic bottles used to be so tough you could use them for all kinds of things that modern ones would be very bad at. Old plastic storage bins may have used a lot more plastic and been more expensive but they didn't crack if you looked at them funny like the modern ones. Stuff like that. So we got "reduce" in a way, but it just made stuff even cheaper so we use more of it, and made "re-use" much less practical.
So really if you want to effectively cut e.g. plastic use or increase its re-use you have to make it expensive, but that's kinda contrary to the whole point of using plastic in the first place.
Similarly, as industry's really gotten good at minimizing use of materials as a cost-saving measure (I assume CAD or something has enabled this? It's very noticeable since especially the late 90s) it's made re-use harder. I've seen those good, thick old department store plastic bags live for decades as a container for occasionally-accessed stuff in storage, and plastic bottles used to be so tough you could use them for all kinds of things that modern ones would be very bad at. Old plastic storage bins may have used a lot more plastic and been more expensive but they didn't crack if you looked at them funny like the modern ones. Stuff like that. So we got "reduce" in a way, but it just made stuff even cheaper so we use more of it, and made "re-use" much less practical.
For storage bins/boxes, I can recommended getting a couple KLT (Kleinladungsträger). It's an industry norm from the German automobile parts manufacturers, who use it for highly automated parts handling. They're ~8$ each for the large 60x40x28cm kind, have a reinforced (grid-structure) floor and they are strong. They easily stack to >100kg (not per-box though, which is rated at iirc ~35kg (edit: 20kg)), and have a slot for a DIN-A5 sheet on one long and one short side. They're ~2.8kg injection-moulded polypropylene, and thus survive quite aggressive chemical cleaning and boiling water. You're not supposed to fill them, but I'd guess you could do it anyways (e.g., filling with warm/hot water for soaking) if otherwise unloaded and resting on flat surface. It would contain ~60l, and thus almost twice the design load, but these are robust. I climb on them in storage, and the major risk is bending a wall outwards and then breaking it by inducing that bending load with the weight on my foot.
TL;DR: buy industrial boxes. Proper German KLT https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_container are really nice. I recommend R-KLT in blue (they don't look as bland as the grey ones).
TL;DR: buy industrial boxes. Proper German KLT https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_container are really nice. I recommend R-KLT in blue (they don't look as bland as the grey ones).
Googled them, and those look like the old-school consumer ones (or a little tougher, even).
You know what? I wish Amazon had really durable boxes, like these but maybe even a bit sturdier, that you could add to an order, used as the shipping container for the rest of the stuff you ordered but also intended for re-use after arrival.
You know what? I wish Amazon had really durable boxes, like these but maybe even a bit sturdier, that you could add to an order, used as the shipping container for the rest of the stuff you ordered but also intended for re-use after arrival.
There are reusable shipping boxes made from similar materials. Those don't work as well with a robot, however.
I do still plan to get a lifting arm/manually-operated crane. It would be nice to not have to lift them with my spine, and these are made for reliably grabbing by a robot. Both from the sides and even from the top (when tightly packed).
(There are 4 access holes on the top that go down next to the grips on the short sides. A grabber uses one hook each to lock the box when unloading e.g. a pallet.)
You should be able to order from a company like Auer Packaging or a local alternative. Thankfully these are specified precisely, so manufacturers can't cheat on stability to save materials.
They actually recycle well, btw. When broken/used-up, they'll get shredded and turned back into new boxes. It works because they're pure PP and only one of a few fixed colors.
I do still plan to get a lifting arm/manually-operated crane. It would be nice to not have to lift them with my spine, and these are made for reliably grabbing by a robot. Both from the sides and even from the top (when tightly packed).
(There are 4 access holes on the top that go down next to the grips on the short sides. A grabber uses one hook each to lock the box when unloading e.g. a pallet.)
You should be able to order from a company like Auer Packaging or a local alternative. Thankfully these are specified precisely, so manufacturers can't cheat on stability to save materials.
They actually recycle well, btw. When broken/used-up, they'll get shredded and turned back into new boxes. It works because they're pure PP and only one of a few fixed colors.
I think the explanation is easier than that:
- Reduce and reuse are individual efforts that collectively mean a lot at scale.
- Recycling is something that we pay the city to do and then we don't have to think about it. Out of sight, out of mind, we've barely had to change our behavior.
But it turns out that when we abdicate individual responsibility to government and elected officials, we learn that most aren't recycling and never were. Oops.
- Reduce and reuse are individual efforts that collectively mean a lot at scale.
- Recycling is something that we pay the city to do and then we don't have to think about it. Out of sight, out of mind, we've barely had to change our behavior.
But it turns out that when we abdicate individual responsibility to government and elected officials, we learn that most aren't recycling and never were. Oops.
My understanding is that it used to be true, but recently-ish China stopped taking in our recycling and now we have nowhere to put it
Yes, they took it. But my understanding is that only a small proportion that made it to China even got recycled and much of it ended up in Chinese landfill or being incinerated [1]. Hence they banned accepting it.
1. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700782?ijkey=8...
1. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700782?ijkey=8...
[deleted]
At least now we can actually see the problem, instead of passing our "recycling" to developing countries and calling it good.
Yeah. Seen the news station talking about that a few months ago. Some cities are just taking the recyclables to the regular city dump's landfill like regular trash, and some are just burning it since that's cheaper than sending it to China... and I thought they said not to burn plastic? Well using an incinerator, not like a campfire... but still, feels a bit misleading. Then cities got grants to fund recycling and some cities even have mandatory recycling laws too for residents. Seems like we've all been scammed in a way, but I think the intentions of recycling is good.
Recycling Aluminum cans is actually much easier and better for the environment. If I recall correctly, it takes about 5% of the energy to make aluminum from recycled sources vs. from ore.
The fact that you can take cans into a recycler and get paid for them is a _really_ good indicator that recycling aluminum works.
The fact that you can take cans into a recycler and get paid for them is a _really_ good indicator that recycling aluminum works.
China did stop doing that, but they also bought shut-down paper mills in the US, and use them to process local cardboard to higher standards and then send the QA-passing resulting pulp back to china for new cardboard production. (at least, this is what was told to me from an expert in the field who researchers these things for a living).
Aluminum recycling still makes economic sense, right?
Pretty much anything that needs to come out of the ground in a form far less concentrated (aka "ore") than the form in which it is useful is economically recyclable because the product provides a more concentrated source of raw material for making into new things than the natural deposits in the earth do.
That's basically a long winded way of saying most metals are cheaper to recycle than to mine new.
That's basically a long winded way of saying most metals are cheaper to recycle than to mine new.
If I recall correctly, its like 5% of the energy to use aluminum scrap vs. ore.
Depends on how you do it. Burning electronics in African open dumps to melt their metal parts is recycling and make economical sense. It doesn't mean it's a particularly good idea though.
Metals I'm sure make sense, at least the valuable ones. I was referring to only plastic recycling.
[deleted]
Aluminium, copper and 1st grade wood-free paper.
Steel as well, but in most places in the US you don't have to bin it separately, since it's magnetic and valuable, hence easy to remove from the waste stream.
yes. it is evident by the fact that recycling centers still pay for aluminum.
Also glass bottles.
Absolutely not. Plastic recycling does exactly what it is supposed to. It helps the consumer to continue feeling good with themselves while tossing more and more plastic into their shopping carts. It gives us the feeling that we are doing nothing wrong producing each a ton of garbage every year. Plastic recycling does what it was invented to do.
Agreed, plastic should be treated as a substance which delays the burning of petrochemicals to provide power.
Also, minimized whenever possible. Cheap single-use plastics are often more trouble than they're worth.
Many people don't realize exactly how much plastic is used up in logistics, just wrapping things before they reach the consumer. It's a bit appalling.
Also, minimized whenever possible. Cheap single-use plastics are often more trouble than they're worth.
Many people don't realize exactly how much plastic is used up in logistics, just wrapping things before they reach the consumer. It's a bit appalling.
Maybe something might change => official news from Nestlè (7.Feb.2020):
> Swiss mineral water brand Henniez announced that its entire plastic bottle range is now made of 75% recycled PET plastic (rPET). Henniez has already been using 30% Swiss recycled PET since 2013 and has the clear ambition to move to 100% locally recycled PET. This will close the PET circular loop, as discarded PET bottles will be made into new Henniez recycled plastic bottles multiple times, without tapping into new oil resources.
https://www.nestle.com/media/news/henniez-mineral-water-bott...
I don't know/understand why they would use this process only for their Henniez brand. Maybe it involves $-margin or maybe they want to do this experiment without endangering all their brands, etc... .
> Swiss mineral water brand Henniez announced that its entire plastic bottle range is now made of 75% recycled PET plastic (rPET). Henniez has already been using 30% Swiss recycled PET since 2013 and has the clear ambition to move to 100% locally recycled PET. This will close the PET circular loop, as discarded PET bottles will be made into new Henniez recycled plastic bottles multiple times, without tapping into new oil resources.
https://www.nestle.com/media/news/henniez-mineral-water-bott...
I don't know/understand why they would use this process only for their Henniez brand. Maybe it involves $-margin or maybe they want to do this experiment without endangering all their brands, etc... .
Injection moulding can utilise about 30% recycled pellets to 70% of new plastic or it doesn't flow properly. Since that is how most of the mass-produced plastic used gets utilised it is a bit of an issue when the recycling volume is just 30% of the total. More problematically plastic containing prior recycled material can not be recycled again, you get just one extra use of 1/3 of it. That is basically throw away, it doesn't really recycle in any usable way.
There isn't any sort of chemistry that could be used to refine it to a higher quality state?
Certainly, you can turn plastic back into its constituents (e.g. PET into ethylene), with input of enough energy. But where do you get that energy?
Consider: any drop of fossil fuel that is spent recovering plastic back into oil, could instead have been used to make new plastic in the first place, obviating that recovery. It's more efficient to turn oil into plastic directly, than to use oil to turn plastic into oil, and then turn that oil into plastic.
And, of course, any watt of renewable energy used on this process, is one that drives up grid demand and thus makes fossil fuels more competitive as grid base-load supply...
Consider: any drop of fossil fuel that is spent recovering plastic back into oil, could instead have been used to make new plastic in the first place, obviating that recovery. It's more efficient to turn oil into plastic directly, than to use oil to turn plastic into oil, and then turn that oil into plastic.
And, of course, any watt of renewable energy used on this process, is one that drives up grid demand and thus makes fossil fuels more competitive as grid base-load supply...
I agree that it's not as effective as it should be but things like this do exist: https://breezesta.com/
Lookup "greenwashing" and who (hint, corporations as people) actually founded "Keep America Beautiful"...
It seems very strange to attack Coke and Pepsi for this. Shouldn't the target be recycling programs that claim to be recycling plastic bottles, but actually don't?
https://www.earthisland.org/images/uploads/suits/2020-02-26_...
From the Table of Contents:
A. Defendants created the condition of plastic pollution, which is extraordinarily harmful to humans, animals, and the environment. 22
B. As Defendants have known for decades, recycling by itself cannot prevent plastic pollution from damaging oceans, waterways, and coasts 29
C. Defendants refuse to adopt more sustainable alternatives in order reap higher profits resulting from using virgin plastic. 37
D. Defendants’ decades-long campaign of misinformation about their Products’ recyclability puts the cost of plastic pollution on consumers and public entities. 39
From the Table of Contents:
A. Defendants created the condition of plastic pollution, which is extraordinarily harmful to humans, animals, and the environment. 22
B. As Defendants have known for decades, recycling by itself cannot prevent plastic pollution from damaging oceans, waterways, and coasts 29
C. Defendants refuse to adopt more sustainable alternatives in order reap higher profits resulting from using virgin plastic. 37
D. Defendants’ decades-long campaign of misinformation about their Products’ recyclability puts the cost of plastic pollution on consumers and public entities. 39
The actual claims being cited are:
* Violating §1770(a)(5,7,9) of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which is effectively a false advertising law.
* Public nuisance
* Express warranty violation (again, basically "this product doesn't do what you told me it would do")
* Strict liability claims for environment damage (as far as I can make it out)
* Negligence claims for the above as well.
The first and third claims are really, really hard to substantiate because the plaintiffs are arguing on the basis that the claim of "recyclable" should be interpreted as "actually recycled in practice" as opposed to the definition of "recyclable" that appears in regulation... I can't see a judge buying that. I imagine the last two claims will fail due to lack of direct harm--I'm not intimately familiar with California law here, but they're not citing any particular law or precedent to establish why they have standing to sue on the basis of only general public harm. Public nuisance is the only claim I could see standing, but even then, the rather indirect nature is going to make this difficult to sustain.
In short, this appears to me to be more of a "we're suing them to make a statement" kind of case than a "we're suing them because we actually have a legal claim" kind.
* Violating §1770(a)(5,7,9) of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which is effectively a false advertising law.
* Public nuisance
* Express warranty violation (again, basically "this product doesn't do what you told me it would do")
* Strict liability claims for environment damage (as far as I can make it out)
* Negligence claims for the above as well.
The first and third claims are really, really hard to substantiate because the plaintiffs are arguing on the basis that the claim of "recyclable" should be interpreted as "actually recycled in practice" as opposed to the definition of "recyclable" that appears in regulation... I can't see a judge buying that. I imagine the last two claims will fail due to lack of direct harm--I'm not intimately familiar with California law here, but they're not citing any particular law or precedent to establish why they have standing to sue on the basis of only general public harm. Public nuisance is the only claim I could see standing, but even then, the rather indirect nature is going to make this difficult to sustain.
In short, this appears to me to be more of a "we're suing them to make a statement" kind of case than a "we're suing them because we actually have a legal claim" kind.
Geez, only claim D even makes conceptual sense to try in court.
This suit is an awful idea.
This suit is an awful idea.
While you may only be able to win on one count, you get discovery for all of them. The idea is good, if your goal is to legally investigate.
> While you may only be able to win on one count, you get discovery for all of them.
Even if the court decides that you haven't stated a justiciable claim?
Even if the court decides that you haven't stated a justiciable claim?
You gotta speak in the language that corporations understand. Lawsuits and regulations...
Filing a nuisance lawsuit is certainly something people understand, but the only result you're going to get is that you get laughed out of court while everyone learns you're an idiot.
There's a difference between (1) trying to speak to someone in a language they understand, and (2) imagining what you think that would be like, doing that without reference to whether it makes any sense, and then congratulating yourself for your penetrating insight. You can't speak to someone in a language that they understand but you don't!
There's a difference between (1) trying to speak to someone in a language they understand, and (2) imagining what you think that would be like, doing that without reference to whether it makes any sense, and then congratulating yourself for your penetrating insight. You can't speak to someone in a language that they understand but you don't!
If you knowingly produce single-use items that are neither biodegradable nor recyclable, you share culpability.
What law or contract?
How were the labels wrong?
There is nothing in this article and I'm sure your view of all single use products must be biodegradable or recyclable isn't law.
How were the labels wrong?
There is nothing in this article and I'm sure your view of all single use products must be biodegradable or recyclable isn't law.
Moral culpability. It should be legal culpability as well, but we haven't written the law yet.
This thread and the article are both about a lawsuit. Saying they should be culpable would imply legal culpability in this context, of which they have none.
If you make a product where the packaging kills you then it is illegal. But if you make one where it kills lots of people much later then you are fine?
Your theory makes the EPA rather pointless.
Your theory makes the EPA rather pointless.
Something being legal at a given point in time doesn't make it an absolute truth. Look at slavery, torture, age of consent, I'm sure it all sounded very good to the guys in charge back in the days. In a few centuries people will look back at us and wonder why the fuck we were so stupid.
I mean, just think about it for a single second, who profit from these things beside big corporations, certainly not me, you or our future descendants.
I mean, just think about it for a single second, who profit from these things beside big corporations, certainly not me, you or our future descendants.
Making false and misleading claims to consumers. The suit alleges Coke & Pepsi (and others) engaged in consumer-targeted campaigns to label their plastic packaging as "recyclable" even though they knew they were producing more plastic packaging than all of the recycling facilities in the US combined could have possibly processed.
According to https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/260.12 , they would be in the clear as long as 60+% of users have access to recycling facilities/programs for these products.
This is surely the case since nearly every municipality has some program in place. The obvious problem is that these cities aren't actually recycling things while claiming they are -- possibly even requiring people to recycle. It looks to me like cities need to be sued to remove these plastics from the programs. Then 60% wouldn't have access to recycling programs, and then it would be deceptive to label it as recyclable.
Another avenue would be a change by legislation.
For all the outrage, this lawsuit is going nowhere.
And before I'm called a shill: Don't drink Coke. Don't drink Pepsi. Don't drink bottled water.
I'm just a fan of the law being knowable -- oh, and articles having substance.
This is surely the case since nearly every municipality has some program in place. The obvious problem is that these cities aren't actually recycling things while claiming they are -- possibly even requiring people to recycle. It looks to me like cities need to be sued to remove these plastics from the programs. Then 60% wouldn't have access to recycling programs, and then it would be deceptive to label it as recyclable.
Another avenue would be a change by legislation.
For all the outrage, this lawsuit is going nowhere.
And before I'm called a shill: Don't drink Coke. Don't drink Pepsi. Don't drink bottled water.
I'm just a fan of the law being knowable -- oh, and articles having substance.
They aren't alleging a violation of FTC marketing guidelines, they're alleging a violation of California marketing guidance, which sets a higher (though still, as far as I can tell, optional) standard. Regardless, a company can still be culpable and held liable for wrongdoing even if they've dutifully followed "industry standards".
I agree the lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere. But many people said the same about the lawsuits against big tobacco. And even if the lawsuit is tossed at the very first opportunity the organization has called attention to some of the worst actors when it comes to plastic production. I'd call that a win.
Either way it's the way our system slowly but sure gets the wheels of progress spinning.
I agree the lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere. But many people said the same about the lawsuits against big tobacco. And even if the lawsuit is tossed at the very first opportunity the organization has called attention to some of the worst actors when it comes to plastic production. I'd call that a win.
Either way it's the way our system slowly but sure gets the wheels of progress spinning.
No Dumping - the same laws that are broken if you toss a TV on the side of the road. That the stuff passes through intermediaries doesn't matter if you know its inevitable destination.
Hustlers that stand on city corners pushing junk flyers onto passers-by, creating a pile of discards 20 feet down the street, are in the same boat.
Hustlers that stand on city corners pushing junk flyers onto passers-by, creating a pile of discards 20 feet down the street, are in the same boat.
> Hustlers that stand on city corners pushing junk flyers onto passers-by, creating a pile of discards 20 feet down the street, are in the same boat.
Paper degrades naturally, and most paper in the West is now produced from sustainable sources. So, paper littering is not as deleterious as plastic that doesn’t get properly recycled.
Paper degrades naturally, and most paper in the West is now produced from sustainable sources. So, paper littering is not as deleterious as plastic that doesn’t get properly recycled.
Not strange at all. These are two highly toxic companies, in the same class as Philip Morris Tobacco. Everything they do is to maximise profit and to push all negative externalities (harmful effects on consumer health, environmental pollution & degradation) onto society. They should be prosecuted and regulated to the hilt until they are no longer generating such massive negative externalities (at which point they would either have reformed themselves or gone out of business).
1) Coke & Pepsi aren't being attacked; they're the names in the headline of TFA
2) There are five other companies named in TFA (of the ten named in the suit described in TFA)
2) There are five other companies named in TFA (of the ten named in the suit described in TFA)
This is similar to how Foxconn issues are always headlined "iPhone factory does XXXXXXX", despite iPhones making up just a minuscule faction of Foxconns total output
They have money so they are being sued.
A few years ago I came up with the idea that instead of funding facial recognition, image-recognition technology could be used at dumps to recognize the brands associated with unrecycled trash passing through the chutes, then using that data to tax companies whose consumers create the most litter and throw away the most recyclables.
What is the lie that Coke et al are being accused of making?
This may be exactly the way to make change happen here in America. Corporations only understand the language of financial incentive. Coke and Pepsi and all single-use manufacturers need to be responsible for the costs of recycling the containers they create. In Germany, rulings and regulations in this vein have increased the proportion of recycled products to over 66%[1]. If corporations have no economic incentive to create recyclable products, they will act to externalize those costs as much as possible. With the worldwide economies of scale that Coke and Pepsi can leverage, we enter into a self-reinforcing plastic-industry sustaining death spiral.
1. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/dsd/... [pdf warning]
1. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/dsd/... [pdf warning]
Shouldn't we want this to actually end up in a landfill? That would be at least some kind of a carbon sink.
That's less of a carbon sink and more of a kick-the-can approach (no pun intended).
May have been posted before, but I found it relevant that the "Georgia Recycling Coalition" put a hard stop on the suggestion of a bottle tax to help with recycling efforts.
“With the investment that Coke is getting ready to make in Atlanta and in other major cities across the U.S. with this World Without Waste (campaign), it is not going to be a part of that conversation.”
https://www.wypr.org/post/investigation-digs-eco-corruption-...
“With the investment that Coke is getting ready to make in Atlanta and in other major cities across the U.S. with this World Without Waste (campaign), it is not going to be a part of that conversation.”
https://www.wypr.org/post/investigation-digs-eco-corruption-...
I listened to a podcast with one of the former heads of the EPA and one of the challenges is that the petroleum industry actively favors non-reuse so they can keep selling more plastic.
Edit: Here's the podcast: https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/to-the-point/the-high-cost-o...