If gov’ts had kept on top of the companies and created prohibitive rules around single-use plastics (and chemical use … see PFOS/PFAS) in the 70’s, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Instead they just let companies do whatever they wanted 'cause capitalism is god.
And now it’s so far gone that doing the bare minimum for the environment is great for their image so let’s dump more money into advertising that than actually making a meaningful change.
If the companies had to pay per bottle, do you really think they’d still be using single use packaging like that?
If it’s the same 5/10/25c per container, then they very likely will. Consumers have already decided that this price is worth paying for the convenience, so it makes little difference if companies paid this and passed on the cost to consumer, or if it’s transparently shown as a separate reimbursable fee. In the end, all the costs get passed on to consumers and it’s left to us to vote with our wallets. I think the main issue is that the cost of producing containers doesn’t reflect the true long term cost, and the solution to that is probably to impose a tax based on the amount of material used. That way, consumers making the choice that’s right for them will also mean making the choice that’s right for everyone else.
If the companies had to pay per bottle, do you really think they’d still be using single use packaging like that?
They’d install refill stations in stores and sell you a reusable bottle that you can fill up from their metered tap at the refill station.
Companies created the problem of single use packaging; the onus is not on individuals to solve a problem created by companies.
Not if it costs more to develop, install, and maintain a refill system. Much more likely they would just raise the price to the consumer anyway.
If gov’ts had kept on top of the companies and created prohibitive rules around single-use plastics (and chemical use … see PFOS/PFAS) in the 70’s, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Instead they just let companies do whatever they wanted 'cause capitalism is god.
And now it’s so far gone that doing the bare minimum for the environment is great for their image so let’s dump more money into advertising that than actually making a meaningful change.
If it’s the same 5/10/25c per container, then they very likely will. Consumers have already decided that this price is worth paying for the convenience, so it makes little difference if companies paid this and passed on the cost to consumer, or if it’s transparently shown as a separate reimbursable fee. In the end, all the costs get passed on to consumers and it’s left to us to vote with our wallets. I think the main issue is that the cost of producing containers doesn’t reflect the true long term cost, and the solution to that is probably to impose a tax based on the amount of material used. That way, consumers making the choice that’s right for them will also mean making the choice that’s right for everyone else.