The cost to dispose or recycle should be paid by the companies that produce the product. Products would waste less material and recycling would be profitable for recycling companies doing a public service.
Yes, companies will want to make customers eat that cost. I don’t know if there is a legislative solution for that or what.
IIRC, that’s actually how it was set up to begin with, way back when we used glass bottles for Coke. Big companies manipulated us consumers into thinking we were being lazy for not taking care of recycling ourselves and that’s how we got to this mess today.
People are like “but the plastic bottle is free and easy”, and I’m like that’s because all those costs are paid for later, by everyone. It’s really frustrating but common short sightedness.
No one should be allowed to product something without a plan for disposing of it safely and without environmental cost. I’m willing to suffer the inconvenience of carrying a reusable bag if it means less environmental destruction.
If the companies try and make the consumer eat the cost, then the companies who sell their products in cardboard packaging instead of plastic will be able to sell it for cheaper and potentially steal business from the others. There are plenty of products sold in plastic which do not need to be.
a free market argument? lol, the free market got us INTO this mess, they will lock step and increase prices both by the amount of extra costs, as well as an extra 10% to make shareholders happy and continue record profits
The free market got us into this mess because we don’t price in externalities; forcing companies to cover the cost of disposal of their packaging helps fix that. It’s the same idea as a carbon tax
As far as I know, that has only failed when we allow corporations to take our money and resources without our input. That’s exactly what this proposal is meant to address.
You can literally just put a tax on new plastic bottles vs recycled plastic bottles and the issue solves itself, the issue with recycling is that it’s not economically viable.
Customers will indeed eat the cost. The idea is that a competitor uses something else and makes a cheaper product. Unfortunately the taxes are never really enough, so you just end up with the same plastic use and a token amount going to a third world farmer to scatter some tree seeds in a field.
If a product cost more, you won’t buy as much or waste as much or you will end up using something cheaper.
If the rule is that using plastic is now higher cost, we will start looking for cheaper alternatives. That’s how it will work. So yes, for a while, consumer goods will cost more.
The cost to dispose or recycle should be paid by the companies that produce the product. Products would waste less material and recycling would be profitable for recycling companies doing a public service.
Yes, companies will want to make customers eat that cost. I don’t know if there is a legislative solution for that or what.
IIRC, that’s actually how it was set up to begin with, way back when we used glass bottles for Coke. Big companies manipulated us consumers into thinking we were being lazy for not taking care of recycling ourselves and that’s how we got to this mess today.
People are like “but the plastic bottle is free and easy”, and I’m like that’s because all those costs are paid for later, by everyone. It’s really frustrating but common short sightedness.
No one should be allowed to product something without a plan for disposing of it safely and without environmental cost. I’m willing to suffer the inconvenience of carrying a reusable bag if it means less environmental destruction.
If the companies try and make the consumer eat the cost, then the companies who sell their products in cardboard packaging instead of plastic will be able to sell it for cheaper and potentially steal business from the others. There are plenty of products sold in plastic which do not need to be.
a free market argument? lol, the free market got us INTO this mess, they will lock step and increase prices both by the amount of extra costs, as well as an extra 10% to make shareholders happy and continue record profits
The free market got us into this mess because we don’t price in externalities; forcing companies to cover the cost of disposal of their packaging helps fix that. It’s the same idea as a carbon tax
how’s that carbon tax been working out, huh?
Probably not as well as cap and trade would have, but better than nothing
Where’s the problem? If they use more environmentally friendly packaging, then they get more profits. There’s no incentive to use anything else.
I’m sorry, but did “voting with your wallet” ever work?
As far as I know, that has only failed when we allow corporations to take our money and resources without our input. That’s exactly what this proposal is meant to address.
You can literally just put a tax on new plastic bottles vs recycled plastic bottles and the issue solves itself, the issue with recycling is that it’s not economically viable.
Customers will indeed eat the cost. The idea is that a competitor uses something else and makes a cheaper product. Unfortunately the taxes are never really enough, so you just end up with the same plastic use and a token amount going to a third world farmer to scatter some tree seeds in a field.
If a product cost more, you won’t buy as much or waste as much or you will end up using something cheaper.
If the rule is that using plastic is now higher cost, we will start looking for cheaper alternatives. That’s how it will work. So yes, for a while, consumer goods will cost more.