Making the producers responsible for the disposal might be the best way. I don't exactly know how it would be implemented but I'd like to see it for packaging too.
Local authorities should be able to collect up all Mcdonalds packaging and hand it back to them. Make them responsible for its disposal. Then they will be incentivised to reduce the amount of packaging that they produce.
> Local authorities should be able to collect up all Mcdonalds packaging and hand it back to them.
Absolutely!
It is far too easy to create disposable crap that ends up dumped all over the planet. I get so frustrated seeing garbage all over the place in natural places.
I do think its a lot easier to focus on the higher ticket items first.
The amount of plastic and paper packaging/marketing that you are forced to accept and dispose of when you buy products is getting extreme. I recently bought a micro-sd card, and had to dispose of: 1. the large shipping package, 2. the enormous (in volume and mass) product plastic shell package, 3. the glossy paper marketing insert inside the package, 4. the user’s manual (!), 5. the unwanted microsd-to-sd adapter. Probably 99.5% of the mass shipped to me was trash. Ridiculous that the manufacturer and shipper can just externalize that cost onto me and inevitably the environment.
I’d expect they could ship me the bare sd card in a tiny envelope without all that waste if they were incentivized to.
Buying in-store or via delivery service (as opposed to Amazon) is almost guaranteed to increase the amount of plastic packaging. Many stores have those stupid anti-consumer clamshell packages (mostly to reduce shoplifting, but at high environmental cost).
Let's not forget all the packaging in shipping the item to the destination as well (that you don't see because it's discarded in the shipping room floor).
It's gotten to the point where I simply don't buy unless I absolutely need it anymore.
Ordering 2 items from Amazon will almost certainly result in two separate packages being shipped to you. (At least that’s my experience here in Germany - YMMV.)
I have almost always gotten them in the same box. Often the box might be a little big, but when two things come from Amazon at the same time they invariably show up in the same box.
I had the same experience with a local webshop here (bol.com). I needed two types of batteries but these webshops are more like marketplaces. They don't have a feature to search for items from a particular vendor. But I was able to simply browse and order the two types of batteries from a single vendor.
Next day: two packages. From the same vendor.
(Now that I think about it, the original sin was buying a product that is not rechargeable.)
The market could fix this if retailers were legally required to publish a searchable packaging database listing the total amount of packaging they use per item sold. Comparisons could be made. Worst offenders singled out. Consumers could force change by having the knowledge to make an informed decision.
You guys are forgetting another part of the chain, which can make decisions - consumers. If cost of throwing something away increases - may be that will make consumers choose something more reliable and serviceable. As if right now residential trash pickup service probably covers just the labor and machinery to get trash to the landfill
Laws like this are basically doomed at the start because consumers have very little choice in the amount of garbage they produce. It just ends up being an extra cost on consumers while the companies actually producing the trash go unpunished. There are some discretionary purchases like cards, wrapping paper, gift bags, single-use plastic bags that might move the needle a little but the bulk of my trash is packaging for stuff I have no choice but to take on. I can't give it back, I can't bring reusable containers, recycling won't take it.
> Laws like this are basically doomed at the start because consumers have very little choice in the amount of garbage they produce
Yep; and even if it turns out that there are two companies who offer products in the same market place, one with a kilogram of useless packaging and the other without any, it doesn't mean that the packaging is a salient distinction. I can't decide "I want to buy an iPhone without useless packaging" and the choice "Should I buy an iPhone with packaging or a lowend Android phone without packaging" isn't actually a plausible decision.
The result? Televisions are one of the most common forms of road trash now. Often on the way to/ from the dump. As soon as you charge someone to get rid of something, the temptation to just dump it on the side of the road increases.
Roads, or rivers. In rural areas of Poland, it's still common to find illegal trash dumps in the woods or by the streams; any ditch will do. And there goes everything, from biowaste to furniture and television sets.
Yeah. One of the places I ride has a few very conspicuous dumps of obvious construction trash and it is extremely irritating. In this case, it's a bunch of asphalt roofing... very heavy and likely expensive at the dump.
Its bad enough I almost think we should just eliminate all dump fees and charge everything upstream. If you charge for disposal at the time of sale, then you don't need to charge at the time of disposal. Then you remove the incentive to dump elsewhere.
> You guys are forgetting another part of the chain, which can make decisions - consumers.
Bad idea. The market is supposed to process information for us. Consumers are just individuals who know what they need and what they want, but not much else. The market (if we are to believe the hype) can process enough information to make selfish actors in aggregate cooperate. So why not let the market solve it?
Consumer-responsibility is pure propaganda: in the same way “we” (collectively) drop plastic into the middle of the ocean, “we” (chiefly the corporations and their marketing departments) drop the symbolic responsibility on consumers.
having end-users "compute" is the most distributed form that is available. You just need to provide a necessary input for the computation (cost of disposing what they bought). In fact, I almost finished my response with "so why not let the market solve it?" =)
Charging to dispose of waste is a bad idea. In my country they tried charging for non-separated waste. It just increased the number of illegal dumps and garbage disposed in the wrong container by a massive amount.
Some notes about how all this is handled in Switzerland:
1- electronics HW (HDD, TV, microSD-card, etc..) recycling costs are already embedded in the cost of any new stuff that is sold (there is a little bit of extra price to be paid when buying new HW, that in turn will cover the costs to recycle the old HW that is probably being replaced or that will be replaced in the future). People dump their old HW to collection centers for free, which is then partially recycled (current technology cannot yet recover all metals etc.. contained in HW).
2- Some specific trash (e.g. PET, metals, etc...) can be brought to recycling collection centers and dumped there for free, which is then recycled.
3- To "motivate" people to produce as less non-recyclable trash as possible and to get rid of recyclable stuff in the right way (points #1 & #2), anything that gets into the non-recyclable trash must be paid for - e.g. we have to pay ~2 USD for a 35-liters trash bag, big objects need a special "sticker" that must be bought (don't remember how much it costs) => normal trash bags and big stuff without sticker don't get collected, so you cannot just leave them on the street.
In general, during the last years this put quite some pressure as well on the retailers (meaning the final shops from which you buy stuff): in the past they used e.g. the many small chunks of polystyrene ( https://www.vertapak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/polyst... ) to cushion what was in their packages, but now they all almost always use small inflatable bags - in both cases still plastic, but the amount of material is like 1000 times lower. They did it because many people continuously complained a bit to them that on one hand polystyrene wasn't environmental, but as well or especially because they had to use a lot of space in the "special costly trash bag" to throw that stuff away.
I admit that I'm not the best recycler (PET+HW+batteries+lightbulbs+clothes always, but rarely stuff like metal and glass and paper), but in the end I think that I'm at least "ok".
Switzerland doesn't have a nation-wide law about it, and if I want I can still throw away stuff into the non-recyclable loop, but if I do it then I have to pay for it (by buying the special trash bag or sticker) as I usually do when I throw away cans and bottles mixed with other stuff => freedom, but at a price - that sentence does sound horrible but in this context of recycling it just makes sense, and for me it works absolutely well :)
Similar situation in Ireland to above regulations and processes. Also, if you buy anything with a plug, the retailer must accept the equivalent appliance you are replacing and recycle.
> the retailer must accept the equivalent appliance you are replacing and recycle.
Interesting - to be honest I'm not sure if Switzerland has the same rule or not - so far I always brought my old stuff to local retailers even if I didn't buy anything from them - usually we just leave the stuff outside of the shop in some designated areas. It could be that the retailers then "get a cut" on what is sent to be recycled, I honestly don't know, but so far nobody ever complained to me.
One thing that is not so great is that outside of those shops there are usually "scavengers" (trying to find something valuable that can be reused or sold - quite good chances for that to happen in Switzerland) that can make quite a mess (e.g. they might break a TV-panel trying to reach for whatever is behind them => glass everywhere on the floor).
I usually position my own stuff tactically to avoid that and leave on it a post-it stating something like "panel has broken pixels" or "device works but battery cannot be charged" or "works perfectly it was just old", etc... => little effort for me, less effort for the scavengers and the shop's recycling area doesn't get messed up :)
You're right, it does happen, but not frequently respectively on a large scale.
For example:
1- it does happen that sometimes some illegal trash bags are found in the woods (most of the time it's still in trash bags and not spread everywhere as they usually don't contain animal/vegetable stuff, as that would anyway be free to be disposed of, therefore animals don't sniff it therefore they don't mess it up), but then they're reported to the police/municipality by whoever discovered them and are then collected.
2- same thing in urban areas: sometimes (very rarely as much as I know and have experienced) some "illegal" trash bags show up in your own trash-container, then usually you have to talk to the trash collector and they'll still pick it up.
But:
- about case #2, as mentioned in Wikipedia, the analysis of what's contained in the illegal trash does happen for real (kind of "CSI: Trash"), so if I would put into it something which shows my name (e.g. old newspaper) then I would be screwed (probably not the first time, but I would be by the 2nd or 3rd time that the same thing happens). Even if I would do everything perfectly then after at least the 2nd time all neighbours would all try to find the perpetrator => high risk.
- about case #1 and in general, the country is small and has a relatively high density in the habitable areas (e.g. not in the mountains) => many eyes around, so if you keep doing that twice or three times you are likely to be noticed by somebody, who will report that to the police or at least the municipality - same thing about rural areas (fewer eyes but as well fewer visitors, therefore likeliness of being observed doing something bad after repeated offense is still high). Nothing in the mountains as far a I know (too much effort driving up there to then take the risk to dump stuff while potentially being photographed from the other side of the valley by e.g. someone that was doing trekking).
I believe that we don't have problems with electronics like TVs, washing machines, HDDs, fridges, etc... because you can just dump them for free at any shop that sells them (that's the embedded-tax-thing I mentioned above), so it would be a waste of time & effort plus a lot of risk to dump them into the woods instead of doing the same thing comfortably and officially at any such shop (I admit that some shops get more old stuff than others due to their location and parking space, but nothing is perfect).
In bigger countries that have more open/free space, illegal dumping would most probably be a much bigger problem. But on one hand people that do repeated illegal dumping could still be caught, and on the other hand the target is never 100% - already having something like 75% of the population sticking to the waste disposal rules (recycling being a subset) is probably a huge improvement vs. doing nothing :)
Eg near me is a nice park. Every single evening the car park gets a dump of McDonalds and Wendy’s rubbish.
Yes, it’s their customers and not them, but if those companies addressed their waste by creating less, making more efficient packaging or finding other ways to improve the situation, they would make way more difference than any customer could.
I truly do not understand people who whip trash out the window of their car. It's not even convenient to maneuver around in a car to collect trash from in there. And you have nothing to do while you sit at the gas pump, where there are conspicuously placed trash receptacles...
Personally, I think they should drop the fines for littering and change it to being required to clean up litter for some duration, maybe 20 hours.
Go see the fruits of your labor, and what it takes to clean up after you and what we put city workers through to clean up.
Germany has had this for years. Producers have to pay a recycling fee covering the disposal of the packaging they use. The yellow garbage can for recyclables is paid for by that fee. Also, merchants have to take back and dispose of any packaging they sell or use to ship.
Hasn't really helped, amount of packaging is still increasing.
It's really not something we can control effectively as consumers. My supermarket sells fruits and vegetables mostly pre-packaged. Fees are not enough, we need to make this kind of barely useful plastic containers illegal. Potatoes don't need to come in plastic containers.
The "make producers pay" trope is also a fallacy imho. Packaging cost is just passed through the price to the consumer. Packaging and recycling are quite cheap for most products, so unpackaged goods are barely cheaper (often even more expensive, since enviromentally conscious stuff is "premium"). And unpackaged goods are damaged more often than properly packaged ones, so they'll rot on the shelves to be thrown away in a higher proportion. Consumers like their products nice and undamaged in presentable packaging, so they will subconciously prefer packaged goods. Therefore even with a slight decrease in per-item profits, producers will choose prettier packaging. So with only a slight price increase like paying for recycling, packaging will stay.
So to get rid of plastic packaging, we either need to ban it, make it vastly more expensive, far more than the consumer would want to bear, so they'd pick something unpackaged. But that is dangerous, because a cartel of producers could stay with packaging, then it is just another tax the consumer cannot avoid. Or we need to just ban certain kinds of packaging.
Also, there are hurdles for the sale of unpackaged goods, e.g. meat: I cannot take my own (reusable) plastic or metal box to the butcher's and have it filled with meat because of hygiene regulations preventing the butcher from handling my box. Supermarkets also are ill-equiped to deal with unpackaged goods in great quantities, dispensers, scales and stuff needs vastly more space. Just imagine the jam-shelf taking up as much space as the produce section, with some sticky floor due to the drippings...
> The "make producers pay" trope is also a fallacy imho. Packaging cost is just passed through the price to the consumer. Packaging and recycling are quite cheap for most products, so unpackaged goods are barely cheaper (often even more expensive, since enviromentally conscious stuff is "premium").
It’s not a fallacy. The tax is just too low. Keep raising the tax on plastic until it curbs behavior, problem solved.
The real problem is this is an unpopular solution, as most people like the convenience of plastic, and therefore politically untenable.
It’s always been a simple solution. Keep increasing tax on fossil fuels until it reduces consumption. But that means people giving up their large spread out homes and vacations and large vehicles and plastic wrapped goods. Therefore it hasn’t happened, and probably won’t until the environment changes enough to force people.
That's unpopular in part because it's extremely regressive. The amount you will have to change your life is going to be directly related to how wealthy you are. The rich are unlikely to change. They'll simply pay more and move on, or dodge it by refueling and shopping in other countries. The middle class will have some adjustments. Maybe running the heat less, maybe they trade in their SUV for a sedan, maybe they vacation less. They'll get by fine.
The poor will be utterly destroyed by this. Their cars are often the worst polluters because they're old (and may have had the catyllitic converter stolen in a bad neighborhood). Food costs will go up due to increased transportation costs (and possibly packaging costs, if suitable green replacements can't be found). Their homes are extremely unlikely to have modern, energy efficient upgrades (things like windows, more modern insulation, even sealing around windows might be bad). Their appliances are likewise unlikely to be modern and energy efficient. And supply and demand is not a good answer. If it was, no one would be living in those anyways. No one wants to live with a draft, but sometimes your options are a drafty apartment in a bad part of town, or a drafty apartment in a worse part of town.
I do think it's doable, but it needs to be a lot more nuanced than "tax fossil fuels until people cave". That foists most of the problem onto the people with the least means to change.
> That's unpopular in part because it's extremely regressive. The amount you will have to change your life is going to be directly related to how wealthy you are. The rich are unlikely to change. They'll simply pay more and move on, or dodge it by refueling and shopping in other countries.
Wealth inequality is a different problem, and has a different solution (taxes on wealth and income and otherwise redistribution of wealth).
Want people to use fewer fossil fuels? Make fossil fuels more costly.
Want people to have more equal lives? Make wealth inequality more costly.
And this would have to be a global solution, with the quality of life for the people used to using tons of fossil fuels (America, Western Europe, etc) going down towards the quality of life of people in poorer countries who don’t use as many fossil fuels.
And that is not acceptable to pretty much all people in the developed world, rich or poor.
Whereas I agree, it is never so easy. For example, Oregon banned many single use plastic shopping bags. They went away briefly; however, a workaround has been found by stores. They are now using much heavier plastic bags and calling them "reusable". But most people seem to just treat them like the old disposable ones. So a well intentioned, but heavy handed law has put us a step back. We are now using more plastic per bag... The market is very creative, and bans must be made carefully to avoid making a situation worse.
In Germany you just pay for individual bags if you want them, sometimes they’re plastic and sometimes paper, depends on the shop. As far as I can tell this is way more effective than an outright ban, I hardly ever see people buying the bags unless they’ve really forgotten or are tourists.
Not sure, theoretically the cost should just have shifted from the garbage can fees to the increase in product prices. But of course the garbage can fees are steadily rising...
Local authorities should be able to collect up all Mcdonalds packaging and hand it back to them. Make them responsible for its disposal. Then they will be incentivised to reduce the amount of packaging that they produce.