I think it's important to look at these qualitative issues especially given how the quantitative effects of measures to reduce poverty are almost universally agreed upon to be very impressive.
My liberal side says this: we should petition governments (despite the fact that not a single petition to the UK parliament has been successful?) to act on such pressing issues by imposing penalties for use of substances known to be ecologically harmful. Granted, collective action and personal responsibility is still needed, but it's easier to pressure your government than it is global capital, since the leverage of a government is more than the sum of its "parts" (the people).
Great change is rarely brought about with merely individual action.
Hmm... I specifically mentioned collective action. But I think there’s more we can do than vote. We can work to reduce our impact, tell everyone how we did it, and then form collectives that embody our goals. I prefer the notion of supporting companies that care rather than forcing companies that don’t care to act like they do. Perhaps it’s good to force bad actors to comply to some minimum level, but voluntary action can go much farther. For example we’re unlikely to solve the climate impacts of meat consumption with the law - because we probably can’t ban meat consumption - but voluntary veganism makes a big impact over time.
Is that actually true?
Although I guess 'great', 'rarely', and what counts as individual action or not are so vague as to make that impossible to test. ...It just makes me feel I need do nothing. But I don't like that word 'merely', begging the question there.
And markets carry no detergents in reusable containers you could 'vote' for in this manner.
* Your democratic vote (local / and national)
* Where you spend your money.
* Where you spend your time.
You cannot refrain from voting and all votes are counted.
Vote wisely.
Branding. You have no control because literally the only reason that that stuff is used is to trick and manipulate you. This sort of packaging then becomes necessary under capitalism, because any company breaking from the consensus immediately loses any distinction as a brand that would allow consumers to reward them.
I think the only hope in future is with businesses like Aldi, who hearken back to a time when you chose your grocery store based on the quality of their products, rather than choosing it because they carry a particular brand. If stores start debranding products as they come in, and selling based on the store's own brand reputation of good quality at a good price i.e. become editorial (rather than the bizarre current platform model where brands bribe the store for better placement), there's nothing stopping them from selling detergent in bulk, next to the reusable containers to carry it home in.
Brands do matter. A company that cares about its workers needs some way to be recognized so that consumers can support them, etc. but somehow we’ve taken branding to such an extreme that we will throw away mountains of single use plastic just to keep that train rolling.
We’ve got to find a better way.
The day that manufacturers, or retailers will, by law, be required to generate net-zero garbage, is the day that this will happen. [1]
Until that day comes, nobody will give two shits about spending money on reducing waste. The cost, to me, of having my personal junk hauled away to a landfill, or dumped into the ocean, is minimal. The cost, to a store, of selling me products wrapped in six layers of plastic, that I will throw out, is non-existent. The cost, to a manufacturer, to produce such a product is actually a net gain (Because the disposable wrapping keeps the product safe during shipping.)
Until producing waste costs something, nobody will work very hard on optimizing it. Make someone pay through the nose for dealing with the trash, and you'll get a revolution in recycling, reduction, and re-use.
[1] Yes, this is draconian. It's also about the only thing that will make real changes to how our society produces waste.
In other words more efficient sorting won't result in more recycling unless recycling becomes worthwhile (profitable).
One way to make it “profitable” would be to put exorbitant taxes on virgin plastics or petroleum derived plastics.
Recycling presumably puts much less new CO2 into their air than making it new, and so would incentivize recycling more.
I don't think this is the case for a few things... paper, cardboard, etc.
Metals are worth it though -- hence why some places will pay for it.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't. If it did recycled products would be cheaper than new, but they aren't.
It depends a lot on how much free labor AKA consumer pre-sorting you get though. Countries where this is seen as normal and expected have workable recycling.
That's not in the past; it still happens across Europe. A lot of "recycling" is actually just shifting carbon emissions from Europe to developing nations.
In the US, states with refunds are usually 5 or 10 cents. So, a week's worth of recycling is maybe worth $2-3 - not really worth sorting and taking yourself. If it was worth $20/week or more, you'd have a lot more people opting to do it themselves, leading to a ton of otherwise unneeded car trips.
That way, there's no need to rummage through the trash, possibly making a huge mess.