Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxaf | Hacker News Reader

Recycling is the wrong, least efficient, laziest solution to the problem of packaging. Why does every little thing need to come packaged in its own cocoon of plastic or paper? Beats me. Consumers have become lazy: they expect purchasing and consuming to be the extent of their participation in the long supply chain through which our goods travel. This tends to externalize the environmental costs of consumption to all of us. Recycling would be unnecessary if consumers were held accountable for properly obtaining and reusing materials.

Our laziness will kill us all: mark my words.

View on HN

> Why does every little thing need to come packaged in its own cocoon of plastic or paper?

It started as security. Packaging used to be way simpler. First, packaging got stronger on medicines and food to prevent tampering, mostly after the incident when someone put cyanide in Tylenol. It grew from there - anti-tempering, anti-theft, protection for rough handling during shipping, as shipping speeds increased. The reasons kept growing, and the packaging keeps growing.

I fully agree that we can cut back. But like most aspects of society, you need to first understand the drivers that got us where we are, and then attack the problem by discussing whether our current solutions are truly the right answer to those problems.

This is the first I've heard of the cyanide in Tylenol. The wikipedia article is really interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders

That is part of it for sure (recently a prankster was licking ice cream tubs at a grocery store, so it’s still a concern) and there was some copying of Japanese packaging aesthetic to mimic or to convey the idea of premium product, high class product.

An example of the packaging absurdity, order from Amazon something like a 48 count pack of AA batteries. It arrived in a standard Amazon brown cardboard box. Inside was the the battery company's branded box. Inside of that was 12 additional boxes with 4 batteries each. Ridiculous...

Amazon pretty much sets the standard for this. They're the biggest ecommerce home delivery company, and yet have absolutely nothing in the way of reducing waste, and give the customer no option or control to do so. The _only_ thing they do is allow you to group deliveries (in case you want everything at once) which has the side-effect of reducing carbon emissions by the delivery van.

And don't even get me started about Prime.

They do offer the frustration-minimizing packaging program, which is less wasteful, but manufacturers have to opt in.

Here in the UK, Ocado (a home shopping delivery firm) will take back the plastic bags your shopping came in. Now that Amazon is handling an increasing proportion of its own deliveries, it would be great if they adopted something similar and started using reusable shipping cartons like these when the client opts in:

https://liliputing.com/2020/01/this-box-with-an-e-ink-shippi...

>Here in the UK, Ocado (a home shopping delivery firm) will take back the plastic bags your shopping came in.

They charge 5p per bag (as required by law), which you cannot opt-out of. You might as well use it as a bin-liner, as the cheapest version costs around similar price. These bags are unlikely to get reused, when you return them, due to any cross-contamination issues e.g. bag for poultry (campylobacter) reused for loose produce.

An excerpt from their faq's:

Can I choose to not have my shopping delivered in bags?

We can't eliminate bags from our deliveries just yet. Packing them in separate bags for your fridge, cupboard and freezer is a really important part of making sure your groceries arrive in tip-top condition.

How much will I get charged for bags in my order?

The legislation states that big retailers must charge at least 5p for single-use plastic carrier bags.

So, as of 5th October 2015, we will be charging 5p for carrier bags used to pack your shopping. How much you are charged will vary depending on the size of your order, but we will only charge you for the exact number of bags used – there is no fixed charge. If it takes five bags to safely pack your order you'll be charged 25p. If it takes 6 bags, it'll be 30p. It's that simple.

The total amount charged for bags will be shown on your receipt.

https://www.ocado.com/webshop/scontent/customerServicesFAQ#

Ocado also have the “eco delivery” feature, where you can pick a delivery slot when (I presume) the driver will be making a similar delivery nearby.

It’s not a huge thing, but shows they are doing something (either that or they understand their middle-class market).

hygiene. I wonder if you could quantify the reduction in disease (and so perhaps a dollar value associated with lower healthcare costs, less sickbays, less death) that can attributed to packaging which essentially preserves factory sterilization into the market.

But you’d think containerization would’ve reduced packaging requirements a bit.

Put everything in your container and the container keeps it secure until it’s at its destination.

Maybe if you own your own container and control it 100%, but for many shippers, that it not the case. They are one item amongst many, thrown together with everything else.

So it is worse. Your packaging has to defend itself from everything else in the container. It may get tossed around by multiple middle-men, buried under heavier objects and boxes, and has to protect itself in case an object above yours breaks and spills who knows what all over your box. And what if the container is somewhat empty and ends up on rough seas? It could get rolled like dice for days.

I've never seen a shipping container on a store shelf. Not even Costco has that.

Do you have any recommended reading on the 'history of packaging'? That sounds really interesting.

I'm afraid not - my personal knowledge of it just comes from having lived through the last few decades, with a year working at UPS, and some time spent helping small business owners figure out logistics for shipping their inventions.

There are likely actual experts around who could write a book, but I'm not sure where to find one.

You're right: there are at least some good reasons for packaging to exist. So, I'm going to rephrase my original question:

Why does every little thing come in packaging that is not directly reusable without further investment of time/energy?

For example, I ordered a USB hard drive a couple of weeks ago. It arrived packaged in:

* An unmarked cardboard box. Why wasn't I required to return this box for reuse? It should be a Pelican-style container that is used to deliver a shipment, and immediately returned for reuse.

* An thinner marked cardboard box advertising the device's features and specs. Why was this necessary? I already know what I ordered: I don't need to be further convinced that this is in fact the right thing.

* A set of plastic bumpers inside the marked box. I get it: these hold the relatively gentle device in place while it's shipped. The bumpers are clearly intended for only a single use: they're shaped to fit only the particular device I bought. Why haven't we developed reusable dampeners that can fit a variety of products and used repeatedly?

* A plastic bag inside the box, with the device inside it. Why?!

There are ways to build reusable substitutes for all of the single-use packaging implements we're accustomed to. Of course, these are more expensive. Insert generic rant on capitalism externalizing its costs to everyone.

> A set of plastic bumpers inside the marked box. I get it: these hold the relatively gentle device in place while it's shipped. The bumpers are clearly intended for only a single use: they're shaped to fit only the particular device I bought. Why haven't we developed reusable dampeners that can fit a variety of products and used repeatedly?

Because those would be harder to make and more expensive and likely work worse, and the benefit would go to some third party, not the company selling it. You could legislate it, but otherwise I don't see companies spending the extra money and time willingly.

> and the benefit would go to some third party

This is the key. Incentives matter.

People like to think that the market is some state of nature; it isn't. It is shaped by the legal and cultural environment like any other human practice.

If you want reusable hard drive bumpers, modify the environment to make doing so in the best interests of the companies using them.

There are moldable bumpers/foam for this application. The foams can also be made from bio materials such as mycelium (which can actually be grown/entrained to shape) or that puffy corn starch that can replace “packing peanuts.”

Combine with cardboard and paper tape and you’ve got a pretty well compostable shipping container. Landfill neutral.

That's answering a different question, which is how to get away from foam to better materials. The question asked was why aren't they shipping reusable bumpers, which is because there's a market disincentive to, since it costs more, works worse, and doesn't help the company that makes/ships with it.

It would take to long to answer all of those, so let's just look at the first point.

> An unmarked cardboard box. Why wasn't I required to return this box for reuse? It should be a Pelican-style container that is used to deliver a shipment, and immediately returned for reuse.

How much does a Pelican case weigh compared to a cardboard box? It probably weighs more than the cardboard box and the purchased item inside. So, you're literally doubling the weight of everything being shipped. Then, you want to return that case to the sender, so now you're not only doubling the weight, but you're doubling the number of items being shipped, and therefore doubling the shipping cost for the consumer.

What's the environmental impact of a cardboard box compared to a Pelican case? I don't know these numbers, but even if we somehow forget about the extra weight, shipping, and fuel, you literally might need to reuse that Pelican case tens of thousands of times before it has a positive impact over a cardboard box. Would it get lost or need to be repaired from damages in tens of thousands of shipments? I almost guarantee it.

That being said, I agree we should be asking more questions and looking for ways to improve recycling.

Almost all of those can be answered by imagining the worst case scenario when your one device is put into a container with everything else. I just made a comment elsewhere in this thread about the same concerns, but in short, your one device could be put under something big and heavy that is leaking fluids. So your thin cardboard with the specs was the packaging put together to inform the consumer what the object is, because making separate packaging for retails shelves vs. online ordering is not realistic. But everything else is preventing damage along the way.

So yes, you are correct - standardized boxes that protect their contents, and all fit nicely together while shipping, and also are returnable would be great. Or... Amazon, UPS, FedEx, etc could just handle those outer layers of protection themselves. Hopefully the added cost of doing so is offset by the re-use you get from them. Either way, if somebody set up such a system, there would be no reason all those layers need to get to the final recipient of a package.

> making separate packaging for retails shelves vs. online ordering is not realistic

They do do this on a small scale for some items, that's essentially what frustration free packaging is. According to their blurb page about it they work with manufacturers to get different packaging which sounds like they're not doing the worst case scenario I thought which would be just shucking the retail packaging and adding their own.

> * An unmarked cardboard box. Why wasn't I required to return this box for reuse? It should be a Pelican-style container that is used to deliver a shipment, and immediately returned for reuse.

Is the extra fuel required to transport these reusable boxes and to recollect them equal to the amount expended just creating a new cardboard box? Cardboard isn't particularly resource intensive (it can be made from fast growth planted trees). Can your reusable box collapse? If it can't collapse it would take double the amount of truck stops to deliver a single good because it would take exactly as much space to return as it did to deliver.

> * An thinner marked cardboard box advertising the device's features and specs. Why was this necessary? I already know what I ordered: I don't need to be further convinced that this is in fact the right thing.

Amazon does have their 'frustration free packaging' which does essentially what you want. They work with the manufacturer to box things differently for sale through Amazon where there's no need to box and entice customers.

> * A set of plastic bumpers inside the marked box. I get it: these hold the relatively gentle device in place while it's shipped. The bumpers are clearly intended for only a single use: they're shaped to fit only the particular device I bought. Why haven't we developed reusable dampeners that can fit a variety of products and used repeatedly?

Only really works with similarly shaped objects that go into the same sized box. And again there's the energy expended in collecting them to factor in.

> * A plastic bag inside the box, with the device inside it. Why?!

Protection against damage and moisture during transit. Keeps everything clean and fresh. Though I do think the number of different little baggies in many products is excessive.

In a commodity market, "expensive" means "costs energy". You have to look at all the costs.

Are you going to burn fuel to mail reusable bumpers back to the manufacturer?

One USB disk has more environmental impact then a hundred packagings. It packaging where the marginal win is? Buy less stuff.

> Why wasn't I required to return this box for reuse?

Because I wouldn't order anything from a service that required me to return the box. Going to a postal office is highly inconvenient for someone working full time. Of course, I could be convinced to just drop off the box at some kind of drop off/pick up station (provided it was not too far out of my normal commute), but that would require a whole new layer of infrastructure.

Some counterpoints (devil's advocate):

* Would you trust a cardboard box that looked like it had been opened? * The thinner box would be for display in a shop. * The other packaging points are for longevity; there's a lot of products that will bounce around shops, warehouses, cross country lines for years until they're sold and used. I don't know who sets the guidelines for packaging but they sure plan for the worst.

There're 1000's of explanations for all of that - I don't know any of them. But there's one reason for all of it.

I'm guessing it's money.

Some products do have excessive packaging, but most packaging is there for good reasons. You need to consider the embedded energy and resources used to make the product, and how the packaging reduces the risk of wasting them if the product is damaged or destroyed.

There are cases where the total environmental impact of plastic packaging is very likely better than the alternatives, e.g. shrink-wrapping a cucumber more than doubles the shelf-life at ambient conditions:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550898/

And if the plastic is then disposed of in landfill then it doubles as carbon sequestration.

> And if the plastic is then disposed of in landfill then it doubles as carbon sequestration.

Where does plastic come from, if not desequestered carbon? Does it consume CO2 from the air?

It comes from desequestered carbon, but importantly, it's very difficult to re-desequester it. Plastic in landfill is mixed with other waste and uneconomic to recover. It's enforcing "keep it in the ground" (not completely, because the manufacturing and transport release CO2, but better than nothing).

This is one of my least favorite genres:

"Industry X does things I don't understand. The millions of professionals working in that industry must be clueless fools, and should follow my hunch instead!"

On top of that most of the recycling is actually downcycling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling

> Consumers have become lazy: they expect purchasing and consuming to be the extent of their participation in the long supply chain through which our goods travel

This is a little unfair on "consumers". I don't have a choice in how my local supermarket packages its products. I bring my own containers to the butcher, I bring my own bags for fruit and veg, and we still end up with at least one bin worth of waste every week. That's not counting the packaging that the products are shipped to my local stores in either.

Consumers aren't lazy, companies are cheap. it's cheaper to wrap something in LDPE + friends, and transport it across <insert landmass here>, then force the consumer to pay to dispose of it (and their local authority to bear the brunt of managing it), than it is for the manufacturer to make it closer and get it to me without shrink wrapping.

Until suppliers, manufacturers, retailers are held responsible, consumers are _not_ the lazy ones, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still try.

I've had a few wacky ideas for fixing the problem of overpackaging. Theory: the greenest packaging is none at all, the second greenest is the one you eat. In medieval times they would bake and transport food in a "pie", a hard shell of bread. Inedible for humans, but the pig your family had could dispose of it easily.

I agree. Packaging needs to be much more expensive. Online ordering makes things much worse. Now goods are packed in 3 or 4 layers which then get thrown away quickly.

I find it funny how amazon will ship in a box or padded envelope, while random Chinese sellers on AliExpress will use something slightly thicker than cellophane.

But box is just paper, which literally grows on trees.

And water, and energy. A lot of both.

Energy is free. Sun's light is either hitting plants (that use it to grow) or it's hitting the ground.

Is water a big problem, in e.g. Europe? No idea honestly... it's obviously 100% recyclable, but it might be in the wrong place at the wrong time...

It does consume nutrients from the soil which would need to be replenished eventually on tree farm plots.

> Now goods are packed in 3 or 4 layers which then get thrown away quickly.

Just so you konw, this isn't new with online shopping. All of that packaging is thrown away by the retailer if you buy it from a store.

Not nearly as much. Items would be shipped on pallets to stores generally or come in larger numbers in a bigger box.

I worked in retail about 10 years ago, in a "Mom and pop" Computer store. We would receive hard drives in their retail boxes, with a plastic bag, a cardboard sleeve, and then another box around 10 or so, all wrapped in plastic. I would assume that before they got to me, those boxes were sent on pallets which were also shrink wrapped.

We would throw all that away before a customer ever saw it.

I'm routinely amazed by the things that I buy which are wrapped in plastic that could just as easily be wrapped in paper or cardboard or something else that biodegrades.

I suspect it's simply because the food companies have already bought the plastic-wrapping machines and don't want to invest the money in new processes. But when I'm in the store, I will routinely choose an item wrapped in paper or paperboard over something in plastic.

The primary goal with food packaging is that the food doesn't biodegrade before someone eats it. From an environmental standpoint, if wrapping a food item in plastic causes a 5% reduction in food waste vs. other packaging, it's a clear unambiguous benefit to use plastic.

I can understand that for things that come into contact with the food, but not all of the packaging does.

For example, the Tillamook cheese snacks are individually-wrapped planks of cheese. For that, I understand. But why do the ten plastic-wrapped cheese planks then need to be wrapped in another plastic bag?

Very true. At some points some friends were having a contest about most packaging needed for their meal. I don't remember who the "winner" was, but there was at least "bag-bag-box-bag" combos and up! (this was in the UK, but I bet US can "score" pretty high too)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com