As opposed to not transferring the cost when they're forced to use glass bottles or whatever? Plastic is used because it's cheap. Switching to alternatives would undoubtedly cost more money.
>We have a CRV tax for each bottle/can here in California, and as far as I can tell, it has no affect on consumer behavior.
Maybe this says something about the effectiveness of plastic bottles? If consumers/companies are still choosing plastic bottles even though they have to pay the disposal costs, maybe this means that plastic bottles are better as a whole and we shouldn't be trying to force a switch to alternatives?
There’s a cycle of waste where cheap goods break but its okay because its cheap. Instead we could be making things that last.
You can't both build things that can be infinitely fixable and sell a steady stream of them.
Durability is a competitive advantage that businesses and individuals will often clamor for. It’s not easy to replicate
Hence why I advocate for taxing plastics
Name one.
Higher end TVs (so, Sony, LG, Samsung)
iPhones last something like 7-8 years in an industry where things last 3, max
*several* power tool and manual tool brands
Basically any company that works with real leather.
Victorinox
Kitchen Aide
Word travels for basically all high quality products. They also cost like they’re high quality.
Am pleased with the dishwasher and range from them. But the microwave electronics went out, so now I go with a cheap microwave.
Sadly, anything other appliance branded KitchenAid is basically hit-or-miss. They license their name to other manufacturers for certain products, so you can’t count on the name on its own to guarantee quality.