Hacker News Reader

Comment by toyg | Hacker News Reader

The problem with recycling is still a focus on the end of the cycle, when much better results could be had with smarter policies at the beginning -- i.e. Manufacturing. If thin plastic containers are a problem, ban them and let Coke/Pepsi/Starbucks figure out how to deal with it -- they have the profits, smarts and resources to do so. If glass is an issue, ask companies to contribute towards the cost of handling it separatedly; and so on and so forth. Otherwise we end up in the usual situation where the taxpayer is left to pick up the environmental and economic cost of somebody's shareholding profits.

I say this as a UK taxpayer with 4 different bins and forthnightly collection -- it's just a farce. I don't get to choose how the stuff I buy is packaged, but somehow I'm responsible for dealing with it AND I have to pay for the privilege, while Coke goes ka-ching. That's unfair.

View on HN

> The problem with recycling is still a focus on the end of the cycle, when much better results could be had with smarter policies at the beginning -- i.e. Manufacturing. If thin plastic containers are a problem, ban them and let Coke/Pepsi/Starbucks figure out how to deal with it

The confusing/complicated/ironic thing here is that thin(ner) plastic containers were seen as a _positive_ for resource use. If the point of recycling, after all, is to reduce what goes into landfills, or to reduce our petroleum or other resource use, then using less plastic in the bottles in the first place is a positive -- and one that indeed takes place from a focus on smarter practices at the beginning -- right?

But apparently it also destabilizes the recycling market.

Either way, I agree that the only solution is to somehow make the original manufacturers bear the environmental costs of what they produce -- which neccesarily means those costs will be reflected in the prices of consumer products too.

The article was focussed on the profitability of recycling per se, and not the total impact on the environment. The article implied that the reason thin contains are a problem is because they contain less material and therefore yield less profit for the recycler. But if that is the only reason that thin containers are a problem, then the total impact on the environment would still be lower with thin containers, since not using the material in the first place is more efficient that using more and recycling more.

So a policy that bans thin containers on the basis that they result in less profits for recyclers is the opposite of smart. The end goal is to lower the total environmental impact, not profitable recycling programs.

I agree that more can be done to increase incentives for manufacturers to produce better packaging. I would caution against outright bans, as that often exacerbates unforeseen circumstances. You might end up encouraging massive deforestation as manufacturers switch en mass to bamboo packaging or suddenly roads are clogged up as truck drivers are told to maintain a maximum 30kph to avoid damaging products. Human systems are ridiculously complex, that was the chief failure of state-directed Communism.

> I don't get to choose how the stuff I buy is packaged

I think an economist would say you do get to choose. You could have chosen a different product that was packaged better. Since the onus is on you to sort out the packaging, you should have incentive to prefer products with packaging that you don't have to manage.

That's all well and good until all of the products in X category have the same packaging. Then there's no way to provide a market signal. (Plus that concept ignores all nuance. Either something is the Biggest Deciding Factor Ever, or it gets lost in the mix. And even if it is the primary deciding factor, there's no way of going "The reason I didn't go with you was because of your packaging, rather than your price/functionality/willingness-to-spy/tantalum use." and the result would at-best get confused for something else.

> I think an economist would say you do get to choose. You could have chosen a different product that was packaged better

It's been proven over and over again that "market-based responses" to environmental issues simply do not work: there will always be a critical mass of consumers who simply won't care. You end up trading the long-term future of our planet for immediate convenience, just because as human animals we are simply terrible at judging things in the long term.

Amen. And upvoted.

>> I don't get to choose how the stuff I buy is packaged, but somehow I'm responsible for dealing with it AND I have to pay for the privilege, while Coke goes ka-ching. That's unfair.

This ...

Aside from the inherent foolishness of shipping water around in small containers to people with faucets, how is Coke the problem? Back when they had glass bottles, they reused them. They use recyclable packing for everything and along with the rest of the industry have relentlessly worked to make their packaging more efficient. If only everyone else did likewise.

If you don't like dealing with recycling, consider the effort to be part of the cost of the product. I am all in favor of a "disposal tax" to be levied on goods to offset the societal cost of wasteful packaging, but it would still be passed on to consumers, and soft drink companies are hardly the worst offenders.

> how is Coke the problem? Back when they had glass bottles, they reused them.

Yes, and then stopped. They just unloaded some of their costs on the community. They were then forced to try and clean up their act by public pressure.

To be honest, I'm not singling out Coke -- all manufacturers are part of the problem, even tetrapack-toting ones: the whole "package $item in small $something" concept is environmentally expensive, and all industries must be forced to bear as much of these costs as we can.

I think the point is for consumers to bear the cost and vote with their wallet. The problem is that the disposal costs of stuff aren't borne directly by the consumer (e.g. as a disposal tax) but collectively by the community. It's a tragedy of the commons, but not the one you think it is. I pay a fixed waste collection tax, and the marginal cost of throwing stuff away (or "recycling" it) is 0.

I am a UK taxpayer too but my building has no recycling. I live at home for one or two days a week and no personal transport.

Why should I suffer all the costs of recycling?

Are you disagreeing with something toyg said?

Nope but I can see how you can read it that way. The important part is after the 'but'.

More that I am paying for the same services but doing the right thing costs me far more in excess of the benefit to myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com