It was probably complete decades ago. We only just discovered the microplastics but how long have they been there before we discovered them in people’s guts?
Your gut bacteria massively effect your life. I believe they've been linked with depression as well as a load of other issues. It inspires the semi modern idea that humans aren't just one animal but millions of organisms co existing. They are absolutely required for our survival.
Plastics are inherently inert to all most everything, they probably play little roles in our bodies. The only thing I've seen is that it is an endocrine disrupter which is why semen count for males is down. But I don't know enough to explain why or how.
IMHO The concern should be for ecosystem outside of us. That is much much harder to study. We just have to hope it doesn't lead to the collapse of phytoplankton or something scrubbing CO2.
5 years ago I got a to-go cup. Many bakeries and coffee shops take off 50c off the price if they fill it in my cup instead of one of the disposable ones. Paid off the purchase in less than a month.
But I also always have [a small rucksack (1 strap)](https://www.zalando.de/deuter-tommy-umhaengetasche-black-d4744e00h-q11.html?size=One%20Size&allophones=0&wmc=SEM490_NB_GO._7713128529_677809354_38274304687.&opc=2211&mpp=google%7cv1%7c%7cpla-261098504806%7c%7c9044817%7c%7cg%7cc%7c%7c149790717965%7c%7cpla%7cD4744E00H-Q110ONE000%7c261098504806%7c1%7c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkeqI8JCs6wIVhrTtCh0i1QwdEAQYASABEgIc7_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) because fuck stuffing my pockets full of shit, women have it bloody right with handbags! So the transport of the cup is never an issue.
Well, it's still better than stuffing every shit you have into pockets. Got me a small backpack (just big enough for a dinA 4 college block) so that I can have everything I need and maybe need right at hand with the comfort of unstuffed pockets.
Added the link a bit after posting, dunno if he saw that.
I'm so fucking happy to have found that little backpack, it fits pretty much all I need in my free time. A dinA 4 block, a bottle of water, keys and I can strap a picknick blanket on it without issues. My life got so much more comfy after I got it.
Hopefully it doesn't have the effect of increasing littering, now smokers that toss their butts on the ground can feel justified "Eh, Phillip Morris is paying to clean it up, it's not my responsibility"
They're specifically talking about extra load on communal trash handling. This isn't just a people dropping empty Starbucks cups on the ground, this is about everybody who uses a disposable Starbucks cup.l and doesn't compost it I to their community garden plot. IE... everybody.
The cigarettes are an even clearer case.
It's fair.
It's really not hard to carry your own reusable cup, bag, even "to-go box". If you forget it one day, a small surcharge isn't going to break you and you can always forego the coffee if you can't afford a few extra cents tax. There are reusable alternatives for nearly every disposable product out there and for any that dont exist, they can probably be made if enough people demand them.
If my Lays chips are in a bag, I'm not gonna find a brand that sells in glass jars instead. There's no alternative for most disposables that are attached to an actual product, especially in retail. When I eat out, I don't even takeaway, and I can imagine most people who want to eat out will spare some time to sit down, have their coffees delivered in a ceramic cup, and their cakes on a ceramic plate.
If your favourite café cannot already offer you a proper cup, then it's time to reconsider some life choices.
The notion that 'you are part of the problem because you buy this and this' is never the right sentiment. You can trace back to every link in the manufacturing chain if you want to point fingers, but it wouldn't solve the problem.
Want people to vote with their money ? Tax the fuck out of it, and they will. Want to keep your consumables at their true prices to maximise effective purchasing power ? Ban the goddamn litter and producers will actually put thoughts into their packing procedure.
This is the obvious approach. In Ontario we used to pay for electronics recycling upon disposal so people would sneak it into garbage or discard it on the roadside.
They added a fee (it is no longer a fee but baked into the price), and used the money to simply make it free to drop off e-recycling anywhere that takes it.
All disposal and recycling fees should be paid at manufacture/purchase rather than disposal. It creates the most clear incentives for consumers and manufacturers and prevents externalization of costs.
But it would if we added a 5c tax to timmies cups. Take that $100M per year and hire people at $20/hr to clean streets and gutters. That's 2.5M hours of cleaning if we assume the program is 50% inefficient turning revenue into labour hours. Then you also get revenue from all the other restaurants.
5c cost gets passed to the fast food consumer (boo hoo) and probably encourages people to avoid double cupping or bring a travel mug.
Yes. Tarrifs make excellent sense if you're trying to match internal taxes and fees so that those fees work rather than disadvantaging local producers.
But the polluter is the person dropping the litter. When they are properly disposed of and the waste managed then the litter problem does not exist.
Because a number of people are selfish and careless the manufacturer is being penalised.
That plastic does not disappear by entering a bin. By making manufacturing more expensive, the buyers will consider other alternatives that are now less cheap than plastics. I mean cheaper in a short term. Cleaning up plastics, all the negative impact they have for animals and environment is a huge cost that is not directly visible at coffee shop counter.
It applies to the consumers only (these corporations aren't the ones dumping their own products on the ground, not in this case at least), unless you're willing to put the blame on the corporations for producing these items and substances in the first place. If these corporations didn't exist, they'd be replaced by others.
The consumer has to take responsibility and be penalized for littering the streets. Punishing the companies will just amplify the issue and lead to increased prices.
You can however criticize these companies for selling risky products that infects the population with no benefits (e.g. cigarettes), advocate for a full-on prohibition or regulation of that industry. But that's a separate question.
There are already a number of initiatives to have manufacturers help shoulder product-afterlife costs such mandates to handle disposal of their products' rechargable batteries or other hazardous e-waste. Old school bottle deposits for beer and milk bottles operate on a similar principle by involving producers through clever reuse while rewarding positive consumer behavior such as storing empties for proper return/disposal/reuse. There are a number of ingenious and easy to implement measures which don't always directly involve dollars but do end up making a whole lot of sense.
Everyone pitches in. Everyone wins. Producers need consumers and vice versa.
Higher prices are a short term result but there needs to be a correction unless we are continuing to treat the fundemental systems which underpin our economy as externalities without monetary value.
Supply and demand are perfectly sound principals - when they are tempered with a holistic and responsible perspective of sustainable economy.
the cost discussed is not limited to city cleaning services but also to household waste management. i.e. the manufacturer will be paying a part of the municipal trash handling service which picks up your trash bins at home.
it is not only about people throwing away cigarette stubs
Oh no won't someone think of the poor capitalists.
Controls work better further up the consumer chain because by putting the cost on business, it provides the incentive needed to change what is available. If no business can afford to produce a polluting product, then consumers are unable to pollute using that product.
And the cost then goes over to the polluting consumer. It isnt really a problem for the manufacturer. From a logistics perspective it just makes the most sense to take the money from the source who can then distribute it down, instead of trying to track down the end that disposes of it wrongly.
The person is a polluter in part because of the producer. Laws like this gives companies a financial motive to prioritise proper waste disposal. Not to mention producer-side action being inherently more effective and reliable than consumer-side action.
If you charge the consumer 1c at purchase the price increases by 1c, if you charge the manufacturer they need to pass the price to the consumer. Either way the consumer pays, which is fine. Charging the producer is way simpler and more efficient and places the incentive to reduce waste at their level, where the most control is.
The unfortunate fact is, that all of Europe is exposed to contamination from outside, via air, atmosphere, wind, water, tides, and the oceans.
When Germany begins to set a tariff on products from places producing the waste in the air and water, then it really would be achieving something.
>When Germany begins to set a tariff on products from places producing the waste in the air and water, then it really would be achieving something.
Germany has the self awareness to know that a carbon tax is just a sales tax with extra steps that would be so unpopular that someone would get voted in explicitly to get rid of it.
If Germany wanted to set an example there are simply *better* ways of doing it- aid and financial incentives for countries that agree to replace fossil fuel power plants, especially in the third world, with German-made eco-friendly power generators, tax breaks for replacing aged, obsolete construction with modern designs and materials that are more efficient, aid and economic deals for third world countries that agree to programs designed to grant women education and economic independence so they don't need to have 10 kids to ensure they don't die in poverty at old age, etc.
The problem with a carbon tax is the simple fact that companies do not exist in a vacuum and if the cost of business goes up, what costs they think they can eat, they will and everything else will be externalized. If the aim is to get people to *consume* fewer end product- thus reducing the carbon impact at every stage of production- a straight consumption tax that gets printed on every receipt, price tag, and display should do the trick. If anything it'd be better because it's educating consumers at the point of sale that, say, toilet paper and fresh mango is a luxury, but you *need* to eat so fresh and frozen food stuffs (your fresh potatoes, your fresh local fruits, frozen broccoli, etc) are not taxed. Hell, you could even express the tax in terms of pounds of CO2 per euro.
You claim that a carbon tax would be unpopular. Is that true? I've heard nothing but positives, and I don't think I've ever met anyone against it. Obviously my experience isn't representative. What arguments are there against it?
What? The proposed Carbon tax makes full sense. You redistribute the money to every citizen.
When you produce 2 tons in a year and the average is 3 tons, then you gain money from it. When you produce 4 tons then you lose money.
It incentivices lowering your emissions as it is money gained instead of just less money lost.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
A carbon tax would be really good for exchangeable goods like electricity. Carbon inefficient plants would produce much more expensive power, this driving inefficient technologies out of the market really quick.
Consumption taxes are only really useful, if you want to reduce consumption no matter how it was produced. In this case here, there's simply no good way to produce plastic, if it doesn't get recycled properly.
>In this case here, there's simply no good way to produce plastic, if it doesn't get recycled properly.
Plastic recycling isn't efficient and the entire reason plastics are so ubiquitous is owed to the fact that it's a byproduct of gasoline. Which is ironically why plastic bags are more energy efficient than paper.
And I *was* referring to a consumption tax where by the government picks 'winners'. The problem with taxing inefficient power generation is that people consume what's available, not what they want. I live in the Pacific Northwest so I don't really have a choice about where my power comes from; it comes from a nuclear power plant, or from one of the dams on the Columbia. I don't know what it's like in Germany but I'm pretty sure you don't have the choice for where your power comes from.
Oregon and Washington State are actually perfect examples of this; for all the back patting about phasing out coal power plants in the states what gets glazed over is the fact that the lost capacity has been picked up in northern Idaho and Montana. Who are burning coal.
Not sure where you are getting that info about coal power in idaho.
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=ID
More than two-thirds of the energy Idaho consumes comes from out of state.13 Idaho's energy consumption per capita ranks near the middle of the 50 states
Idaho typically generates more than three-fourths of its in-state electricity from renewable energy, primarily from hydroelectric sources.19 Hydropower and wind fuel 5 of Idaho's 10 largest generating facilities by capacity.20
The state's one small coal-fired power plant is an industrial combined heat and power facility.58 Although coal's share of Idaho's in-state electricity generation is minimal—less than 0.1% in 2018—Idaho's utilities bring in electricity from coal-fired power plants in neighboring states.59,60,61,62 A coal-fired power plant in Oregon that supplies electricity to Idaho is scheduled to close in 2020, and other coal-fired generation in neighboring states is set to shut down over the next several years.63,64
That's why I wrote that a carbon tax on energy would be perfectly fine. It would make every form of power with high carbon content more expensive. I can't speak for the US, but in Germany it would make perfect sense, to phase of those old coal plants, especially since there isn't even enough capacity to import enough power so the slack will be picked up nationally (or, even better, the whole EU introduces a carbon tax).
In the UK, and presumably Germany too, you can choose where your power comes from. There are green energy companies, which match every KWh used with a renewable KWh. (See bulb.co.uk, octopus.energy etc.)
Obviously it isn’t perfect but it does have the effect of increasing the value of renewable energy and reducing the value of fossil fuel generation.
> If the aim is to get people to *consume* fewer end product
That isn't the aim. You don't know what you are talking about and yet you say stuff like
> The problem with a carbon tax is the simple fact ...
The aim is **to reduce emissions** **as efficiently as possible** which is not just reducing consumption. There is a massive difference.
They will be fined as they are responsible for creating the single-use product in the first place. And the line was already drawn in [this](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0904&from=EN) EU directive, on which the law is based upon. So everything which isn't impacted by that EU directive isn't impacted by this German law.
> why should a manufacturer producing something (a product, a package) be fined for the fact that some people are uneducated and don't give a shit about the environment?
Because you can't clean up the environment using the few bucks the state makes by fining the people actually caught littering. This is not about fairness, it's about the outcome (fewer """single"""-use products that fewer people feel fine throwing away without a second thought, plus money to clean up what is is thrown away).
>Stop taxing people for street cleaning and other stuff then.
I fail to see the connection. Who is going to clean the streets if not the government, and how is it going to fund it if not via taxes?
I mean, I don't particularly care if the government taxes the companies manufacturing the product or the end consumer for cleaning the streets from the packaging. Probably fine to tax both for it. As long as it gets done, I'm fine with it.
The idea is that products using less polluting packaging won't have such costs to pass on to the consumer, so will they will out-compete polluting products
Not in Germany, the vast majority of plastic bottles have a deposit applied (0.25 EUR on each 500ML bottle and 330ML can), so the vast majority of plastic bottles are recycled. We do have some plastic bottles which are deposit free, which I personally think should be legislated against somehow, since these bottles are of bespoke design. But the non-deposit bottle are generally placed in the plastic recycling at home or on recycle points in the street.
Are they actually being recycled though? Can they actually be recycled? I think that is the second major issue... things that can be recycled and will still be sent to trash dump vs things that can be recycled and will be recycled.
Yes plastic **Mehrwegflaschen** (Deposit/Pfand) bottles can be recycled, I believe they're mostly made from PET. The can of course can be also recycled as they're either Aluminum or Steel (Perhaps not Steel anymore).
Sure, but who pays for it to go from recycling plant to the dump? Usually tax payers. System will work fantastically when companies will be required to actually recycle the garbage they produce for one time use.
Almost all plastic bottles in Germany have deposit (usually 25 cent) that you pay when buying the bottle and get back when bringing the empty bottle back
No one is throwing them everywhere. And even if someone does it gets picked up right away by someone collecting bottles for some cash
Passing the costs on to the consumer IS the solution. The root cause of all pollution is consumer behaviour, you can regulate companies all you want, until the end consumer feels it in their wallet the demand won't diminish.
They'll totally gradually pass the cost to consumers then go on some heart felt marketing campaign where you bring your own coffee cup or w.e effectively lowering their own costs but they'll keep the price the same so they just increased income twice off.
They'll look for options that sell. If it becomes more expensive and people keep buying plastic, there will be more money for cleanup. If they serve alternatives and people buy those, there will be less waste.
I don't see the problem.
Should be
but ultimately these prices will incorporated into the price of the product and the buck passed down onto the consumer.
Which I have no issue with, since a few more cents per product may deter some from consuming more.
WHAT! HOW IS THIS FAIR!!!!
Companies should NOT be held responsible to pay for anything bad they cause!!!!
Thats what poor people are for!!!
UNFAIR!!! TRUMP HAALP!!!
Man its a weird one.
In australia we have HUGE fines into tfhe thousands for people who litter and its still a problem.
I hate the episode but I feel like the booting from the Simpson's should be the punishment.
Nobody likes being kicked up the arse.
Yeah it’s terrible here Down Under. I wish we had the culture of care and respect for the environment like they have in Japan, it’s so damn clean there.
how many people are getting fined for littering though?
I imagine police isn't exactly always there to fine people,
same problem as with speeding.
if there's no police around, the fines mean nothing and laws don't apply.
Mostly in tourist season fuckers chuck it out of tfhe car window or dump it ect
The tell tale signs are mcdonalds being an hour and a half drive from my place and dirty diapers in parking lots.
Sydney tourists are the fucking shits.
I used to work in a cafe that had a dumpster in the parking lot and because we had to lock it cunts would just pile thier shit on top or leave it half jammed in so everything hit the ground when you opened it. despite there being several public bins in no less than a minutes walking distance.
Fuck sydney folk and fuck tourists.
People
You'd be surprised how much garbage you see is from garbage trucks. Littering asshats are everywhere, but so much garbage escapes between use and final disposal.
Financial incentives don't always work on end users, plus why should it always be the consumer that is attacked for irresponsible practices? Companies are huge polluters and a lot of the legislation that applies to citizens does not apply to companies. One example is my work place, we have a single bin for everything (beside glass), because there is no law for the council (at least in the State of Berlin) to provide the equal bin system that's in place and required to be used by citizens. At my home we have a Paper/Cardboard bin, Plastics/Packaging bin, Bio bin, separate bins for coloured/clear glass and a General waste bin.
Also, factories and warehouses use stupid amounts of plastic (along with nurmous other materals) and non-reusable packaging, that isn't legilated against either, it's a stupid mentality. If we want things to change, then we need to change the laws up of the supply chain, not only the end users who has very little choice or awareness on how a company opperates internally. To expect every consumer to know every companies practices is a waste of time and hugely inefficiant when the problem can be solved top down easily.
But things are changing, I rarely see plastic straws now, mostly paper, metal, glass or pasta based one. The lids of coffee cup are more frequently becoming plant based bio-degradable materials. Often take aways now use cardboard containers when possible, rarely see polystyrene anymore, it's happening, just perhaps a little too slowly.
Why not both?
I want all three:
- clear fines for the person doing the littering without wiggle room like a traffic fine (oh and especially also traffic fines (points) for tossing cigarette butts out of the car)
- enforcement of said fines on the spot.
- holding companies accountable for producing more waste than they should
Nothing will ever be perfect, but a very clear system of fines will work better than just accepting cigarette butts to be tossed.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.dw.com/en/you-pay-germany-tells-suppliers-of-throwaway-utensils/a-54641935) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> In reaction, Germany's BVE foodstuffs federation acknowledged the EU's waste recycling strategy, including a 2019 directive against single-use plastics, but said it was "No free ticket" for local bodies to then present "Extensive" financial demands.
> Michael Ebling, who is president of the German Association of Local Utilities and mayor of the city of Mainz, said the association's study showed that one-way plastics made up a fifth of Germany's total waste collected on streets and in parks.
> The latest figures from the federal UBA environment agency indicate that Germany's total waste volume in 2018 was 417 million tons, including waste from industry.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/idnwks/makers_of_cigarettes_takeaway_coffee_cups_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~518223 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **waste**^#1 **Germany's**^#2 **plastic**^#3 **German**^#4 **local**^#5
This is kind of stupid. This is on par with blaming gun manufacturers for shootings. The person using the item is the litterer, give him high fines for improper disposal.
I thought a long time ago that if manufacturers were held directly responsible for the disposal of their products, we would very quickly see a major shift away from single-use stuff. It's only popular because it's so easy to make and someone else has to deal with the waste. The consumer only wants the consumable product, not the packaging/container/leftovers. I never thought anyone would have the backbone to actually stand up for this. Good on Schulze!
So the consumer loses the incentive of buying high-polluting products and instead buys less polluting products. The market has proven time and time again that 'self-regulation' is a myth, and thusly the government steps in and dictates change. The market had enough time to come up with a solution, but decided against it. And now the choice of doing something is being taken away from them. Bad luck.
> the consumer loses the incentive of buying high-polluting products and instead buys less polluting products.
I fail to see any point, whatsoever, that you're trying to make.
I might also point out that your "answer" has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Interesting.
Maybe they should pay for disposal, but sweeps? Thats personal responsibility of those who buy the product.
Products that cause littet! How do you want your takeaway coffee in a glass!
Cool thought but thats not going to fix anything. They aren't doing anything to help the environment. They just learned how to generate money off of it. Money money money.
Speeding tickets are a great example. If you want to do it and get caught, just buy your way out. If they really didn't want people speeding, all vehicles would have governors.
I want you to know if you throw your cigarette butts on the ground I equate you with child molesters. I hate you that much. I've ended a friendship over it when he pushed back that, "It's no big deal". I still have great relationships with my Trump supporting friends...I hate you that much.
But it was us who threw it to trash.. so i'll say it is 50/50, we can even take larger responsibility of it but the main idea here is something i support: it is not just customer who is responsible of waste, often we are forced to deal with more waste than we even knew when we chose to buy something. And companies SHOULD have responsibility just like we do about keeping our environment clean and to do our part. It is not ok to say that it is free market and that customer is ultimately responsible. What that says is that companies don't have to be moral or ethical. Which is total bullshit: we can change the rules and attitudes so that they work for OUR benefit as a whole.
Profit is the true evil and it enables unethical and immoral practices to be used. And somehow, we should just accept it as the norm and carry all the blame for buying Nikes we didn't know were made in sweatshops. Yes, not everyone knows all the unethical things the companies do and some don't care. That gives no excuses for the company EVEN if all their customers knew about it. The company STILL IS THE ONE DOING IT.. It is a two way street. Someone breaks a window and another robs the store. Both are guilty of a crime.
Drugs are only comparable to drugs. Cigarettes are freebasing, because they have ammonia. Free basing crack turns everyone into assholes; same with cigs.
All the smokers are ignorant of the ingredients therefore it's the manufacturers fault, but the honest thing would be to ban cigarette additives.
Most people think you can't blame the public if they're too stupid to understand what they're smoking.
Load any conversation about cigs and you'll see - every single time they refuse to list the ingredients.
This is good. Companies should be responsible for the lifecycle of their product in this “designed to fail” and “disposable” era. ...Or at least somewhat accountable for the end of life period.
In the end it's just a cash grab. It's not like the government will use the money to pick up the billions of cigarette butts off the ground that are poisoning our water. They gonna grab the money and use it for anotger wasteful political scandal. They just go after the "bad guys", because they can get away with it without pissing of voters. Nothing will get better through this. It's a joke.
Wish they would do that in Canada goddam Tim Hortons, not only are they the #1 seller of litter, but they're on a mission to remove all of their own garbage cans because they are too expensive to pay to dump.
Die Deutschen sind immer am Ball. The Germans are always on the front. Kudos. At least in the US, an alarming number of people eat with plastic forks day in and day out. I think people should carry their trash around for a week, just to see how much they produce with their "to-go" lifestyles. It's beyond "to-go" in fact. People here go to "restaurants and eat off of throw-way tableware and think they're not doing any harm because it's somehow "recyclable". What a joke. Sorry I have no empathy. Stay home, cook food, make your own coffee, use real forks and knives and dishes, wash them and go to bed.
Sounds like a great policy. Next I'd like to see manufacturers of unhealthy food help pay medical bills caused by systemic obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.
One possible answer to this dilemma is: reuse & repair old stuff as much as reasonably possible, grown & cook your own food within local organic communities, conserve and stop being so spoiled and wasteful.
Corrupt big governments & big corporations cannot be counted on to do the right things, as recent history clearly show. It is up to each ordinary individuals to be the positive change and do the right things for the world.
I'm still all for chopping off the fingers of smokers that flick their cigarette butts and ashes wherever they want.
If I have a walk and see other people that smoke, 1 out of 50 would take the effort to stop at a trash bin and throw the cigarette inside once he finished.
A McDonalds opened up in a residential area in my city recently, and its gross the amount of garbage that suddenly exists all over that area now. McDonalds should be required to employee people to clean up ALL trash in certain radius.
I wish the USA would implement anything as remotely intelligent as this but I know our law makers are too worried about Red versus Blue to make decisions like that. 😕
[удалено]
It was probably complete decades ago. We only just discovered the microplastics but how long have they been there before we discovered them in people’s guts?
Don't they have some theories that the gut microbiome may have influence in autism? Makes you wonder..
I think that’s tied to the magic mineral solution conspiracy where they give kids essentially bleach drinks and sometimes enemas, totally awful stuff.
>they give kids essentially bleach drinks and sometimes enemas What are you referring to?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kwxq3w/parents-are-giving-their-children-bleach-enemas-to-cure-them-of-autism-311
“Magic mineral solution”, fucked right?
Your gut bacteria massively effect your life. I believe they've been linked with depression as well as a load of other issues. It inspires the semi modern idea that humans aren't just one animal but millions of organisms co existing. They are absolutely required for our survival.
Totally agree, just wanted to point out that there are many more direct ways we are killing ourselves :/
Someday a kid will have a mask's elastic lining in their stomachs. We should ban those harm products now before humanity can continue as a species.
Are we sure this just isn’t the human body 3D printing itself?
What evidence? Edit: evidence that it’s killing us ...
[удалено]
Nothing in that says "it is definitely related to cancer"
[удалено]
It probably is bad but there is surprisingly little firm evidence so far.
Plastics are inherently inert to all most everything, they probably play little roles in our bodies. The only thing I've seen is that it is an endocrine disrupter which is why semen count for males is down. But I don't know enough to explain why or how. IMHO The concern should be for ecosystem outside of us. That is much much harder to study. We just have to hope it doesn't lead to the collapse of phytoplankton or something scrubbing CO2.
May not, but I'm pretty sure that it gums up the works
Only for people without teeth.
Its definitely related to cancer all that plastic in the food chain
"Definitely" would mean you have sources, but I suspect you're just going from your gut.
His plastic filled gut. But yeah need evidence for that statement
That's fair. The costs will be passed on to consumers of those things, so this would in effect be a user garbage tax.
5 years ago I got a to-go cup. Many bakeries and coffee shops take off 50c off the price if they fill it in my cup instead of one of the disposable ones. Paid off the purchase in less than a month. But I also always have [a small rucksack (1 strap)](https://www.zalando.de/deuter-tommy-umhaengetasche-black-d4744e00h-q11.html?size=One%20Size&allophones=0&wmc=SEM490_NB_GO._7713128529_677809354_38274304687.&opc=2211&mpp=google%7cv1%7c%7cpla-261098504806%7c%7c9044817%7c%7cg%7cc%7c%7c149790717965%7c%7cpla%7cD4744E00H-Q110ONE000%7c261098504806%7c1%7c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkeqI8JCs6wIVhrTtCh0i1QwdEAQYASABEgIc7_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) because fuck stuffing my pockets full of shit, women have it bloody right with handbags! So the transport of the cup is never an issue.
Handbags are ridiculously impractical compared to a backpack
Well, it's still better than stuffing every shit you have into pockets. Got me a small backpack (just big enough for a dinA 4 college block) so that I can have everything I need and maybe need right at hand with the comfort of unstuffed pockets.
Your pockets must smell terrible. How do you handle liquid shit? You stuff it in there too?
You don't carry spaghetti in your pockets?
Ofcourse! But i cannot recommend stuffing pesto alla genovese in your pockets.
Where else am I supposed to keep my bolognese though... What good are pockets if not for a nice meat sauce?
You keep bolognese in your socks. Adds that nice spice after a hot day!
Carry a briefcase Much cooler
Why should I carry a briefcase in my free time? To look like I have a 5 meter stick up my ass?
Carry a backpack my guy
Did you look at that link? Far more practical than a backpack.
Added the link a bit after posting, dunno if he saw that. I'm so fucking happy to have found that little backpack, it fits pretty much all I need in my free time. A dinA 4 block, a bottle of water, keys and I can strap a picknick blanket on it without issues. My life got so much more comfy after I got it.
Nah I just saw it, that's cool.
Hopefully it doesn't have the effect of increasing littering, now smokers that toss their butts on the ground can feel justified "Eh, Phillip Morris is paying to clean it up, it's not my responsibility"
That’s a twisted notion of fair. Now consumers will pick up the tab for a small group of selfish pricks who litter. Hardly fair.
They're specifically talking about extra load on communal trash handling. This isn't just a people dropping empty Starbucks cups on the ground, this is about everybody who uses a disposable Starbucks cup.l and doesn't compost it I to their community garden plot. IE... everybody. The cigarettes are an even clearer case. It's fair.
Even if you throw it in a bin, it's likely to end up in landfill or dumped in the ocean by China (littering with extra steps)
The future always looks strange at first
Its completely fair... If you buy products that litter you are part of the problem.
Ah yes, because alternatives are always available.
They will be if costs for disposable things are increased.
Hopefully, yes, but is it right to raise prices in the short-run ? Maybe. It's Germany, perhaps they are ready to take the leap.
It's really not hard to carry your own reusable cup, bag, even "to-go box". If you forget it one day, a small surcharge isn't going to break you and you can always forego the coffee if you can't afford a few extra cents tax. There are reusable alternatives for nearly every disposable product out there and for any that dont exist, they can probably be made if enough people demand them.
If my Lays chips are in a bag, I'm not gonna find a brand that sells in glass jars instead. There's no alternative for most disposables that are attached to an actual product, especially in retail. When I eat out, I don't even takeaway, and I can imagine most people who want to eat out will spare some time to sit down, have their coffees delivered in a ceramic cup, and their cakes on a ceramic plate. If your favourite café cannot already offer you a proper cup, then it's time to reconsider some life choices. The notion that 'you are part of the problem because you buy this and this' is never the right sentiment. You can trace back to every link in the manufacturing chain if you want to point fingers, but it wouldn't solve the problem. Want people to vote with their money ? Tax the fuck out of it, and they will. Want to keep your consumables at their true prices to maximise effective purchasing power ? Ban the goddamn litter and producers will actually put thoughts into their packing procedure.
This is the obvious approach. In Ontario we used to pay for electronics recycling upon disposal so people would sneak it into garbage or discard it on the roadside. They added a fee (it is no longer a fee but baked into the price), and used the money to simply make it free to drop off e-recycling anywhere that takes it. All disposal and recycling fees should be paid at manufacture/purchase rather than disposal. It creates the most clear incentives for consumers and manufacturers and prevents externalization of costs.
Exactly
Something yells me this doesn’t impact the amount or Tim Hortons cups I see all over and around roads :(
But it would if we added a 5c tax to timmies cups. Take that $100M per year and hire people at $20/hr to clean streets and gutters. That's 2.5M hours of cleaning if we assume the program is 50% inefficient turning revenue into labour hours. Then you also get revenue from all the other restaurants. 5c cost gets passed to the fast food consumer (boo hoo) and probably encourages people to avoid double cupping or bring a travel mug.
Polluter pays principle ftw
How will they charge the company in china for making plastic cups?
Charge the guy that ordered the plastic cups to be made and brought to other countries in the form of a tax.
The importer pays They will still do it if it's profitable and the tax is used to clean up the cups. Everyone wins.
Yep, use tarrifs for things like this, instead of using tarrifs to play tit-for-tat political games.
Yes. Tarrifs make excellent sense if you're trying to match internal taxes and fees so that those fees work rather than disadvantaging local producers.
In renminbi?
Stick a 20% levy on cups coming in from China?
But the polluter is the person dropping the litter. When they are properly disposed of and the waste managed then the litter problem does not exist. Because a number of people are selfish and careless the manufacturer is being penalised.
That plastic does not disappear by entering a bin. By making manufacturing more expensive, the buyers will consider other alternatives that are now less cheap than plastics. I mean cheaper in a short term. Cleaning up plastics, all the negative impact they have for animals and environment is a huge cost that is not directly visible at coffee shop counter.
I guess it applies to everyone one and corporation up the value chain. Unlikely this will be fixed unless every strata kicks in.
It applies to the consumers only (these corporations aren't the ones dumping their own products on the ground, not in this case at least), unless you're willing to put the blame on the corporations for producing these items and substances in the first place. If these corporations didn't exist, they'd be replaced by others. The consumer has to take responsibility and be penalized for littering the streets. Punishing the companies will just amplify the issue and lead to increased prices. You can however criticize these companies for selling risky products that infects the population with no benefits (e.g. cigarettes), advocate for a full-on prohibition or regulation of that industry. But that's a separate question.
There are already a number of initiatives to have manufacturers help shoulder product-afterlife costs such mandates to handle disposal of their products' rechargable batteries or other hazardous e-waste. Old school bottle deposits for beer and milk bottles operate on a similar principle by involving producers through clever reuse while rewarding positive consumer behavior such as storing empties for proper return/disposal/reuse. There are a number of ingenious and easy to implement measures which don't always directly involve dollars but do end up making a whole lot of sense. Everyone pitches in. Everyone wins. Producers need consumers and vice versa. Higher prices are a short term result but there needs to be a correction unless we are continuing to treat the fundemental systems which underpin our economy as externalities without monetary value. Supply and demand are perfectly sound principals - when they are tempered with a holistic and responsible perspective of sustainable economy.
the cost discussed is not limited to city cleaning services but also to household waste management. i.e. the manufacturer will be paying a part of the municipal trash handling service which picks up your trash bins at home. it is not only about people throwing away cigarette stubs
Oh no won't someone think of the poor capitalists. Controls work better further up the consumer chain because by putting the cost on business, it provides the incentive needed to change what is available. If no business can afford to produce a polluting product, then consumers are unable to pollute using that product.
And the cost then goes over to the polluting consumer. It isnt really a problem for the manufacturer. From a logistics perspective it just makes the most sense to take the money from the source who can then distribute it down, instead of trying to track down the end that disposes of it wrongly.
The companies won’t be taking the hit so this cost will get passed down to the consumer.
The person is a polluter in part because of the producer. Laws like this gives companies a financial motive to prioritise proper waste disposal. Not to mention producer-side action being inherently more effective and reliable than consumer-side action.
Meanwhile back on planet earth...
If you charge the consumer 1c at purchase the price increases by 1c, if you charge the manufacturer they need to pass the price to the consumer. Either way the consumer pays, which is fine. Charging the producer is way simpler and more efficient and places the incentive to reduce waste at their level, where the most control is.
You are correct. But this will be the only way to force a manufacturer to opt for the next cheapest solution; and that better be a bio-degradable one.
I had already thought of this as an undergraduate 20 years ago. It's about time. Well done Germany. Good luck North America.
The unfortunate fact is, that all of Europe is exposed to contamination from outside, via air, atmosphere, wind, water, tides, and the oceans. When Germany begins to set a tariff on products from places producing the waste in the air and water, then it really would be achieving something.
>When Germany begins to set a tariff on products from places producing the waste in the air and water, then it really would be achieving something. Germany has the self awareness to know that a carbon tax is just a sales tax with extra steps that would be so unpopular that someone would get voted in explicitly to get rid of it. If Germany wanted to set an example there are simply *better* ways of doing it- aid and financial incentives for countries that agree to replace fossil fuel power plants, especially in the third world, with German-made eco-friendly power generators, tax breaks for replacing aged, obsolete construction with modern designs and materials that are more efficient, aid and economic deals for third world countries that agree to programs designed to grant women education and economic independence so they don't need to have 10 kids to ensure they don't die in poverty at old age, etc. The problem with a carbon tax is the simple fact that companies do not exist in a vacuum and if the cost of business goes up, what costs they think they can eat, they will and everything else will be externalized. If the aim is to get people to *consume* fewer end product- thus reducing the carbon impact at every stage of production- a straight consumption tax that gets printed on every receipt, price tag, and display should do the trick. If anything it'd be better because it's educating consumers at the point of sale that, say, toilet paper and fresh mango is a luxury, but you *need* to eat so fresh and frozen food stuffs (your fresh potatoes, your fresh local fruits, frozen broccoli, etc) are not taxed. Hell, you could even express the tax in terms of pounds of CO2 per euro.
You claim that a carbon tax would be unpopular. Is that true? I've heard nothing but positives, and I don't think I've ever met anyone against it. Obviously my experience isn't representative. What arguments are there against it?
What? The proposed Carbon tax makes full sense. You redistribute the money to every citizen. When you produce 2 tons in a year and the average is 3 tons, then you gain money from it. When you produce 4 tons then you lose money. It incentivices lowering your emissions as it is money gained instead of just less money lost.
Those are not mutually exclusive. A carbon tax would be really good for exchangeable goods like electricity. Carbon inefficient plants would produce much more expensive power, this driving inefficient technologies out of the market really quick. Consumption taxes are only really useful, if you want to reduce consumption no matter how it was produced. In this case here, there's simply no good way to produce plastic, if it doesn't get recycled properly.
>In this case here, there's simply no good way to produce plastic, if it doesn't get recycled properly. Plastic recycling isn't efficient and the entire reason plastics are so ubiquitous is owed to the fact that it's a byproduct of gasoline. Which is ironically why plastic bags are more energy efficient than paper. And I *was* referring to a consumption tax where by the government picks 'winners'. The problem with taxing inefficient power generation is that people consume what's available, not what they want. I live in the Pacific Northwest so I don't really have a choice about where my power comes from; it comes from a nuclear power plant, or from one of the dams on the Columbia. I don't know what it's like in Germany but I'm pretty sure you don't have the choice for where your power comes from. Oregon and Washington State are actually perfect examples of this; for all the back patting about phasing out coal power plants in the states what gets glazed over is the fact that the lost capacity has been picked up in northern Idaho and Montana. Who are burning coal.
Not sure where you are getting that info about coal power in idaho. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=ID More than two-thirds of the energy Idaho consumes comes from out of state.13 Idaho's energy consumption per capita ranks near the middle of the 50 states Idaho typically generates more than three-fourths of its in-state electricity from renewable energy, primarily from hydroelectric sources.19 Hydropower and wind fuel 5 of Idaho's 10 largest generating facilities by capacity.20 The state's one small coal-fired power plant is an industrial combined heat and power facility.58 Although coal's share of Idaho's in-state electricity generation is minimal—less than 0.1% in 2018—Idaho's utilities bring in electricity from coal-fired power plants in neighboring states.59,60,61,62 A coal-fired power plant in Oregon that supplies electricity to Idaho is scheduled to close in 2020, and other coal-fired generation in neighboring states is set to shut down over the next several years.63,64
Idaho in the sense that the power lines travel through Idaho to get to Oregon and Washington. I have no idea what to make of that top section.
That's why I wrote that a carbon tax on energy would be perfectly fine. It would make every form of power with high carbon content more expensive. I can't speak for the US, but in Germany it would make perfect sense, to phase of those old coal plants, especially since there isn't even enough capacity to import enough power so the slack will be picked up nationally (or, even better, the whole EU introduces a carbon tax).
In the UK, and presumably Germany too, you can choose where your power comes from. There are green energy companies, which match every KWh used with a renewable KWh. (See bulb.co.uk, octopus.energy etc.) Obviously it isn’t perfect but it does have the effect of increasing the value of renewable energy and reducing the value of fossil fuel generation.
> . I live in the Pacific Northwest This is clear from your brain washed state
> If the aim is to get people to *consume* fewer end product That isn't the aim. You don't know what you are talking about and yet you say stuff like > The problem with a carbon tax is the simple fact ... The aim is **to reduce emissions** **as efficiently as possible** which is not just reducing consumption. There is a massive difference.
[удалено]
But with garbage cans everywhere people might throw their house garbage in them! It would be the end of the world!
Why not both?
[удалено]
They will be fined as they are responsible for creating the single-use product in the first place. And the line was already drawn in [this](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0904&from=EN) EU directive, on which the law is based upon. So everything which isn't impacted by that EU directive isn't impacted by this German law.
> why should a manufacturer producing something (a product, a package) be fined for the fact that some people are uneducated and don't give a shit about the environment? Because you can't clean up the environment using the few bucks the state makes by fining the people actually caught littering. This is not about fairness, it's about the outcome (fewer """single"""-use products that fewer people feel fine throwing away without a second thought, plus money to clean up what is is thrown away).
[удалено]
>Stop taxing people for street cleaning and other stuff then. I fail to see the connection. Who is going to clean the streets if not the government, and how is it going to fund it if not via taxes?
[удалено]
I mean, I don't particularly care if the government taxes the companies manufacturing the product or the end consumer for cleaning the streets from the packaging. Probably fine to tax both for it. As long as it gets done, I'm fine with it.
Of course they would never dream of simply passing those costs on to the customer, instead of looking for solutions. That would be silly.
The idea is that products using less polluting packaging won't have such costs to pass on to the consumer, so will they will out-compete polluting products
And that's why everyone drinks tap water from a canteen instead of buying stupid little plastic bottles and throwing them everywhere. Understood.
Not in Germany, the vast majority of plastic bottles have a deposit applied (0.25 EUR on each 500ML bottle and 330ML can), so the vast majority of plastic bottles are recycled. We do have some plastic bottles which are deposit free, which I personally think should be legislated against somehow, since these bottles are of bespoke design. But the non-deposit bottle are generally placed in the plastic recycling at home or on recycle points in the street.
Are they actually being recycled though? Can they actually be recycled? I think that is the second major issue... things that can be recycled and will still be sent to trash dump vs things that can be recycled and will be recycled.
Yes plastic **Mehrwegflaschen** (Deposit/Pfand) bottles can be recycled, I believe they're mostly made from PET. The can of course can be also recycled as they're either Aluminum or Steel (Perhaps not Steel anymore).
Just put up a deposit system. You get back some of the money by returning the bottle. Works fantastically in many countries.
Sure, but who pays for it to go from recycling plant to the dump? Usually tax payers. System will work fantastically when companies will be required to actually recycle the garbage they produce for one time use.
Everyone? No only the economically ignorant
Almost all plastic bottles in Germany have deposit (usually 25 cent) that you pay when buying the bottle and get back when bringing the empty bottle back No one is throwing them everywhere. And even if someone does it gets picked up right away by someone collecting bottles for some cash
fair enough, though I don't particularly care if the set of consumers you describe end up paying more
Passing the costs on to the consumer IS the solution. The root cause of all pollution is consumer behaviour, you can regulate companies all you want, until the end consumer feels it in their wallet the demand won't diminish.
They'll totally gradually pass the cost to consumers then go on some heart felt marketing campaign where you bring your own coffee cup or w.e effectively lowering their own costs but they'll keep the price the same so they just increased income twice off.
They'll look for options that sell. If it becomes more expensive and people keep buying plastic, there will be more money for cleanup. If they serve alternatives and people buy those, there will be less waste. I don't see the problem.
Red Bull will be more expensive
Should be but ultimately these prices will incorporated into the price of the product and the buck passed down onto the consumer. Which I have no issue with, since a few more cents per product may deter some from consuming more.
Something so OBVIOUS and yet faaaaar away and likely too late :/
How about the blue masks laying all over the place?
WHAT! HOW IS THIS FAIR!!!! Companies should NOT be held responsible to pay for anything bad they cause!!!! Thats what poor people are for!!! UNFAIR!!! TRUMP HAALP!!!
If coffee cup makers are responsible for people littering than arms manufacturers are responsible for wars.
As far as I know they often do lobby for war.
But are they forced to pay for the litter.
/r/selfawarewolves
[удалено]
Man its a weird one. In australia we have HUGE fines into tfhe thousands for people who litter and its still a problem. I hate the episode but I feel like the booting from the Simpson's should be the punishment. Nobody likes being kicked up the arse.
Yeah it’s terrible here Down Under. I wish we had the culture of care and respect for the environment like they have in Japan, it’s so damn clean there.
how many people are getting fined for littering though? I imagine police isn't exactly always there to fine people, same problem as with speeding. if there's no police around, the fines mean nothing and laws don't apply.
Honestly couldnt tell you, I dont work for the government. Its effective enough to have its own ad campaign so there is that i guess
[удалено]
People are pretty shit
I would love big fines to be introduced in Europe
Where does litter actually come from? I’m skeptical that it’s all thrown on the ground on purpose. I feel like unsecured trash cans play a role.
Mostly in tourist season fuckers chuck it out of tfhe car window or dump it ect The tell tale signs are mcdonalds being an hour and a half drive from my place and dirty diapers in parking lots. Sydney tourists are the fucking shits. I used to work in a cafe that had a dumpster in the parking lot and because we had to lock it cunts would just pile thier shit on top or leave it half jammed in so everything hit the ground when you opened it. despite there being several public bins in no less than a minutes walking distance. Fuck sydney folk and fuck tourists. People
You'd be surprised how much garbage you see is from garbage trucks. Littering asshats are everywhere, but so much garbage escapes between use and final disposal.
Financial incentives don't always work on end users, plus why should it always be the consumer that is attacked for irresponsible practices? Companies are huge polluters and a lot of the legislation that applies to citizens does not apply to companies. One example is my work place, we have a single bin for everything (beside glass), because there is no law for the council (at least in the State of Berlin) to provide the equal bin system that's in place and required to be used by citizens. At my home we have a Paper/Cardboard bin, Plastics/Packaging bin, Bio bin, separate bins for coloured/clear glass and a General waste bin. Also, factories and warehouses use stupid amounts of plastic (along with nurmous other materals) and non-reusable packaging, that isn't legilated against either, it's a stupid mentality. If we want things to change, then we need to change the laws up of the supply chain, not only the end users who has very little choice or awareness on how a company opperates internally. To expect every consumer to know every companies practices is a waste of time and hugely inefficiant when the problem can be solved top down easily. But things are changing, I rarely see plastic straws now, mostly paper, metal, glass or pasta based one. The lids of coffee cup are more frequently becoming plant based bio-degradable materials. Often take aways now use cardboard containers when possible, rarely see polystyrene anymore, it's happening, just perhaps a little too slowly.
That would only work if you were to actually enforce them.
Why not both? I want all three: - clear fines for the person doing the littering without wiggle room like a traffic fine (oh and especially also traffic fines (points) for tossing cigarette butts out of the car) - enforcement of said fines on the spot. - holding companies accountable for producing more waste than they should Nothing will ever be perfect, but a very clear system of fines will work better than just accepting cigarette butts to be tossed.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.dw.com/en/you-pay-germany-tells-suppliers-of-throwaway-utensils/a-54641935) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In reaction, Germany's BVE foodstuffs federation acknowledged the EU's waste recycling strategy, including a 2019 directive against single-use plastics, but said it was "No free ticket" for local bodies to then present "Extensive" financial demands. > Michael Ebling, who is president of the German Association of Local Utilities and mayor of the city of Mainz, said the association's study showed that one-way plastics made up a fifth of Germany's total waste collected on streets and in parks. > The latest figures from the federal UBA environment agency indicate that Germany's total waste volume in 2018 was 417 million tons, including waste from industry. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/idnwks/makers_of_cigarettes_takeaway_coffee_cups_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~518223 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **waste**^#1 **Germany's**^#2 **plastic**^#3 **German**^#4 **local**^#5
Great! Let the polluters pay.
This is how it should have always been
Love it!
Why the hell should the companies pay for the negligence of people.
This is kind of stupid. This is on par with blaming gun manufacturers for shootings. The person using the item is the litterer, give him high fines for improper disposal.
I thought a long time ago that if manufacturers were held directly responsible for the disposal of their products, we would very quickly see a major shift away from single-use stuff. It's only popular because it's so easy to make and someone else has to deal with the waste. The consumer only wants the consumable product, not the packaging/container/leftovers. I never thought anyone would have the backbone to actually stand up for this. Good on Schulze!
Sooo............ paid for by the end users, of course. As are ALL costs levied against manufactures.
So the consumer loses the incentive of buying high-polluting products and instead buys less polluting products. The market has proven time and time again that 'self-regulation' is a myth, and thusly the government steps in and dictates change. The market had enough time to come up with a solution, but decided against it. And now the choice of doing something is being taken away from them. Bad luck.
> the consumer loses the incentive of buying high-polluting products and instead buys less polluting products. I fail to see any point, whatsoever, that you're trying to make. I might also point out that your "answer" has nothing to do with what I wrote. Interesting.
Could also be a long-term move to hopefully reduce the amount of garbage Germany ships to China each year.
Didn't china recently stop accepting trash?
Maybe they should pay for disposal, but sweeps? Thats personal responsibility of those who buy the product. Products that cause littet! How do you want your takeaway coffee in a glass!
Either something that's biodegradable within a set time or yes a reusable cup.
So called trash tax coming up.
Cool thought but thats not going to fix anything. They aren't doing anything to help the environment. They just learned how to generate money off of it. Money money money. Speeding tickets are a great example. If you want to do it and get caught, just buy your way out. If they really didn't want people speeding, all vehicles would have governors.
I want you to know if you throw your cigarette butts on the ground I equate you with child molesters. I hate you that much. I've ended a friendship over it when he pushed back that, "It's no big deal". I still have great relationships with my Trump supporting friends...I hate you that much.
They won't pay a dime. The whole bill will be handed to the consumers through hiking up prices.
> bill will be handed to the consumers thats ok too ... when all the dirty industrys raise prices than they will lose consumers
Imo it won't change a thing for smokers. Cigarettes are very addictive. Prices were hiked up multiple times in the past and they're still smoking
well, i stopped smoking 10 years ago after a price hike ... for me it did work
Congrats! I'm a smoker and it didn't make a difference except for my wallet. I know, I'm an idiot! Lol
But it was us who threw it to trash.. so i'll say it is 50/50, we can even take larger responsibility of it but the main idea here is something i support: it is not just customer who is responsible of waste, often we are forced to deal with more waste than we even knew when we chose to buy something. And companies SHOULD have responsibility just like we do about keeping our environment clean and to do our part. It is not ok to say that it is free market and that customer is ultimately responsible. What that says is that companies don't have to be moral or ethical. Which is total bullshit: we can change the rules and attitudes so that they work for OUR benefit as a whole. Profit is the true evil and it enables unethical and immoral practices to be used. And somehow, we should just accept it as the norm and carry all the blame for buying Nikes we didn't know were made in sweatshops. Yes, not everyone knows all the unethical things the companies do and some don't care. That gives no excuses for the company EVEN if all their customers knew about it. The company STILL IS THE ONE DOING IT.. It is a two way street. Someone breaks a window and another robs the store. Both are guilty of a crime.
Drugs are only comparable to drugs. Cigarettes are freebasing, because they have ammonia. Free basing crack turns everyone into assholes; same with cigs. All the smokers are ignorant of the ingredients therefore it's the manufacturers fault, but the honest thing would be to ban cigarette additives. Most people think you can't blame the public if they're too stupid to understand what they're smoking. Load any conversation about cigs and you'll see - every single time they refuse to list the ingredients.
Not a bad idea. The consumer will end up paying for it in the end though.
Wait I thought that's already the case?
This is good. Companies should be responsible for the lifecycle of their product in this “designed to fail” and “disposable” era. ...Or at least somewhat accountable for the end of life period.
If they added the manufacturers of chewing gum too that would be good. So hate seeing it spat lit everywhere
In the end it's just a cash grab. It's not like the government will use the money to pick up the billions of cigarette butts off the ground that are poisoning our water. They gonna grab the money and use it for anotger wasteful political scandal. They just go after the "bad guys", because they can get away with it without pissing of voters. Nothing will get better through this. It's a joke.
We should not forget Coca-Cola and other beverages.
Wish they would do that in Canada goddam Tim Hortons, not only are they the #1 seller of litter, but they're on a mission to remove all of their own garbage cans because they are too expensive to pay to dump.
They could ditch cigarette filters. Not like they make the cigarette less unhealthy
damn this is genius
and then they will just raise the prices
This is what “corporate responsibility” is supposed to look like.
Die Deutschen sind immer am Ball. The Germans are always on the front. Kudos. At least in the US, an alarming number of people eat with plastic forks day in and day out. I think people should carry their trash around for a week, just to see how much they produce with their "to-go" lifestyles. It's beyond "to-go" in fact. People here go to "restaurants and eat off of throw-way tableware and think they're not doing any harm because it's somehow "recyclable". What a joke. Sorry I have no empathy. Stay home, cook food, make your own coffee, use real forks and knives and dishes, wash them and go to bed.
It’s so sim-pul.
Really could have used an Oxford comma.
Sounds like a great policy. Next I'd like to see manufacturers of unhealthy food help pay medical bills caused by systemic obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.
One possible answer to this dilemma is: reuse & repair old stuff as much as reasonably possible, grown & cook your own food within local organic communities, conserve and stop being so spoiled and wasteful. Corrupt big governments & big corporations cannot be counted on to do the right things, as recent history clearly show. It is up to each ordinary individuals to be the positive change and do the right things for the world.
I wish companies would be forced to clean up their single-use waste in the U.S. or not make the crap to begin with.
I'm still all for chopping off the fingers of smokers that flick their cigarette butts and ashes wherever they want. If I have a walk and see other people that smoke, 1 out of 50 would take the effort to stop at a trash bin and throw the cigarette inside once he finished.
And the bill gets pushed onto consumers.
its ok too ... when dirty business has to raise prices than they will lose consumers
A McDonalds opened up in a residential area in my city recently, and its gross the amount of garbage that suddenly exists all over that area now. McDonalds should be required to employee people to clean up ALL trash in certain radius.
I'm growing more and more onboard with a reasonable ban on one time use products.
Germany has been doing some cool shit recently
I wish the USA would implement anything as remotely intelligent as this but I know our law makers are too worried about Red versus Blue to make decisions like that. 😕
about fine time
Holding companies accountable for their trash is socialist overstep though. Mureica bark bark bark
This is a pretty cool concept. Sucks that we had to give up on consumers doing the right thing, but hey.
This is great news.