this post was submitted on 18 May 2023
25 points (100.0% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5425 readers
97 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/[email protected]
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/[email protected]
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@Urban_Hermit @green You're absolutely right.
There's an absolutely massive cross-subsidy for companies that manufacture and sell products.
They've almost never been financially responsible for the end-of-life costs of the products they make. Or, for that matter, the full social and environmental costs of their manufacture and use.
Virgin plastic is cheaper to manufacture than plastic that has been recovered and recycled. That recovery and recycling cost is generally not paid by the original manufacturer.
Instead, some of those costs are borne by taxpayers and municipal ratepayers. But most have been carried by developing countries, which have been paid to dispose of the waste out-of-sight and out-of-mind.
I strongly suspect that if the full costs of recovery and recycling were included in the upfront cost of plastic products, many would simply not be viable. Certainly not for disposable products or packaging.
Instead, we'd have less packaging, and more products would be either reusable or biodegradable.