this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
162 points (95.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43984 readers
726 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Thoughts? I am currently trying to avoid using plastic packed drinks as much as possible due to it's limited and finite recycle count

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So just make aluminium bottles with a cap.

[–] Mouselemming 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Apparently aluminum is also heavier to ship.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Compared to barrels of crude oil, I am sure a SINGLE Block of Aluminium can be reused more than 1000X times with no environment damage.

[–] Mouselemming 7 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Oh I'm sure you are right, it's the drink companies for whom the shipping expense outweighs the environmental damage, because capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Capitalism could solve this no problem if we just taxed externalities. Don’t even have to hit every level of the supply chain, just a big tax on fossil carbon removed from the ground, and maybe another tax where it gets transformed into plastic (a sort of externality-added tax).

The market then decided what’s still worth making and what’s not, based on the total cost including the new taxes, weighed against how much people are willing to pay for the stuff.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

It's also worth noting that transport does not have a zero cost on the environment. It's why we did away with glass, it's so heavy it actually becomes carbon intensive to transport. Especially when you account for greater spoilage percentages (due to the glass being mishandled and breaking more often than alternatives). The equation isn't as simple as it would seem. The true solution is less likely single use drink containers of any kind and more likely some sort of reusable bottle you carry around with you and could fill up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Would you pay more just for better packaging? I mean you can buy drinks in glass bottles today and they're more expensive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm curious how much the environmental costs of shipping products in aluminum containers v. lighter plastic containers changes the equation.

I also tend to think that an even better solution would be to have the consumer be the one with the container, and shipping the product in bulk, to be dispensed as a bulk item at a retail location. E.g., the packaging for shipping is the tank that the truck is towing, rather than a trailer full of individual use bottles.

[–] Mouselemming 1 points 7 months ago

Besides convenience, I think a lot of container waste is also caused by our litigious society. If you pour milk into my container and I later sue you because it makes me sick, you might decide your best defense is to sell all milk in sealed containers. (And if someone poisons some containers, you'll add tamper-proof layers.)