this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
162 points (95.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43963 readers
1502 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
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
Apparently aluminum is also heavier to ship.
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.
Oh I'm sure you are right, it's the drink companies for whom the shipping expense outweighs the environmental damage, because capitalism.
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.
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.
Would you pay more just for better packaging? I mean you can buy drinks in glass bottles today and they're more expensive.
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.
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.)