xkcd, I am disappoint

[charby]

Why does yogurt comes in plastic containers instead of waxed paper? Milk could go back to returnable glass bottles, some dairies already do that, but not many.

[Perd Hapley]

How is it stupid when Joe Blow has no choice in the amount of waste a product he desires or needs from the packaging is produced by someone else?

Like I told Paddy McReilly, when he was kvetching about gas prices - if you don't like the price of gas, then extract and refine your own oil. Joe Blow can do anything he wants. He could make his own flash drives, or just write everything down, and record his music on audiocassettes. Nobody's forcing him to buy a flash drive. Nobody's forcing him to throw away the packaging. His rights are perfectly well intact. If you and Joe want to boycott Sony, et al, then do so. Maybe you'll encourage them to find a better packaging solution.

What worries is that you seem to want government involved, taking Joe Blow's money, and giving it to Big Packaging. And you think you're helping Joe out. 

[Regolith]

I live in a city of 50k, no Costco, got a Sam's but no money savings there. Long story short, all the retail stores in the town have the same products in the same sized boxes. Look at other things like kitchen knives, cookware sets, food even comes in big packages for small amount of product, such as pasta salads in a box.

The packaging at Costco tends to be far larger for electronic items than Walmart's. I bought a 3 pack of SanDisk 16GB drives there last year and the packaging was probably 14"x14" or so. Walmart's packaging for the same exact drive wasn't much larger than the drive itself, but then Walmart keeps the drive in a locked plexiglass cabinet.

Why does yogurt comes in plastic containers instead of waxed paper? Milk could go back to returnable glass bottles, some dairies already do that, but not many.

Plastic is far less prone to breakage than glass or wax paper containers. It's also probably cheaper. But then further driving up food prices as a side effect of the more expensive packaging and lost product is OK with you, I guess?

Like I told Paddy McReilly, when he was kvetching about gas prices - if you don't like the price of gas, then extract and refine your own oil. Joe Blow can do anything he wants. He could make his own flash drives, or just write everything down, and record his music on audiocassettes. Nobody's forcing him to buy a flash drive. Nobody's forcing him to throw away the packaging. His rights are perfectly well intact. If you and Joe want to boycott Sony, et al, then do so. Maybe you'll encourage them to find a better packaging solution.

What worries is that you seem to want government involved, taking Joe Blow's money, and giving it to Big Packaging. And you think you're helping Joe out. 

+1000

[Perd Hapley]

Regolith,

Look at charby's first post on page 2. He's already said that he wants to increase the manufacturers' costs and pass those on to you and I.

And people wonder why everything's outsourced. 

[Nick1911]

Why does yogurt comes in plastic containers instead of waxed paper? Milk could go back to returnable glass bottles, some dairies already do that, but not many.

Short answer: because it's not economically advantageous.

What you're suggesting is forcing an industry to adopt an economically in-advantageous position.  You're welcome to advocate that, but it flies in the face of the concept that the free market will lead to economically optimal solutions all on it's own.

Ecologically optimal?  Maybe not.  But do you feel that it is the place of the state to force ecologically optimal, economically sub-optimal regulations upon industry?  Most of us will agree the pragmatic reality that we want some regulation in that regard; I don't want PCB's in my drinking water for instance.  But where do we draw that line?

For instance, coal power plants aren't ecologically friendly.  Many would argue that gasoline powered automobiles aren't.  And a whole lot of other things that bring us the quality of life we've come to enjoy.  And perhaps you don't feel that bulky welded camshell packaging is as necessary as those other "necessary evils", but the harsh reality is - we have that packaging to reduce shrinkage, which reduces the price to you -- a direct benefit to your quality of life.

[Perd Hapley]

I think his idea was to offer incentives for greener-er packaging. Not sure if he's saying it should be forced.

[charby]

I think his idea was to offer incentives for greener-er packaging. Not sure if he's saying it should be forced.

Yes no forcing, I'm not a big believer in that.

[Nick1911]

Yes no forcing, I'm not a big believer in that.

Ah, so make the customer bear the cost of increased shrinkage or make the manufacturer bear the cost of disposing of shrinkage resistant packaging?  In either case resulting in increasing the cost of product to the customer because industry isn't thinking green enough?

N.B even an incentive vs fine does the same thing, since that incentive is being paid for by the public.

[charby]

Ah, so make the customer bear the cost of increased shrinkage or make the manufacturer bear the cost of disposing of shrinkage resistant packaging?  In either case resulting in increasing the cost of product to the customer because industry isn't thinking green enough?

N.B even an incentive vs fine does the same thing, since that incentive is being paid for by the public.

So who will pay the increased trash disposal costs?

[Perd Hapley]

Yes no forcing, I'm not a big believer in that.

That's good to know. Still, it looks like it would be another government program that redistributes wealth from the little guy to the big guy, whether that little guy is the consumer, or the competitor. Or at the very least, it will waste money, by pushing it into areas where the market hasn't decided it should go. The market generally knows better.

Or if there is enough of a market for green packaging, then someone could put together a company that buys huge lots of flash drives, etc; large enough lots to arrange for special packaging from the manufacturer. Green-packaged items could then be sold at the Starbucks counter, or Costco, or online, or wherever the market is for such things.

[Perd Hapley]

So who will pay the increased trash disposal costs?

How about, the person who's throwing it away? If that's what's happening, sans government meddling, then it is probably best, most efficient, and least burdensome to everyone involved. No?

[charby]

How about, the person who's throwing it away? If that's what's happening, sans government meddling, then it is probably best, most efficient, and least burdensome to everyone involved. No?

What is put in a landfill can be problematic to the community surrounding it and future generations.

[Nick1911]

So who will pay the increased trash disposal costs?

As a consumer, I pay a fixed rate for trash disposal.  Barring some specifically disapproved things (car batteries, used motor oil, construction debris), I am welcome to fill my two trash cans with whatever I feel like every week.  Be it ecologically friendly triple recycled cardboard bound with the blood of hippies, aluminum cylinder heads, or solid cubic foot blocks of PVC.  They don't care, and because I'm not charged any differently, neither do I.

Perhaps the war you should be fighting is that of the companies that will accept almost anything and bury it in the ground instead of manufacturers.

[Perd Hapley]

Perhaps the war you should be fighting is that of the companies that will accept almost anything and bury it in the ground instead of manufacturers.

This, especially since the manufacturers are not putting packaging in land fills. But that is something charby will simply not deal with. I have told him this about half a dozen times, and he just doesn't care. I guess he'd rather go after the EVIL CORPORATIONS because he knows you can always fleece the rubes by just making it all about attacking EVIL CORPORATIONS. Populism over principle.

[charby]

This, especially since the manufacturers are not putting packaging in land fills. But that is something charby will simply not deal with. I have told him this about half a dozen times, and he just doesn't care. I guess he'd rather go after the EVIL CORPORATIONS because he knows you can always fleece the rubes by just making it all about attacking EVIL CORPORATIONS. Populism over principle.

So the consumer is to stock pile their waste on their own property?

[Perd Hapley]

So the consumer is to stock pile their waste on their own property?

Yeah, sure, whatever. I've explained it. You either get it, or you don't. Or, you just want to be obtuse.

[charby]

Yeah, sure, whatever. I've explained it. You either get it, or you don't. Or, you just want to be obtuse.

I don't accept your rationale, simple as that.

[Perd Hapley]

You don't accept the "rationale" that the person responsible for putting packaging in a landfill is the person who put packaging in a landfill? We have a word for that. It's called "obtuse." Or "stupid." Or multiple words: "doesn't accept reality."

Personal responsibility. The manufacturer is not responsible for your trash. You are.

[charby]

You don't accept the "rationale" that the person responsible for putting packaging in a landfill is the person who put packaging in a landfill? We have a word for that. It's called "obtuse." Or "stupid." Or multiple words: "doesn't accept reality."

Personal responsibility. The manufacturer is not responsible for your trash. You are.

I'm stupid because I don't agree with you and you're calling me obtuse?

[charby]

I think if a manufacture over packages a product for no reason other to make it bigger on a shelf, to have flashly logos on it or to make it theft resistant, then the manufacture should be responsible for the waste.

If there is a choice between a easily recycled package or one that will need to be landfilled, then the burden should be on the manufacturer.

I tend to look at the whole environmental cost of a product, not just the yesterday, today or next week's cost, but 10 years later, 100 years later, etc.

[Nick1911]

I think if a manufacture over packages a product for no reason other to make it bigger on a shelf, to have flashly logos on it or to make it theft resistant, then the manufacture should be responsible for the waste.

If there is a choice between a easily recycled package or one that will need to be landfilled, then the burden should be on the manufacturer.

I tend to look at the whole environmental cost of a product, not just the yesterday, today or next week's cost, but 10 years later, 100 years later, etc.

I'm afraid this is a space where we will have to agree to disagree.

I don't presume to know the reasons manufactures package things the way they do.  That's a whole discipline that I am not an expert in.  However I believe that in a free market manufactures will make the best economic decisions, or be undercut by someone who will do better.  Not just in packaging, but as a general rule.  As such, I can can not condone interfering with free market economics for altruistic means.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm stupid because I don't agree with you and you're calling me obtuse?

Uh, no. Gainsaying the ungainsayable is stupid, obtuse, and a failure to accept the real. Repeatedly insisting that x is not x is stupid. As I said, the person responsible for putting packaging in a landfill is the person who put the packaging in the landfill. How is this debatable?

So, you're being obtuse, and saying something stupid. And you keep saying it.

I think if a manufacture over packages a product for no reason other to make it bigger on a shelf, to have flashly logos on it or to make it theft resistant, then the manufacture should be responsible for the waste.

If there is a choice between a easily recycled package or one that will need to be landfilled, then the burden should be on the manufacturer.

I tend to look at the whole environmental cost of a product, not just the yesterday, today or next week's cost, but 10 years later, 100 years later, etc.

As if the "whole environmental cost" was the whole story, or even the most important part of it. This is the classic mistake of the central planner - the hubris of thinking that they see the bigger picture, and can therefore plan better than the participants all along the line, from manufacturer to consumer, and now even to the sanitation worker. Have you even considered that maybe the retailer is the one who wants the flashy packaging, or the shrink-resistance? Are you just picking the manufacturer at random? I still say you've chosen the manufacturer because you find them the easiest to vilify.

[cordex]

As if the "whole environmental cost" was the whole story, or even the most important part of it. This is the classic mistake of the central planner - the hubris of thinking that they see the bigger picture, and can therefore plan better than the participants all along the line, from manufacturer to consumer, and now even to the sanitation worker.

This.

[Scout26]

If you think consumer waste is bad, you ought to see shipping waste.  Do you buy the dented, crushed, bent or other clearly visibly damaged products?

No?  Most people don't.  And market research has shown that not only will people not buy the product in the dented package, but they generally won't buy the same product in non-dented packaging.  (Which is why most stores go through and quickly removed any damaged product from their shelves.)

But like every other commodity, recycled materials have a market.  In fact when I worked for OCP a part of the maintenance managers budget hinged on the price of cardboard/paperboard.   For several years, he was a profit center because those prices were high.  In 2007 the market was flooded with cardboard/paperboard and he not only didn't max his bonus, he didn't even make bonus, because the prices were so low.   

As it stands for me.  I have a recycle bin.  As much recycling as I can put in the less trash I have.  I have to buy a sticker to put on my garbage can.  currently that's $4.25 for your standard 33 gal can.  So there is a financial incentive for me to use recyclable materials.  But that's between me and the garbage hauler.
 
Finally, in regards to food packaging.  The FDA sets some pretty strict guidelines regarding food packaging.  So there is a trade-off between ensuring you don't kill your customers, transportability, and being "green".  The best balance is a recyclable plastic cup.  Putting it in wax paper is just asking for contamination and sick/dead customers.  Did you ever notice that waxpaper isn't commonly commercially used for food?  There's a reason for that. 

[charby]

So I spent 4 days primitive camping with a permanent green card Swiss.

I asked how did the EU get manufactures to reduce product packaging? He told me because the cost of waste disposal is much higher in Europe than it is here is that consumers started getting pissed about all this excess trash that would buy an item and leave the packaging in the store, stores tried to lean on the manufacturers to reduce packaging to appease the consumers, but the manufacturers would not comply, so the retail stores pushed the government to do something. Hence the EU making it the manufacturer responsible for the waste generated from the products they produce.

So the consumer leaning on the retailer did nothing in this case, well at least as the Swiss told me the story.