Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 401 posts

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#231

Post by RandallBrown »

m-p-3 wrote: post #50
ed_elliott_asc wrote: post #23

The thing is they don’t need that plastic lid. They say without it the food would be spoiled but if you have a big bag of crisps, you open them and eat them or they go off - this is no different. Kellogg’s seem to believe they have invented a type of crisp that can only be eaten over a period of time.

They definitely don't need the plastic lid, no way I can stop myself from eating the whole thing in one session.

The only thing that stops me from eating them that quickly is how hard they are to get out of the can once you're about halfway through.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#232

Post by SirLuxuryYacht »

centimeter wrote: post #220
Ensorceled wrote: post #16

We need to focus on the second R, reuse. I have mason jars that my grandmother and then my mother used for pickling. The only waste is the rubber ring which needs to be replaced occasionally and THAT could be recycled. Many of these bottles have been used for 80+ years now. I have a few Ball jars which my GREAT grandmother used 100+ years ago. Beer bottles in Canada are reused dozens of times and are recyclable (brow…

> We need to just force manufacturers to bear the costs of recycling their products 100%: everybody would switch to reusable Proclamations like this are strong evidence of economic illiteracy. Forcing everything to be recyclable isn’t optimal for society or for the environment.

Care to elaborate? I'd quite like making Coca Cola, Pepsi, Keurig, etc. pay to recycle or repurpose all the plastic they produce. Especially now that the US is no longer shipping plastics to Asia. I'm fairly certain both my recycling truck and trash trucks deposit their cargo in the same place: the landfill.

I think the parent means that manufacturers need to either switch to sustainable materials or pay a premium to use plastics.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#233

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

stx wrote: post #157
Ensorceled wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The “first world” really needs to get it’s act together on this.

The thing is we (the US) did do this at one point in time. When I was a kid you could buy a coke in a glass bottle and return it when done to be re-used by the manufacturer. For some reason we stopped. We should bring that back. When I was in Mexico around the early 2000 they still did this. When you buy a drink you could return it for a few cents back from the vender.

A bunch of states have bottle deposit laws. Stuff goes to recycling rather than direct reuse, but still, the concept is to use the deposit as an incentive to reduce litter and increase recycling rates.

At the end of the day, if we want companies to do more sustainable things than using single use packages that cost nearly nothing to dump in a landfill (or litter), then we need to start charging them enough to incentive sustainable behavior. And sadly few politicians want to be the person that raises prices on bottles of milk or racks of beer.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#234

Post by [deleted] »

emerongi wrote: post #213
strogonoff wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On board with mandating recycling and encouraging use of infinitely recyclable materials in container manufacturing. A couple nits to pick, though. – You have to be specific when advocating for reuse. Some like to keep using—for long periods of time—bottles made from cheap thin disposable plastic. That plastic, when repeatedly emptied, may quickly accumulate tiny cracks and leech chemicals, which in case of P(V)C may…

Thanks for the advice. I use the same plastic bottle for months when going to the gym. Should I stop doing this?

[deleted]

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#236

Post by res0nat0r »

Ntrails wrote: post #224
gambiting wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The corporations only make those choices because they are allowed to(or rather, because they are not forced by the regulations to actually pay for the environmental cost of what they make). Yes, I recently noticed that with Tesco eggs, I have complained to them about it. And it's not our fault but we can definitely try to avoid these products as consumers. Telling companies why you avoid them is also a good thing to…

We are responsible for our parliamentary representatives, and thereby our laws. It is absolutely our fault , as a society, as consumers.

Good doc here on how the plastic industry pushed for "recycling" laws so they could look like the good guys, but much of the stuff you see the recycling logo on can't in fact be recycled.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#237

Post by billpg »

Ensorceled wrote: post #16

We need to focus on the second R, reuse. I have mason jars that my grandmother and then my mother used for pickling. The only waste is the rubber ring which needs to be replaced occasionally and THAT could be recycled. Many of these bottles have been used for 80+ years now. I have a few Ball jars which my GREAT grandmother used 100+ years ago. Beer bottles in Canada are reused dozens of times and are recyclable (brow…

I saw a report on the news that garden centers were offering to collect used plastic plant pots. I thought "Great idea, just rinse out the pots, peel off the labels and put them back into use for new plants."

The report went on to show all of the returned pots being crushed and turned into pellets.

I think I screamed into a cushion.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#238

Post by eloff »

michaelt wrote: post #214
eloff wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if people like it or not, you just make it so companies or people have to pay for the negative externalities through taxes or regulation and the problem is solved. The market will naturally rebalance and innovate under the new constraints. If only we had responsible, effective government with the balls to do what has to be done to protect the future. This business of short term thinking and to hell…

> It doesn't matter if people like it or not, Does if you want it done by elected politicians in a properly functioning democracy.

I don't think that policies like carbon taxes are that terribly unpopular (depends on the location.)

But even then democratic governments do things that are unpopular all the time. I don't think it's untenable. But even if it cost politicians their re-election, it's still the right thing to do.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#239

Post by matthewheath »

mattmanser wrote: post #174
stx wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is we (the US) did do this at one point in time. When I was a kid you could buy a coke in a glass bottle and return it when done to be re-used by the manufacturer. For some reason we stopped. We should bring that back. When I was in Mexico around the early 2000 they still did this. When you buy a drink you could return it for a few cents back from the vender.

"We" didn't stop, it was cheaper for Coca-Cola to use plastic. Coca-Cola did it. Stop blaming consumers for corporate choices to slightly increase profits. Like in the UK, Tesco have just inexplicably switched from using cardboard egg containers to plastic ones. Is that my fault?

> Tesco have just inexplicably switched from using cardboard egg containers to plastic ones.

They've only switched because they've run out of the pulp used to make the cardboard egg containers. It's a temporary switch, although not ideal.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#240

Post by jdmichal »

bserge wrote: post #191
jdmichal wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... all soda bottles of size x, must come in shape y, made out of polymer z. This style of legislation is exactly how we get articles like this posted. Where we can't have new headlight technology in the US because the law exactly prescribes the types of headlights permitted. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24042266 We need to find a way to manage this while still allowing science and technology to do its thin…

I'm not sure you need those LED/LASER headlights... I don't understand what the manufacturers are thinking, those lights are incredibly bright, dangerously so - how are they even legal?

That's the version we have in the US. TFA I linked covers that in Europe they are permitted to do dynamic shaping of the light cones in order to reduce your exact complaint.
Post reply on HN