121–130 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do people still chew gum?
I mean... yes? Did you think that people had stopped chewing gum?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you hold the companies that produce the products responsible when they have no control over what someone does with the packaging of their products?
Companies have choice over how they package their products, and have a number of levers to change behavior: they might reduce the extent to which they provide packaging (does that single piece of fruit need to be wrapped in plastic?), or offer incentives to customers to provide their own packaging (eg cups at coffee shops), or might provide incentives for packaging to be returned instead of trashed (deposits on cans…
Why not directly punish the person who committed the crime?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
25 cents deposits on cans and bottles did wonders in Germany. You can leave them anywhere in the city and they'll be gone within five minutes. This also turned out to be a surprisingly effective, although somewhat sad, wealth redistribution scheme. It's unfortunately not realistic to do for every kind of wrapper. Although maybe a weight-based rough measurement might work: I. e. a cents/gram of packaging, and your rec…
States in the USA have been doing this for years too. 10 cents for bottles and cans in California, and you just don't really see them on the street for this reason. What you do see is... everything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess. When I was really poor, I rolled my own cigarettes. And when I finished one, I kept the tobacco in a small plastic bag. As backup, for when I was too poor to buy more. You may say "yuck". But trust me, good tobacco the second time around is better than the stuff in those nasty папироса.
How do you smoke tobacco twice?
I played with the thought that municipalities should hold the producers of the product (packaging) that can be foud in the streets responsible for the cleanup cost. Some kind of data needs to be collected by a team like this team an based on that data the offending brands get bills. Besides that I think littering could benefit from heavy fines, the same way speeding tickets helped with traffic safety. Basically a nea…
I played with the thought that municipalities should hold the producers of the product (packaging) that can be foud in the streets responsible for the cleanup cost. Some kind of data needs to be collected by a team like this team an based on that data the offending brands get bills. Besides that I think littering could benefit from heavy fines, the same way speeding tickets helped with traffic safety. Basically a nea…
Why would you hold the companies that produce the products responsible when they have no control over what someone does with the packaging of their products?
This was a fascinating read. I'm surprised tobacco is the number 1 litter. I rarely see people smoking anymore where I live, so I would assume it would not be a top contributor to litter. Is smoking still very prevalent in San Fransisco?
A study commissioned by SF Public Works in 2009 determined that the direct costs for cigarette related litter in San Francisco could be remediated with a 22 cent per pack tax. The actual tax in San Francisco is 85 cents per pack known as the "Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee". The 2009 study claimed around 30 million packs/year are sold in San Francisco which would be roughly 25 million dollars a year in taxes collected for this purpose with an estimated cleanup cost of only 7-8 million. So not only are cigarette smokers already paying for the cleanup they are paying nearly four times the actual cleanup cost for their litter.
The 2009 study: https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/tobacco_litter...
The tax: https://sftreasurer.org/cigarette
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies have choice over how they package their products, and have a number of levers to change behavior: they might reduce the extent to which they provide packaging (does that single piece of fruit need to be wrapped in plastic?), or offer incentives to customers to provide their own packaging (eg cups at coffee shops), or might provide incentives for packaging to be returned instead of trashed (deposits on cans…
I don't think that companies should be held responsible for crimes committed using their products. Why not directly punish the person who committed the crime?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that companies should be held responsible for crimes committed using their products. Why not directly punish the person who committed the crime?
Because it's easier to punish the people who enable it.
If a company produces a product, and then someone uses that product to commit a crime, did the company enable the criminal?
Do you apply this reasoning to any other crimes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
States in the USA have been doing this for years too. 10 cents for bottles and cans in California, and you just don't really see them on the street for this reason. What you do see is... everything else.
Part of the issue is the people collecting the 10 cent bottles have dumped out the rest of the trash in a hunt for 10c and a possible meal.