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

Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 210 posts

Re: Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

#141

Post by jaredklewis »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #130
RobertRoberts wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of places in the world where littering is not socially acceptable and happens less than other places. What is the difference between these places? I think it's the people, not the material their garbage is made of.

Well, there's Singapore and...? That's about it. Of course as well as extreme and draconian legislation, like banning gum, they're a tiny city-state. Yet Singapore employs vast numbers of cleaners and street sweepers clearing up - which surely shouldn't be necessary? Far more per-capita than any Western city. So even they seem to recognise it will happen anyway.

Add Japan to the list. Littering is extremely rare.

When traveling, I've been impressed by the cleanliness of Zurich, Copenhagen, Helsinki, and several cities in Germany.

If as a society we can't do something as simple as not throw garbage on the ground, I think we have a very bleak future.

Re: Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

#142

Post by yeahsure »

antoineMoPa wrote: post #113
redwall_hp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glass bottles weigh about 10 times more than plastic bottles. Enjoy all the extra CO2 from shipping.

I'd say make it a semi-luxury product. A once/twice per month $3.75 - $5.75 pleasure that comes in a glass bottle. The sweet refreshing taste of Coca-Cola should not be an everyday thing (otherwise it becomes an health issue). So you reduce C02 & health impact and maintain profitability.

And who determines the amount an individual can consume per month? I have friends and family that drink at least a bottle a day and have no plans on stopping.

Re: Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

#143

Post by rexpop »

rienbdj wrote: post #137
SteveGerencser wrote: post #8

The survey found that 10 companies were responsible for more than half of the identifiably branded rubbish found on the UK’s beaches." But are they? Isn't this shifting the blame from the end user that improperly disposes of their trash to the company? Sure, they could do more to reduce packaging issues, but in the end, it is the consumer that is tossing these things out rather than recycling them.

It doesn't matter whos fault it is. The only point in the system where we can reasonably fix it is at these companies.

Right. There isn't an ethical way to "upgrade" human operating system.

It's infuriating to me how so many Hacker Newsites refuse to hold corporations accountable for their design flaws.

Re: Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

#144

Post by rexpop »

musgrove wrote: post #103
SteveGerencser wrote: post #8

The survey found that 10 companies were responsible for more than half of the identifiably branded rubbish found on the UK’s beaches." But are they? Isn't this shifting the blame from the end user that improperly disposes of their trash to the company? Sure, they could do more to reduce packaging issues, but in the end, it is the consumer that is tossing these things out rather than recycling them.

Personal accountability is a concept that's nonexistent with activist groups. They're comprised of people who live to pass blame for consequences that are individual's faults onto faceless entities who can be demonized and hopefully sued, or have money extorted from in the name of a cause du jour.

This is a nonsensical statement. Corporations are not "faceless entities," they have "free speech" rights and they act on the world. They are emergent agents.

If, on the other hand, you insist on finding people to blame, I would start with the executives who ordered the design of the packaging that lends itself to litter.

Re: Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

#145

Post by benj111 »

m463 wrote: post #27
devoply wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ban plastic bottles. Make them use glass bottles in a closed cycle where the bottles are constantly cycled and then turned into something else when they can't be cycled... or use aluminum which is recyclable. And let's call out recycling for the sham that it is. Recycling is a lie for plastics, plastics can not be economically recycled. They must be banned and the polluters made to internalize the externality.

I like aluminum better. Glass bottles are not perfect. They are lots heavier, which leads to transportation pollution. They also break and hurt people. As to plastics - You are correct, they do not recycle and when you try to do it, even with a very low ratio of recycled to new plastics you end up with crappy weak plastic - think laundry baskets that have handles that break easily. i think we should just learn to bur…

If you're going to make the case that glass is heavy, shouldn't the same logic be applied to the drink inside too?

What about something akin to soda stream, either at home or in store?

Re: Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

#146

Post by xorfish »

devoply wrote: post #14
SteveGerencser wrote: post #8

The survey found that 10 companies were responsible for more than half of the identifiably branded rubbish found on the UK’s beaches." But are they? Isn't this shifting the blame from the end user that improperly disposes of their trash to the company? Sure, they could do more to reduce packaging issues, but in the end, it is the consumer that is tossing these things out rather than recycling them.

Ban plastic bottles. Make them use glass bottles in a closed cycle where the bottles are constantly cycled and then turned into something else when they can't be cycled... or use aluminum which is recyclable. And let's call out recycling for the sham that it is. Recycling is a lie for plastics, plastics can not be economically recycled. They must be banned and the polluters made to internalize the externality.

> Recycling is a lie for plastics, plastics can not be economically recycled.

That is simply not true, just go to most of Europe. In Switzerland 83% of PET bottles get recycled. 0% ends up directly in landfills.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/fact-check_is-switzerland-the-w...

Re: Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

#147

Post by benj111 »

siedes wrote: post #55
jerrysievert wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oregon has 90% redemption rate[1] at 10 cents per bottle, so there is obviously some incentive. 1. https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-bottle-deposit-redem...

Incentive for who though? For the homeless and very poor, who probably will not even be the ones purchasing those bottles(at least at the same rate as those in higher economic classes) in the first place? We need to make it worth it for the good number of consumers who buy these things, so that they don't litter in the first place and put more thought about those $0.50-$1.00 per bottle they're tossing out. Yes, this…

The UK introduced a carrier bag charge scheme. Overnight usage dropped 80%, and that was for a 5p charge. Now I don't think many people would stop to pick up 5p off the street, but people will jump through the hoops to avoid paying the 5p. These things work, even at a relatively low threshold. Don't forget you're only aim to nudge what people know they should already be doing.

https://www.standard.co.uk/futurelondon/theplasticfreeprojec...

Re: Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

#148

Post by kwhitefoot »

jaredklewis wrote: post #141
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's Singapore and...? That's about it. Of course as well as extreme and draconian legislation, like banning gum, they're a tiny city-state. Yet Singapore employs vast numbers of cleaners and street sweepers clearing up - which surely shouldn't be necessary? Far more per-capita than any Western city. So even they seem to recognise it will happen anyway.

Add Japan to the list. Littering is extremely rare. When traveling, I've been impressed by the cleanliness of Zurich, Copenhagen, Helsinki, and several cities in Germany. If as a society we can't do something as simple as not throw garbage on the ground, I think we have a very bleak future.

And Scandinavia. Plus here in Norway people actually pick up what litter there is either just casually when out for a walk or in organized gangs set up by sports clubs and so on. The kommune (local council) pays for this to be done to clean up shorelines etc.

Britain is far and away the worst country I have ever been to for litter even though it is much better than it used to be.

Of course one thing that helps here is that every drinks bottle or can carries a deposit (roughly 10 to 20 pence sterling) that can be redeemed at any supermarket.

Re: Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

#149

Post by kwhitefoot »

saagarjha wrote: post #43
jerrysievert wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oregon has 90% redemption rate[1] at 10 cents per bottle, so there is obviously some incentive. 1. https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-bottle-deposit-redem...

I don't think this is the whole story, since as far as I'm aware the only people who get the redemption are people who put very low value on their time because it's inconvenient to actually redeem bottles.

How is it inconvenient? I have a bag where I drop all my cans and bottles, when I go shopping I take it with me. Every supermarket takes them regardless of where they came from. No extra trips or detours required.

Re: Coca-Cola most common source of packaging pollution on UK beaches: study

#150

Post by kwhitefoot »

code_duck wrote: post #115
baroffoos wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia has it per state and they have the refund logo printed on the bottle label. Bringing bottles from another state will result in a fine if caught.

In the US machines simply won’t pay for bottles purchased out of state. That’s my experience in Michigan, anyway.

For the vast majority of bottles that's not a problem surely.

Edit: same here in Norway, Swedish and Danish bottles are not redeemable here but it is definitely not a big enough problem to matter.

Post reply on HN