I can’t see how attaching them wouldn’t increase the rates at which they’re recycled.
You can believe this was never a problem perhaps, but then you’ve got to wonder why the change was made—no one is gonna profit from the design of bottle caps changing, so what’s the motive for the change if it’s not a problem? Contrary to the somewhat common belief, politicians tend to try and not waste time on useless legislation.
A refund system costs money, this change basically doesn’t.
It was implemented as a symbol. I described it above.
The entire idea, similar to the carbon footprint, are attempts by the fossil industry to shift responsibility away from them and towards consumers. We from BP and BASF would love to stop pollution, but you guys keep throwing away the bottle caps! So they lobby the European Parliament to enact such regulations, the Parliament can act like they actually did something and the industry can keep producing plastics.
Yes, other solutions would cost more money. But these solutions would have at least a realistic chance to change something.
Remember the straight cucumber regulation? That was demanded by the retail industry. So it’s not like the EU doesn’t enact regulations for some lobby groups.
And if you think these caps are doing anything, the fossil industry fooled you successfully.
Yes I completely understand the lobbying the fossil fuel industry does and the tactics they use.
This is not the only policy from the EU regarding climate change however. If it was, I’d be with you that it’s absolutely not good enough.
No one is sat thinking we’ve solved climate change and plastic pollution by making plastic bottle lids slightly differently, and given this thread it clearly carries a negative sentiment. So it’s a pretty bad symbolic gesture.
We currently have a problem with microplastics.
I fail to see how this change will not increase the rates at which the lids are recycled.
This change was basically free, so even if it only moves the needle slightly, it was a change worth making.
There’s no silver bullet for fixing the problem, pretty much everything has to change, and this is just one of those many changes.
Ask yourself these simple questions: where is micro plastic coming from? And what would be a good lever to reduce that? Bottle caps are not the answer for any of that.
So the result is barely any change in the amount of plastic introduced in the environment, the real big sources (for example the plastic wrapper around the bottles, and around the pallets of bottles) are untouched, but people (like you) become complacent, because we added those cap straps after all!
Yes, reducing even a bit is helpful, but it’s far from being free, because this exact bullshit makes people ignore the real problem. Your view is far too myopic.
If you’ve read what I’ve written, you would know I’m not saying that
So the result is barely any change in the amount of plastic introduced in the environment
Where it ends up is the most important thing
but people (like you) become complacent, because we added those cap straps after all!
Again, read. I, or anyone else reasonable in support of this, are not saying this is the silver bullet. It’s one of the thousands of points of iterative improvement we need to make.
but it’s far from being free
In terms of green legislation, this is literally as cheap as it gets
this exact bullshit makes people ignore the real problem. Your view is far too myopic.
You have clearly not comprehended my previous comments remotely correctly.
I can’t see how attaching them wouldn’t increase the rates at which they’re recycled.
You can believe this was never a problem perhaps, but then you’ve got to wonder why the change was made—no one is gonna profit from the design of bottle caps changing, so what’s the motive for the change if it’s not a problem? Contrary to the somewhat common belief, politicians tend to try and not waste time on useless legislation.
A refund system costs money, this change basically doesn’t.
It was implemented as a symbol. I described it above.
The entire idea, similar to the carbon footprint, are attempts by the fossil industry to shift responsibility away from them and towards consumers. We from BP and BASF would love to stop pollution, but you guys keep throwing away the bottle caps! So they lobby the European Parliament to enact such regulations, the Parliament can act like they actually did something and the industry can keep producing plastics.
Yes, other solutions would cost more money. But these solutions would have at least a realistic chance to change something.
Remember the straight cucumber regulation? That was demanded by the retail industry. So it’s not like the EU doesn’t enact regulations for some lobby groups.
And if you think these caps are doing anything, the fossil industry fooled you successfully.
Yes I completely understand the lobbying the fossil fuel industry does and the tactics they use.
This is not the only policy from the EU regarding climate change however. If it was, I’d be with you that it’s absolutely not good enough.
No one is sat thinking we’ve solved climate change and plastic pollution by making plastic bottle lids slightly differently, and given this thread it clearly carries a negative sentiment. So it’s a pretty bad symbolic gesture.
We currently have a problem with microplastics.
I fail to see how this change will not increase the rates at which the lids are recycled.
This change was basically free, so even if it only moves the needle slightly, it was a change worth making.
There’s no silver bullet for fixing the problem, pretty much everything has to change, and this is just one of those many changes.
Ask yourself these simple questions: where is micro plastic coming from? And what would be a good lever to reduce that? Bottle caps are not the answer for any of that.
So the result is barely any change in the amount of plastic introduced in the environment, the real big sources (for example the plastic wrapper around the bottles, and around the pallets of bottles) are untouched, but people (like you) become complacent, because we added those cap straps after all!
Yes, reducing even a bit is helpful, but it’s far from being free, because this exact bullshit makes people ignore the real problem. Your view is far too myopic.
Literally everywhere
Many, many, many individual pieces of legislation
If you’ve read what I’ve written, you would know I’m not saying that
Where it ends up is the most important thing
Again, read. I, or anyone else reasonable in support of this, are not saying this is the silver bullet. It’s one of the thousands of points of iterative improvement we need to make.
In terms of green legislation, this is literally as cheap as it gets
You have clearly not comprehended my previous comments remotely correctly.