This is yet another reason to sample the waste stream and charge
the manufacturer who created the objects in the first place--and
I don't just mean packaging, but the items themselves. As the stuff
will become waste whether or not anyone ever buys it, assigning
the cost to the consumer directly is not a comprehensive solution.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Schell <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Refillable Bottles & home collection
> At 06:25 PM 5/24/99 -0400, Carol Slechta wrote:
> >Again, charging wasteful consumers prevents the "zero waste" people
> >from subsidizing the wasteful ones. It is a bit of a regressive tax
> >since it hits poor people more heavily but there is no inherent
> >reason that poor people should generate more waste, so I think
> >that can be overlooked.
> Steve says:
> There may well be some reasons why poor people generate more waste, among
> 1. poor people generally do not have built-in garbage disposers, hence a
> significantly larger portion of their waste is food waste.
> 2. poor people generally cannot afford to "shop smart," i.e. buy products
> that use little or no packaging. When you are shopping on a budget you
> the most inexpensive things you can and those products tend to be the ones
> with the most disposable packaging. additionally, many products you buy
> inexpensively now, will not last as long as those that may cost more money