Re: Refillable Bottles & home collection

carol (
Fri, 28 May 1999 05:26:02 -0400

Makes total sense. The poor become the endpoint of the disposal cycle
even if they do not actually purchase more "future waste," since
their purchases have shorter lives and also, they probably acquire a
lot more secondhand goods. I should have known that a regressive
tax never really has an sound basis. So much for PAYT.

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 <>
To: <>
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
> them:
> 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