[darkFunction]

A lot of discussion on this thread revolves around whose responsibility it is to ensure clean-up of plastic waste (producers or consumers) while ignoring the fact that companies are using a material that lasts 10,000 years for items that are single-use. That should be outright illegal unless there are literally no alternatives.

[RobertRoberts]

Is it really debatable about "who" left the garbage on the ground?

Even if something only lasts a couple years, do we still want biodegrading trash littering everything? (we have raw food products right now, I wouldn't want those on the beach either...)

[NeedMoreTea]

Oh come on.

It's abundantly clear that placing blame and expectation entirely on the shoulders of consumers is bollocks. Humans drop litter - just look at any festival, concert, or sports match. When it was your granddad it was mostly paper bags, maybe wrapped in newspaper, maybe a few crown corks. The glass got carefully taken home as there was a hefty deposit on those beer bottles! Now it's knee-deep single use everywhere.

That hasn't changed as you look at poorer countries, or back into the past. What has changed is extensive industry lobbying pretending it's not fucking obvious and working to abolish deposit and return schemes, and use of far more benign materials - like glass. It's as bad as tobacco or asbestos all over again.

The same plastic industry that fucking lobbied the government against suggestions that plastic packaging should contain a third recycled plastic.

Not only should it be outright illegal, countless industry's execs are deserving of lengthy spells in prison or a law that says you can chuck used plastic in their mansion's garden. :)

[RobertRoberts]

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.

[lostlogin]

That stuff matters, but of far greater importance is the volume of plastic made. We make too much. It’s not particularly hard to reduce your usage a lot, but I think that’s coming at it from the wrong end. The manufacturers need to be incentivised to do better. Carrot and stick, with the stick getting bigger over time.

[Liquid_Fire]

In Japan everything is overpackaged using ridiculous amounts of plastic (more so than in Europe, for example), and yet people don't litter.

I think it's important to tackle the issue from both ends.

[TeMPOraL]

> and yet people don't litter.

I don't buy it. See CydeWeys's comments around this thread. Also, having lots of people cleaning the streets only makes it look like there's little littering.

> I think it's important to tackle the issue from both ends.

Sure. Thing is, tackling it from the corporate end will be ridiculously more effective than trying to instill new societal norms.

[NeedMoreTea]

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.

[jaredklewis]

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.

[NeedMoreTea]

Never visited Japan, but when I have been in Germany, Denmark and Sweden (nearest I've been to Finland!) they seemed to employ more cleaning - or at least more noticeably - than I expect to see in say modern day UK. I do notice, because UK and many other places are bleak in terms of litter compared to what I remember from childhood and early adulthood, in both extent and type. Nowhere has been nearly as bad about litter as the US though. I haven't visited for well over a decade so maybe they got better.

A vast transformation of the amount of packaging and type along with far fewer bins (who the hell thought that a good idea?) and cleaners, gardeners, and people mowing verges. All of which now seem to go by the benchmark "as little as we can get away with". Now add the disowning of any part of blame by business and producers as I mentioned originally. We certainly used to accept that some would always happen and employed enough to make sure the place stayed nice regardless, and the tidier places still seem to. We also presumed reuse far more often, and systems were built to expect that.

We also have a different attitude - more accepting of litter, though not as bad as in the eighties and early nineties when apparently no one in the UK gave a shit, and it was everywhere. Amsterdam, Stockholm and Paris have changed similarly, though none as much as here. Paris is perhaps worst of those.

[CydeWeys]

I'm just leaving Japan after spending a week touring around the country, and I definitely did see litter. Not as much on the streets as in the US, but still some, and the beach was absolutely jam-packed with litter that had washed ashore.

Litter is inevitable. A lot or the time it isn't even conscious. You can just forget that you had set a bottle down next to you, and happen not to look back when you're leaving. Or it can fall out of your pocket or backpack unnoticed when you're retrieving something else. Or the wind can just blow it out of a trash can or vehicle.

[jgtrosh]

Why make your vision of human success hinge on a sudden global capacity to not litter objects for which there is zero incentive not to litter? Think about all the great or crazy human successes; do you think they were enabled by perfect individuals? We build a society to make individual failings obsolete, the opposite (upholding society through global individual rigour) is not sustainable.

[kwhitefoot]

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.

[titzer]

> where littering is not socially acceptable and happens less than other places.

It's great that there are places where littering is much less due to social norms. But it's not zero. People litter. Period.

To a first approximation, humans can be modeled as points wandering around on a map, and at each timestep there is some nonzero probability they will just drop garbage on the ground. This is true the world over, in every single country I've been, on essentially every hiking trail, no matter how remote or inaccessible. If you were to have a heatmap of litter the world over, it would very closely approximate the simple heatmap of where people have been. Just look at any stretch of highway. Unless it has just been cleaned up by a very thorough cleanup crew, you will find trash. And this is where people are riding around in vehicles that could as well just keep their trash in the backseat. People go out of their way to throw that shit out the window. People can't even get trash into a fricking trash can. It will literally be sitting on the ground next to a trash can.

People are trash monkeys. You can knock one or two orders of magnitude off the litter problem with education, societal norms, fines, etc. But people are trash monkeys, and whereever they go, they fucking litter. It's as inescapable as nuclear decay. It's just a function of probability.

[TeMPOraL]

> But people are trash monkeys, and whereever they go, they fucking litter. It's as inescapable as nuclear decay. It's just a function of probability.

When you talk about large populations, a lot of things normally considered individual responsibility suddenly become a function of probability. That's why I believe in many cases we should shift responsibility from individuals to organizations at the other end of a transaction.

E.g. if you know that roughly 5% of casino gamblers end up addicted and in life-ruining debt, and 0.1% of gamblers end up dying or killing people because of that, you can't open a new casino and shield yourself behind "it's the people who can't control themselves". You knew the probabilistic model, you used it to profit, you're responsible for some deaths and for ruining people's lives.

That's IMO doubly important if the probabilistic models has incentive knobs that you control.

[TeMPOraL]

Law and/or religion. I.e. well-enforced top-down rules. I sincerely doubt there's any difference in people.

[easytiger]

> It's abundantly clear that placing blame and expectation entirely on the shoulders of consumers is bollocks. Humans drop litter

That statement is false. Not all humans drop litter. In the west it is widely taught as wrong, often punishable by fines. Find me the person who states they should have a right to litter please. Not to mention the fact that biogradable packagi\ ng does little to nothing by way of helping littered refuse. It will have to be collected anyway.

There is no philosophy whereby you can excuse the individual action in this case except when trying to justify a wide range of other things as the basis of a broken polemic. Your last sentiment in that post entirely confirms this.

> Not only should it be outright illegal, countless industry's execs are deserving of lengthy spells in prison or a law that says you can chuck used plastic in their mansion's garden. :)

[CydeWeys]

Defense in depth is a useful concept for a lot more than just security.

Yes, of course people shouldn't litter. But some will anyway, and even in the unlikely event that no one on Earth litters ever again, plenty of trash will still escape from trash cans, trash trucks, etc., especially on windy days.

So the answer is we need defense in depth against litter. Littering should of course be curtailed to the maximum extent possible, but the litter itself should not last indefinitely upon escaping into the environment. It should degrade in a reasonable amount of time, or at least be totally inert and non-disruptive to animals and the environment (which plastic is not).

So you're both right. All available measures should be taken, so that combined, the optimal result is achieved.

[TeMPOraL]

Even in the most well-behaved country, everyone will drop some litter at some point - even if through hurry or accident. When you multiply "once every thousand opportunities" by city's population density, you still get a lot of litter. Add to that people who're drunk and people who simply don't give a fuck, add random spillage (e.g. wind knocking trashcans over or pulling trash out of them), and you get a visible fraction of litter simply, probabilistically caused by just so much trash being produced.

[NeedMoreTea]

Yet everywhere humans gather, for the entirety of our existence, there is litter. A good chunk of archaeology is sifting through ancient litter - as it is so consistently prevalent.

We will continue to have litter no matter how much teaching, fining or visible policing there is. See Singapore - highly developed laws on littering, fines, and very visible policing. Yet they still employ a more than average amount of people to keep the place looking spick and span. That should simply not be necessary if it's down to attitude or teaching alone. It would all be in the bin back at home or hotel.

Seems like that statement is still very true globally, and will remain so - despite best efforts of teaching, legislature and culture.

What has changed, and changed markedly, is single use packaging on the back of industry pressure and lobbying. No longer do business seem to feel part of the problem or the solution, or even of society and the problems they create within it. Just call it an externality and be done. Hence the rise of lobbying pushing it away and onto the customer, as it's cheaper and easier - for them alone. You end up with armfuls more waste just from a single takeaway, including the always useless plastic or wood coffee stirrer.

To solve the problem that part of responsibility has to be pushed back to source, where it was created. Whilst society again employ enough people to keep cities and tourist spots looking attractive - as well as expecting individuals to act well. Placing it entirely on recipient alone is indeed bollocks, as is giving industry an ever bigger free-pass to produce more and more regardless.

[username444]

The consumer IS the problem. Coca Cola can manufacture better bottles IF the consumer were willing to pay for it.

But they aren't. Would you pay twice the price for the same coke, but in a glass bottle?

It's the consumers demand for cheaper products, and subsequent disposal, that's the issue.

We could regulate away plastic bottles and prices would jump, and some portion of the population would rightly protest that it's the poor who suffer.

[dirkc]

Sometimes people litter by accident. On many hikes I've picked up things which have either fallen out of a backpack - like a still sealed energy drink - or was forgotten there - like a jacket.

[RobertRoberts]

Of course, but if this was the only litter, or the majority of it, that would be great.

I was taught from a young age not to litter, so are my kids.

It's a simple idea that's "free" and can be used everywhere to stop litter today.

[chewz]

Overconsumption should be illegal.

What if every person had been issued a certain limited credit amount for a lifetime? And then they can decide what to do:

- drink from plastic bottles - have children - have a personal car - wear cotton t-shirts - go some retail therapy - have a large lawn - fly to exotic vacations - ...

The list continues....

[scotty79]

What if this credit could be not equal for everybody but adjusted by how useful persons contributions are for other people? It could be dynamic!

Wait, we already have that. It's called money and doesn't help all that much for polution from single use, forever trash items. Maybe they are just priced wrong?

I think if government just cleaned up the oceans and sent bill to Coca-Cola for each bottle, market would solve things fairly quickly.

[perceptronas]

this would fit perfectly in socialist country. Want toiler paper? get papers and wait in line