[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.