Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by shippintoboston 1492 days ago
Always blame the individual not the corporation...
5 comments

The structural problems that I imagine are at play here:

- apparently people buy bottles without the intent of resealing them, maybe offering cups as an alternative would fit them better?

- maybe some people litter due to a lack of conveniently accessible bins

- maybe littering can be reduced by educational programs

- why are people buying cola at all? Drinking from the tap or a drinking fountain would be much more environmentally friendly and healthier.

-- Drinking fountains are rare in most countries

-- In some countries tap water isn't great for consumption

-- Coca Cola spends a lot of money convincing us to buy it

-- Sugary drinks have a certain appeal to our senses

I probably missed a couple. But while Coca-Cola is responsible for some of them, at least as many of them are about public infrastructure driving the choices of individuals.

Always blame the corporation that sold the person a bottle of coke, and not the piece of shit sitting on a bench, next to a rubbish bin, who drinks it then throws the empty bottle in the river infront of them.
Why not allocate blame & cheer to the individual & corporation as appropriate.

So in this case.. littering = bad individual, anti-littering product changes = good corporation.

This was likely introduced due to producer responsibilty laws which would make the corporation responsible for the cost of cleanup.

Its funny how corporations can come up with solutions when they are the ones that are paying to clean up the waste. Much cheaper to blame the individual but they can only get away with for so long.

This isn't the argument. People vote with their wallets. If the corp makes recyclable glass bottles, customers will buy a competitors plastic ones. It is still mostly down to the customer to either buy something more sustainable or to recycle it at least.
For littering? Absolutely