[datahack]

It’s not though unless it’s reused a great deal. Making paper is intense and requires a LOT of water and chemicals.

We should really look for more lower hanging common sense solutions.

Let me give you one… the boxes that are used to transport food to a grocery store are all crushed and go back into the recycling system as bundles. Why aren’t we sending boxes that can be used in place of paper and plastic bags? It would immediately offset a lot of purchases that require bags.

Costco does it. Sam’s Club sometimes too. But manufacturers don’t make boxes designed for the purpose of a second use before recycling, and the vast majority of stores don’t offer it.

That would take a waste stream and give it a second use before being recycled.

Simple, common sense solutions like this one are all around us but we keep looking for a “solution” rather than an “improvement.”

[Zanfa]

No idea about the US, but I've seen European grocery stores heavily use Euro containers [1]. Empty ones are taken away in the same truck that brings new goods, so there's no extra cost in transportation either.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_container

[kjkjadksj]

Costco doesn't use special boxes either. Grocery store uses the exact same case boxes as you would get at a costco checkout, they probably just aren't generating so damn many around the clock because the quantities sold are much smaller, leaving you with fewer extra boxes to have customers deal with on their own.

[tacocataco]

When I go to aldis I always grab a fruit box. Keeps my food bill smaller to because I can only carry so much.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

What’s missing an accurately priced tax for the externalities of products specific to the products.

[kjkjadksj]

Nothing like passing costs to the consumer who is already squeezed to the brink.

[stoperaticless]

There is no other way.

Whatever you do to producer, it will affect consumer.

Increase cost of production? Cost of product increases.

Decrease production output? Cost of product increases. (Assuming demand did not change)

Forbid a product? Consumer looks, for next best alternative which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick).

Regulate prices? Output is reduced. To fill in the gap, consumers look for next best alternative, which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick)

The only alternative is for consumer to stop desiring the product somehow. E.g by changing of definition of “good” via education, morals or religion.

[Spivak]

You subsidize the production of the better thing. Once you have (within reason) a better or equivalent product at the same or lower price at the consumer point-of-sale than the alternative you want to replace go ahead and ban the old thing.

It doesn't work for everything but it's the exact playbook we followed for LED lightbulbs.

[stoperaticless]

Good point. At least some times, there is other way, called “invent something better”. When it works, it can reduce price and reduce environmental damage both at the same time.

Trying to chase at least a tiny bit of “technically correct”: during subsidisation period, consumers are the ones paying for it with their taxes.