• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Standardize Bottles

    July 14th, 2019
    ideas, recycling  [html]
    Products come in a wide range of containers varying in material, shape, color, texture, etc. This makes recycling very inefficient: instead of washing and reusing the containers we need break them down into raw materials and build back up from there. Standardization would help a lot here: figure out what range of shapes and sizes you need to cover most of the market, and design some sturdy reusable containers for them. Probably clear glass, which companies can then glue paper labels to. This makes it worth it to collect the containers whole and reuse them.

    When I remember using hard glass ketchup bottles instead of modern squeezable ones, however, it does seem like we'd be losing something here. Some variation in container design is valuable. Pushing the standardization via a tax on non-reusable containers would probably be the best option, though you could also imagine some system where you add an exception if the manufacturer can justify why they need to do something unusual.

    While the main benefit here is through more efficient reuse of materials giving lower packaging costs, there's also a gain from reducing competition over branding. Manufacturers are often competing over the same number of sales, trying to attract buyers through something unique in the appearance of their product. Just like how laws limiting cigarette advertising accidentally made tobacco companies more profitable, limiting this channel for product differentiation probably would be helpful to neutral for manufacturers.

    It would probably be best to try this at a smaller scale before rolling it out for everything. For example, you could start by introducing a standard 250mL (1C) container, and have the tax for non-standard containers only apply to products within a certain range of the sizes that have been standardized so far.

    Comment via: facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Who Should Bear the Risk in Infrastructure Projects?

    The answer to the question is the public sector, always. It’s okay to have private-sector involvement in construction, but the risk must be borne by the public sector, or else the private sector will just want more money to compensate for the extra risk. …

    via Pedestrian Observations November 30, 2020

    Fireside Friday, November 27, 2020

    Hey folks! Fireside this week. A bit of a change-up in terms of the coming attractions. I had planned to start “Textiles, How Did They Make It?” next, but I want to do a bit more reading on some of the initial stages of textile production (that is, the pr…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry November 27, 2020

    Thoughts you mightn't have thunk about remote meetings

    Welcome to this week's edition of "building a startup in 2020," in which all your meetings are suddenly remote, and you probably weren't prepared for it. I know I wasn't. We started a "fully remote" company back in 2019, but …

    via apenwarr November 23, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact