A couple of people have written comments, which I appreciate. I don't mind constructive anonymous comments. They're more than welcome. But when you have something to contribute and I know you, it's always nice if you're not anonymous.
As I see it, there is need to expand the recycling effort by our communities even though I sympathize with what Margaret is getting at. Even in Michigan, where we have a good bottle/can recycling program (not great, though) and the beverage companies are required to take back their containers, the burden for recycling belongs to the consumer, as well as some of the cost. And, there is still lots of stuff consumers use which can't realistically be recovered by the manufacturer unless the consumer delivers it back to them in some way.
And there's the question of who should pay. Who should bear the cost of recycling? If it were the manufacturers paying the costs, presumably, they would find ways to reduce the amount and type of junk they're heaving (especially through packaging) into the chain of commerce.
Further comments welcome.
3 comments:
from Alice: I'm the paper anonymus. I didn't intend not to identify myself. Just forgot Did you know that the stores that take back cans are responsible for disposing of them?
Whether the store or the manufacturer pays the actual recycling fee, it is always passed on to the consumer in the form of a price increase.
Good point Dashmann. What I liked about the article is that the author dared to shake up the status quo by questioning the value of the sacred cow of the green movement. My feeling is this; recycling is like voting. Important and worthwhile, but only a small first step toward participating in positive change.
Post a Comment