Stop Punishing The Consumer When It Comes To Going Green

[Ziggy_Encaoua]

I’ve often wondered if any government wants consumers to be greener why punish them? Instead of punishing the motorist at the petrol pump why not punish the motor manufacturers for not investing in renewal energy. Instead of punishing the consumer for throwing out too much rubbish why not punish the supermarkets for supplying goods in too much packaging. I do think its utterly wrong too punish the consumer when the consumer is limited by the choice supplied. Wouldn’t it be more rightful to punish the supplier?

Ziggy Encaoua
www.encaoua.net

[Nitrousoxide]

I have a better question. Why punish at all? Why is it the state's place to play nanny?

[Hawkeye]

How exactly are you going to punish the supplier, and how would you prevent said supplier from transferring the cost to the consumer by simply raising the prices?

[Brotherpug]

I have a better question. Why punish at all? Why is it the state's place to play nanny?

That's interesting. What's your answer, say in the UK, Landfill is running out, Local councils are starting to find it difficult and costly to throw collected rubbish away, re-cycling is also costly with more stuff being chucked than can be recycled, Council Tax payers are complaining about the cost of their tax, No-one wants a new land-fill site or incinerator in their back yard. If we don't have some kind of legislative approach what do we do?

[Brotherpug]

How exactly are you going to punish the supplier, and how would you prevent said supplier from transferring the cost to the consumer by simply raising the prices?

If it were up to me I'd legislate against superflous packaging since we can't persuade the consumer not to buy. I can't see the point, for example, of four apples on a polystyrene tray with cellophane wrapping around them or a ready prepared meal in an aluminium tray, cellophane over that, and put inside a cardboard box. If the supermarket didn't over-package the stuff in the first place we wouldn't have to throw it out. Since I don't buy this stuff in the first place my council tax subsidises those that do. In my opinion we either ensure people pay for the amount they throw out (in which case we get more fly tipping which, again, the council tax payer has to fork-out for when it gets cleared) or we don't produce it in the first place.

[Nitrousoxide]

That's interesting. What's your answer, say in the UK, Landfill is running out, Local councils are starting to find it difficult and costly to throw collected rubbish away, re-cycling is also costly with more stuff being chucked than can be recycled, Council Tax payers are complaining about the cost of their tax, No-one wants a new land-fill site or incinerator in their back yard. If we don't have some kind of legislative approach what do we do?


Watch as prices rise for the consumer wishing to throw stuff away. As prices rise, they will want to find ways to reduce the amount of stuff they throw away. If two companies produce a similar product in all ways except for the amount of packaging, the consumer will pick the product with less packaging.

Companies will then either need to reduce the amount of packaging or loose buisness.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

Making one choice unappealing is the basis for change. So making the most popular choice less appealing, you will drive demand for the more appealing product.


It's very simple, really.

[Brotherpug]

Watch as prices rise for the consumer wishing to throw stuff away. As prices rise, they will want to find ways to reduce the amount of stuff they throw away. If two companies produce a similar product in all ways except for the amount of packaging, the consumer will pick the product with less packaging.

Companies will then either need to reduce the amount of packaging or loose buisness.

So in other words the state punishes the consumer by making it more expensive for him to throw rubbish away. I thought you didn't think it was right for the state to intervene in this way? I don't disagree with your solution by the way but, as I said earlier, a way of avoiding the charge is putting the stuff in your car, take it to a field somehere, and dump it there.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Watch as prices rise for the consumer wishing to throw stuff away. As prices rise, they will want to find ways to reduce the amount of stuff they throw away. If two companies produce a similar product in all ways except for the amount of packaging, the consumer will pick the product with less packaging.

Companies will then either need to reduce the amount of packaging or loose buisness.

Or the company with more packaging will just get Justin Timberlake to do a commercial for their product, and they will continue to use the same amount of packaging. I wish we lived in a world that was as simplistic as your idea. Damn, that would be nice.

[Nitrousoxide]

So in other words the state punishes the consumer by making it more expensive for him to throw rubbish away. I thought you didn't think it was right for the state to intervene in this way? I don't disagree with your solution by the way but, as I said earlier, a way of avoiding the charge is putting the stuff in your car, take it to a field somehere, and dump it there.

I never said the state raises the price for waste removal. I was speaking from an American perspective when I said that price for removal would rise, and our waste removal systems are private. I don't know how it is in the UK, but I presumed a privatized waste removal system.

[Henry-Finland]

If it were up to me I'd legislate against superflous packaging since we can't persuade the consumer not to buy. I can't see the point, for example, of four apples on a polystyrene tray with cellophane wrapping around them or a ready prepared meal in an aluminium tray, cellophane over that, and put inside a cardboard box. If the supermarket didn't over-package the stuff in the first place we wouldn't have to throw it out. Since I don't buy this stuff in the first place my council tax subsidises those that do. In my opinion we either ensure people pay for the amount they throw out (in which case we get more fly tipping which, again, the council tax payer has to fork-out for when it gets cleared) or we don't produce it in the first place.
I Germany there was/is a law that says that the buyer can leave all the package material (s)he does not need, to the seller.
From that grow a protest where people left the packages at the cashier at the shop.
That gave a affect of that the seller/shop bought stuff that was lightly packed.
So that is how it should be done => People making things together.
I am not for boycotts, but I think we should vote more with our purse. As you seem to do. :notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

That is the only thing that even the big corporations listnens to.



Henry

[Brotherpug]

I never said the state raises the price for waste removal. I was speaking from an American perspective when I said that price for removal would rise, and our waste removal systems are private. I don't know how it is in the UK, but I presumed a privatized waste removal system.

Not really, or at least not for domestic waste, paid for out of council tax. Many local councils put it out to tender, but in that case (obviously) they pay the contractor. Quite often you pay the council for bulky rubbish and there are private companies that you can pay to take your bulky waste away at a lower price than the local authority but, once again, you run the risk that they will avoid costs for themselves by dumping the waste somewhere inappropriate.

[lisarea]

Any punishment levied against corporations will be passed along to the consumer. That's just the way it works. Unless and until corporate charters start getting revoked, the consumers will bear the cost entirely.

The government (which is supposed to represent the people in the US) provides incentives and disincentives all the time, too. Sin and luxury taxes, carpool lanes, tax deductions, etc.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are selfish, stupid, gullible, busy, short-sighted, ignorant, or any of a number of other things that preclude making responsible decisions. So wasteful and irresponsible practices either have to be disincentivized (man, I miss my spellchecker sometimes) or banned outright before people make more responsible choices.

So as far as excess packaging goes, the government will either have to create guidelines that define it and ban it outright, or some kind of compelling disincentive plan that is painful for the consumer. It's really only when individual people get inconvenienced enough by the cost of their wasteful practices (driving gas guzzlers, wasting electricity, and any other excessive consumption) that they actually start demanding changes. And until you reach critical mass of suffering consumers, the tragedy of the commons is going to be the prevailing market force.

So I want consumers to suffer. It's not fair, and it often sucks most for those who deserve it least, but it has to happen.

[Ziggy_Encaoua]

I have a better question. Why punish at all? Why is it the state's place to play nanny?

Well I don't live in Libertarian-fantasyland like everybosdy I live in the real world.

The point I was making is that the state often punishes the individual consumers rather then the big corporations being as for instance oil corporations are far too powerful.

Ziggy Encaoua
www.encaoua.net

[chapka]

I’ve often wondered if any government wants consumers to be greener why punish them? Instead of punishing the motorist at the petrol pump why not punish the motor manufacturers for not investing in renewal energy. Instead of punishing the consumer for throwing out too much rubbish why not punish the supermarkets for supplying goods in too much packaging. I do think its utterly wrong too punish the consumer when the consumer is limited by the choice supplied. Wouldn’t it be more rightful to punish the supplier?

1) It's practical to "punish" the consumer. It's not practical to "punish" the producer.

A fuel tax is simple to write and relatively simple to enforce.

A fuel-efficiency technology requirement takes experts to design, needs to be customized for each industry and manufacturer and seller, and often doesn't do as good a job as the consumer-driven solution, since there is no incentive for the seller to invest in finding cheaper or better technology to save more fuel.

2) It isn't a punishment; it's a tax.

If you buy a gallon of gas, you're causing some damage to the environment and to other people. The government is taxing you to account for that. Your consumption is a better measure of that damage than the car company's sales.

3) A user tax affects behavior more than a manufacturer tax.

If you need a car, you will buy a car. But once you own it, the government can convince you to reduce your actual usage--carpool, drive less, whatever--by taxing you. They can't convince you to do anything by taxing the auto manufacturer, at leat not until you need to replace that car.

4) The consumer pays either tax anyway.

If the car company gets fined for not being green enough, do you think that the CEO will pay it out of his or her lunch money? Increasing costs on manufacturers increases the cost of production, and that gets passed on to consumers. That isn't to say that manufacturers shouldn't be regulated; just that we shouldn't pretend that the costs of regulation disappear into some magical corporate world and aren't paid by ordinary consumers in the real world.

[MindRevolution]

The statutory incidence of a tax and it's economic incidence are almost always completely different.

Consumers get "punished" because they will end up paying anyway, and people respond to incentives.

[MeinGeist]

I Germany there was/is a law that says that the buyer can leave all the package material (s)he does not need, to the seller.
That law still exists. Sellers are obliged to take back packaging. What's more, as the recycling quota of drink containers was continuously falling, deposits are mandatory on most containers. The tin can has been almost totally replaced by PET bottles.

Funny story, actually. It was a conservative government (under Helmut Kohl) that made the law in question. It had a provision that there would be mandatory deposits on certain types of drink containers if the recycling quota should keep falling. A "voluntary committment" type of deal and as everyone who hasn't been born yesterday knows a "voluntary committment" is a happy fuck you.
The lobbyists, mainly on behalf of the tin can manufacturers, of course, made another play as soon as the quota had fallen to ward off the provision. It might have worked, they really raised hell, but lo and behold the political winds had stiffened, suddenly there was greenies in the government and in charge of the responsible ministry.
So, we have a law and the political will to enforce it. You should think that's it.
Not quite. Retailers decided to play chicken. They refused to prepare for the required deposit and tried to stop the law in court. In court, They lost. Thanks to the lack of preparation, the introduction of the deposit ended in months of chaos. Did the retailers lose in real life? Of course not. By not spending any money before you don't absolutely have to, you gain interest. Plus, the chaos could be ideally blamed on the greens, scoring one for the lobbyists.
The system works smoothly by now.

From that grow a protest where people left the packages at the cashier at the shop.
That gave a affect of that the seller/shop bought stuff that was lightly packed.
I don't know if there was much of a protest but it certainly got the shit rolling uphill.

[EricK]

Watch as prices rise for the consumer wishing to throw stuff away. As prices rise, they will want to find ways to reduce the amount of stuff they throw away. If two companies produce a similar product in all ways except for the amount of packaging, the consumer will pick the product with less packaging.

Companies will then either need to reduce the amount of packaging or loose buisness.

Why is this a better approach?

At best, the end result is the same (businesses use less packaging) but it takes much longer to get there compared to the legislative approach and meanwhile more packaging is used than needs be.

At worst, it doesn't happen like that (because so many people are more swayed by pretty packaging and slick advertising than by a few pennies here and there) and excess packaging continues "forever".

[I. C. Unicorns]

I have a better question. Why punish at all? Why is it the state's place to play nanny?

The state has an interest in protecting the public good, protecting the environment does that.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

I have a better question. Why punish at all? Why is it the state's place to play nanny?
Because that is the job of the state--to protect its citizens.