Bend over. Here it comes again!

[Jerry_Atrick]

The modern view is that the disposal of stuff is (at least in part) a responsibility of the production and marketing section. Consider a nuclear Power station as an example, admittedly a large one but the principle is the same for all articles. Cigarette butts and plastic also are becoming a serious problem. The type of plastic and the amount used is in the control of the above mentioned groups. Nev

I don't think the nuclear powerstation is a valid analogy. The smoker buys the cigarettes (forget vaping for now) and is responsible for properly disposing of their cigarette buts. Consumers of items wrapped in plastic are responsible for disposing properly of the packaging. The person paying their electricity bill is not purcashing uranium; they are purchasing and using power. The power generation company is purchasing the uranium and using are responsible for correctly "disposing" of the waste it generates. So, I see no inconsistency (otherwise it would utlimately be up to the oil and uranium miners to dispose of the waste of ulitmately what they produce.

 

However, I do agree, as a society, it is well proven that there is a significant minority that are negligent with their responsibilities to an extent that it is wreaking ecological havoc on the planet and therefore something has to be collectively done to reduce it. Personally, I think a lot of the packaging is wasteful and should be banned - but packaging companies are a pretty powerful bunch of people and can apply much grease to the wheels...

 

 

[facthunter]

The removal and disposal is part of the COST. Same as the non degradable straws and containers used in coffee shops. Why should the people who don't use those facilities be saddled with the cost of cleaning them up? I think the Nuclear Power station IS a valid example. Sorry about that. USER [pays for the TOTAL cost of a product. That includes disposal and cleanup of the environment. (OR not wrecking it in the first place, if it can't be fixed.) Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

Yes Jerry, that negligent minority are why we need deposits. It was that minority who paid for the pickup woman's trip to Europe, and I completely approve. Everybody got their own way and the streets got cleaned up, at least for the deposit things.

 

But as you imply, the packaging billionaires have corrupted most places and prevented deposits against the wishes of the majority.

 

 

[old man emu]

You've got to wonder at the mentality of some fishermen. They will tell you that fishing is one of the great sports, and are willing to pay a licence fee to maintain fish stocks, yet they will throw various forms of plastic packaging overboard to damage marine life.

 

The message hasn't gotten through to the "Me" generations wither. Just look at the packaging that was left at places where people gathered to celebrate New Year etc.

 

 

[Bruce]

The mess left after events just shows what we pay for the lack of deposit laws. As I said, too little deposit and not on enough things.

 

 

[facthunter]

What sort of dopey animal would leave so much $#1t around it made them sick and sometimes die.? Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

People Nev. In Alice Springs, it is a sad sight to see aboriginal families squatting in their yard surrounded by heaps of rubbish. But how could you expect desert aborigines to have any culture about picking up litter? Or washing, for that matter, and yes the lack of washing sometimes kills them.

 

I blame a dreadful ( but unwitting on the part of the bleeding hearts ) coalition of bleeding hearts and nasty racists for the fact that financial coercion is not used to help aborigines learn new and better ways. And that is the same with deposits, it is a gentle form of coercion for a good cause.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

The removal and disposal is part of the COST. Same as the non degradable straws and containers used in coffee shops. Why should the people who don't use those facilities be saddled with the cost of cleaning them up? I think the Nuclear Power station IS a valid example. Sorry about that. USER [pays for the TOTAL cost of a product. That includes disposal and cleanup of the environment. (OR not wrecking it in the first place, if it can't be fixed.) Nev

I understand where your coming from, Nev, but consumers do pay for the clean up cost in that local rates and government taxes that provide waste disposal services. So, in that respect, the user of the product is already paying the total cost of cleanup. The fact that they don't utilise them is the same as a nuclear facilitues incorrectlly handling nuclear waste: Hanford Site - Wikipedia.

 

The deposit scheme is tantamount to an enforcement order; i.e. paying a surcharge that is refundable if one does the right thing...

 

 

[Yenn]

I just wonder who is going to pay for the clean up of the open cut coal mines. Miles of overburden visible and I have never seen a clean up yet.

 

I did go to one mine supposedly in the process of being cleaned up, but it looked nothing like the surrounding country and their environmental expert was boasting about how good it was because they had animal species never before seen there.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's what you can't see that's the problem. Heavy metals put into aquifers and rivers. Fly River in New Guinea. OK Tedi.. Gold mines often leave Arsenic as well. Nev.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I regularly drive thru the Hunter Valley. From the road the tailings dumps appear to have been nicely revegetated. From the air it seems to be just window dressing.

 

Air navigation needs to be better than I Follow Roads. Each time I fly down the valley there's a vast new hole in the ground. Will they ever be filled in?