984
Doing our part (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
143 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/72601186

Creator credit: https://tiktok.com/@twonkcomics

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

The attached bottle caps are pretty stupid, but people who get unreasonably angry about it are even worse.

If the things piss people off so much, it barely take any effort to just pull them the fuck off the bottle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 48 points 2 weeks ago* (13 children)

    Attached caps are there for a purpose. They work. So no, they are not stupid.

    What is stupid is that comic which is completely misrepresenting what those attached caps are about to create a false hypocrisy to make fun of (about the caps probably even more than about the Tech bros).

    It is strange, to see how it is taking up the same anti-EU propaganda usually spread by Tech bros. The attached caps solve a problem and that is that caps are one of the largest trash types on beaches and in forests. They are such a big issue because due to the small size they are also laboursome to clean. Attached caps considerably reduce the number of separated caps and also of trash as a whole ending up there. They don't really cost more, don't need more resources and you can use them just as easily, if you are not completely incapable of adapting to change on a most fundamental level.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (12 children)

    So no, they are not stupid.

    The purpose was to reduce plastic pollution. According to latest data, across entire EU beverage industry, the plastic usage for attached caps is around 200,000 tonnes, equaling to around 381 million kg CO2 increase and that's not even taking in mind how much re-fitting and throwing out perfectly good manufacturing machines costs.

    Initially I was supportive of this, but after experts around the EU started coming out about how bad of an idea this actually was.. I don't know man.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

    Your comment on CO2 makes no sense. First you are talking about the amount of plastic used for caps (without a reference to before) and then you are talking about a "CO2 increase". Caps do not appear to be larger or heavier than before but what do I know.

    If I am not mistaken, the transition period was 5 years. So even for the worst case, no brand new mold had to be discarded because it all came so sudden. I would not be surprised if many had at least one change already during the transition time even without that regulation. Also tooling can be sold or transferred as well, if it is really still in such a good shape. Now, would have been a longer transition period, maybe 10 year, been better? Maybe.

    Your comment sounds like a very biased view of the industry that understandably wasn't enthusiastic about it, as the only one benefiting from it was the environment, which doesn't do anything for them, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

    Caps do not appear to be larger or heavier than before but what do I know.

    You could have spent 10 seconds googling this before typing all that. They literally do.

    Your comment on CO2 makes no sense

    You do know manufacturing is a major contributor to CO2, right? ....right?

    https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/more-plastic-more-carbon-more-cost-why-attached-bottle-caps-are-not-the-way-to-fix-waste/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    I don't think posting a link to a sponsored article does help your argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

    Sponsored by..UNESDA. Literally the same association that fought for this in the first place. This helps my argument immensely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    If they fought for this in the first place then why did they sponsor an article discrediting themselves?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Not everything works like Trump being unable to admit your mistakes. These organizations are commonly interested in improving EU, not purely selfish motives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    I have no idea where you have the idea from that UNESDA was for tethered caps, at any point. You linked to an ad from UNESDA from before 2020 and quoted a contract PWC study from that time. All against it. Many of the assumptions in that study have become either obsolete or were shown to be wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    "sponosored content" Do you have a source for your claims or only an ad?

    Of course the beverage industry did not like it. It was new regulation while the only one benefitting being the environment, with less hard to ckean waste. That does nothing to raise their profits.

    The comment made no sense not because it is unknown that production causes CO2 emmissions but because you threw in a single weight number without any reference and then drew from that a conclusion about increased CO2 emissions. The ad and its delivered to order contract study actually writes it more cohesively, interestingly. What I find fascinating is that you went for the max value instead if quoting the range in that ad. Apperently you considered the numbers in the ad not convincing enough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Sponsored by UNESDA, the same association that fought for this in the first place. I picked the max value because it's 9 months old data. Surely by now it's even higher than the max.

    Why are European associations and organizations writing such articles "an ad"? What exactly are they even advertising? That they themselves were wrong?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    What do you mean by "faught for this"? UNESDA paid for a contract study against tethered caps so it is clearly not impartial on this, nor is the study.

    The report does not specify what this amount of extra plastic is supposed to be. A yearly rate? In any case, just taking randomly the larger number because the transition was 9 months ago is kindergarten math.

    The UNESDA isn't writing such an ad, it was buying that ad already over 6 years ago, in order to lobby against the law for tethered caps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Bottle caps being attached is about the bottle and the cap being recycled/landfilled together instead of caps ending up in a different location. This works well with the return money you get for recycling bottles so everything gets disposed properly.

    The general idea is that plastic in the environment is more of a problem than pollution from producing the little extra per bottle. Microplastics from plastics that don't make it to the landfill are becoming a big issue and the EU is working on it.

    Refitting machines to produce them is also not a big issue since that's a one-time cost for not that many machines.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •