• REDACTED@infosec.pub
    5·
    1 天前

    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.

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      1·
      7 小时前

      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.

      • REDACTED@infosec.pub
        1·
        7 小时前

        Fair points, but let’s say we use all this political effort and resources to fix plastic recycling itself and collection of trash.

        Where do you see more positive effects?

    • Jiral@lemmy.world
      10·
      1 天前

      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?

        • Jiral@lemmy.world
          3·
          17 小时前

          “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.

          • REDACTED@infosec.pub
            2·
            16 小时前

            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?

            • Jiral@lemmy.world
              1·
              12 小时前

              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.

          • REDACTED@infosec.pub
            1·
            18 小时前

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

            • Ghoelian@piefed.socialEnglish
              2·
              14 小时前

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

              • REDACTED@infosec.pub
                1·
                12 小时前

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

                • Jiral@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  10 小时前

                  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.