Nationalised reusable packaging

[Confuseling]

Here in Britain many people still get milk delivered to their door in glass bottles. They leave the bottles out over night, and the milkman picks them up again. Presumably rates of attrition aren't that high, despite the best efforts of drunk students.

Could this model be extended to other industry? I'm envisaging supermarkets in which almost everything comes in generic, reusable packets, and a small incentive is payed when they are returned. They are then sterilised, relabelled (where necessary - perhaps with cunning redesign of labelling, they could be made more permanent and hygienic - printed onto the glass, perhaps), refilled and put back into the supply chain. In practice, I can't imagine it would be possible to check integrity of the things at the point of return, so you'd have to melt down and absorb the loss of the ones that have cracks and chips later, but I can't imagine this would be fatal - presumably it isn't beyond us to scan and sort them on an industrial scale using sound, intense beams of light or some such.

Companies would be free, within certain restrictions, to apply whatever decoration they see fit, but the actual packet itself would no longer need to be melted and reconstituted after each use.

It's a natural monopoly, so would require heavy nationalisation I assume - although heavily regulated semi independent entities could probably handle it too, and the processing could be outsourced to introduce competition for all you free-marketeers.

Am I an insane, bleating Marxist, or does this make sense?

ETA: The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive...

ETA2: As a follow up question, does anyone know anything about the economics of 'patching' glass or plastic containers? If you had an absolutely huge industry, with many many identical containers coming through, would it be conceivable with present technology to put them back into a specially designed mould, partially melt them, and introduce new material to fill up cracks and chips?

[balrog666]

It's a dead business model here in the states and it is not coming back.

[Professor Yaffle]

Irn Bru (and other Barrs) bottles still get returned - mainly because you get 30p back for every bottle returned. If people are too lazy to return them, there is a ready supply of children that will do it for them if they can pocket the cash.

[Francesca R]

Here in Britain many people still get milk delivered to their door in glass bottles. They leave the bottles out over night, and the milkman picks them up again.I am aware of this activity but have never seen it in my neighbourhood (Islington) which is odd because housing density is pretty high. A lot of milk is bought but all in plastic bottles or tetra-paks from 24h Tesco and Sainsbury's stores (or in my case delivered by Ocado).

Could this model be extended to other industry? I'm envisaging supermarketsI believe that the conventional wisdom is that it is not commercially viable, which may be merely because the external cost of waste is avoided in the alternative scenario of throwaway packages. I would want to see any state-sponsored recycling scheme pass a "market test" to be comfortable with it but I can't really think of how that could be tested. I am pretty sure it is possible though.

What about people who would like to toss stuff away even if they had to pay compensation to society for increased adverse environmental effects? How should populations decide the value of that compensation? (I don't have the answers)

[Rob Lister]

It's a dead business model here in the states and it is not coming back.

Never say never. With some revamping, it could be profitable again.

And it's not 'dead'. My neighbor uses such a service for all dairy and some meats. She likes it.

[bobrayner]

Industries have run away from that kind of thing.

If you only look at the bottle (or carton) itself then it would seem "greener" to make a big shift towards reuse, but unfortunately the production, logistics &c are rather more difficult (ie. they're expensive and they consume more resources).

[Confuseling]

Industries may well have run away from it because, as Francesca notes, the cost of waste is largely an externality for those throwing it away. In similar vein, they ran towards coal and oil. They can't stay there forever.

If we are to start preserving resources, I think something like this (along with environmentally inert throwaways, like plant matter based plastic if we can get the production costs low enough) will have to be considered. I'm not suggesting it would replace everything, just that it may have a significant place.

The economies of scale are such that I can't imagine private industry doing it in the near future. I suspect a strong push from the electorate would be required - unless emissions trading really starts to bite.

It's interesting that irn bru and others do it all already. I guess I can only really see the logistics of it taking off on a large scale if the packages were standardised, but to be honest I don't think I'd lose any sleep if all 500ml bottles or microwave curry pouches were the same shape.

As to how much you charge for them - well, I could imagine a 50p - £1 deposit would bring most of them back, if the infrastructure was there to collect them without much effort.

The infrastructure is really the key, and that's why I reckon nationalisation would be the way to do it.

[Francesca R]

Industries may well have run away from it because, as Francesca notes, the cost of waste is largely an externality for those throwing it away.While the externality part is true, that is not necessarily the reason why throwing away comes out tops.
In similar vein, they ran towards coal and oil. They can't stay there forever.I would point out that "not forever" is one of the weakest arguments for conservation. I would need stronger ones than that myself :)

The economies of scale are such that I can't imagine private industry doing it in the near future.This bit is illogical. If there really are economies then a private concern ought to jump at the chance (and, well, would have already probably). If they are scalable then that's even better for them.

I suspect a strong push from the electorate would be required - unless emissions trading really starts to bite.The issue here is the electorate are the people who (in many cases) like to throw stuff away.

[Maske]

Here in Finland we have recycling on beverage packages. We have disposable plastic bottles, refillable bottles and aluminium cans. All have a deposit from 0.10€ to 0.40€/bottle. Apparently this has been in action since 1950s... And i would say that almost 90% of all bottles are recycled here.

w w w . palpa . fi / what_is_palpa

[Confuseling]

...
This bit is illogical. If there really are economies then a private concern ought to jump at the chance (and, well, would have already probably). If they are scalable then that's even better for them.
...
The issue here is the electorate are the people who (in many cases) like to throw stuff away.

Not illogical at all. If there were a company that operated over the geographic scale and number of physical transactions of the UK I'm sure they'd do it. The fact that it would require the sunk costs distributed so widely is why no individual industry has the incentive to do it, but is not evidence against it being an increase in efficiency in itself.

And yes, I agree with you, sometimes throwing things away is more efficient - I've heard it's often more environmentally friendly to burn paper than to recycle it (as paper at least), because of the transport costs and chemicals involved.

But yes, people are lazy, and that's a large part of it. That's why I think we need to start giving them incentives.

[balrog666]

Never say never. With some revamping, it could be profitable again.

And it's not 'dead'. My neighbor uses such a service for all dairy and some meats. She likes it.


No. The transportation costs and manpower necessary for personal delivery cost too much to be economically viable; not to say that personal shopping and delivery services aren't thriving by catering to those who can afford them.

And yes it still exists in some weird places for various oddball reasons. :rolleyes:


Here in Finland we have recycling on beverage packages. We have disposable plastic bottles, refillable bottles and aluminium cans. All have a deposit from 0.10€ to 0.40€/bottle. Apparently this has been in action since 1950s... And i would say that almost 90% of all bottles are recycled here.
[snip]


The containers are returned due to the artificial incentive of the deposit - that model exists here in the US in some states.

But what percentage of the containers are actually directly reused? As opposed to recycling the aluminium and/or plastics? My guess is that number would be quite low (except perhaps for beer bottles).

[Maus]

I used to buy beer this way. A 24 bottle case came in a sturdy box, you would pay .05/bottle and get it back when you returned them. The company picked them up, cleaned/steralized them, and reused them.

It seemed to work ok, but for some reason I always expected to find a cigarette butt floating around in there when I popped the cap. The whole idea of reused bottles like that just seemed nasty even though it was sanitary as far as I knew.

-Maus

[bobrayner]

Not illogical at all. If there were a company that operated over the geographic scale and number of physical transactions of the UK I'm sure they'd do it. The fact that it would require the sunk costs distributed so widely is why no individual industry has the incentive to do it, but is not evidence against it being an increase in efficiency in itself.

Yes. It's not as though there are any businesses which have a presence all across the UK (http://www.investorcentre.tescoplc.com/plc/media/qf/), which handle billions of retail transactions (http://www.investorcentre.tescoplc.com/plc/ir/financials/highlights/), manage a sophisticated logistical network (http://www.retailtechnology.co.uk/CaseStudies/glog04.htm), manage fixed assets worth many billions of pounds (http://www.tescocorporate.com/page.aspx?pointerid=ED52E6A794304AA090453D5781DE2B 9D), and take waste and recycling seriously (http://www.tescocorporate.com/page.aspx?pointerid=291C8D12555E44A280F83BD3942921 E4).

If there was a business that met your criteria, are you sure they'd do it?

It's already technically possible to have a large container reuse network of this kind. It's just not economical. I doubt that charging for the cost of waste-disposal would tip the balance very far.

Still, I would like to see people paying for waste disposal.

How much hot water does it take to sterilise a 1 litre bottle for reuse? Water has a high specific heat capacity. I wouldn't be surprised if the carbon footprint of just heating that water was similar to, or greater than, the complete carbon footprint of making a (much lighter) throwaway plastic bottle.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I used to buy beer this way. A 24 bottle case came in a sturdy box, you would pay .05/bottle and get it back when you returned them. The company picked them up, cleaned/steralized them, and reused them.

It seemed to work ok, but for some reason I always expected to find a cigarette butt floating around in there when I popped the cap. The whole idea of reused bottles like that just seemed nasty even though it was sanitary as far as I knew.

-Maus

Here in Ontario close to 100% of beer bottles are recycled and reused around twenty times.

For the general ecomonics of this see:
http://www.grrn.org/beverage/refillables/economic.html

[Maus]

I checked on that old beer I used to drink. A few years ago they switched to cans.

-Maus

[Confuseling]

Yes. It's not as though there are any businesses which have a presence all across the UK (http://www.investorcentre.tescoplc.com/plc/media/qf/), which handle billions of retail transactions (http://www.investorcentre.tescoplc.com/plc/ir/financials/highlights/), manage a sophisticated logistical network (http://www.retailtechnology.co.uk/CaseStudies/glog04.htm), manage fixed assets worth many billions of pounds (http://www.tescocorporate.com/page.aspx?pointerid=ED52E6A794304AA090453D5781DE2B 9D), and take waste and recycling seriously (http://www.tescocorporate.com/page.aspx?pointerid=291C8D12555E44A280F83BD3942921 E4).
...

You missed my point completely - I have to assume you're being rhetorical.

I'm talking about nationalising it specifically because it isn't economical for an individual company at present, no matter the reach.

At a certain level of technological advancement and improved efficiency, it may well become economical for the entire country to do it (lets say, hypothetically, all food products nationally), even if it isn't economical for any individual company to.

On certain assumptions - some of them quite big. One you've pointed out - is it actually physically more efficient? That I don't know, it depends on many specifics of the technology used and the distribution channels. This thread was intended to explore that. Another is whether the capital flight caused by the huge tax investment and presumably increased regulation this would require counterbalances any gain.

But it is an avenue for internalising some of the externalities of waste, and clearly a collective action problem, so just saying 'companies would do it if it worked' or 'it won't make us richer' isn't a complete answer.

ETA: thanks for the link Gord - will read that later.

[WildCat]

Instead of charging deposits and making people take things back to the store or having the company pick up the emptys doesn't it make more sense just to throw the recyclables in the recycling bin for the truck that comes every 2 weeks? Less trips, less gas used, less carbon in the atmosphere.

And yes, some people do like to use an actual milkman who drops off and collects every day, but it's expensive and people do it because they think it's quaint and old-fashioned and it fools them into thinking the milk tastes better. It's a marketing issue really, not an environmental one.

[Francesca R]

Not illogical at all. If there were a company that operated over the geographic scale and number of physical transactions of the UK I'm sure they'd do it.There are plenty such companies. Why haven't they? And why on earth does this need to be monopolistic? Very very few goods or services need to be monopolistic in my view, and recycling is most definitely not one of them

The fact that it would require the sunk costs distributed so widely is why no individual industry has the incentive to do it, but is not evidence against it being an increase in efficiency in itself.Yes it is. I think you are fabricating these start-up costs to argue for your view that recycling should be a state monopoly, but you have not made a case IMO.

But yes, people are lazy, and that's a large part of it. That's why I think we need to start giving them incentives."Lazy" is a perjorative term expressing your value judgement of others' behaviour. That's fine as far as that goes. But for what reason do you want to change their incentives?

[timhau]

The containers are returned due to the artificial incentive of the deposit - that model exists here in the US in some states.

But what percentage of the containers are actually directly reused? As opposed to recycling the aluminium and/or plastics? My guess is that number would be quite low (except perhaps for beer bottles).

Depends on what you mean by 'low'. Here's the official info (http://www.palpa.fi/refillable_bottles):

The refillable bottles are glass or plastic bottles that are refilled several times over. The glass bottles can be refilled up to 40 times and the plastic bottles can, on average, be refilled 18 times.

[Confuseling]

Instead of charging deposits and making people take things back to the store or having the company pick up the emptys doesn't it make more sense just to throw the recyclables in the recycling bin for the truck that comes every 2 weeks? Less trips, less gas used, less carbon in the atmosphere.
...

Recycling is vastly more energy intensive than reusing, in almost all circumstances. Chucking all kinds of mixed glass in together and melting it down is certainly normally better than throwing it away, but reusing it would be better still - if the infrastructure was there, which is the perfectly valid point you raised about gas, and that bobrayner mentioned about processing (not to mention the costs embodied in the physical infrastructure, like trucks and depots). All I'm saying is that it may be economical, if working on a large enough scale, particularly as technology advances - and standardising the packaging would help immensely.

There are plenty such companies. Why haven't they? And why on earth does this need to be monopolistic? Very very few goods or services need to be monopolistic in my view, and recycling is most definitely not one of them


We're talking past each other here. I'm not talking about a company with national extent - like Tescos. I'm talking about the economics of doing it on a national scale. Add together Tescos, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons, Marks and Spencers, Waitrose and a few others and the economies of scale are totally different. No such company exists - even a leviathan like Wal-mart operates over too wide a geographical area, and therefore won't have the density of physical transactions. They have no incentive to enter a consortium to do it together, because a) the cost of disposal is largely external, and therefore b) there are higher returns elsewhere for equivalent investment. That does not in any way mean that such a scheme would not be a net increase in efficiency.


Yes it is. I think you are fabricating these start-up costs to argue for your view that recycling should be a state monopoly, but you have not made a case IMO.


Suppose there was no rubbish collection at all. Do you think each company would find it profitable to start a fleet of dustbin trucks? Such an operation must be a monopoly or close to, because of the huge sunk costs, social costs (more trucks on the road, depots and processing plants taking up space and emitting pollution), and likely impossibility of running it under the honour system. It is a social benefit, not one that can easily be quantified economically.


"Lazy" is a perjorative term expressing your value judgement of others' behaviour. That's fine as far as that goes. But for what reason do you want to change their incentives?

Do you not think it's an epic waste of resources to throw away or reconstitute all of these containers? It may not be the most pressing environmental problem, but it seems to me one that could realistically be tackled, especially in light of the present zeitgeist for environmentalism. Small steps and all that. Creating a national hub and spoke infrastructure for moving things around could have all kinds of uses, ultimately. Don't get me wrong - I'm not expecting this to happen, but that doesn't mean I don't think it would be more efficient.

[Francesca R]

Do you not think it's an epic waste of resources to throw away or reconstitute all of these containers? It may not be the most pressing environmental problem, but it seems to me one that could realistically be tackled, especially in light of the present zeitgeist for environmentalism. Small steps and all that. Creating a national hub and spoke infrastructure for moving things around could have all kinds of uses, ultimately. Don't get me wrong - I'm not expecting this to happen, but that doesn't mean I don't think it would be more efficient.It depends on "relative to what" it is wasteful. You probably haven't fully costed the value of the waste or the uncertain cost of your scheme, which will also create new avenues for waste (more of a risk with a state monopoly because of the special incentives that apply). Also you are (loosely) apealing to me to confirm your belief about what waste is. You mention "environmental zeitgeist" but that is one particular force in the battle of ideas, and a popular one it seems, but not necessarily meritable. If you ever get the chance to read anything by Steven E Landsburg (an American economist) on environmentalism, it is an interesting and little-spoken argument to the contrary. Apologies I am too tech-limited to reproduce any of it here.

[Confuseling]

Hmm. He doesn't exactly sound up my street, but I'll look out for him. :D

I don't have the figures, and so it's impossible to guess whether it really would be a net gain in efficiency. I accept that a large state run institution like that postulated does create entrenched interests, and can be inefficient; however, whatever your concept of waste, in terms of simple physical metabolism I don't think you can argue against the proposition that reusing glass bottles would be a better idea in certain industries, if implemented correctly - and that the correct implementation can be hurried along by political mechanisms, in the absence of a clear line of profit. The links provided by Gord and Maske seem to bear this out. I suspect, barring some revolutionary new material that can be produced (grown?) at low cost and allowed to biodegrade, we will see an increase in schemes like this - and I wouldn't be surprised if more political entities mandate or encourage it (Gord's link points to a Canadian Island where all drinks bottles must be refillable, and Maske's seems to indicate a tax incentive system).

Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion, and that was all I was angling for really. Thanks everybody. :D

[Francesca R]

whatever your concept of waste, in terms of simple physical metabolism I don't think you can argue against the proposition that reusing glass bottles would be a better idea in certain industries, if implemented correctlyWhat do you mean by "in terms of physical metabolism?

The economic definiton of waste is that (this is not exact perhaps): waste exists if there is a different way of doing things that would make everyone better off. And that means in monetary terms, because economically (like it or not) one can price everything, including environmental damage (which is paid by society--so a bit of the cost goes to everyone) and including the "utility convenience" of throwing things away rather than rinsing them and returning them or whatever. .

So certainly there is a *conceivable* scenario in which re-use is more efficient but so is there one in which everyone is worse off through it. Being able to determine where on the scale things would come out is therefore paramount . . . Because a host of ideas like this *could* result in a net gain for the system (less waste) but probably won't.

ETA: Landsburg is good on this stuff and explainingit in lay terms, whether you agree with his personal opinions of environmentalism or not.

[Confuseling]

By 'in terms of physical metabolism' I meant simply that one can divide economics into two spheres, a physical one and a more abstract one concerned with trade values and labour. If it takes five apples to make an apple pie, it takes five apples to make an apple pie; no shift in political structure or market terms changes that.

Yes, it is possible to price anything, but that doesn't mean everything is priced, and especially not priced correctly. It is plainly evident that there are at least some industries in which it is better to reuse bottles rather than recycling them, when you factor in amount of glass used, coal and petrol burned, steel embodied in the infrastructure, aluminium saved in cans replaced and so forth - that's the physical metabolism. When you factor in all the other, complex bits, like labour, like increased regulation and tax, like social cost of more municipal buildings (and indeed, as you say, utility lost in having to bother), to form a total economic cost, it becomes vastly murkier.

[Francesca R]

By 'in terms of physical metabolism' I meant simply that one can divide economics into two spheres, a physical one and a more abstract one concerned with trade values and labour. If it takes five apples to make an apple pie, it takes five apples to make an apple pie; no shift in political structure or market terms changes that.Right, but I still don't know what point you are trying for with this. I suspect some criticism of market forces or economics but nothing yet. . .


Yes, it is possible to price anything, but that doesn't mean everything is priced, and especially not priced correctly.In general (though a major caveat is whether the social structure sufficiently internalises costs), the market will price everything better than you or I or any government. This is what I mean above about a scheme like yours needing to pass a "market test" before you or I should be happy that it reduces waste. Otherwise it's just your or my own values being used to make policy--which is not democratic and not economic.

It is plainly evident that there are at least some industries in which it is better to reuse bottles rather than recycling them, when you factor in amount of glass used, coal and petrol burned, steel embodied in the infrastructure, aluminium saved in cans replaced and so forth - that's the physical metabolism. When you factor in all the other, complex bits, like labour, like increased regulation and tax, like social cost of more municipal buildings (and indeed, as you say, utility lost in having to bother), to form a total economic cost, it becomes vastly murkier.It is not as plain as you think.

[Confuseling]

Right, but I still don't know what point you are trying for with this. I suspect some criticism of market forces or economics but nothing yet. . .
...
In general (though a major caveat is whether the social structure sufficiently internalises costs), the market will price everything better than you or I or any government. This is what I mean above about a scheme like yours needing to pass a "market test" before you or I should be happy that it reduces waste. Otherwise it's just your or my own values being used to make policy--which is not democratic and not economic.


Aha, yes, there's that caveat. If all political entities are driven by the 'race to the bottom' to discount future costs / benefits relative to costs / benefits today (which isn't to suggest that there isn't a natural tendency to discount the future anyway, but simply that a classic prisoner's dilemma in global markets causes individual countries to err on the side of disregard), then we end up in a position that no individual person or country would pick. Massive market failure. Markets are very good at deciding the price of things that they factor in, very good at blithe ignorance and systematic destruction when they want to be.


It is not as plain as you think.

Forgive me, but it is. If some companies are doing it without any outside impetus, then the economics must be borderline. Consolidation would push this back in the 'do it' direction. If I'd said 'lots', you would be right, but you can't reasonably assert that there aren't some.

[Francesca R]

If all political entities are driven by the 'race to the bottom' to discount future costs / benefits relative to costs / benefits today (which isn't to suggest that there isn't a natural tendency to discount the future anyway, but simply that a classic prisoner's dilemma in global markets causes individual countries to err on the side of disregard), then we end up in a position that no individual person or country would pick. Massive market failure. Once again it is far from clear (to me at least and nobody else seems to be joining this) what you mean. You seem to be mixing ideas. Or maybe someone else can help? (I would like to understand what arguments you are trying to make)

Markets are very good at deciding the price of things that they factor in, very good at blithe ignorance and systematic destruction when they want to be.Again, what?

Forgive me, but it is. If some companies are doing it without any outside impetus, then the economics must be borderline. Consolidation would push this back in the 'do it' direction. If I'd said 'lots', you would be right, but you can't reasonably assert that there aren't some.Just because some companies (milk delivery, "Irn-Bru", whatever) do this does not mean it is economic nationwide by extrapolation. Again: it is not as plain as you imply.

[Confuseling]

I didn't say it was clearly economical to do it nationwide - I said it might be, and I stand by that.

An individual company can, at present, disregard some level of waste (at least in its costings, whether its employees consider wider implications or not).

Glass going into landfill is one of these disregarded costs - although the company has to pay for rubbish collection and discarded embodied electricity, for example, it is well accepted that these prices do not reflect the real social cost.

Democracies decide how to price social costs - like landfill, power generation pollution (if not directly, then through taxes), and wasted future potential glass. However, they are in a regulatory race to the bottom (or tragedy of the commons, if you prefer), in which they reap the full benefit of allowing industry to damage the environment unrestricted, while only bearing part of the cost (the rest of the planet and future generations bear the rest).

This is a collective action problem, potentially modelled as a prisoners' dilemma. Individuals (or individual companies, or countries) will not make the decision they actually want made, because they don't expect to be able to coordinate their behaviour with other individuals (or individual companies, or countries).

The level of waste is therefore often socially suboptimal, under a market or individual democracy, and it is perfectly legitimate to assert that it might need transnational regulation, or even just a very concerted push in the right direction from an electorate.

Bearing these factors in mind, I think it is a misapprehension to suppose that markets or individual democracies will naturally sort out the optimal level of environmental destruction. If we know that reusing bottles is economical in some situations, then factor in these considerations, and simple institutional inertia, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that some industries are on the wrong side of the line. How many industries is impossible to guess, without figures. Even with figures, I wouldn't have a clue how to do it. :D

[Francesca R]

I didn't say it was clearly economical to do it nationwide - I said it might be, and I stand by that.The strongest argument against that is simply that it has not happened, with or without government compulsion.

An individual company can, at present, disregard some level of waste. Glass going into landfill is one of these disregarded costs - although the company has to pay for rubbish collection and discarded embodied electricity, for example, it is well accepted that these prices do not reflect the real social cost.But there may not be a better way of doing things. It is not necessarily even worth the effort to internalise costs (because it is difficult).

Democracies decide how to price social costs - like landfill, power generation pollution (if not directly, then through taxes), and wasted future potential glass. However, they are in a regulatory race to the bottom (or tragedy of the commons, if you prefer), in which they reap the full benefit of allowing industry to damage the environment unrestricted, while only bearing part of the cost (the rest of the planet and future generations bear the rest).I do not really agree, and this is muddled. You seem to be saying that businesses will flee elsewhere or abroad to avoid government charges for re-using bottles :) . . . which contradicts your belief that it is, or could be, economical to do so anyway. As for future generations "paying the cost", evidence is not really on your side--most likely future generations of us will be wealthier than us with higher living standards than we have (as has been the pattern for the last 250 years or so), so how about we *don't* fork out for their benefit (again, we would not even have to if we gained in the here and now anyway, as half of your post thinks we will).

This is a collective action problem, potentially modelled as a prisoners' dilemma. Individuals (or individual companies, or countries) will not make the decision they actually want made, because they don't expect to be able to coordinate their behaviour with other individuals (or individual companies, or countries).Eh, that is not a prisoners dilemma problem (which is a two player game), but is, I agree, conceptually one of the failures of groups to act in the group interest. But we *have* a government able to compel the action so the solution to the problem would be at hand. The issue is whether it really would be a solution and whether it really would be in the group's interest to act as you favour.

I think it is a misapprehension to suppose that markets or individual democracies will naturally sort out the optimal level of environmental destruction.Agreed, but strawman.

[Confuseling]

...
I do not really agree, and this is muddled. You seem to be saying that businesses will flee elsewhere or abroad to avoid government charges for re-using bottles :) . . . which contradicts your belief that it is, or could be, economical to do so anyway. As for future generations "paying the cost", evidence is not really on your side--most likely future generations of us will be wealthier than us with higher living standards than we have (as has been the pattern for the last 250 years or so), so how about we *don't* fork out for their benefit (again, we would not even have to if we gained in the here and now anyway, as half of your post thinks we will).
...

This plainly and simply isn't true! Hypothesise an island with lots of elephants on, and ten distinct political jurisdictions. Each individual has an incentive to hunt elephants and sell ivory, but the elephants are endangered. Each individual has a cost/benefit equilibrium for killing a certain number of elephants. However, each individual only notes the cost to himself, not the cost to everyone in his jurisdiction, so he will kill too many for the socially preferred equilibrium - a tragedy of the commons, which can also be modelled as a prisoners' dilemma. Each political entity has an incentive to come to an internal agreement to limit elephant hunting. However, this is a race to the bottom, or a prisoners' dilemma on a larger scale - the discrete political entities cannot be relied upon to individually come up with the optimal solution. Each has an incentive to ignore the full cost of elephant extinction, because they gain the full benefit of selling ivory, and only incur part of the cost - the rest is suffered by the other groups. They all hunt more than is in the net interest, and the elephants die out. Saying "if it were better to not kill the elephants, individuals or distinct groups would decide not to" completely misses the point. Higher economic returns are available if they can all come to political agreement to sustainably manage stocks, an agreement that is in practice hard to come by. It involves altering the cost/benefit for individuals 'artificially', to reflect a future without elephants for all.

If the full cost of bottle disposal is not borne by individual countries, let alone individual companies, then the fact that they don't do it is not indicative that reuse is not in the long term, or even global short term economic interest. Yes, creating the incentive might well require increased taxes, for example, and could therefore not be in the interest of an individual country, while still being a gain in efficiency if all countries did it. It could even be in the interest of an individual country, despite not having happened - institutions move slowly, especially to restrict the actions of capital. If it broke even after twenty years, it would probably be an efficiency gain (especially as the technology could then be licensed abroad), but a democratic party would be unlikely to back it. Without a serious look at the numbers, I think it's very hard to speculate.

And the assertion that the future will be rich, so we can safely ignore it, is frankly baffling. If we manage to flood large swathes of land by burning energy needlessly now, the future will be even more brutal than the present.

[ladyattis]

My answer to any nationalization: no.

[Confuseling]

Ladyattis: Even if it improved environmental conditions? Even, and I admit this is a bigger stretch, if it made us richer?

Francesca: Apologies, having had a think about it I see my last post missed the mark a bit. What I'm trying to say is that it is possible for an industry to have a potentially more efficient configuration that it currently abjures, because costs aren't reflective of real social cost. Just because it is cheaper to throw glass away at the moment, that doesn't necessarily reflect real objective considerations of efficiency. If we internalise the costs of disposal, reuse may become more efficient; it's just a different measure of efficiency, in much the same way as killing elephants is efficient if you don't factor in the possibility of elephant extinction. I hope that's clearer.

[BenBurch]

Would shipping containers count? Seems to me they are the ultimate in re-usable packaging; Standardized for the transport modes, operated out of a universal pool, and some are 40 years old now.

[Confuseling]

Absolutely. I think pneumatic tube transport would be the ultimate exemplar - and I think something along those lines is the future, for two simple reasons. A sane engineering solution for transport does not involve carrying the weight of the propulsion system as part of the payload, if you're making the same journey many times. And if you can exploit air pressure for auto-braking, the system is pretty damn safe.

And it only really works centralised.

ETA: This (http://www.capsu.org/capsule/) is also an interesting site.

[bobrayner]

Would shipping containers count? Seems to me they are the ultimate in re-usable packaging; Standardized for the transport modes, operated out of a universal pool, and some are 40 years old now.

Indeed. A globally standardised container - it's been very successful. Didn't need a government monopoly, though - it succeeded on its own merits because it allowed more efficient use of resources.

I doubt that many 40-year-old containers are actually in circulation. Containers aren't all the same size; there has been movement toward larger standard sizes. Also, they do get quite a bit of wear & tear from year to year.

Much smaller containers (the things you buy food and toiletries in) would be harder to standardise & reuse because they're much smaller; transactional costs are a bigger problem, and the resources needed for checking and cleaning between each use are a larger fraction of the resources needed to make a whole new container (I reckon the ratio is likely to be over unity, though any numbers would be welcome). Oh, and they're handled much more by the public - the public are more likely to damage containers, yet the public are less tolerant of cosmetically-damaged containers on the shelf. ;-)

[BenBurch]

... and the resources needed for checking and cleaning between each use are a larger fraction of the resources needed to make a whole new container ...

Well as I grew up in a tavern (our family's business) I know of one container that used to be re-used extensively; The beer bottle. Used to be that virtually all of them went back to the brewer for washing, sterilizing and re-filling. Of course, each brewer had his own bottles, and they did not pool them, but it was a successful scheme for about 50 years.

Primarily what changed was that it became cheaper to use aluminum to save shipping weight, combined with the move away from rail to distribute product - you see those boxcars had to return to the plant anyway, and it was efficient, or at least obvious, to send them back full of empties - but fuel costs being what they are and the manner in which rolling stock is assigned having changed, we could never now return to that mode.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Delivery aside, wouldn't the financial and enviromental cost of cleaning and rinsing the returned glass bottles alone outweigh the loses from switching to plastic?

[Confuseling]

Gord's link (http://www.grrn.org/beverage/refillables/economic.html) seems to indicate no, in certain situations at least. Don't know how good/recent the data is, but it certainly looks well written and sourced.

ETA: from the link (1999 data)

Type|Container Cost (Euros)|Trips per Life|Production Cost per Trip (Euros)
Refillable Glass Bottle|0.103|20|0.005
Refillable PET Bottle|1.133|20| 0.007
One-Way Glass Bottle|0.047|1|0.047
One-Way PET Bottle|0.069|1|0.069
Aluminum Can|0.103|1|0.103


The link is slightly ambiguous, but I think that excludes labour cost.

[ladyattis]

Ladyattis: Even if it improved environmental conditions? Even, and I admit this is a bigger stretch, if it made us richer?

The only thing that will improve is the condition of the desks in the government agency overseeing the packaging industry. The only ones that will get richer are the corporations with the most connections.

[Confuseling]

Slightly contentious. Nationalisation works in some industries - the NHS, warts and all, seems to work better than most equivalents. Would you privatise it?

[ladyattis]

Slightly contentious. Nationalisation works in some industries - the NHS, warts and all, seems to work better than most equivalents. Would you privatise it?

No. I would 'marketize' it. Meaning no government protections, no bidding for government contracts, and no corporate tax shelters.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Wait, doesn't that chart refer to delivery and not the cleaning costs which is what I was asking about? Or am I missing something there?

[Confuseling]

Sorry, don't know. Can't find the original source either. Anyone got any ideas?


Golding, Andreas. Reuse of Primary Packaging. Brussels: European Commission, 1999. Main report, 106 pages.
This study examines the reuse of post-consumer packaging in several European Union member states, focusing especially on the refilling of beverage containers. It discusses the amounts and types of reusable packaging on the market; systems for reuse; the costs, constraints, and obstacles to further reuse; and ways to promote the reuse of packaging. The main report also provides much useful background information about refilling, especially the logistics. Click here [off-site]to read the preface or here [pdf][off-site]to go directly to the report.

links are dead

[bobrayner]

Sorry, don't know. Can't find the original source either. Anyone got any ideas?

How about this? http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd48/reuse_main.pdf

Whilst searching I also stumbled across this:
http://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2134/2190/3/WASTE%25202006.pdf

Interesting stuff.

[Francesca R]

Francesca: Apologies, having had a think about it I see my last post missed the mark a bit. What I'm trying to say is that it is possible for an industry to have a potentially more efficient configuration that it currently abjures, because costs aren't reflective of real social cost. Just because it is cheaper to throw glass away at the moment, that doesn't necessarily reflect real objective considerations of efficiency. If we internalise the costs of disposal, reuse may become more efficient; it's just a different measure of efficiency, in much the same way as killing elephants is efficient if you don't factor in the possibility of elephant extinction. I hope that's clearer.I don't know why you want to bring in elephants, but I don't, really. Can we stick to the bottles situation?

My main point is that is that you appear to assume that reuse has a superior payoff than throw away, if only we made sure that every cost of throwing away was internalised and distributed. Maybe, maybe not. But "we can't go on like this forever because we will run out of stuff" (a paraphrase of a point you made in respect of oil and coal earlier) is very far from proof of that. (And I think you agree).

If it is not superior, then this is not a Prisoners Dilemma (the payoff for mutual co-operation in the prisoners dilemma must be higher than the payoff for mutual defection). And it is not a failure to collectively act either, because there is no collective interest to be served by doing so. Similarly, it is not a "race to the bottom". because the throw-away situation is pareto-superior to the re-use one (there's one more piece of economic jargon for the collection this thread is getting--re-use it with care) ;)

I think you based a lot on your initial assumption. It might be correct--I don't know. It is more in the realm of technology, from which the economics can subsequently fall out.

About the future being rich--that is the evidence, not an assertion, and it is often overlooked in this type of discussion. It may be wrong to extrapolate, particularly since it may be (fallaciously) motivated by a desire to hugely discount future or far-off unknowns in the interest of a selfish life now, but then again--I tend to think that alarmist environmental or social claims are made pretty often without solid foundations too.

[lomiller]

My main point is that is that you appear to assume that reuse has a superior payoff than throw away, if only we made sure that every cost of throwing away was internalised and distributed. Maybe, maybe not. But "we can't go on like this forever because we will run out of stuff" (a paraphrase of a point you made in respect of oil and coal earlier) is very far from proof of that. (And I think you agree).



More to the point the actual cost of disposables is subjective, that’s one of the main reasons it’s an “externality” to begin with. A more reasoned approach for a situation like this would be to make a collective decision beforehand about what the cost of disposable vs reusable packaging is and impose fees accordingly.

The free market is an excellent problem solving tool, but the solution to any problem is a direct consequence of how you frame the question. As I see it there are some people who think the market can be used to frame the question and provide the answer, but this is simply a decent into the circular. IOW you can’t use the value of the externality to calculate market value *AND* use market value to calculate the value externality.

[Confuseling]

Thanks, bobrayner, those do look interesting. I've got school work to attend to, so I may neglect this thread for a while, but I'll read them when I get the chance.

Francesca - yes, I totally agree that the above logic only applies if there is a physical efficiency gain, and that is so totally dependent on the industry, and the logistics of the system proposed, as to render speculation pointless. Also, I wasn't saying we'd run out of coal and oil, just that on current thinking, in the absence of some deus ex machina breakthrough (say, cheap fusion), we have to limit their use.

And I agree, the hysteria and special interests work both ways. I'm not embarrassed at all to say I reflexively side with environmentalism (sometimes to the detriment of my rationalism), but neither do I think it above criticism.

And you can keep that bit of jargon; I've got plenty ;)

[BenBurch]

Another standard (mostly) and re-usable (often) packaging device comes to mind;

The wooden shipping pallet.