▲ 101 ▼ Judgement Day (thelemmy.club) submitted 2 hours ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world 8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Trex202@lemmy.world 17 points 1 hour ago (2 children) Recycling should never fall on the consumer. The extremely wealthy manufacturer can find a way to make non-toxic containers permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 7 points 36 minutes ago (1 child) I mean… logistically it would be more efficient if we all just recycled regardless, and then the polluters paid for the processing. But also we should lean on those “reduce” and “reuse” parts of the recycling prayer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 1 point 3 minutes ago* (1 child) I mean… logistically it would be more efficient if we all just recycled regardless, and then the polluters paid for the processing. Logistically it would be more efficient if we went back to having bottle deposits (and expanded it to include other types of containers) so that the packaging would be picked up and reused, not recycled. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 minute ago But that’s functionally the same as what I’m saying: end consumer still has to put things in the right bins and place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 point 20 minutes ago That's not how that one works. Recycling in the American sense means putting your glass and cans in the appropriate bins instead of the landfill bin. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 7 points 36 minutes ago (1 child) I mean… logistically it would be more efficient if we all just recycled regardless, and then the polluters paid for the processing. But also we should lean on those “reduce” and “reuse” parts of the recycling prayer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 1 point 3 minutes ago* (1 child) I mean… logistically it would be more efficient if we all just recycled regardless, and then the polluters paid for the processing. Logistically it would be more efficient if we went back to having bottle deposits (and expanded it to include other types of containers) so that the packaging would be picked up and reused, not recycled. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 minute ago But that’s functionally the same as what I’m saying: end consumer still has to put things in the right bins and place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 point 3 minutes ago* (1 child) I mean… logistically it would be more efficient if we all just recycled regardless, and then the polluters paid for the processing. Logistically it would be more efficient if we went back to having bottle deposits (and expanded it to include other types of containers) so that the packaging would be picked up and reused, not recycled. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 minute ago But that’s functionally the same as what I’m saying: end consumer still has to put things in the right bins and place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 minute ago But that’s functionally the same as what I’m saying: end consumer still has to put things in the right bins and place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 point 20 minutes ago That's not how that one works. Recycling in the American sense means putting your glass and cans in the appropriate bins instead of the landfill bin. permalink fedilink source parent