Europe To Introduce Packaging Tax

But who will have to pay this tax in the end, why of course the average taxpayer. Every time a supplier of food or other service has to pay a government tax increase, these suppliers add it to their end prices, so the taxpayer is the one who has to foot the bill again!

I like the idea, but the tax should come directly from the suppliers profits?

Spencer.

to keep there profit margins, its still coming from the consumer

Personally, I believe a packaging tax is a good idea, but not because it impacts the carbon-based packaging materials. If the use of packaging materials for everything could be discouraged and the reuse of packages it would be a direct step towards reducing litter (and the convenience-generated packaging) that is the root of the problem. If reuse of bottles (eg. glass bottles reusd instead of plastic containers, aluminum cans or steel cans that are not recycled.) could be reinstituted with deposits on the bottles to pay for collection and cleaning for reuse as it once was in the US, there would be a practical solution to the problem. Less carbon-based trash, and a cleaner environment. We did not have the same degree of environmental pollution 50 years ago as now.

Why is it seemingly impossible for society to realize that the old systems that were in place were there for a reason. Just because something is more convenient doesnt make it better.

If you want to put a packaging tax on the system, put it on the people causing the problem, the package manufacturing industry. Perhaps, 5-10 cents for each bottle produced. Cut down the profit margin for package manufacturers. If they raised their prices it would remove the incentive for the people buying the packages to go with convenience based packaging.

If the use of packaging materials for everything could be discouraged and the reuse of packages it would be a direct step towards reducing litter (and the convenience-generated packaging) that is the root of the problem. If reuse of bottles (eg. glass bottles reusd instead of plastic containers, aluminum cans or steel cans that are not recycled.) could be reinstituted with deposits on the bottles to pay for collection and cleaning for reuse as it once was in the US, there would be a practical solution to the problem. Less carbon-based trash, and a cleaner environment

tax to consumer, is that what you are saying?

we also did not have PET.

Hi aqua_doc.

I'v got some news for you. Here in the UK we recycle the following items: Paper, cardboard, glass bottles and jars, steel and aluminium cans and certain plastics!

Over here we have been doing this for the past 15 years or more, all items that can be recycled are collected once every 14 days from our houses by the local authority.

We even recycle a lot of plastics and electronic components from cars, televisions, mobile phones etc etc, most other countries in Europe also do the same.

So why are you having a propblem with this?

Spencer.

we also have these,

It is interesting to hear younsters talk about the environmental savings of going back to the old ways. I grew up in the beverage industry in the USA. Returnable bottles with deposits were the primary package. They were not as environmentally friendly as you might think.

They were much heavier and thicker than throw-away bottles. This was necessary for them to survive reuse. Heavy returnable bottles required additional raw materials for production, more energy and resources for cleaning and increased weight / fuel for transportation. A few states attempted to put deposits on cans in the 1970's, seeking to ensure recycling. This was a nightmare, since the deposit logo had to be visible on the container before the consumer could get money back - requiring that cans be saved in un-bent condition. They eventually conceded that market forces (price of recycled aluminum - crushed or otherwise) was more effective.

Returned containers needed floor space in markets, adding to the building size and the heating / cooling costs. Storage of used containers created rodent and bug problems -- increasing pesticides. Bottling companies had to use acids to sanitize the bottles and high volumes of water for cleaning. More resources were wasted. Approximately 80%-90% of bottles were returned. Many of the returned bottles were damaged or contaminated, creating health hazards.

What we have may not be great, but going backward would not be any better.

i have heard that it takes more energy to reculce alum. cans, than it takes to produce it from ore

Of course the tax is passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices. The ordinary people actually pay ALL the taxes. Nothing is ever paid by business.. The ordinary voter must be an idiot or just extremely gullible. The tax will not reduce CO2 emissions, but it will bring in a lot of money for the Leftist politicians to use for buying votes by giving it back in the form of programs they control.

I am one of those who believes that Climate Change is more than 90% natural as we are emerging from the Little Ice Age of some 500 years ago. When the Earth's temperature continues to rise, will their answer be ever more draconian laws and punitive taxes. Will they ban fire even as people freeze to death? A person emits about 2 pounds of CO2 each day just by breathing. When do they pass a breathing tax? What of those unable to pay the breathing tax? Why they must be stopped from breathing without guilt or remorse in order to "Save The Planet".

I agree that we must become more energy efficient, because it will save me money. I want pollution reduced too, however CO2 is not toxic and it is needed to make plants grow and produce oxygen and food. There is not a chance of a snowball on the Sun that all of this "carbon tax" will be spent building dikes, stockpiling food for the refugees, preparing for the dire things the Global Warming alarmists predict. A lot of it will wind up in their pockets, more will be used in social care programs designed to get votes for the politicians and only a tiny amount will be left to cope insufficiently with the effects of NATURAL warming. Which will engender a new round of taxes.

The greatest things that would help reduce CO2 in the air will not be done. Plant more trees and use iron dust and such to get algae to grow in the seas. That would remove CO2 and add oxygen. Stop developers from clear-cutting every tree in sight because their workers can only travel in stright lines and the trees stand in their path. Tell them their workers have to learn to walk around trees. ;) Give money toward serious reforestation projects that allow people to make a living among the trees and don't just throw money at some government that will pocket most of it and plant a few saplings for show. There are actually more trees in the U. S. than there were 100 years ago and if the tree huggers would allow proper management of forests there would be more, instead of thousands of square miles of ashes after forest fires.

I get carried away, but everything is related to people who think they can control nature and those who can use them to get more political power and money.

Hi Guest.

As a geologist I can tell you that you are right, 90% of global warming is a natural phenomonen. During the time of the Roman invasion of England (2000 years ago) the average temperature was higher that today, they grew grapes in northern England, something that we cannot do today!!!

Wherever you go you will always find the so-called NIMBY's. but at least they do form a type of barrier to many things in this world that would otherwise ruin our nature.

Here is my solution to beating the supermarket over-packaging problem; I take it back to the supermarket as soon as I have unpacked my shopping. I place it into one of their shopping trolly's and leave it to the supermarkets to get rid of it. If we all did this, then there would be less unwanted packaging in future!!!

Spencer.