Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry to say, I disagree with just about everything you've said. Most of my input will be why you don't get my vote. I hope you'll accept it as the constructive criticism it's meant to be, but I'm not about to soft pedal.
Sure. That was why I closed the OP with a request for review. Hope we can all have an open and direct discussion from all sides.
It is all good.
Quote:
You characterized corporations to leave the impression that they were reckless and evil to support your idea. Even if I can't say much nice about corporations, I will admit I villify them. The judge and jury left the building a long time ago. Denying it in this thread about your own self only causes you to lose credibility. I'm a spade, you're a spade, now lets move on.
Hmmm, just don't think evil is the issue. I have dealt with evil before, and this is not. More like a bad case of corporate stupid. Maybe I am too specific on that, but evil has specific characteristics that do not fit this model in any real form. This is simply a money thing. Maybe because I have seen so much of it from the Corporate side of the action I follow that (too?) quickly.
As you observed all manufacturers are acutely aware of the waste stream issues their products create. Including in ample examples the package food industries. So much so that it is clearly not issue of a simple lack of awareness. And also like you cited I have worked designs in industries where how to deal the product at "End of Life," is considered in depth before any work even begins. Even consumer electronics and automobiles do this now. Why should the package food industry get a special pass from that responsibility?
Quote:
Using your logic, we should be wading through landfills from time immemorial taking down names and addresses. While it's unfortunate that end users of any product would be irresponsible, when the fault is with them, it needs to remain with them.
well, no, that again is a straw-man argument. No extension of any logic, other than illogic. Since you can do the wiki look and read . . .
No one (other than your add at this point) is talking established landfill disposal. Just the clearly inappropriate disposal of the waste as occurs now, as cited in the OP. Landfill is a whole other topic and you are smart enough to know that.
Quote:
Your idea infuriates me. Why? Because you're attempting to use legit laws to bend to the whim your HOA complaint, which will only weaken the spirit of the laws. You'd rather (jealously?) fixate on a logo, convict them with prejudice before you'll look at the real offending party; people littering. You'd rather get litigious than pro active about addressing the real root causes- the ignorant/selfish brain that decided the hand should drop the trash.
Here is why that does not wash -- while as discussed above in various responses there are many paths for the trash to arrive where it should not be. The litter-bug hand as you cite is only one. Simply wind blowing over a proper trash can is another, out of vehicles (with no mal-intent) is another, critters carrying it away is yet another -- but behind it all is only one source.
That single point source is why this leans towards a Root Cause Analysis solution. Just as when I design for End of Life products, Pepsi could clearly do the same for a fraction of the marketing budget that now spreads its trash across the globe.
Quote:
Other communities have approached fast food restaurants for solutions and they responded by reducing their packaging, adding trash cans in an extended radius, printing no littering on their packaging, and encouraged people to use the drive thru less, come in and sit a while instead. What's more, if you have a genius idea how they can do better, they welcome your suggestions.
Sorry, but NOT all true. Sorry, but like I say, been there, done that. If you do not hit them in the pocket, the US corporate animal simply does not respond. And again, I am not on the "e-vile" rant. This is not even common sense involved . . . just dollars and cents. Their simple goal is to create product and make money. If end costs can be shifted to the commons or public expense so much the better. That is the sum total of the value system involved.
When various groups actively dog operations like McDonalds to the ground they make limited actions, but even then tend to lie (see the Beef Tallow issue with their French Fries).
Quote:
Communities have also used tools such as teaching civics to children in public schools, ad campaigns on local channels to promote those values, increasing enforcement officers, and relegating the cleanups to community service rolls from the county jail. I've even seen programs along highways where they thank joe blow business on a sign for adopting this highway. Adopt a highway is working very well in NY if you'd like to research it out. Last resort for those who could not be schooled; town ordinances prohibiting drive thru's, basically admitting that citizens couldn't handle their freedom so it was summarily rescinded.
There are probably only 10 to 20 large time trash producers who would have to be hit one time to completely stop the mess on the front end . . . as opposed to forever "teaching" millions of people how to manage these corporate producers end stream waste products. You tell me which is quicker, and more effective.
Quote:
Scientifically attempting to reduce landfill waste, experiments are ongoing to create edible packaging solutions. Efforts to reduce packaging are seen first hand in laundry and dish soap products concentrating to a better transport size while maintaining quality.
These are examples of pro active behavior. You're doing worse than not helping. Your litigous attitude is hindering.
Sorry again, but I have been in too many corporate meetings where these things are discussed and tabled. It is only about marketing and money. That is the Why behind all the packages with all the labels. This is not some random accident where the producers are just clueless innocents.
However if the profitability is harmed, the methods are changed. That is one of the major benefits of the legal discovery methods a lawsuit opens. In about two months of discovery it would be brought out that all this has been discussed and reviewed by their engineers and marketing folks, and the corporate top end said, "Not our problem -- screw 'em." Seen this over and over.
But if you like -- how about a website in lieu of a lawsuit to start? Maybe somethig like PepsiTrashCo.com? Start documenting all the tons of trash they generate dumped across the landscape. We can see if they respond without a lawsuit.
You still fail to have my vote. Once for having an ill concieved idea, and twice for failing to consider any of the input people gave without treating it as target practice with cartesian thinking.
There will not be a third vote afforded you.
Phillip, your premise is completely wrong, especially in reference to current environmental law. Pepsi, etc is not producing trash. Pepsi, etc. produce a product (according to both federal and state definitions). The "product" does not become "trash" until it is discarded. The person(s) who discarded the "trash" are the responsible parties and should be held accountable. No one could sue Pepsi, etc. and win based on these two simple facts short of changing existing laws. Texas law on this can be found in chapter 30 section 330 of the Texas Administrative Code if you want to familiarize yourself with it. The criminal provisions are in Chapter 7 of the Texas Water Code.
Harborlady. You are a little off on the cradle to grave scenario as it does not adress products (toxic or otherwise), it adresses strictly wastes. Basically, once a waste is created (usually as the result of creating or using a product), the generator is responsible to verify final and correct disposal and will be held accountable if it is not disposed of correctly. There is a lot more to it but that is the basics. There is no Federal cradle-to-grave related rules for Asbestos as it is not a hazardous waste. Another issue is the term "toxic". I believe you are looking for the term "hazardous". Toxic is actually one characteristic of a hazardous waste other characteristics are flammability, reactivity, and pH. <Sorry just a pet peave when people incorrectly use the terms, no offense meant>. To read up on this check out the EPA's RCRA Online website.
Sorry but this is a silly (though entertaining) premise for a thread. I hope it was done tongue-in-check. Unfortunately there is going to be a politician or lawyer somewhere that tries this at some point. Heck, there is already a proposal in California to tax plastic grocery bags at $.25 each.
I have some more ideas for you though. How about if we sue:
Cell phone makers for causing more accidents because people are talking on the phone. (You could sue radio manufacturers with the same premise.)
Oil companies for refining gas that allowed people to drive and get in accidents in the first place. (You could sue tire manufacturers with the same premise.)
Cigarette makers for causing roadside fires because a smoker tossed a butt out the window.
TV manufacturers for making televisions that have led to people watching too much TV and becoming sedative and obese. (Sue the networks that create the programs in the first place, too.)
While we are on the subject of obesity let's sue the grocery stores for selling the food that people eat too much of. (And since we get it home in our cars maybe we could include the auto makers in this one too!!)
Bagel manufacturers for cuts in the kitchen. I read once that cutting oneself with a knife while slicing a bagel was a leading cause of cuts in the kitchen. (Of course, sue the bagel maker, too. Oh, yeah, the knife manufacturers should be included.)
Internet providers for providing online access that causes people to be on their computers more and use more electricity which is bad for the environment.
I hate to see litter as much as the next person. But you are way off-track in suing companies that are not responsible. We would be much better off encouraging personal responsibility, something that is not encouraged by bogus lawsuits.
On a more serious note, suits against manufacturers will only raise the cost of products and insurance (for all manufacturers).
Instead of suing them just send an assessor out to public lands that are littered, take a survey, and and send them a bill for advertising!
LOL This is the best thread I have seen in a long time. Good job "Phillip T" is this part of a new stand-up act you're perfecting? It sure got a good hearty laugh out of me. Sue the company whose logo is on a piece of garbage some other idiot threw out, Ha ha ha ha, still brings a tear to my eye when I repeat it. Next thing you will add is that we all need to be sitting naked in a cave someplace pounding on rocks and eating bugs to get rid of the corporate scum who is befouling the environment.
Instead, take along a garbage bag and do your part in cleaning up the problem instead of sitting spouting stupid "solutions." Before you ask, yes I do! Every time I go fishing along a river or stream, I carry a couple 13 gallon kitchen sized garbage bags in my fishing vest and clean up what is left behind by others. It is a problem with individuals who are polluters, not the companies who make the products they like to buy.
The OP identified Corporate America (PepsiCo in this case) as the "source" of the waste that they were complaining about. This is where the error was made. The source of the waste was the user of the product, i.e. the person(s) who consumed the product. They are the ones to be held accountable.
Using the logic of the OP, even PepsiCo should not be held accountable, because they produce their products from products made or grown by others. If, for example, the chicken that is sold by KFC were produced by Tyson, then they should be the ones held accountable. This notion is completely absurd.
If you really want to do something about waste from fast food containers, perhaps you should outlaw carry out food. I never see plates and glasses from Dennys on the banks of our streams. Some states have enacted deposits for beverage containers. This really does seem to cut down on that type of litter. Is it time to have a deposit on Big Mac wrappers, too? I think that, too, is absurd.
The root of the problem lies with those individuals that don't care enough about our environment to ensure that they keep their trash and dispose of it properly. I believe this problem starts in the home by the example set by the parents. The attitude of the community also has something to do with it. In places like L.A., where everything is about getting as much as you can as fast as you can (i.e. "I want it all, and I want it now"), people stop caring about each other and the environment. You just don't see this same attitude in most rural areas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
