Capitalist enterprises look for the cheapest option, unless the consumer demands otherwise. Bottles are heavy and fragile, which means increased transportation costs and losses. If consumers demanded glass, they'd charge us a premium and happily provide glass, and make a profit off our demand.
Organic food is a perfect example. They incur more losses and operations are more expensive, but they charge a premium and profit from our demand. In other cases they remove harms when it threatens their profits. Antibiotics, rBST, etc in milk are scary, so milk producers remove them and advertise they're now less bad for us, so we buy that milk more.
But in order for those cases to happen, consumers had to demand the product change. And the only reason consumers demanded it was fear. They were afraid they were being poisoned, so they demanded change; producers feared for their profits, and made changes.
Sadly, consumers don't give a shit about the environment. If they did they would have demanded an end to disposable plastics decades ago, when it was widely known the kinds of pollution the packaging was causing. We didn't care then, we don't care now. Not enough to act, anyway.
But luckily, and kind of amazingly, "Government" is doing what it's supposed to do. Very slowly, laws are being passed at local and state level to set deadlines to curtail or eliminate disposable products. Sometimes the laws have no teeth, but it's a step in the right direction (even if it does take decades to take effect). But lobbyists will fight this and try to convince consumers the change is bad, so the companies don't have to spend money to change.
If consumers want the change to happen soon, they must demand it themselves. They do it when they're afraid just fine; waiting for them to be afraid enough may be too late.
I don't share your anti-capitalist takes. You act as if everyone always knew this was a serious problem, and to some extent I think you're overstating the problem. Plastic is somewhat bad for us and the environment but it is also hugely beneficial and cost-effective. The solution to our ills is most likely to come in the form of a biodegradable polymer rather than glass bottles and metal cans.
>If consumers demanded glass, they'd charge us a premium and happily provide glass, and make a profit off our demand.
That is exactly what happens now. You can get soda and beer in glass but it costs more. Bottled wine costs more than similar boxed wine. I'm sure there is a small difference with many other products too.
>Sadly, consumers don't give a shit about the environment. If they did they would have demanded an end to disposable plastics decades ago, when it was widely known the kinds of pollution the packaging was causing. We didn't care then, we don't care now. Not enough to act, anyway.
They do care but plastic has been recycled for decades now. Perhaps it is not the most recyclable material but lots of consumers are on board with some kind of recycling system, and reuse plastic stuff in their own lives outside of commercial recycling.
>Very slowly, laws are being passed at local and state level to set deadlines to curtail or eliminate disposable products.
On this subject, paper straws are the worst and have been proven to exude toxic chemicals. To add insult to injury, you have to store them in plastic wrappers to be sure they stay dry.
Reducing the amount of plastic in use is generally a low priority for government. It's a slow problem with many solutions that don't involve banning things.
>They do it when they're afraid just fine; waiting for them to be afraid enough may be too late.
There's not an obvious "too late" for plastic. It's a slow problem. Even the seemingly huge amount of plastic out there can be picked up and handled in various ways. The bigger issue is the microplastics that are difficult to collect. The idea that you can drive up to buy a $7 drink in a plastic cup with a plastic lid, and be refused a straw that actually works, really pisses people off. There are much more important forms of pollution that could be addressed, like the artificial chemicals and pesticides in our food.
Another example of a bad policy is the ban on plastic bags. While this might make sense sometimes, every time someone forgets their bags or even runs out of bags unexpectedly during checkout, they end up buying bags anyway. The bags for sale are often restricted to the heavy reusable kind, which are made as cheap as possible for the occasion and are not attractive or durable enough to be saved indefinitely. These bags have been found to generate more waste in some cases than letting people do what they think is right. A lot of people use the ordinary thin plastic bags around the house until they fall apart anyway, and some stores collect them for recycling as well.
Organic food is a perfect example. They incur more losses and operations are more expensive, but they charge a premium and profit from our demand. In other cases they remove harms when it threatens their profits. Antibiotics, rBST, etc in milk are scary, so milk producers remove them and advertise they're now less bad for us, so we buy that milk more.
But in order for those cases to happen, consumers had to demand the product change. And the only reason consumers demanded it was fear. They were afraid they were being poisoned, so they demanded change; producers feared for their profits, and made changes.
Sadly, consumers don't give a shit about the environment. If they did they would have demanded an end to disposable plastics decades ago, when it was widely known the kinds of pollution the packaging was causing. We didn't care then, we don't care now. Not enough to act, anyway.
But luckily, and kind of amazingly, "Government" is doing what it's supposed to do. Very slowly, laws are being passed at local and state level to set deadlines to curtail or eliminate disposable products. Sometimes the laws have no teeth, but it's a step in the right direction (even if it does take decades to take effect). But lobbyists will fight this and try to convince consumers the change is bad, so the companies don't have to spend money to change.
If consumers want the change to happen soon, they must demand it themselves. They do it when they're afraid just fine; waiting for them to be afraid enough may be too late.