Capitalism—not convenience—is killing us. Convenience is part of it, but not the only thing. And bucking convenience is getting more and more difficult. That means “convenience” is less and less distinguishable from necessity for anyone who has to work for their bread.
Your government in Ontario is not as bad as our government in Washington, DC. Almost, but it is hard to beat a narcissistic sociopath with Machiavellian approaches to nearly everything, surrounded by alcoholics, grifters, and shamelessly corrupt billionaires. Doug Ford is merely incompetent and stupid. How do we get leaders who are so bad when we have democratic election processes? Propaganda I suppose. I hope we make it to the next election here, but my hope is shrinking with a senseless war and a corporate profit boom supplying kickbacks to the source of the problem. At least it is raining. We have a severe drought in Virginia, not extreme like south Georgia and Florida, but bad enough. Climate change anyone? With deniers in charge!? Oh, Good grief.
We're successfully taught large portions of the populations that they don't need to vote for society to improve, we need to just go to work and be good little workers and make money.
Spot on Wayne. But this is how the batshit starts.....Slow drips and occupy the masses with other nonsense while the country burns. I agree with Lloyd about the deposits. The battle of nip bottles is frustrating..they pop up everywhere. Locally there have been initiatives put on the ballot but to no avail. We need to target the production end of this endless nightmare. Onward.
No, when Ford opened everything up so that you could buy beer at corner stores and at the government-owned liquor stores, nobody had to go to the beer store anymore. I put our bottles out on the street every garbage day and there are industrious people who pick them up for the deposits. But you are absolutely correct: Convenience is killing the planet.
"...there are industrious people who pick them up for the deposits. "
Capitalism at its best! See a hole in the marketplace (you not wanting to return your bottles because it's "inconvenient") and some entrepreneurial types "provided a convenience service to you" by accepting that the deposit money is a sufficient monetary reward for their time.
So you are part of the "convenience economy" by the service of others!
Let me add this, upon some contemplation, as I forgot it before.
As opposed to what is often slurred here about capitalists, these folks are acting in their own SELF-INTEREST; that they could better themselves by filling an unseen need (RE: Adam Smith's "Hidden Hand"). Their actions are NOT, as many are wont to say here, GREEDY.
And to that "Hidden Hand", which many anti-capitalists totally ignore, is shown plainly here: Lloyd never asked for the service at all. It just happened on his behalf without a word. Can't get more "hidden" than that.
"And why is the uptake in our recycling programs not great? Because there is no incentive. There are no deposits. Gurney continues:"
Let me fix that for you:
"And why is the uptake in our recycling programs not great? Because there is no LAWS. There are no MANDATORY BEHAVIORS. Gurney continues:"
Let me translate what "no incentive" really means in your usage: "the Govt is staying out of peoples's lives and not making them do what I want".
It seems that Matt Gurney has simply ID'd the Left's general problem with this specific example.
What happens when the broader population doesn't wish to go along with what the Left wants (all 1 million SIGs, or so, that make up that coalition (watching the latest NDP "convention" was extremely funny with every single faction and sect clamoring for its ascendency on the Identity Totem pole at the mic)?
It demands that Government FORCE people to act and behave the way that the LEFT demands. ALL must participate whether they want to or not. And the Left hates it when they no longer have the control and Power of Government to make happen what they wish (e.g., the American Democrats right now are almost making your NDP look sane with the idea of getting rid of all of the State of Virginia's Supreme Court Justices RIGHT NOW).
And in this bottle case, spending money on behaviors they wouldn't otherwise do. While you are constantly railing against Ford, remember that you are really bickering against all of the voters that put him into office to make those decisions that you hate (which, on your behalf, is certainly allowable). As is their right for him to do this on their behalf - THIS is what THEY voted for.
And the common-sense observation is that you're not happy with his or their decisions at all as it shows you're in the minority on these kinds of issues.
It costs around $140 (US) to throw away a ton of stuff. We are fast approaching a point where there won't be any more landfill space to dump our stuff in.
"there won't be any more landfill space to dump our stuff in"
With a land mass that America has, that's a false statement to make. Now, it may be a POLITICAL issue but not a physical one.
But let's go with your underlying issue - what is your practical remedy for the waste needs of 340 million people? Certainly, based on current practices, very little is or can be recycled.
But back to my post that you just commented on - do you join with Lloyd in being upset that your side (and yes, I'm "assuming" for the sake of debate) has ordinary people making their own decisions that are in their self-interest?
And I point out again that while Lloyd oft rails against the "convenience economy", he just admitted in that he voluntarily joins it when it is in his best self-interest even as he argues to the opposite. Yet, you would also remove that choice from others that you don't even know (or know that they even exist, much less their circumstances?).
I can't change the oil in my car and dump the old oil in the river down the road from me. That's a political issue, not a physical one.
There are nearly insurmountable issues, political and physical, to anyone trying to open a new landfill.
The only solution I can come up with is a physical one. It should be illegal to put stuff in packaging that can't be recycled or reused. There's a cost to throw away stuff which should be borne by the manufacturers. See Extended Producer Responsibility laws as a start.
Your operative word is "should" showing this is eminently a political process.
How much progress have you made in crafting such legislation, getting a sponsor for it, shepherding it through your State's bicameral (Nebraska excepted) legislature, and getting it signed by your Governor?
Until that happens, it's just ranting. Which is fine - Free Speech and all that. One can certainly express opinions. But it's in the "all hat and no cattle" arena without the hard work to get it passed.
I didn't know that as I don't live in Maine. That said, SOMEONE took the time, effort, and talent to move that intent through the legislative process.
Added: and what has the result been? Are landfills still receiving as much material as they were before? Did manufacturers raise their prices since Govt artificially raised their cost of goods expenses? Did manufacturers stop selling certain items as it didn't meet their needed ROIs? Did that extra retail pricing show that consumers simply stopped buying those products?
Which now leaves you with the effort of doing the same at the national level. This will be interesting to watch you do that.
Second Edit: I just learned that our VP Vance is headed to Bangor as part of his Fraud Task Force portfolio. Even more interesting!
"I can't change the oil in my car and dump the old oil in the river down the road from me. That's a political issue, not a physical one."
No, not quite. It is now a legal issue as our politics processes have deemed it illegal to do.
"...insurmountable..."
Sometimes, you might want to do some homework before making such a declarative statement. I had Grok evaluate your statement - My prompt: "Evaluate this statement: "There are nearly insurmountable issues, political and physical, to anyone trying to open a new landfill. Is it really insurmountable everywhere within the US?"
Result - you're wrong:
"Evidence It's Not Insurmountable Everywhere
Expansions are common: Recent examples include Waste Management projects in Pennsylvania (Grand Central), Florida (Monarch Hill), and others in Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, and South Carolina. These add decades of capacity.
New or new-cell landfills: Examples include Greater El Paso (new cells, 2026), Larimer County CO (new sanitary landfill under construction), Victoria TX expansion (adding 100 years), Watsonville CA support, and sites in Hawaii and Wisconsin advancing through permitting.
Capacity reality: Nationally, the US has substantial remaining landfill space (estimates around 60+ years in current facilities, with variations). 22+ states have decades; issues are heavily regional (e.g., Northeast, parts of Midwest, California more constrained; South and Midwest often have more room).
Waste is often shipped long distances to capacity-rich areas, showing markets adapt."
You still haven't addressed the elephant in the room which is not everything can be recycled (like the oversized windmill blades and the heavy metals in other RE products). What are you going to do with those (and like items)?
"You still haven't addressed the elephant in the room which is not everything can be recycled (like the oversized windmill blades and the heavy metals in other RE products). What are you going to do with those (and like items)?"
Speaking of the windmill blades and heavy metals - what does your Maine law do about them? I would imagine, given the cost of such parts, that the cost would be rather prohibitive for the manufacturer to shoulder that pricing, yes?
So Govt decided to artificially raise the cost of RE even as the Leftists in Govt want even more. How's that financial dichotomy working out on current and future projects?
oh god not the windmill blades canard, they are being recycled now, and the volumes are miniscule compared to say coal ash. this is all getting too political for me.
I have a glass recycling bin (my own) filling up with glass jars from a local farmer’s market vendor who uses them for their apple sauce and apple butter. I’d love it if they could collect the empty jars and reuse them but I’m sure they can’t afford to take that on and meet any regulatory requirements for their operation. On the other hand, our county no longer collects glass. We have to take it to one of two collection points. But they are making money by selling that glass to the adjacent county. This arrangement does discourage buying bottled beverages versus cans, which go into my curbside recycling. At my age I don’t think BPA is much of a worry.
Our little town has a recycling center where we can bring stuff, including glass, sorted by color. It gets collected regionally and recycled. But nobody is making money recycling glass.
While the glass is sold, there's still a net cost because the price paid for the glass is much less than the cost to a city or town to collect it. The net cost is cheaper than dumping it into a landfill, though. That's the case with most recycling, with the possible exception of cardboard.
I live in Barcelona, Catalonia, and there is no deposit and refund system on cigarettes. In 2022, there was an initiative tabled in the parliament, but it never went anywhere. In fact, there's not even a deposit and refund system on bottles or cans in Catalonia (or the rest of Spain). To my knowledge, the introduction of such a system is being stalled by a private company (Ecoembes) that collects and recycles all paper, glass, aluminum and plastic tossed voluntarily into specially color-coded dumpsters in streets. But without financial incentive, many people don't recycle, of course, with the result that many bottles and cans litter the streets.
Capitalism—not convenience—is killing us. Convenience is part of it, but not the only thing. And bucking convenience is getting more and more difficult. That means “convenience” is less and less distinguishable from necessity for anyone who has to work for their bread.
Your government in Ontario is not as bad as our government in Washington, DC. Almost, but it is hard to beat a narcissistic sociopath with Machiavellian approaches to nearly everything, surrounded by alcoholics, grifters, and shamelessly corrupt billionaires. Doug Ford is merely incompetent and stupid. How do we get leaders who are so bad when we have democratic election processes? Propaganda I suppose. I hope we make it to the next election here, but my hope is shrinking with a senseless war and a corporate profit boom supplying kickbacks to the source of the problem. At least it is raining. We have a severe drought in Virginia, not extreme like south Georgia and Florida, but bad enough. Climate change anyone? With deniers in charge!? Oh, Good grief.
We're successfully taught large portions of the populations that they don't need to vote for society to improve, we need to just go to work and be good little workers and make money.
Spot on Wayne. But this is how the batshit starts.....Slow drips and occupy the masses with other nonsense while the country burns. I agree with Lloyd about the deposits. The battle of nip bottles is frustrating..they pop up everywhere. Locally there have been initiatives put on the ballot but to no avail. We need to target the production end of this endless nightmare. Onward.
Returning beer bottles wasn't that hard. Doesn't every beer drinker return frequently to the beer store? Convenience is killing the planet.
No, when Ford opened everything up so that you could buy beer at corner stores and at the government-owned liquor stores, nobody had to go to the beer store anymore. I put our bottles out on the street every garbage day and there are industrious people who pick them up for the deposits. But you are absolutely correct: Convenience is killing the planet.
"...there are industrious people who pick them up for the deposits. "
Capitalism at its best! See a hole in the marketplace (you not wanting to return your bottles because it's "inconvenient") and some entrepreneurial types "provided a convenience service to you" by accepting that the deposit money is a sufficient monetary reward for their time.
So you are part of the "convenience economy" by the service of others!
Let me add this, upon some contemplation, as I forgot it before.
As opposed to what is often slurred here about capitalists, these folks are acting in their own SELF-INTEREST; that they could better themselves by filling an unseen need (RE: Adam Smith's "Hidden Hand"). Their actions are NOT, as many are wont to say here, GREEDY.
And to that "Hidden Hand", which many anti-capitalists totally ignore, is shown plainly here: Lloyd never asked for the service at all. It just happened on his behalf without a word. Can't get more "hidden" than that.
"And why is the uptake in our recycling programs not great? Because there is no incentive. There are no deposits. Gurney continues:"
Let me fix that for you:
"And why is the uptake in our recycling programs not great? Because there is no LAWS. There are no MANDATORY BEHAVIORS. Gurney continues:"
Let me translate what "no incentive" really means in your usage: "the Govt is staying out of peoples's lives and not making them do what I want".
It seems that Matt Gurney has simply ID'd the Left's general problem with this specific example.
What happens when the broader population doesn't wish to go along with what the Left wants (all 1 million SIGs, or so, that make up that coalition (watching the latest NDP "convention" was extremely funny with every single faction and sect clamoring for its ascendency on the Identity Totem pole at the mic)?
It demands that Government FORCE people to act and behave the way that the LEFT demands. ALL must participate whether they want to or not. And the Left hates it when they no longer have the control and Power of Government to make happen what they wish (e.g., the American Democrats right now are almost making your NDP look sane with the idea of getting rid of all of the State of Virginia's Supreme Court Justices RIGHT NOW).
And in this bottle case, spending money on behaviors they wouldn't otherwise do. While you are constantly railing against Ford, remember that you are really bickering against all of the voters that put him into office to make those decisions that you hate (which, on your behalf, is certainly allowable). As is their right for him to do this on their behalf - THIS is what THEY voted for.
And the common-sense observation is that you're not happy with his or their decisions at all as it shows you're in the minority on these kinds of issues.
It costs around $140 (US) to throw away a ton of stuff. We are fast approaching a point where there won't be any more landfill space to dump our stuff in.
"there won't be any more landfill space to dump our stuff in"
With a land mass that America has, that's a false statement to make. Now, it may be a POLITICAL issue but not a physical one.
But let's go with your underlying issue - what is your practical remedy for the waste needs of 340 million people? Certainly, based on current practices, very little is or can be recycled.
But back to my post that you just commented on - do you join with Lloyd in being upset that your side (and yes, I'm "assuming" for the sake of debate) has ordinary people making their own decisions that are in their self-interest?
And I point out again that while Lloyd oft rails against the "convenience economy", he just admitted in that he voluntarily joins it when it is in his best self-interest even as he argues to the opposite. Yet, you would also remove that choice from others that you don't even know (or know that they even exist, much less their circumstances?).
I can't change the oil in my car and dump the old oil in the river down the road from me. That's a political issue, not a physical one.
There are nearly insurmountable issues, political and physical, to anyone trying to open a new landfill.
The only solution I can come up with is a physical one. It should be illegal to put stuff in packaging that can't be recycled or reused. There's a cost to throw away stuff which should be borne by the manufacturers. See Extended Producer Responsibility laws as a start.
"It should be illegal to put stuff..."
Your operative word is "should" showing this is eminently a political process.
How much progress have you made in crafting such legislation, getting a sponsor for it, shepherding it through your State's bicameral (Nebraska excepted) legislature, and getting it signed by your Governor?
Until that happens, it's just ranting. Which is fine - Free Speech and all that. One can certainly express opinions. But it's in the "all hat and no cattle" arena without the hard work to get it passed.
It's already the law in Maine.
I didn't know that as I don't live in Maine. That said, SOMEONE took the time, effort, and talent to move that intent through the legislative process.
Added: and what has the result been? Are landfills still receiving as much material as they were before? Did manufacturers raise their prices since Govt artificially raised their cost of goods expenses? Did manufacturers stop selling certain items as it didn't meet their needed ROIs? Did that extra retail pricing show that consumers simply stopped buying those products?
Which now leaves you with the effort of doing the same at the national level. This will be interesting to watch you do that.
Second Edit: I just learned that our VP Vance is headed to Bangor as part of his Fraud Task Force portfolio. Even more interesting!
"I can't change the oil in my car and dump the old oil in the river down the road from me. That's a political issue, not a physical one."
No, not quite. It is now a legal issue as our politics processes have deemed it illegal to do.
"...insurmountable..."
Sometimes, you might want to do some homework before making such a declarative statement. I had Grok evaluate your statement - My prompt: "Evaluate this statement: "There are nearly insurmountable issues, political and physical, to anyone trying to open a new landfill. Is it really insurmountable everywhere within the US?"
Result - you're wrong:
"Evidence It's Not Insurmountable Everywhere
Expansions are common: Recent examples include Waste Management projects in Pennsylvania (Grand Central), Florida (Monarch Hill), and others in Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, and South Carolina. These add decades of capacity.
New or new-cell landfills: Examples include Greater El Paso (new cells, 2026), Larimer County CO (new sanitary landfill under construction), Victoria TX expansion (adding 100 years), Watsonville CA support, and sites in Hawaii and Wisconsin advancing through permitting.
Capacity reality: Nationally, the US has substantial remaining landfill space (estimates around 60+ years in current facilities, with variations). 22+ states have decades; issues are heavily regional (e.g., Northeast, parts of Midwest, California more constrained; South and Midwest often have more room).
Waste is often shipped long distances to capacity-rich areas, showing markets adapt."
You still haven't addressed the elephant in the room which is not everything can be recycled (like the oversized windmill blades and the heavy metals in other RE products). What are you going to do with those (and like items)?
Hey Stephen!
"You still haven't addressed the elephant in the room which is not everything can be recycled (like the oversized windmill blades and the heavy metals in other RE products). What are you going to do with those (and like items)?"
Speaking of the windmill blades and heavy metals - what does your Maine law do about them? I would imagine, given the cost of such parts, that the cost would be rather prohibitive for the manufacturer to shoulder that pricing, yes?
So Govt decided to artificially raise the cost of RE even as the Leftists in Govt want even more. How's that financial dichotomy working out on current and future projects?
oh god not the windmill blades canard, they are being recycled now, and the volumes are miniscule compared to say coal ash. this is all getting too political for me.
I have a glass recycling bin (my own) filling up with glass jars from a local farmer’s market vendor who uses them for their apple sauce and apple butter. I’d love it if they could collect the empty jars and reuse them but I’m sure they can’t afford to take that on and meet any regulatory requirements for their operation. On the other hand, our county no longer collects glass. We have to take it to one of two collection points. But they are making money by selling that glass to the adjacent county. This arrangement does discourage buying bottled beverages versus cans, which go into my curbside recycling. At my age I don’t think BPA is much of a worry.
Our little town has a recycling center where we can bring stuff, including glass, sorted by color. It gets collected regionally and recycled. But nobody is making money recycling glass.
While the glass is sold, there's still a net cost because the price paid for the glass is much less than the cost to a city or town to collect it. The net cost is cheaper than dumping it into a landfill, though. That's the case with most recycling, with the possible exception of cardboard.
Great article. OK, you have convinced me. How do we actually get deposits put on things ?
I live in Barcelona, Catalonia, and there is no deposit and refund system on cigarettes. In 2022, there was an initiative tabled in the parliament, but it never went anywhere. In fact, there's not even a deposit and refund system on bottles or cans in Catalonia (or the rest of Spain). To my knowledge, the introduction of such a system is being stalled by a private company (Ecoembes) that collects and recycles all paper, glass, aluminum and plastic tossed voluntarily into specially color-coded dumpsters in streets. But without financial incentive, many people don't recycle, of course, with the result that many bottles and cans litter the streets.
Thank you for your comment. I used the word “proposed” because I wasn’t sure it ever happened, but it is still a very good idea!
Yes, it's always a good idea to make polluters pay!
It's things like this that make me think that Doug is distantly related to Henry, in the negative sense...