I’d much rather see the $2 tchotchkes eliminated entirely.
Need a one-off item? Borrow it. Until COVID screwed things up, our neighbourhood had a thriving tool library. We need more things like this in the world. The “right to repair” legislation is a small step in the right direction as well.
We need to erase the idea of “disposable” from our collective consciousness. Things should be designed for extended use, and disposed of (ideally through recycling) only when they cannot be repaired or maintained.
You can’t completely eliminate the $2 tchotchkes. It can’t and won’t happen. First, because buying durable items is expensive in the short term even if it saves money in the long term (you can buy cheaper on the used market, but it has limited capacity: each item must have been purchased new by someone and then not used until it wore out). Not everyone can afford to lay out $100 to save $10 over the next five years, as an alternative to spending only $10 right now and buying a new whatzit in six months. Second, there are items you really do only need once, like favours for a kid’s birthday party (actually, kid stuff in general, if you’re only having one kid). Third, there are things that need to be strictly sterile when used (although those tend to cost more than $2), and disposable is several orders of magnitude easier to sterilize than reusable. We can push for products made of things like cast recycled paper pulp or biodegradable plastic where that’s an option, but getting rid of all disposable products would seriously impact standards of living and expected lifespans worldwide.
You need a minimum population density for something like a tool library (or a Makerspace, which will typically have tools on hand) to work well. Say, 10 000 people within an hour’s round trip? My hometown couldn’t have mustered that. It’s an effective solution in some places, but not everywhere. Likewise neighbourhood garage sales or swap meets or other places where people can swap tchotchkes they no longer need for other things they like better.
To put it another way: This isn’t an ideal world. The majority of people had rather shoot themselves in the foot than consume less, even when they can afford to. Practical solutions need to take human selfishness into account.
But there are a lot of things that can be eliminated or reduced. Banning plastic bags and straws may be the most irritating examples, but they’re also highly visible ones.
You mention that, “Not everyone can afford to lay out $100 to save $10 over the next five years…” which sadly accurately echoes both Pratchett and Baldwin. It’s expensive to be poor. I’m happy to not be poor, and I just spent $300 on some boots I expect to last for a decade - maybe even twice that with an occasional resoleing. Sadly, shoes that cost 1/4 that will last less than 1/10 as long; but if you can’t drop that kind of money, you’re stuck spending more over time on shitty footwear.
(and don’t get me started on banking and fees!)
Where am I going with this? I’m not sure. On the one hand, we need to do much much better at not buying disposable garbage; on the other hand, we need to fix our socioeconomic system to make disposable garbage less desirable or necessary. In short, we need to do better - and mostly we need to do better for those who can’t afford to do so on their own.
As an aside, I considered health care waste, which is enormous; but gave it a pass for exactly the reasons you mention; but when I consider the amount of one-time plastic waste generated by 6-hour oxygen tank valve seals, there’s room for improvement there as well.
I’d much rather see the $2 tchotchkes eliminated entirely.
Need a one-off item? Borrow it. Until COVID screwed things up, our neighbourhood had a thriving tool library. We need more things like this in the world. The “right to repair” legislation is a small step in the right direction as well.
We need to erase the idea of “disposable” from our collective consciousness. Things should be designed for extended use, and disposed of (ideally through recycling) only when they cannot be repaired or maintained.
You can’t completely eliminate the $2 tchotchkes. It can’t and won’t happen. First, because buying durable items is expensive in the short term even if it saves money in the long term (you can buy cheaper on the used market, but it has limited capacity: each item must have been purchased new by someone and then not used until it wore out). Not everyone can afford to lay out $100 to save $10 over the next five years, as an alternative to spending only $10 right now and buying a new whatzit in six months. Second, there are items you really do only need once, like favours for a kid’s birthday party (actually, kid stuff in general, if you’re only having one kid). Third, there are things that need to be strictly sterile when used (although those tend to cost more than $2), and disposable is several orders of magnitude easier to sterilize than reusable. We can push for products made of things like cast recycled paper pulp or biodegradable plastic where that’s an option, but getting rid of all disposable products would seriously impact standards of living and expected lifespans worldwide.
You need a minimum population density for something like a tool library (or a Makerspace, which will typically have tools on hand) to work well. Say, 10 000 people within an hour’s round trip? My hometown couldn’t have mustered that. It’s an effective solution in some places, but not everywhere. Likewise neighbourhood garage sales or swap meets or other places where people can swap tchotchkes they no longer need for other things they like better.
To put it another way: This isn’t an ideal world. The majority of people had rather shoot themselves in the foot than consume less, even when they can afford to. Practical solutions need to take human selfishness into account.
You’re right, of course. We can’t eliminate them.
But there are a lot of things that can be eliminated or reduced. Banning plastic bags and straws may be the most irritating examples, but they’re also highly visible ones.
You mention that, “Not everyone can afford to lay out $100 to save $10 over the next five years…” which sadly accurately echoes both Pratchett and Baldwin. It’s expensive to be poor. I’m happy to not be poor, and I just spent $300 on some boots I expect to last for a decade - maybe even twice that with an occasional resoleing. Sadly, shoes that cost 1/4 that will last less than 1/10 as long; but if you can’t drop that kind of money, you’re stuck spending more over time on shitty footwear.
(and don’t get me started on banking and fees!)
Where am I going with this? I’m not sure. On the one hand, we need to do much much better at not buying disposable garbage; on the other hand, we need to fix our socioeconomic system to make disposable garbage less desirable or necessary. In short, we need to do better - and mostly we need to do better for those who can’t afford to do so on their own.
As an aside, I considered health care waste, which is enormous; but gave it a pass for exactly the reasons you mention; but when I consider the amount of one-time plastic waste generated by 6-hour oxygen tank valve seals, there’s room for improvement there as well.