News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
It's a quarter for boxed wine!! Really though, this title is misleading. It should say "California Redemption Value deposit charge to be added to liquor and juice containers starting in January."
They add it to the price of the product at checkout, it's a "deposit" that you are able to get back if you want to save up your containers and drive them to the recycling center.
I see this mostly benefiting people who make a few dollars a day digging through public (and not so public) trash receptacles looking for things with CRV to turn in.
It pisses me off that we have to pay any fee at all when we aren't the ones who choose a product's packaging.
Companies should be paying the whole thing ... including recycling costs. Then maybe they'd start packaging responsibly.
For things that can't be recycled, I would agree. But if it can be, then it still needs to be brought to a recycling facility to make that happen. Without this incentive, a lot more of it will end up in landfills.
If the companies had to pay per bottle, do you really think they'd still be using single use packaging like that?
They'd install refill stations in stores and sell you a reusable bottle that you can fill up from their metered tap at the refill station.
Companies created the problem of single use packaging; the onus is not on individuals to solve a problem created by companies.
Not if it costs more to develop, install, and maintain a refill system. Much more likely they would just raise the price to the consumer anyway.
If gov'ts had kept on top of the companies and created prohibitive rules around single-use plastics (and chemical use ... see PFOS/PFAS) in the 70's, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Instead they just let companies do whatever they wanted 'cause capitalism is god.
And now it's so far gone that doing the bare minimum for the environment is great for their image so let's dump more money into advertising that than actually making a meaningful change.
If it's the same 5/10/25c per container, then they very likely will. Consumers have already decided that this price is worth paying for the convenience, so it makes little difference if companies paid this and passed on the cost to consumer, or if it's transparently shown as a separate reimbursable fee. In the end, all the costs get passed on to consumers and it's left to us to vote with our wallets. I think the main issue is that the cost of producing containers doesn't reflect the true long term cost, and the solution to that is probably to impose a tax based on the amount of material used. That way, consumers making the choice that's right for them will also mean making the choice that's right for everyone else.
Glass and metal are pretty reusable 😅
Have you kept and reused every glass or metal container you've had?