Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

The answer is reducing consumption.

Trader Joe's at least has made an effort to cut down on the use of plastic packaging for their produce. So in this way, at least plastic consumption will be reduced at the consumer level, even if only for Trader Joe's shoppers. I always felt bad purchasing from them purely for the amount of packaging that was involved.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90318155/heres-how-trader-joes-p...

Here's basically the entire article: they will "no longer offer single-use plastic bags to customers, replace the plastic produce bags and Styrofoam packages with compostable alternatives, and avoid using compounds like BPA in packaging".

Trader Joes has always been semi-unique as a grocery store in that a reasonably high percentage of their produce comes as a multipack on a paper/stryofoam tray wrapped in plastic. It always struck me as wasteful as well.

Or producers of the goods that I purchase could pick a better way to deliver it to me. If I want product X then I am stuck with whatever way the company producing X decides to use. That they then try to shift the burden of proper disposal to me is the greatest red herring of our time.

> If I want product X then I am stuck with whatever way the company producing X decides to use

For most products, you have the choice of multiple companies Y that make/sell said product. Some might differentiate themselves on reducing their packaging. In other cases, you might be able to reduce your packaging impact by buying said product used or (god forbid) going without something you want but don't need.

Reduce -> Reuse -> Recycle.

In that order.

"But but GDP!" Will say the government economist.

I think it's past time we come up with a macro economic measure that doesn't depend on compounding year over year growth on a finite planet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com