[LINK] packaging and rubish

[Karl Auer]

On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 11:17 +1000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> to suggest suppliers be forced to take packaging back is lanutic asylum
> material. the logistics of this would be simply unrealistic.

Funny - it works exceptionally well all over Europe. Not only the
packaging, but the products themselves, especially electrical equipment,
electronics and white goods. The result for the suppliers, importers and
resellers (who squealed blue murder when the legislation was proposed)
have discovered to their great delight that the new packaging is just as
good if not better, costs little to recycle or dispose of, pleases their
customers (who no longer have a disposal problem) and in short, has
improved their bottom line. Ditto for the compulsory responsibility for
product at the end of its life - the result has been better reusability
of parts, and a generally lowered cost of production. Pretty good, huh?

> suggest that supplier be taxed for the disposal of the packaging is
> equally nonsensical.

Why? They just add the costs to the sell price if they want to recoup
it. Of course, that's uncompetitive unless everybody does it, and well,
what do you know? Nobody does it, and everyone is still making a very
nice quid.

> actually then on top pay for its operations. few ideas could be more absurd.

Indeed - that's why those costs are added to the cost of the product,
where they enter the competitive cycle and are shared as the market
determines.

K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/                  +61-428-957160 (mob)