The spot where you charge it really doesn’t matter much except to the accountants; it’ll always just be factored into the price of the product. There’s no real difference between the company increasing the price by ten cents or a ten cent tax being levied at the register.
I really wouldn’t call it an indulgence tax though. There are plenty of uses for single-use plastics that aren’t sodas or indulgences.
You frame this as a ‘there is no solution i can see that’s worth it so why bother’ and this tells me you are not interested in a solution.
That is the exact opposite of what I’m saying. I’m saying that an externality tax to capture the actual cost of single-use plastics would do a lot to reduce their use without distorting markets and causing unintended side effects while likely being more effective than blanket bans.
Regulation is fine, but people need to realize that there are always downstream effects that often result in a less efficient version of the same outcome.
For instance, say you just pass a blanket ban on plastic soda bottles and mandate glass. Production costs immediately go up (not to mention transportation and logistics), and those costs are naturally passed onto the consumer, so the prices of all sodas go up.
Has this really improved things? There are real questions about the environment impact of glass, since they’re significantly heavier and thus require more carbon emissions to transport. Glass is better if it’s reused, but there are situations where it’s unlikely to be reused. Soda is now more expensive, just as it would have been under a plastic tax (and because lower income people tend to drink more soda, you’ve hit them extra hard relatively), but now you’ve also eliminated the ability for plastic bottles to be used in situations where they truly are called for; for instance, you probably don’t want to be selling glass bottles at a music festival, so an organizer will need to instead purchase extra plastic cups instead, resulting in the consumption of extra glass and plastic.
I know people have this idea that the only factor that goes into a price is how greedy the CEO happens to feel that morning, but that’s simply not the case. Prices are set by market circumstances, not greed. It’s not like NYC landlords suddenly got less greedy in 2020; the market radically changed. They’re already charging the most that the market will bear. In terms of regulation, it’s almost always more effective to go after the market incentives - that is, price signals - instead of just taking a hammer to the thing you don’t like and hoping it doesn’t have any bad effects.
That’s what’s always a bit maddening about these conversations. It’s not like companies are just shredding plastic into the atmosphere because they’re cartoon villains who love evil.
They’re making cheap plastic shit because we love cheap plastic shit. They’re making this stuff in response to explicit consumer prioritization of low costs above all other factors. If consumers broadly demanded soda in glass bottles and expressed a willingness to pay the extra cost that this entails, every soda company would use glass.
I’m not saying that you individually should be blamed for all environmental pollution, but we have to realize that companies are responding to the exact same incentives that we do. They’re obviously operating at a much larger scale, but they use cheap plastic shit for the exact same reason we do. If you’re looking for policy solutions, a great option would be to introduce an externality tax on plastic so that this environmental cost is actually factored into the production and end price and can fund remediate the damage, similar to carbon taxes. Of course though, the moment you say the word ‘tax’ people’s brains completely shut off, so this is probably a non-starter.
That’s the infuriating thing about this whole mess that feels impossible to solve.
Rhetoric like this directly radicalizes Israelis and pushes them towards violent escalation, which then radicalizes Palestinians into violence as well, further inspiring more Israeli violence, and on and on the cycle goes.
And then anyone who advocates for any amount of moderation will simultaneously get called a terrorist sympathizer for not wanting to nuke Gaza and a genocide accomplice for not wanting to forcibly remove or kill every Israeli.
I can imagine a non-zero amount of people would consent to a deep-fake porn video of themselves having sex with some generic hot woman, just as one example.
That’s proven to be both unpopular and often having unintended side effects.
I did my first cruise this year, and honestly had an absolute blast. However, the extremely important factor here is that it was a gay cruise (from the company Atlantis), and so it was absolutely nothing like the standard experience. For one week in the Caribbean, it was basically just a giant non-stop party. No kids, no entitled retirees, just you and 5000 other gay men trying to enjoy as much debauchery as can be fit into a week.
There were some port stops as well which were nice, but the main draw was very much the parties that would go on all night and through the morning. The music and production was incredible, and most of the other entertainment options were also swapped out for more gay-oriented options, so instead of bingo or whatever it is the boomers do, it was drag queens doing Britney Spears singalongs and things like that. And because everyone is gay, there’s already a shared common experience and identity so people tend to be very friendly and welcoming.
Also, if you’re single or otherwise available, the amount of sex you could have is genuinely ridiculous, though I was there with my boyfriend so we mostly just enjoyed the parties and made some great new friends. I had such a fun time, contrary to my expectations, that we’ve actually signed up to do another one in Europe later this summer, and that winter Caribbean cruise will probably become an annual thing for us.
The biggest issue involves the logistics on the ground, and in places with extremely high food insecurity, there tends to be little to no legitimate government, and so getting anything done involves dealing with local gangs and warlords. It doesn’t matter how much money you have if every shipment you send will just be stolen at gunpoint and sold to fund the local thug’s next golden toilet. This is not a problem that can really be solved by throwing money at it.
Just for the sake of completeness, the actual history here is that Ancient Greek has the latter Phi Φ which, during the classical Greek era of around the 5th century BC, was pronounced as a particularly strong /p/ sound that produced a noticeable puff of air, as opposed to the letter Pi π which was a weaker /p/ sound. It’s the exact same story with Greek Theta θ vs Greek Tau Τ and Greek Chi Χ vs Greek Kappa Κ. This distinction is called ‘aspiration’.
The Romans obviously had quite a lot of contact with the Greeks and took a lot of Greek words into Latin. However, the issues is that Latin did not have these aspirated sounds natively, and so they didn’t have an simple way to transliterate those letters into the Latin alphabet. The clever solution they came up with was to add an <h> after the aspirated sounds to represent that characteristic puff of air. So, they could easily transcribe the distinction between πι and φι as “pi” and “phi”. Thus begins a long tradition of transcribing these Greek letters as ‘Ph’, ‘Th’ and ‘Ch’.
The awkward issue is that languages tend to change over time, and by the 4th century AD or so, the pronunciation of all the aspirated consonants had dramatically shifted, with Phi Φ becoming /f/, Theta θ becoming the English <th> sound, and Chi Χ becoming something like the <ch> of German or Scottish “Loch”. This was generally noticed by the rest of Europe, and other European languages tended to adopt these new pronunciations to the extent that their languages allowed, though some languages also changed the spelling (see French ‘phonétique’ vs Spanish ‘fonético’). Plenty of languages kept the original Latin transcription spellings though, and thus we have the kinda goofy situation of ‘ph’ being a regular spelling of the /f/ sound in English.
So, tl;dr: Ph was just a clever transcription of a unique Greek sound that basically was a P plus an H. Then the Greeks started pronouncing it as an F, and so did everyone else, but we kept the original spelling.
So much for “believe victims”.
To say that I am disappointed would imply having had expectations, and I’ve long since stopped having those here.
Kenya is one of the major supplier of UN Peacekeeping forces. It’s not at all unusual for Kenyan forces to be involved in something like this, anywhere in the world.
And for better or for worse, optics matter. You really don’t think that the US military moving in wouldn’t bring a storm of controversy and accusations of neo-colonialism?
I’m gonna take a wild guess that most Lemmy people use Android, and the suggestion that someone might prefer an iPhone is triggering to someone whose sense of superiority comes from their choice of operating system for some reason.
No, it is not, and I’m not going to allow you to just walk back your claims after some inconvenience. To quote you yourself:
This just means that Sweden will have [to] send their troops to fight wars in middle east for oil companies.
No, it doesn’t. NATO membership does not mean that anyone is forced to fight wars in the Middle East. If that were the case, all of NATO would have been roped into the Iraq invasion, but they weren’t. The vast majority told America to fuck off during the invasion, and only lightly participated in some minor training operations with the Iraqi military afterwards.
And again, Sweden not being in NATO did not prevent it from participating in other NATO campaigns in a voluntary capacity. Your claim that Sweden joining NATO means that it’s going to be forced to participate in all these Middle Eastern wars against its will simply does not stand up to even a cursory look at actual reality. You can believe whatever you like since it appears that you’re immune to facts, but anyone else reading this should know that you’re not saying anything based in actual evidence.
Also, if you really think that ten Norwegians trying to teach Iraqi soldiers how to resist the groups that later became ISIS is an example of the “horrible things” that NATO does, that says much more about you than it does about NATO. The world is actually more complicated than “US brainwashes the world into killing the third world because oil”.
Cheers.
And again, the only mandatory after Article V have been monitoring and patrolling US airspace for a few months after 9/11 and some maritime operations in the Mediterranean to protect shipping and prevent terrorism and smuggling. All those other NATO operations were voluntary, and other NATO countries have happily told the US to fuck off when they don’t want to be involved.
Also, Sweden, despite not being in NATO, also participated in operations in Afghanistan. Your premise that being in NATO necessarily causes you to be involuntarily dragged into gallivanting around the Middle East is simply false. Other nations have autonomy and agency, actually. Not everything is about America.
This was all after the invasion to support the fledgling new Iraqi government.
If ten trainers from Norway training the Iraqi military to resist terrorist attacks is your idea of an example of gross western imperialism, you’ll have to forgive me for not being hugely convinced.
Unless you’re implying that Gaza is a part of Israel, which truly would be a pretty bold claim that not even Netanyahu makes, I’m pretty sure not even you think that there’s a genocide in Israel.
NATO didn’t participate in the invasion of Iraq, so what exactly are you talking about?
You might remember the term ‘coalition of the willing’. The only major ally the US actually got to come along with us to Iraq was the UK. Everyone else rightfully sat out of that mess.
Okay, so imagine you just ban plastic soda bottles. Now plastic bottles cannot be used in any circumstances, no matter how genuinely warranted, even if a user is willing to pay all costs to ensure its environmental impacts are offset. Also, all soda is now significantly more expensive, so “the poors” still have less access to it.
Potentially, yes. The entire point is that these artificial low prices are only possible because the negative externalities are being inflicted on other people in the form of pollution. By actually factoring this impact into the cost of the good, its true cost emerges and the market will settle into whatever the equilibrium is. If the only thing enabling mass access to cheap soda is a ton of pollution, then you either accept mass pollution or you lose the mass access to cheap soda. There’s not really any way around that fundamental trade-off.