[Mariner]

“The measure aims to reduce landfill waste by making manufacturers financially responsible for the packaging they sell after it is thrown away.

It charges companies impact fees on products they sell while also requiring them to phase out packaging that cannot be adequately reused, recycled or composted. “

I wondering what a cogent argument in opposition to this looks like. Anyone have any input on that?

[Carry_Okie]

Recycling plastics is a cruel ruse. They're collected by the consumer, washed, picked up in a second diesel truck, brought to the "recycling facility" where they a are sorted for what is usable, and the rest is baled, trucked to the dock, shipped to Asia, and then to be dumped into the Pacific Ocean.

It should be burned as fuel for generating electricity (it's what they do in Germany), but that's in competition with the (Noisome) Getty empire and others.

[fruser1]

wondering what a cogent argument in opposition

The first argument is that there is no cogent argument FOR the new law.

You could also say such recyclable packaging won't hold the product fresh as long as it will decompose, shortening the supply chain. Instead of an expiration date, your milk will come with a "leak by" date.

[JeanLM]

Post consumer recycle of most packaging is impossible. Aluminum cans and cardboard boxes are about it and the cost to do so is rediculously expensive in collection, transportation and conversion. The incremental cost of unrecycled packaging in a landfill is miniscule. Landfills are big plastic lined and capped bags of junk that’ll be there forever. So what? We have enough suitable landfill space for all our waste for a thousand years.
So we are turning something that doesn’t cost anything into another tax stream for the government to spend.