Or you can write a check, too. But I ran across a post on an engineering magazine blog (of all places) that has found perhaps the most mundane of problems (at least when compared to warfare, starvation, and the like) while advocating the same old left-wing solution to assist in solving it.
The blog is called Critical Path and the writer in this case is William Angelo. I’ll reprise the phrase that pays:
You can always appeal to people’s sense of outrage – and many people take environmental degradation seriously. But the people that do aren’t the problem and they have many other fights. And you know the old saying, out of sight, out of mind. We’ll worry about it tomorrow. So how about the best incentive of all – economic? We can use a carrot and stick approach. We could make plastic substitutes socially responsible by rewarding firms that do not produce or use plastic products. Perhaps tax or regulatory breaks that help the corporate bottom-line. Then we could also mandate a user tax on all plastic products at every transaction point – starting with the manufacturer to the merchant to the consumer – and use the proceeds to pay for a global cleanup. Money is the universal language – make users pay and perhaps give a refund for recycling. Even some dolt litterbug can understand that. (Emphasis mine.)
I probably should have left this slide just in case Martin O’Malley or one of his minions is reading monoblogue, but they’ve probably already thought about this tax themselves. Angelo’s complaint is about the tons of plastic which finds its way to our oceans and is harmful to marine life. Yes, it is shameful but for centuries mankind has used waterways as a conveyance to get rid of waste products, so this is nothing new.
However, Angelo’s approach is already law in a number of states where, in an effort to cut down on litter, deposits are required to purchase various products which are packaged in disposable bottles or cans, with the deposit ranging anywhere from a couple pennies to a dime. But there’s still plenty of litter strewn across the landscape despite the fines states could collect from scofflaws if they’re caught. And while the heaps of trash we Americans toss out has created a cottage industry for some who endeavor to pick up the recyclable portions in order to make a few dollars at the recycling center, a lot of garbage eventually finds its way to storm drains, ditches, and other waterways. Thus you have Angelo’s complaint, where he compares parts of the Pacific Ocean to a “giant non-flushing toilet bowl.”
On a personal level, I’ve probably tossed out a fortune’s worth of aluminum cans in my life but I otherwise tend to take advantage of the county’s recycling center just down the road from me. I’m sure that some portion of my tax bill goes to subsidize the effort since most of what they collect isn’t worth a whole lot unless you measure the waste in tons. What’s sort of sad is the amount of trash I walk by to take my recycling items there, much of which isn’t in a category the county will take. This is where we all can improve our efforts and be a little more conscious of what we use and use up.
Leaving aside another argument retailers have about the bottle and can collection areas which some states require for return of items being a draw for bugs and rodents to their stores, the case I make against a tax such as Angelo suggests is to ask who collects it? He envisions a “global clean-up” but to me the only group with such worldwide governmental scope is the United Nations, and the last thing we Americans need is to enact a tax for their benefit given the black hole the billions we already donate to the UN seems to end up in.
Once again, I think common sense should prevail. Just don’t litter – take a little pride in your surroundings, people. Simply being a little more sensitive to what you toss out where will go a great distance in solving the problem. Obviously one can’t eliminate the problem in full (accidents do happen, like the plastic cup at the lakeside picnic being blown into the water by a gust of wind) but using common sense is a lot cheaper than yet another tax that government can raise at will.
