On: Food labels and the lies they tell us about ‘best ...

[SkyPuncher]

Sounds like manufacturing is getting better at reducing waste, since they’re able to use less material per can.

Yes, you should recycle, but we all know that not everyone does.

[beerandt → SkyPuncher]

If the product is ruined, the entire package and contents become waste.

Metal is at least mostly recoverable energy. The footprint of the contents lost is not.

And ironically the lighter plastic packaging makes it more likely to be trashed and not reused, or even attempted to be recycled. (Reuse is 1-2 magnitudes more efficient than recycling.)

[SJC_Hacker → beerandt]

>Metal is at least mostly recoverable energy. The footprint of the contents lost is not.

It should be, but how much of that is actually recycled vs. how much ends up in a landfill.

[beerandt → SJC_Hacker]

Doesn't matter.

Marginal savings is meaningless if the resulting product is worthless.

On top of that- 99% of people who find a ruptured can with black ooze are trashing it.

And the other 1% are spending more energy/resources to clean a contaminated container than the recycling will save.

(Washing things is surprisingly expensive in terms of energy/resources. Often worth it for reuse, but not recycling.)

Now you're essentially comparing mpg on a trip to no where.

[kragen → beerandt]

on the contrary, if you can reduce the environmental cost per can by 30%, but the result is that 20% of the cans rupture and go to waste, you have still reduced the total environmental cost

you are likely to go bankrupy tho

[SkyPuncher → beerandt]

Sure, but what percent of product are you actually loosing? It’s not a lot.

[beerandt → SkyPuncher]

It varies.

The manufacture has an interest in delivering it undamaged, but less in storage or handling or longevity.

They used to overshoot to ensure hitting the goal they car about.

It's probably efficient for them. They draw the system boundary after delivery.

Because that doesn't necessarily make the full Life Cycle of the container and contents efficient as its actually used.

It's similar to 'water saving' toilets. The manufacture sells a product with gal/flush, not gal/use.

Real world use differs from nominal, and interests aren't always aligned, especially if regulatory bodies are involved.

But the point is- the number is different depending on if you're the manufacturer, retailer, consumer, or recycling/ waste agency.

Maximizing one parties efficiency doesn't mean an increase in net efficiency as viewed by others.