• Jiral@lemmy.world
    101·
    24 hours ago

    Your comment on CO2 makes no sense. First you are talking about the amount of plastic used for caps (without a reference to before) and then you are talking about a “CO2 increase”. Caps do not appear to be larger or heavier than before but what do I know.

    If I am not mistaken, the transition period was 5 years. So even for the worst case, no brand new mold had to be discarded because it all came so sudden. I would not be surprised if many had at least one change already during the transition time even without that regulation. Also tooling can be sold or transferred as well, if it is really still in such a good shape. Now, would have been a longer transition period, maybe 10 year, been better? Maybe.

    Your comment sounds like a very biased view of the industry that understandably wasn’t enthusiastic about it, as the only one benefiting from it was the environment, which doesn’t do anything for them, right?

        • REDACTED@infosec.pub
          11·
          15 hours ago

          Sponsored by…UNESDA. Literally the same association that fought for this in the first place. This helps my argument immensely.

          • Ghoelian@piefed.socialEnglish
            2·
            11 hours ago

            If they fought for this in the first place then why did they sponsor an article discrediting themselves?

            • REDACTED@infosec.pub
              11·
              9 hours ago

              Not everything works like Trump being unable to admit your mistakes. These organizations are commonly interested in improving EU, not purely selfish motives.

              • Jiral@lemmy.world
                1·
                7 hours ago

                I have no idea where you have the idea from that UNESDA was for tethered caps, at any point. You linked to an ad from UNESDA from before 2020 and quoted a contract PWC study from that time. All against it. Many of the assumptions in that study have become either obsolete or were shown to be wrong.

      • Jiral@lemmy.world
        32·
        14 hours ago

        “sponosored content” Do you have a source for your claims or only an ad?

        Of course the beverage industry did not like it. It was new regulation while the only one benefitting being the environment, with less hard to ckean waste. That does nothing to raise their profits.

        The comment made no sense not because it is unknown that production causes CO2 emmissions but because you threw in a single weight number without any reference and then drew from that a conclusion about increased CO2 emissions. The ad and its delivered to order contract study actually writes it more cohesively, interestingly. What I find fascinating is that you went for the max value instead if quoting the range in that ad. Apperently you considered the numbers in the ad not convincing enough.

        • REDACTED@infosec.pub
          21·
          13 hours ago

          Sponsored by UNESDA, the same association that fought for this in the first place. I picked the max value because it’s 9 months old data. Surely by now it’s even higher than the max.

          Why are European associations and organizations writing such articles “an ad”? What exactly are they even advertising? That they themselves were wrong?

          • Jiral@lemmy.world
            1·
            9 hours ago

            What do you mean by “faught for this”? UNESDA paid for a contract study against tethered caps so it is clearly not impartial on this, nor is the study.

            The report does not specify what this amount of extra plastic is supposed to be. A yearly rate? In any case, just taking randomly the larger number because the transition was 9 months ago is kindergarten math.

            The UNESDA isn’t writing such an ad, it was buying that ad already over 6 years ago, in order to lobby against the law for tethered caps.