Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
There are two problems that come to mind. First, it is not the container material that is being singled out, it is Pepsi. It *may* be that Pepsi contributes the most to the plastic pollution in the Buffalo river but they are not the only contributor. If the problem is the plastic then why not target the number two contributor or all contributors? But Pepsi is the only company mentioned.
Second, there are many poisonous materials being used in many products. Lead-acid batteries contain lead with the same characteristics you mentioned above. Some thermometers and thermostats contain mercury. Smoke detectors have batteries with hazardous materials and small amounts of radioactive materials. Cooling systems contain chemicals dangerous to people and to the environment. All these, and the Pepsi bottles, are safe when used and discarded appropriately. Those who inappropriately handle or discard the other materials can be held accountable. Why is it that only improperly discarding Pepsi plastic containers is a liability to the company?
|
There are lots of regulations on lead acid batteries which the manufacturers are careful to follow as to their disposal. Similarly there are regulations on radioactive waste. There are no such rules on plastics, yet.
The issue is whether your statement that Pepsi bottles "are safe when discarded appropriately" is correct. The product is designed to be tossed away. It really doesn't matter whether it goes into the street or into a garbage can. There is no effective recycling anymore.
Corporations have long been held to be responsible for the pollution they create. The legal question to be decided by a court is whether plastics are a pollutant and whether the sellers of those pollutants bear any responsibility for the pollution.