besatta7Market Disruptor
MentalEdgeLandfill filler as a subscription is one of the late stage capitalism business ideas I hate most.
I dunno… imagine the material is coming from stuff that is one step away from the landfill. Then what we’re doing is delaying the material from going straight into the landfill, and we’re giving it another chance of being useful. It’s the “reuse” part of “reduce, reuse, recycle.” Since people are actually paying for it, they have more of a motivation to find a use for it.
Before “reduce, reuse, recycle” there is “plan”.
Subscription stuff boxes, the ones that make hand over fist, are the ones that count on customers forgetting they are subbed, the same as digital subscriptions.
Except now the consequence is stiff showing up at your door without you having “planned” for it. Which is the opposite of “reduce”.
You had me until all that utterly stupid tripe about something not sitting in a landfill having an increasing carbon footprint… That is … just SO fucking dumb.
A knickknack sitting on someones’ shelf is ABSOLUTELY NOT “increasing its carbon footprint”. The thing has already been created. The carbon footprint has long since been established, and it’s BETTER to rot on a shelf as a knickknack than literally rotting in a landfill.
This is not a defense of the horrible practices of creating all the junk in the first place, just pushing back against the moronic hate on recycling.
The point they are making is if it ends up in a landfill anyway, then you've wasted more energy/resources recycling it.
If it stays on your shelf, that's not what they're talking about.
It’s in quotes because the “carbon footprint” is a bs metric to begin with, but the point is that spending energy on something that won’t be used to do something useful, is spending energy on nothing, and therefore a waste of energy.
It would have been better to send the material into a landfill sooner, because delaying it just cost more resources for no benefit.
There were no savings.