HN user
So, which is worse? I think fishing nets by light years, since they are actively designed to harm marine life, and succeed at exactly that.
But people are looking for a means to act, and if they can participate in reduction, in any way, it's good to know that they have a target they can take aim at.
Only commercial fishing is going to ultimately impact fishing nets, and likely only when forced by punitive measures.
Hmmm, cigarette packs that are modified to allow for easy storage? That sounds gross enough to disincentivize any shot at people redeeming deposit funds.
Even more gross: homeless people scrambling for cigarette butts as a side grift. Which, you know, is sure to happen. More profitable than beer and soda cans, and smaller too?
The thing with cans and bottles is that they aren’t absorbant in the same way that cigarette stubs are. People put their mouth on both, but it’s way easier to avoid saliva touching a can or bottle, than a lipstick stained cigarette.
So those packs would have to be water tight, slotted for 20 stubs, and translucent so no one has to open up or guess at how many stubs are inside, for redemption.
Also, redeeming by weight would require standardized tare weights, and approximates for paper/fiberglass mix by volume. Redeeming a ten pound garbage bag, at 20 cents a butt? What’s that worth? Enough to start a street fight?
It could work. But let’s not give tuberculosis another reason to spread.