I don't know how many individual actions are taken with a consideration of the impact of everyone doing the same or population size.

I thought the golden rule was to act how you wanted everyone to act.

In which case if one person wants a car, washing machine, computer etc they can't expect everyone else to go without these things. In this sense the public have spoken and are pursuing their own goals.

In one sense governments need to find out what the public want and tell the public the costs of pursuing this whilst trying to remain elected.

It is almost like a dance between government and public.

Should governments introduce more rigorous legislation to ensure compliance to such recycling? — invicta

A carbon tax builds it into the fabric of the economy. We are already set up to be properly governed in this fashion.

The problem is big oil can corrupt governments and maintain subsidies for fossil fuel burning rather than allow carbon to be taxed.

In general, the full lifecycle cost of any entropic activity ought to be fairly priced into the goods and services. It is pretty simple.

Indeed every little action can, if repeated often enough have a significant footprint on your wastage and recycling. — invicta

Even if it didn't, even if nobody else in the world did it, and it made no difference - should you not always live the way you believe you ought to live?

Do corporations now genuinely care about the environment or is it a whole PR stunt meant to lure the ethical buyer ? — invicta

Both. Some, more of this, some more of that; some entirely sincere, some lying through their perfectly orthodontized teeth, but the public notion that it is what they should do still matters. It matters that when the public finds out they're faking, their stock takes a dive.

Should governments introduce more rigorous legislation to ensure compliance to such recycling? — invicta

Recycling is a difficult and complicated issue. (We could get into it, but maybe not here?)
So maybe that's not where governments need to take a strong position. Industrial pollution is one place where they could make regulatory power count; emission control, cleanup and reparations enforcement. The simplest and most obvious start for governments is simply to stop subsidizing environmentally harmful industries.

In which case if one person wants a car, washing machine, computer etc they can't expect everyone else to go without these things. In this sense the public have spoken and are pursuing their own goals. — Andrew4Handel

The following question relates to recycling in this case to that of electronics, although lithium is plentiful at this moment in time. At the rate it’s being used in the production of smartphones and other gizmos it will present a cost problem to manufacturers when it becomes scarce.

Thus the recycling of batteries will become necessary along with other materials that went into producing it. I see it as an incentive for both the consumer and manufacturer.

A carbon tax builds it into the fabric of the economy. We are already set up to be properly governed in this fashion — apokrisis

In a way as you countered afterwards the rich only pay it for continued use of carbon derived materials so I’m talking plastics here too which are becoming easier to recycle. When it comes to powering machines such as cars and planes then such levies are merely symbolic for the oil producer as they recoup the levy by increasing the sale price of oil.

The following question relates to recycling in this case to that of electronics, although lithium is plentiful at this moment in time. At the rate it’s being used in the production of smartphones and other gizmos it will present a cost problem to manufacturers when it becomes scarce. — invicta

Cost in the extraction of minerals is calculated by the industry in economic terms, but that's the least of its real cost to the planet.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/your-mobile-phone-is-powered-by-precious-metals-and-minerals.html
There is a huge environmental cost in mining operations, loss of wildlife habitat, disruption of ecosystems, toxic waste... as well as human rights issues, particularly in Africa and South America.
Certainly, reusing those materials is essential to sustaining the supply of such goods... if you can trust the manufacturers to recycle responsibly, and without creating a new problem with its process. That's what makes recycling contentious - and complicated. And it doesn't put anything back in the ground, or heal the landscape.

Reducing the demand would be a far wiser and more efficient strategy.

Reducing the demand would be a far wiser and more efficient strategy. — Vera Mont

Not sure how that would work when market forces drive demand. As any business would increase profits meeting that demand environmental factors are not even given second thought at the behest of profit despite its noble aim and ambition.

The consumer is mindless of harm caused to environment to produce the gizmo and in fact they’re addicted to buying useless crap. The businesses either drive this addiction further or they feed in it.

Taming market demand for useless crap is not beneficial for government as they earn by taxing the gizmo and the business producing such gizmo. The consumer being taxed at point of sale only minimises the effect on sales as manufacturers will always reduce costs to offset tax pressures.

On the other hand reducing taxation for recycling companies and businesses will incentivise and increase recycling and provide for the needs of both governments and private business.

On the other hand reducing taxation for recycling companies and businesses will incentivise and increase recycling and provide for the needs of both governments and private business. — invicta

Reducing taxation reduces revenue that can be directly put to use in mitigating damage, rather than trusting the companies to do what they promise, without corner-cutting and polluting. Commercial enterprises are not motivated by such small incentives when compared to their profits; they're more likely to invest in the appearance of recycling and energy saving than in doing it effectively. Besides losing the tax revenue from business, the government would have invest more in oversight and enforcement of standards. Where is that extra money coming from?

They'll have to tack it onto the other end: as a sales tax on the product, or a recycling fee paid by the consumer and collected by the government, not the seller, which ought to disincentivize the consumer buying more useless crap.

And so on, round and round. As long as humans are ruled by money, they will keep despoiling the world. Once the global economy collapses, they'll change strategy - no telling for better or worse.

Human sensibilities when it comes to managing and looking after their environment are simply overruled by the irrationality of such consumption driven by market forces beyond their simple understanding so much so that they become endebted to the technological consumerist age they live in…taking on uneccessary debt to have the latest car, the latest phone etc.

Consumerism and certain aspects of capitalism are soul destroying and any concepts of individuality that the person wishes to express are washed away by the latest branded crap they choose to buy. The more expensive the better however as that at least affords some longevity.

Thus environmentalism is only precipitated by expensive and long lasting purchases as both resource and money ultimately are finite although with debt coming into play that is questionable at best and so capitalism accumulates money at the total disregard of environment until of course the environment is no longer productive to its end.

@Vera Mont

Many environmental problems are longitudinal collective action problems. They arise from the cumulative unintended effects of a vast amount of seemingly insignificant decisions and actions by individuals who are unknown to each other and distant from each other. Such problems are likely to be effectively addressed only by an enormous number of individuals each making a nearly insignificant contribution to resolving them.

Human sensibilities when it comes to managing and looking after their environment are simply overruled by the irrationality of such consumption driven by market forces beyond their simple understanding so much so that they become endebted to the technological consumerist age they live in…taking on uneccessary debt to have the latest car, the latest phone etc. — invicta

So, is capitalism a problem? Or do we all need to do nearly insignificant things in massive numbers to solve these problems? The first quote is not sufficient to explain how we would curtail market forces and the consumerism it is all entangled in. I do not know much about economics or how to organize political movements, and solutions to those two problems seem to ask more of one than what is claimed to be "nearly insignificant". Overthrowing capitalism - if you would advise that - seems unlikely in the extreme and (potentially) irresponsible.

Not that I wouldn't replace capitalism if I had the power to if there were a better thing out there for humanity and the Earth, but, as I recall Slavoj Zizek once warning the Occupy movement: you need to know exactly what you are doing if you want to make radical changes - even if those changes seem, or really are, necessary. Sorry if that comes across as patronizing or something. I just genuinely feel this way about it.

But I guess for now, I can make sure I recycle and stop buying unnecessary crap.

capitalism accumulates money at the total disregard of environment until of course the environment is no longer productive to its end. — invicta

The debt-ceiling caves in and all production ceases. Then we expend the arsenals of the world, fighting over the detritus of a global economy, and by then, not much is left alive. An ant crawl out on top of the wreckage and says "We tried to tell you...," then goes on about her business.

I have not proposed changing consumerism at all, people are addicts they will buy even if the salesman is mediocre. It’s an aspect of human condition to acquire or try new shiny things, ugly fashion that temporarily hides human insecurities and other such neurosis as the latest smartphone.

The mandatory recycling of reusable materials should be mandated by government because the sheeple will simply throw it away in landfill when it can be reused instead.

as I recall Slavoj Zizek once warning the Occupy movement: you need to know exactly what you are doing if you want to make radical changes - even if those changes seem, or really are, necessary. — ToothyMaw

I wonder why he said that to the Occupy movement, and not to their opponents, that they are already knowingly making radical changes to the environment that are clearly not necessary or desirable?

I have not proposed changing consumerism at all — invicta

Well you should start proposing it.

Governments are well used to using the tax system and regulations to rebalance the economy and change people's behaviour. If they cut the taxes on insulation, subsidise recycling, subsidise public transport and penalise private transport; subsidise the provision of allotments, and tax asphalt and concrete upgrade building regulations to net zero energy, and subsidise the building of new homes away from floodplains, they can incentivise a population-wide change in behaviour, that would make a deal of difference. They don't, and haven't, and show little inclination to begin. Instead, they subsidise oil companies and then further subsidise consumers to use the expensive energy and throw-away products produced.

Hey, let's ban single use batteries from next year. Instead, install charging points in cafes, banks, and charity shops, and offer a few pence trade in on dead lithium batteries so school children will collect them for pocket money. It's really easy to change people's behaviour en mass, with simple incentives and disincentives, and simple changes to the rules of the marketplace. But the governments are too busy persuading us to blame the climate refugees, and finding ways around the annoying human rights act.

It's idiotic expecting individuals to make changes that the organisation of society has arranged to be difficult and expensive. That is why environmentalists are better employed making protests to government than agonising over their individual carbon footprint.

Politicians have little say in shaping the course of society, they only rabble to get votes so they can enjoy their 5 minutes in the limelight. They’re easily bought by bigger agendas at play in our current capitalistic society.

Cynical I know but ever since the days of David Cameron we’ve had spineless liars with their own agendas completely detached from the everyday voter and citizen.

The age of good politicians in this country ended in the 80s with thatcher.

As for consumerism it cannot be stopped it’s the expression of democracy and capitalism for the citizen to want and get those wants however vile and repugnant they may be. If their choice is limited in anyway they protest and rebel and a new political party will come into power that will represent their desires.

I must add that with the recent movement in the way protestors wish to achieve their aims of a greener society that though the cause may in itself be good it’s both shortsighted in its aim as well as disruptive to the extent of achieving the opposite of what it sets out.

They’re now maligned even by those who wish to see a greener more environmental approach to oil usage by disrupting their daily activities such as shopping, the attendance of weddings and funerals and going to work to make a living.

From the outside it looks like the live in la la land detached from reality.

The government also is not fully aligned to the commercial and technological sphere in achieving such green aims, science too falls short although it cannot be blamed as roadblocks to technological breakthroughs are not a simple matter of funding but physical limitations which can only be overcome by new ways of thinking regarding solutions it faces such as battery longevity between trips in electric vehicles.

For government to spur such development both its aims and that of the commercial enterprise must align but they do not currently as one is profit driven and former is virtue signalling from politicians.

As for consumerism it cannot be stopped i — invicta

Nay, lad. It will stop, and that right soon. And if the politicians cannot manage it in good order, it will end perforce chaotically, with much suffering. It would help if we could stop electing bullshitting narcissists and bullies though.