“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.
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?
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.
“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.
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?
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.