An excellent example of my question is hairspray products. It was determined that aerosol cans were hurting the ozone layer and so they made plastic pump spray bottles...but yet they never stopped making the aerosol cans. Why? Something was deemed bad for the environment, an acceptable substitute was made to replace it, but instead of replacing it, we now have the either or option. In my opinion this is an extreme waste of our resources. Why have both when we only need one? I know personal preference plays a role here, but when our environment is at stake, I think personal preference should take the back burner. Instead of spending the money to manufacture 2 different bottles of the same product, one in an aerosol can and one in a plastic bottle, would it not be cheaper to put all resources into making ONE plastic bottle? Thus saving on time and labor and making the one product cheaper? This theory goes for all things, not just hair spray...hairspray is just an example...
2007-10-12
13:53:18
·
11 answers
·
asked by
jossa
3