The tethered bottle cap is not supposed to solve the problem of making people recycle the bottles, other parts of the directive do that. It solves the problem of the bottle being separated from the cap, such that if the bottle gets recycled so does that cap. Or if the bottle gets thrown in the trash, so does the cap.
I am aware that bottle cap redesign was part of a bigger directive. I am aware of that directive because we are already in the polluting paper straw world.
Fishing gear proposal shows the same half-assed attempt at waste collection as is separating plastic, paper and rest. But that is less weird to me, because I know that already a bigger attempt at managing waste is failing in most cities (but is at least a cosmetic improvement). 50% recollection of fishing gear and a 15% recycling effort will be met with similar gymnastics as waste separation and will result in no fines at all.
Tourists in Croatia do not bother collecting the 7 cent tax on plastic containers. Having a different bottle cap won’t improve that.
A small percentage of collected plastic waste is recycled.
All of the infrastructure that will never be built requires public funding and is more expensive than just switching to glass. Do we want to solve the marine waste problem or do we just want to spend money every year to try to avoid it?
The paper straws with forever chemicals is a side effect of this single use plastic directive. How was this not predicted?