Looking at B2C supply chains, retailers and utilities bundle the largest number of customers across all levels of society and considerable power to specify delivery instructions upstream their supply chains having the largest outreach to entice game changes towards wasteful and unsustainable practices to the burden of their clientele’s purchasing power for goods and services. In today’s so called “Best Available Technology” Municipal Solid Waste practices or Carbon tax regimes they have to act as trustees for their customers cost adders perpetuating lavish wastefulness with resources.

Rich countries may have gotten used to overpay for their waste and enjoy incremental improvements of increasing recycling quotas, minimizing final sink volumes and energy recovery from secondary resources. Having witnessed how the lobbies of this 30+ year old concept try to entice emerging countries’ regimes to enforce the same model to their citizens, earning a lot less per capita, inspired me to the question of who might be able to protect people’s interests and support Innovation towards more resource efficient and therefore financially self-supporting practices?

Today’s incineration lobbies told me on the one hand side to go away, because they would not have enough stuff to burn themselves, so they had to import it from other countries (and process it at the expense of their local citizens), or on the other hand, that waste treatment was incompatible for game changing innovations. Luckily we meanwhile have two examples of US DoD sponsored companies turning plastics into synthetic fuel. Unfortunately not economically viable at current oil prices without charging dipping fees. Carbotopia™ was still flexible enough when oil prices recently plunged and could develop an even longer enduring Carbon Efficiency from its unique selling proposition of physical Carbon Capture allowing reintroduction of Carbon (captured before being turned into CO₂) back into the cycle of matter – keeping it stored there over the products’ multiple lifecycles along their recycling cascades.

Of course cement industry got up and held out to long term contract ASEAN governments for allocating Refuse Derived Fuel waste fractions to them, so they would invest in their use as secondary resources at prices requiring ordinary people to subsidize the model, justified under the slogan “the polluter pays”! They also told me to go elsewhere as their Zero Waste model would leave no room for Carbotopia™.

However, the big retail sector may have even more market power than the cement or pulp and paper industry. If waste refining was in the better interest of their customers and a more sustainable practice for the world, they could mentor a game change past any current system’s stakeholder interest at consumers’ expenses towards financial relief of society. They might even benefit from their clientele’s resulting increased free disposable income businesswise.

If the 20 top retailers of this world together with the top 10 producers supplying them teamed into a joint CSR effort to get Carbotopia™ to concept asset level, each of them would have to chip in over the next 24 month less than 10% of what I, as an individual have already put into it over the past 10 years. Upon successful release for pilot their sponsoring contributions may be opted into Carbotopia Syndicate shares. Their continued backing by market placement power for e.g. Carbon Recycling derived neat packaging for which they could waive entrusting Extended Producer Responsibility fees, could help everybody!