In addition to reducing the volume of waste being created
That will amount to a cynical coercion of the public in some way. I’m being forced to work for free in the form of sorting waste at point of disposal, and worrying about fines, all so that industry’s line can continue going up. So that plastics production growth can largely continue on trend. Paper and plastic recycling are like cycling up the hill of environmental conservation in top gear. Loads of pedal revolutions that (ultimately) only slow the rate of decline back down the hill.
If the product has a high energy cost involved in new production, that’s when industry actually does the right thing. Aluminum is a great example. Generous deposit schemes are found all over the world. They’re voluntary and well managed. But paper and plastic are cheap to manufacture by comparison, and the costs can be passed through to the consumer, so industry and government conspire to do just that (the mechanisms of which are then greenwashed).
Assume for a moment the platform providers are in a game of chicken, continually eating costs in the hope of soaking up subscribers from their (at some point) defunct competitors. Every year this competition continues, the victor needs to make increasingly outrageous changes to the service offering in order to bridge the profitability gap. Or perhaps they are betting that a chunk of savings will come from reduced spend on rights, in a market with fewer bidders for programming?
Are investors in the conglomerates even agitated yet?