You are quite right that consumers always pay. They either pay at the point of consumption, or they pay in the long-run at the other end with higher income taxes to pay for the negative impact that the products cause, and more importantly they “pay” (not necessarily financially) for that negative impact (e.g. polluted waterways, ground water, etc).
But my point is really about who should pay when. We can liken the current approach by government and business in Australia to credit cards. I mean this in a metaphorical way. With the non-EPR philosophy we currently have in Australia (yes, there might be a start, but we are decades away, if we get there at all, from true EPR), we are effectively saying that consumers can pay cheaply for their products now. But the real cost is the long-term impact of planned obsolescence, environmental degradation, and so much more. We consume now and worry about the consequences (if we even care what those are) in the long-term. The “interest” paid on those cheap products over a 30 year “loan” (i.e. after-use disposal, degradation, potential negative health impacts, etc) is quite considerable.
True ERP would turn this on its head and build the “total cost of ownership” of a product over its lifetime, and require consumers to pay upfront for the real cost of that product. This can be applied to a whole range of products, and not just to environmental impact. Consider the gross long-term negative impact of junk food on our dwindling taxpayers who are expected to fund the health system. Consumers (including those who are not, and many who will never be, taxpayers) are happy to pay for cheap food, and leave the real “cost” of that food for 2-3 decades later. And chances are they won’t be the ones paying for it, despite making the “choice” of what to eat, if they are unable to work etc due to health issues.
So the real difference is that consumers would have a price signal (which I think is an economic term?) about what the real cost to them and others will be from that product/service at the point of consumption.
I don’t believe for a second this would be easy, and it would certainly be controversial. For e.g. how do you calculate the true cost, apportion this back to a particular product or type of product, etc. But I do believe it is a conversation that is desperately needed, and a change in our economic and business models are definitely needed to balance the equation more closely to the ERP principle outlined here. Such an approach would also stimulate innovation into alternative approaches to manufacturing (e.g. true closed loop supply chains, product design innovation, etc) which can result in lower prices, but also reduced demand on natural resources, negative environmental impact, etc. Until we send (or require) the right pricing signals to business and consumers, this will never happen.
It would also start, over time, to improve the federal and state budgets over time, because consumers would be paying upfront for the cost of services they will need later. Consumers won’t like it, and that is why it will probably never happen, but businesses are innovative. They will work out that food, technology and other products will actually be cheaper if they are truly good for you (e.g. what happened to buying fresh fruit and vegetables?), and don’t consume natural resources (closed loop supply chains) and end up in waterways and landfill (very convenient, easy to use recycling services most likely from the curb side).