The reality is that plastics are great materials that are very useful, the flip side being that they need to be properly disposed of.
Yes, they are probably over-used in some cases, e.g. packaging, but that does not mean we should treat plastics "like asbestos".
For example, you mention glass bottles: They require a lot of energy to be manufactured, they are heavy (more energy needed to transport them), they require energy, water, and chemicals to be washed. Is that necessarily more environmentally friendly that plastic efficiently recycled?
You also mention wax paper, which (as far as I know) is not very recyclable because it's waxed. Probably better to use cardboard or a type of plastic that recycles well (and is actually recycled!)
Perhaps these criteria could be based on the ease and cost of recycling, with a huge penalty if not recyclable and a bonus if biodegradable/compostable.
The same argument could be made for rainforest deforestation, saying it's a good thing because it's feeding the poor!
Nonsense, tax the externality and then give back and support the worst affected through taxation or aid if needed. Inequality is at a record high, perhaps it wouldn't be so high if we made everything more expensive and then taxed the rich to pay for it.
In the US? Maybe, jury is still out: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=696709717
In fairness, there is absolutely no way Dollar General is going to continue to source your product if it starts costing an extra 10-25 cents more per unit. You'd get cancelled quicker than your average Netflix Original.
If you think the Walmart process is bad behind the scenes, you definitely don't want to see how the Dollar General sausage is made. I'm pretty sure you could count on a switch to aluminum and paper containers in Dollar General fairly quickly.
They'd probably even market it as, "Eco Friendly".
They really are shameless.
If you want to buy a drink, bring a reusable bottle to the shop and fill it up from a dispensery or use glass bottles.
The culture simply needs to change - its a habitual problem, not a technical one. We have the technology.
I think Germany has their Pfand (plastic/glass deposit) system working really really well, although admittingly the plastic gets incinerated. I don't know why more countries don't adopt these methods or similar. Homeless people pick them up, and get 25c for it, then the bottles are washed and reused. Fantastic. We should invest in optimising these ideas so they become more ubiquitous and cheaper than plastic.
There are three types of bottle deposits: glass bottles 8c 29.2% market share (ms) (probably almost entirely beer), reusable plastic bottles 25c 13.6% ms, single use plastic bottles 52.2% ms and aluminum cans 25c 3.2% ms (2016, numbers are up now). [0]
The single use plastic bottle deposit was introduced as a measure to REDUCE market share and support use of glass, but instead people got used to paying more for their water bottles and returning them or "donating" them to poor retired or just plain poor people and might even feel good about themselfes which is not a great incentive. Reusable plastic bottles got more and more replaced by single use and glass bottles water vanished almost entirely. Every grocery store in Germany had to install huge sorting-and-compressing machines for all the different bottle deposits. For some years (long before plastics deposit I believe) a deposit for aluminum soda cans worked quite well but I get the impression products are increasing (I guess bcs people got used to pay the extra 25c.).
This all boils down to one solution in my opinion: Regulation. The 'free' market is not willing and/or able to factor in environmental variables but is forced to ramp down prices no matter what to nuture their shareholders and growth.
There is literally no need to buy bottled water. There is probably not a single town in Germany where you are not able to drink tap water. So yes, a change in mentality would be necessary. But banning single use plastic bottles (as a start) instead of "taxing them properly" wouldn't change our lifestyle one bit.
This troubles me because I am pretty certain we all have to change our lifestyles drastically if we want to somehow limit the environmental impact.
[0] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/neuer-tiefststand-imme...
Plastic can be recycled, but only into lower grade plastic. Eventually it gets burnt or buried.
Burning plastics is an option especially if plant-based (to be carbon neutral) but it then raises the issue of land use.
Biodegradability/compostability is another option with new types of plastics and/or GMO bacteria.
The point is to look at the full picture instead of claiming that all plastics should be get rid of without considering if the alternatives are any better.
For example, the article is very explicit about why recycling is not working - it has to do with economics - and y’all talking nonsense about GMO bacteria and energy use.
https://www.waste360.com/plastics/look-new-plant-will-produc...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/almost-no-plastic-bottles-ge...
There is a major, qualitative difference between Reduce, which is strategic and lowers pollution, and Reuse and Recycle, which are tactical and mostly just shuffle pollution around.
If your strategy is in place and people support it, use all the tactics you can. But if your strategy is not in place, tactics often backfire. As this article points out, people think they're being virtuous by recycling so they buy plastic profligately -- the opposite of the strategy. I'm starting to think we should change the phrase "Reduce, reuse, recycle" to "Reduce".
I treat this more in detail in my Leadership and the Environment podcast episode 183: Reusing and recycling are tactical. Reducing is strategic http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume....
On another note:
We can each reduce our consumption and therefore demand significantly, while improving our lives. When I cut out nearly all my packaged food, my food costs went down and quality of life and food went up. The last two times I emptied my garbage were September 2018 and July 2017.
Some might say it's hard or only one person, as I would have before experiencing the change, but it was rewarding and improves my life, as it will yours. That it reduced my garbage by about 90% is a side effect. http://joshuaspodek.com/year-emptied-garbage.
I'm not saying only individuals should change or suggesting not doing other things. I support institutional change and pricing extraction and waste with taxes since the public pays for the cleanup. But everyone right here right now can cut their consumption and waste, which will lead to faster implementation of institutional change, legislation, etc.
Asbestos kills people. What plastic risk are you referring to, environmental pollution?
Plastic likely has all sorts of medical complications, that we will probably start to see manifest here in the near future now that it is now in the food and water we consume [1], now in the air we breathe [2] and even in our poop [3].
>Ingested microplastic particles can physically damage organs and leach hazardous chemicals—from the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A (BPA) to pesticides—that can compromise immune function and stymie growth and reproduction. Both microplastics and these chemicals may accumulate up the food chain, potentially impacting whole ecosystems, including the health of soils in which we grow our food. Microplastics in the water we drink and the air we breathe can also hit humans directly.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-huma...
[1] https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/were-literally-eating...
[2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/micro...
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/10/22/guess-what-...
Whilst rich people on hacker News get to eat quality produce, most people aren't as fortunate.
They are exposed to higher levels of pollution. I mean, the west basically dumps their trash in South East Asia now with little care or regard. Do you think this doesn't pollute the land, animals and people?
Consider:
hydrocarbons -> energy
vs.
hydrocarbons -> plastic product -> possible recycling -> energy.
Plastics can also be made from cellulose. If this route is taken and becomes more popular, you could grow stuff, make it into plastics, use it, then bury it to store rid of carbon. Possibly turn plastics it into cubes and drop them into some deep place in ocean without volcanic activity where it stays inert hundreds of millions of years.
It may be possible to burn it into charcoal, which would be safe to sequester? But the noxious flue gases would need to be cleaned.
Someone answered me that most plastics can be recycled because he worked in a recycling plant, meaning this was a bad idea. I linked him a forbes article after a few comments and he stopped answering. It's hard to know if that guy was just astroturfing me.
Second paragraph seems a little conspiracy theorist-y to be honest!
I agree, though it's always worth remembering 1) that AI and automated marketing and responses will only get better as time goes on, and 2) there are a lot of unemployed people who can, could, and will shill for things on the internet. If there is a profit motive 1 & 2 will likely happen.
The problem is separating idiots from deliberate misinformation.
There's some poorly run landfills, but how about we campaign to somewhat improve landfills instead of trying to reform all of modern society?
Also, you aren't thinking in deep time. Plastic waste needs to be managed indefinitely if it isn't going to be incinerated, because plastic becomes more dangerous, not less, as it becomes finer particles. Which also penetrate containment more readily.
We can regulate our own landfills and we can regulate which countries we export to. This is a far more realistic prospect than just banning most plastic products outright, as you suggest.
> Plastic waste needs to be managed indefinitely if it isn't going to be incinerated, because plastic becomes more dangerous, not less, as it becomes finer particles.
Yes, waste needs to be managed indefinitely, and we will always have to manage waste. We can do that.
How many years will it take until the plastic is no longer able to get into the food chain?
And a little more concerning
>What matters most is whether these physical and chemical impacts ultimately affect an organism’s growth, reproduction or susceptibility to illness. In a surprising study published in March, not only did fish exposed to microplastics reproduce less but their offspring, who weren’t directly exposed to plastic particles, also had fewer young, suggesting the effects can linger into subsequent generations.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-huma...
It took decades to understand asbestos was bad as it is and even then it took direct exposure (generally with you working with the stuff). Plastic is building up in the environment daily, and the levels have only really start to increase.
Plastic is also effectively forever, there is no practical plastic abatement like there is with asbestos. One great way of dealing with asbestos removal is keeping it damp, microplastics though are just going to spread with water. Microplastics are in the air and water, it's effectively falling like snow from the sky which is documented in the NatGeo article I linked.
Concentrations of microplastics is only going to go up as more and more of the plastic we've created starts to break down into smaller and smaller pieces. When you get small enough, like nano-scale, particles can get extremely dangerous as they can cross the cell membrane.
Plastic pollution is likely going to be far worse than asbestos and for incredibly more species.
Someone else's problem.
In all seriousness, by then either we have solved waste disposal through automation, or we will be living in landfills.
You can use glass bottles and wash and reuse them.
You can package things in wax paper.
You can wear clothes made of natural fiber.
Plastic needs to be treated like asbestos: useful, but the uses do not justify the risk in most cases.