Plastics that consumers end up being responsible for the end-of-life, those need to go. And if consumers need to have it, at least that plastic-like-material must be fully biodegradable, without nano or toxic byproducts or leftovers.

Plastics that are used for health/industry/logistics, I think those are fine.

At the very least, lets stop doing insane stuff like putting BPA on receipts...

"Biodegradable plastics" aren't much better than "recyclable plastics," in terms of actual impact.

They live in one of two categories, with almost nothing in the "actually useful" region:

- "Super, super happy to biodegrade." In fact, they're doing it before you even get it! The plastics aren't really ever nice to use, because they're chemically coming apart in the store. They're UV sensitive, time sensitive, oxygen sensitive, and are generally about as useful as a DivX DVD. By the time you use it, they're a weird, slightly greasy, weirdly weak mess. They don't work. But, hey, they're biofriendly! Or, not, depending on what, exactly, they degrade into.

- "Biodegradable." Given certain conditions. 10x solar UV for 100 years. High temperatures, sustained for periods long beyond what any compost pile can do. Requires certain phases of the moon, sustained for a year without interruption. They're "Biodegradable" on paper, but in reality you can't tell the difference between them and something that isn't. In a typical landfill condition, they last roughly forever. Remember, in a landfill, newspaper is not biodegradable. You can layers of a landfill by the newspapers and magazines you dig up, fully readable. It's a totally sealed, anaerobic environment. Very few "bio" things work in that space.

If you require "plastics that are full biodegradable, without nano or toxic byproducts or leftovers," you've effectively banned plastics. Which I'm entirely fine with.

What I mean by plastic-like is biodegradable materials that replace a purposely designed subset of these functions of things plastics are really good at:

Waterproof

Variable stiffness - Flexible / Rigid

Airtight

Lightweight

Capable of being colored

Injection Mold process capable

Variable opacity - Transparent / Opaque

I think cellulose/lignin/chitin based materials could replace many of these functions, there's some progress on that front but not nearly enough to chase down plastics.

UV induced degradation isn't biodegradation.

Lets just do away with paper receipts.

Almost 200% of commenters and lurkers on this thread buy dead-tree books on the design patterns and best practices of a javascript framework from 2012. Yeah, not much hope with that here.

Non-recyclable plastic should be banned immediately. The fact that we let it persist is ridiculous. I don't care how much costs go up.

We should also limit the types of plastic to a handful, and they should all be recyclable in-country. If we can't recycle it, ban it. Let it get replaced by glass or metal. Again, I don't care how expensive it is. Just like climate change prevention, it's something that needs to happen otherwise we are killing humanity.

What's the preferred alternative to disposable plastic?

"Not disposable stuff"?

If you've assumed that "Spend a ton of resources making something so you can use it once and throw it away!" is at all sane, there's really not much in the way of argument that you're going to find acceptable.

But fundamentally, we have a "linear waste problem" in society. Things are built with non-renewable-in-human-times resources, used once, and then thrown away - and this model has to die. Across the board.

We live on a finite planet. We do not, as of yet, have any sort of off-planet resource extraction, and I genuinely hope we never manage that (the difference between "We've put an asteroid into orbit to mine resources" and "We've put an asteroid into a country we dislike" is a remarkably small delta-V). We should not be using "disposable" items, and I include an awful lot in that - despite having used some myself (we use disposable diapers for overnight, because cloth simply doesn't absorb enough beyond a certain age, and work to eliminate those as rapidly as possible).

Whatever it is you think you need disposable plastics for, I'm willing to wager that 100 years ago, before the age of plastic, people were doing exactly the same thing you want to do, without disposable things. So they're not required. They may be cheap, the may be convenient, but required, no. They're not.

The mental view of reality required to consider "disposable anythings" as sane is quite recent, and, IMO, quite broken.

> the difference between "We've put an asteroid into orbit to mine resources" and "We've put an asteroid into a country we dislike" is a remarkably small delta-V

We can already put a few thousand atomic bombs, warheads or EMPs there, with far more predictability, more accuracy, lower probability of early detection and, as a bonus, lower costs. We have had planet destroying weapons for over half a decade now; if a nation really wants to end another nation - or most of humanity altogether, for that matter - it wont need an asteroid.

Reusable materials: Metal/wood utensils. Glass cups. Washable containers. Paper. The list is extensive. The only downside is slightly higher cost.

'Slightly higher cost' is usually symptomatic of higher resource or energy usage in the manufacturing process.

OR maybe it is just that the requried industrial layout is not in place yet to make those containers in such a scale. But I think that we need a replacement, and the less plastic we use, more alternatives will appear.

These materials predate plastic and existed when the decision to build out the plastic industry was made.

Capitalism isn't flawless, but it does handle money very efficiently. If, for example, landfill space was in low supply, the cost of waste disposal would go up and consumers would prefer products that produce less waste. Likewise if oil was running out.

Capitalism fails where externalities don't have an immediate cost. The pollutants generated in the production, shipping, and disposal of plastics don't come with financial consequences. Plastic is evidently cheaper than alternatives, so companies who avoid them will be outcompeted by companies that do.

Consumers might solve this by boycotting plastics, but I think wealth inequality won't make it easy. Companies might solve this by agreeing not to use plastics, though I'm not sure about the legality and they still could be undercut by new competitors. Or a government could use taxes to add costs to the generation of pollutants, but that depends on pertinent industries' influence and the government's incentives towards national economic performance.

Exactly, people love to hate on Capitalism, but it is a very powerful tool. But externalised cost is the downfall that governments need to step in and control.

> Exactly, people love to hate on Capitalism, but it is a very powerful tool

Lots of social systems or practices that have earned hated are also powerful tools. Feudalism is a powerful tool. Slavery is a powerful tool.

That's only true if all externalities are priced in.

Possibly - or symptomatic of more subsidies going to the fossil fuels industry than to bamboo forestry.

Citation?

Anything food related should be compostable, including in supermarkets. If it means we can't store food for months, the good. It means we can compost them as fertilizer so the planet is still okay.

Without getting draconian on companies who don't give a shit about anything except for profits, they won't lift a finger to do anything about it.

there are lots, such as paper packaging, paper cups, bamboo (for disposable cutlery, packaging etc) there are lots of alternatives

i guess the hardest is plastic food packaging in grocery stores... that plastic is sterile, lightweight and lasts forever (which is good for shelflife, fuel usage etc)... i wonder what airtight alternatives there for that...

To illustrate: https://greenpaperproducts.com/biodegradable-containers.aspx

From their FAQ:

> Bioresin is a thermoplastic made from organic materials instead of petroleum products. Bioresin is a substitute for PET and polystyrene and can replace polyethylene and polypropylene.

> PLA stands for polylactic acid and is a resin made from corn starch. PLA is used to make clear compostable containers and PLA lining is used in cups and containers as an impermeable liner. PLA is biodegradable, and fully compostable.

> Bagasse is a natural byproduct of sugarcane refinement. Bagasse pulp requires minimal processing and elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching to turn it into a woven high-strength paper that is biodegradable and compostable.

Unfortunately, many of those materials are then coated with PFAS:

https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20170201/many-fast-food-cont...

Which have all of the same problems of plastic.

glass

i thought about that too, but glass is 1000s of times as heavy, and typically recycling it means re-melting which is wasteful of energy and has carbon emmissions problems

as i see it, the only way that would work is if

1. we reused the glass

2. some national system where someone comes by and pick up the glass for sterilization (like those old 50s milk bottles)

3. standardized glass containers that are mandated/traded across industries

and that still doesnt fix the usage of fuels to transport all that glass to and fro...

Compostable items are probably the best bet for many common uses. For instance, in many Asian countries you are served food in a plate or bowl made of banana leaves instead of plastic. In cultures where eating with your hands is normal, you can skip needing flatware of any kind. The other alternative is re-use, like we do with shopping bags. Plastic itself perhaps can be less problematic if disposing it is illegal and re-use or recycling is encouraged and enforceable. But a lot of plastic today is not recycled at all (https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/whopping-91-perce...).

Paper and mycelium?

US based recyclers sell their plastic to companies that then pay to have it shipped elsewhere for reuse.

Is the theory that the government (or some other entity) was paying those companies to pay to ship the plastic to China for no reason?

(It's very true that most plastics aren't worth much for recycling, but there's considerable use of recycled PETE and HDPE, #1 and #2.)

> US based recyclers sell their plastic to companies that then pay to have it shipped elsewhere for reuse.

Is it really for reuse or is it just burning/dumping far from sight? This is a genuine question.

Why would they pay for it and then haul and dump it somewhere?

Like, I know the person at my county landfill that markets the sorted recycled plastic…

It makes me feel good to know that the container that my cottage cheese comes in can be, "recycled" and thus I feel good buying my cottage cheese. That's worth something, yeah?

#5 is one of the ones that isn't worth recycling.

I'm not really sure what your point is though. My initial comment is about the strange narrative that plastic was getting shipped to China for no reason (it would be cheaper to landfill it here than there, so the whole 'greed' thing means there was probably a reason for it).

I'm saying the false narrative that recycling is done really at all is a marketing ploy to sell more things, while making the consumer think they're making a good choice for the environment. Good marketing!

I imagine a future textbook might read:

The petroleum age:

A period where advances in chemistry and materials outpaced cultural and administrative development. Early on, Capitalism was proven to be the most productive economic system in the war-time economy, but this posed a problem once World War 2 had ended. Western industry pivoted from war spending to consumer spending and the post war period ushered in rapid improvements in quality of life for average members of society.

Unfortunately those gains came at the expense of the environment and are being paid for by the current generation and generations to come. While it took only a matter of years to transition from a war driven economy to one based on consumer goods, it took nearly a century (possibly more) to transition towards sustainable methods of production and consumption.

“Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”