News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by insane_dreamer on Monday October 24, 2022 @06:40PM (#33323594)
Just to be clear, it wasn't being recycled when we were shipping it to China either. It was just going into their landfills instead of our landfills.

Recycling plastic is a non-solution to a much bigger problem: over-consumption of plastics.

The only way I see forward is for governments to implement policies that discourage use of plastics by consumers and manufacturers. Some places have done this with plastic bags, but need to do it for plastic single-use bottles, etc.

Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by diebeforei485 on Monday October 24, 2022 @06:46PM (#33323652)
There should be some sort of tax on plastic bottles with less than half gallon (~ 2 liters) of liquid in them.
Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by hinkley on Monday October 24, 2022 @07:22PM (#33323970)
The ghost of Wilford Brimley has entered the chat.

Diabetus.

Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by Baader-Meinhof on Monday October 24, 2022 @07:25PM (#33323994)
Plastic bags are unfairly maligned:

- They are often quite economically produced, and only require a small amount of plastic.

- They are likely reused, often as trash can liners.

- As long as we bury them in appropriate landfills, then the carbon in the bag goes back into the ground. (See other comments on the myth of landfill space running out.)

- Manufacturing cloth tote bags has a carbon footprint 20,000 times higher than a plastic bag. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/style/cotton-totes-climat...

- Furthermore, cloth tote bags hold bacteria and are unhygienic for carrying groceries. Washing the bags cost electricity/water and probably not carbon neutral either.

Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by insane_dreamer on Monday October 24, 2022 @08:04PM (#33324376)
Some fair points. However, many (most?) reusable grocery bags these days are made from jute, or a mix of jute and cotton, not cotton. Jute is much more environmentally friendly than cotton, and it can be rough so minimally processed. We're not talking about those highly-processed fashion cotton bags (that don't really replace plastic bags). Some cloth bags are made with plastic, which is still better than single-use plastic bags (esp since one of those larger tote bags, like the kind at Trader Joe's replaces 4-5 of those plastic bags that supermarkets would bag your groceries in.

It's also not about how much plastic is used to create the plastic bags, it's how much environmental pollution is created from the bags.

Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by userbinator on Monday October 24, 2022 @08:19PM (#33324503)
They are likely reused, often as trash can liners.

Indeed, I don't know anyone who doesn't reuse the free plastic bags they get from stores, even if it's only a single reuse.

The other thing to note is that plastic bags are naturally waterproof. You can even wash (more like rinse) them if you so desire, but they also don't tend to attract dirt, unlike the woven types.

Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by teeray on Monday October 24, 2022 @08:54PM (#33324777)
The reusable bags have a serious UX problem too. I have to buy as many reusable bags as my largest grocery order ever. Next, I have to carry all those empty bags with me throughout the store. Then, I have to launder my bags to get the inevitable nasty grossness out of them.

I wish they had a propane tank model instead: I buy reusable bag credits. At the checkout, my items are bagged from a supply of clean reusable bags, and that number is deducted from my credits (if I need more, I can instantly buy them). When I return to the store, I bring my bags back to the bag return where the bags will be laundered in bulk in commercial machines.

Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by lupire on Tuesday October 25, 2022 @11:52AM (#33332257)
How often do you have to wash your bags?
Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by throwawaylinux on Monday October 24, 2022 @09:30PM (#33325041)
It's really about the pinnacle of uninformed virtue signaling that does more harm than good. But it's okay because you got to say you were wonderful for being willing to sacrifice so much, and call anybody who disagreed or tried to have a rational discussion about the actual numbers an anti-The Science™ bootlicker for big plastic bag.
Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by Dylan16807 on Monday October 24, 2022 @10:10PM (#33325331)
It's important to look at the actual study.

Organic cotton bags have some kind of footprint 20,000 times higher than a plastic bag.

For climate impact specifically, you have to reuse a cotton bag 52 times. And an organic cotton bag 149 times. The really big numbers are based on things like ozone impact and fertilizer runoff, which are worth considering but should be taken in comparison with daily life and not just plastic bags.

Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by gruez on Monday October 24, 2022 @07:26PM (#33324004)
> Just to be clear, it wasn't being recycled when we were shipping it to China either. It was just going into their landfills instead of our landfills.

Source? My impression was that china was buying the recycling from us[1]. Sure, some of that was not recycleable and ended up getting burned/landfilled/dumped in a river, but they weren't intending on just landfilling it.

[1] https://www.npr.org/transcripts/741283641

Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by berjin on Monday October 24, 2022 @09:25PM (#33325012)
Not everyone will care about environmental affects so it's important to mention the health crisis. Plastics, and associated chemicals like pthlates and PFOAs, that are also terrible for our health; reproductive health in particular. Scientists like Shanna Swan are blaming plastics for declining sperm counts and boys having less masculine features than in older generations. It goes way beyond BPA as the replacement chemicals for "BPA free" products are innocent until proven to be unsafe. Even tea bags are fully of plastic. It's a minefield trying to avoid it. I'd really like plastics to be banned at least for single use packaging initially.
Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by fmajid on Monday October 24, 2022 @09:31PM (#33325052)
Recycling plastic is a greenwashing con that is designed to deflect from citizens demanding a reduction in the use of plastics.

At this point, there is pretty much only one material that is actually recycled, because it is easy and profitable to do so: aluminum. We should eb enouraging manufacturers to adopt either aluminum or cardboard for all their packaging (the latter is not recyclable in practice, but at least is sequesters carbon). By encourage, I mean ban plastic packaging outright or impose draconian taxes on it.

Re:A Shocking Amount of US “Recycling” Goes Straight to the ... by nostrademons on Monday October 24, 2022 @11:12PM (#33325734)
Steel as well. The big integrated U.S. steelmakers like U.S. Steel went bankrupt because most steel today is no longer produced from iron ore. Rather, something like 80% of the steel produced today is made by melting down scrap steel in electric arc furnaces, which is a completely different technology & supply chain stack.