Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WartimeHotTot t1_itq6wji wrote

Single-use plastic bans should include plastic bottles. Basically governments worldwide should put the hurt on plastics manufacturers. Within 10 years the only plastics being produced should be for highly specialized applications, like computers, vehicles, and healthcare.

253

Jsimpson059 t1_itrbdqb wrote

If only there was a reusable material made from an abundant natural resource like sand...

61

3a8rvuaPZ9t t1_itrj9o3 wrote

Actually sand used to make glass is quite specific and finite.

31

FingerTheCat t1_itrt3wh wrote

But recyclable and doesn't poison the planet. (Yes yes the energy required still does)

17

3a8rvuaPZ9t t1_itrv5n1 wrote

Yes and far easier to reuse as well.

My point was really about sand though. It’s not common knowledge that the sand we use for things like glass and concrete are a very specific type of sand and a limited resource. You can’t just go into the Sahara and get all you need for generations to come.

15

FingerTheCat t1_itrzmb4 wrote

Agreed, also I guess I didn't think about the habitat destruction for said resource

3

Cmdr_Toucon t1_itrg8k1 wrote

That I can't get anyone to take for recycling

21

BestCatEva t1_itryjoz wrote

Yeah, our town stopped taking glass. You can drive it to the center if you want but prob not many do.

10

DickPoundMyFriend t1_itrkdsb wrote

And if corporations cared about anything other rhan profits, they wouldn't have switched to plastic in the first place.

11

ingen-eer t1_itrbz2o wrote

Or aluminum! Why can’t those 16 and 20 oz bottles just be cans?

10

usethemoose t1_itrlx2q wrote

You would be improving material circularity (in theory) while drastically increasing carbon emissions. Aluminum extraction and processing is energy intensive and dirty. Glass is energy intensive to produce, recovered materials are typically down-cycled due to color contamination, it’s heavy and inefficient to move and fragile, usually requiring plastic to prevent breakage.

Plastic isn’t only used because it’s cheap, it’s also very energy efficient to produce, lightweight for distribution (fewer transit emissions) and protects products from damage. Plastic waste is a significant issue that needs to be solved, but I always caution against promoting bans that don’t consider all the environmental advantages it currently provides.

12

KerkiForza t1_its2e4y wrote

Those "aluminum" cans still have an internal plastic liner.

3

ccooffee t1_itrzq00 wrote

Glass is so much heavier. Burns more fuel to transport them around, which is also an environmental problem.

6

saberline152 t1_ittqp91 wrote

well depends on the fuel eh

2

cornerblockakl t1_ittrtax wrote

No. The kind of fuel doesn’t matter. It requires exactly the same amount of energy (fuel) to move 1 gram 1 meter (all other variables remain the same) regardless of the energy source. Jesus Christ, stop with the idiocy.

−5

GubmintTroll t1_ittxyhx wrote

I think the comment of “depends on the fuel” is in reference to the comment of burning more fuel being an “environmental problem” and could be interpreted as meaning that the kind of fuel dictates the severity of the environmental problem. Not quite idiocy from where I stand.

8

whooyeah t1_itucuwk wrote

But if the fuel is burning in the sun then it’s Ok

1

Automatic-Leave-7258 t1_itu9hov wrote

That’s… not how energy works at all.

Moving 1 gram 1 meter can cost energy if you move the 1 gram to a higher potential, be energy neutral if the two endpoints are at the same potential, or even generate energy if you move the 1 gram to a lower potential.

The method you use to get it there can be more or less efficient, and it is almost always energy negative in practice due to friction… but what matters isn’t the mass being moved, it’s the integral of the force applied with respect to the distance traveled. That’s the definition of “work.”

The cool thing is that by this definition, you spend energy to accelerate a mass in the beginning, but as you slow the mass down to approach its destination, you can recover almost all of that energy as you apply a negative force to decelerate.

In fact, this is what the alternator in your car does. As you brake, the alternator recaptures energy used to accelerate the wheels, and it stores that energy in the battery.

0

Nomore_crazy t1_ittvibd wrote

Documentary : Sand wars

Some sand is used in concrete and has from the documentary at least you will Learn about how Dubai and Other rich countries are destroying the world.

4

SimonReach t1_itrtix0 wrote

I don’t want glass to come back to be the norm, there’s enough shattered glass bottles on the floor as it is

2

bubba4114 t1_ittjquk wrote

Just to clarify what the other guy said, not all sand can be made into glass. Desert sand is unusable because there isn’t enough silica in it.

2

Emperor_Zar t1_itubhm2 wrote

Or maybe hemp in which biodegradable plastics can be made?

1

Sweatytubesock t1_itsqi9p wrote

I was a kid in the ‘70s…most stuff was in glass bottles, and we’d always take the pop bottles back for the deposit. Pop also tastes better from glass bottles. But I assume plastic bottles are cheaper, and cheaper is catnip for everyone.

6

Speedoflife81 t1_itsqktn wrote

Taxes might work better than bans since we're so reliant on plastics now. Increase the cost of packaging for companies and they will come up with solutions to stop using it.

3

WartimeHotTot t1_itt3kdh wrote

I'm not sure about that. I think there's a good chance they'll just pass it on to the consumer.

4

Speedoflife81 t1_itu22a9 wrote

In the near term yes but it should also shift demand away from those products and we'd see some easy fixes. I think it would have to be a significant tax, otherwise it wouldn't work

1

sifuyee t1_ittryd7 wrote

I think the right way to do this is by making the entire life cycle cost part of the calculation for the tax on the items. If it's made of plastic that is going to harm the ecosystem and us, then those costs should be levied up front. Otherwise, cheap and dirty will be our doom.

2

Inevitable-Sir6449 t1_ittw8i1 wrote

10 years? Fuck that. 3 months. They have been fucking up our planet for 50 years. They need to pay to clean up every single particle that goes into the environment and our bodies.

1

DickPoundMyFriend t1_itrk8uu wrote

Yeah screw everybody who doesn't have access to clean drinking water from the tap. Who needs them anyways.

−6

Timbo_007 t1_itrzd7f wrote

Implementing a bottle deposit system would help. Then those bottles wouldn't be single use plastic anymore

0

Hear7breaker t1_its7z63 wrote

Timbo did you not read the article? Most plastics aren't being recycled. They are ALL single use.

6

Timbo_007 t1_its8nea wrote

>Implementing a bottle deposit system would help. Then those bottles wouldn't be single use plastic anymore

1