Submitted by chrisdh79 t3_yd3b4e in Futurology
Comments
Jsimpson059 t1_itrbdqb wrote
If only there was a reusable material made from an abundant natural resource like sand...
3a8rvuaPZ9t t1_itrj9o3 wrote
Actually sand used to make glass is quite specific and finite.
FingerTheCat t1_itrt3wh wrote
But recyclable and doesn't poison the planet. (Yes yes the energy required still does)
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.
FingerTheCat t1_itrzmb4 wrote
Agreed, also I guess I didn't think about the habitat destruction for said resource
Cmdr_Toucon t1_itrg8k1 wrote
That I can't get anyone to take for recycling
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.
DickPoundMyFriend t1_itrkdsb wrote
And if corporations cared about anything other rhan profits, they wouldn't have switched to plastic in the first place.
ingen-eer t1_itrbz2o wrote
Or aluminum! Why can’t those 16 and 20 oz bottles just be cans?
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.
KerkiForza t1_its2e4y wrote
Those "aluminum" cans still have an internal plastic liner.
ccooffee t1_itrzq00 wrote
Glass is so much heavier. Burns more fuel to transport them around, which is also an environmental problem.
saberline152 t1_ittqp91 wrote
well depends on the fuel eh
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.
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.
whooyeah t1_itucuwk wrote
But if the fuel is burning in the sun then it’s Ok
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.
cornerblockakl t1_itv7t2w wrote
That’s why I said “all other variable being equal.” Holy Christ.
Automatic-Leave-7258 t1_itvqhm5 wrote
I’m just saying moving a mass on a flat plane doesn’t use energy unless you really care about friction.
cornerblockakl t1_itw5ph1 wrote
Just. Stop. Talking.
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.
tom-8-to t1_itti06p wrote
Silicosis is bad for you and comes from sand
T1res1as t1_itxn3kq wrote
Go home Anakin, you’re drunk
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
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.
Emperor_Zar t1_itubhm2 wrote
Or maybe hemp in which biodegradable plastics can be made?
force-recon t1_itrnpmz wrote
And Legos. Can't live without that.
WartimeHotTot t1_itsjnss wrote
Well obviously legos too.
vodthemaker t1_itts42h wrote
Didn't lego move to bio degradable plastic already ?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
DickPoundMyFriend t1_itrk8uu wrote
Yeah screw everybody who doesn't have access to clean drinking water from the tap. Who needs them anyways.
Timbo_007 t1_itrzd7f wrote
Implementing a bottle deposit system would help. Then those bottles wouldn't be single use plastic anymore
Hear7breaker t1_its7z63 wrote
Timbo did you not read the article? Most plastics aren't being recycled. They are ALL single use.
Timbo_007 t1_its8nea wrote
>Implementing a bottle deposit system would help. Then those bottles wouldn't be single use plastic anymore
chrisdh79 OP t1_itpojvz wrote
From the article: The vast majority of plastic that people put into recycling bins is headed to landfills, or worse, according to a report from Greenpeace on the state of plastic recycling in the U.S.
The report cites separate data published this May which revealed that the amount of plastic actually turned into new things has fallen to new lows of around 5%. That number is expected to drop further as more plastic is produced.
Greenpeace found that no plastic — not even soda bottles, one of the most prolific items thrown into recycling bins — meets the threshold to be called "recyclable" according to standards set by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation New Plastic Economy Initiative. Plastic must have a recycling rate of 30% to reach that standard; no plastic has ever been recycled and reused close to that rate.
"More plastic is being produced, and an even smaller percentage of it is being recycled," says Lisa Ramsden, senior plastic campaigner for Greenpeace USA. "The crisis just gets worse and worse, and without drastic change will continue to worsen as the industry plans to triple plastic production by 2050."
Foxodroid t1_itr0r68 wrote
>the industry plans to triple plastic production by 2050.
I feel like screaming my lungs out
Cloneoflard t1_itrefn4 wrote
XD you will when they replace your lungs with plastic
vagueblur901 t1_itstix1 wrote
Too late that shits already in my blood
Vasyh t1_ittf8mn wrote
Sad but true
Aggressive-Article41 t1_its7i99 wrote
David cronenberg was right!
whatsamajig t1_itrzv3r wrote
That’s really all you can do. That’s why people are glueing their hands to shit. Everything is so absurd that it shows in peoples reactions to facts like this. The world is a fucking joke at this point. Nothing will be done and regular people like us can simply scream and that is all, oh, and make fun of each other for lashing out in such absurd ways. See Reddit for reference.
pretendperson t1_itti8wx wrote
You are helping very much with defeatism. Thank you.
HZCH t1_ittpvjn wrote
Defeatism is doing nothing, they just stated the obvious.
TeamGroupHug t1_itu6zgi wrote
Sounds like plastic recycling is working as intended. It was an invention of plastic companies so they could continue to produce new plastic.
Foxodroid t1_itv27ro wrote
Whenever I read that kind of history I'm astonished China isn't celebrated more for executing billionaires.
[deleted] t1_itttx7x wrote
[removed]
StrenuousSOB t1_itsrie5 wrote
Can the majority of it be turned back into oil via Pyrolysis? I don’t understand why we’re not doing that in mass also somewhere in Taiwan or one of those countries they have an incinerator for trash where the air comes out clean beer some kind of scrubber. We should be doing that and the pyrolysis.
saberline152 t1_ittqmsa wrote
many different kinds of plastics require different processes, not all brands use the same plastics.
Tulpah t1_ittbwue wrote
didn't someone figure out a way to make plastic into brick?
T1res1as t1_itxjyvz wrote
Yes you can remelt plastic into bricks. You can even extrude it into 3D printer filament and make stuff. Heck it can even be turned into fuel.
But the article is talking about general waste. Joe Schmoe is not going to sort plastic by type and 3D print anything or pressure cook it into burnable fuel. That shit goes straight into a landfill.
Dr-Chronosphere t1_iu34i1d wrote
Joe Schmoe might not, but Joe AI already is...
pawnografik t1_itrticl wrote
I feel like they’re cherry picking the worst offender though. I’d wager that recycling is much more effective in other countries.
iWillNeverReplyToYou t1_itsei0l wrote
Sure, lets not do any research and just comment with how we feel
pawnografik t1_itti3i2 wrote
Fine. Here you go. My wager was absolutely right. Recycling absolutely is more effective in other countries.
Key facts:
-
Europe has the highest plastic recycling rate in the world.
-
Since 2006, the amount of plastic packaging waste sent to recycling chains has increased by 92% in the European Union.
-
In 2018, 42% of the amount of plastic packaging collected in the European Union was recycled.*
-
European plastic production accounted for 16% of world production in 2019.
-
51% of world production is attributable to Asian countries.*
-
40% of the European plastic demand is allocated to packaging. 20% in construction and 10% in the automotive industry.*
chriswhoppers t1_itpra59 wrote
Oyster mushrooms and many others successfully biodegrade plastics into edible nutrition, and sequester unwanted pollution in the atmosphere into their mycelial network. Underwater mushrooms found in Oregon.
Equivalent-Ice-7274 t1_itq4kti wrote
Yes, but you would need thousands of mountain-sized piles of Oyster mushrooms to biodegrade all of the plastic waste.
TheGingerHybrid t1_itqds6o wrote
While you are technically right, the solution doesn't have to happen all at once, and immediately. Small steps are how you get to a destination. And with this kind of problem, small steps are better than no steps.
Foxodroid t1_itr0wom wrote
Maybe if we put real funding into it we can brute force our way to a good result. It's certainly worth the effort.
octopusnipples t1_itq915i wrote
I had no idea that underwater mushrooms existed!
tom-8-to t1_itq4d33 wrote
But there is no money in it. Who is gonna fund a large scale investment? Industrial use requires plastic to be turned into something useful on the same day it arrives or there is no profit.
Might as well use plastic as fuel and burn it and even so it’s gonna be costly because of the smoke and fumes are costly to deal with to meet air pollution standards
idigclams t1_itqw8vq wrote
Not as bad as burning coal, a lot of times. Polyethylene is a highly refined and simple hydrocarbon, for example. It should burn cleaner than natural gas and much cleaner than coal. Of course it will still release carbon into the atmosphere.
revtor t1_itsnzum wrote
It’s how they recycle plastic in Europe- burn it. Can be clean! And then the heat turns into electricity..
thisoldmould t1_itthgj9 wrote
Oyster mushroom farming is quite profitable in fact.
piotrmarkovicz t1_ittuwjg wrote
> But there is no money in it.
If there is a service or a product, there is a potential for a return.
>Who is gonna fund a large scale investment?
The same people who fund all large scale investment: the general population.
Could make a business case out of it: get paid to haul away plastic nobody wants, get free feed stock to grow mushrooms, sell mushroom related products for profit. Lobby for some environmental tax credits to get the public to pay for the process in return for reduced environmental contamination for a tidy profit.... Devil is in the details but it is not an impossible sell.
FoxlyKei t1_itsplzd wrote
This is all our hope imo. There's been bacteria and fungus evolving to eat this stuff. We give life an abundance of something containing energy and so life evolves to make the best of it. I am sure, even now, that there is an animal somewhere with gut microbes evolved enough to let it survive solely on eating plastic. Like some plastic termite, ig
With all of these plastics going into the food chain who's to say we won't have a massive convergent evolution of microbiomes dissolving plastics?
The current census seems to be breeding for an extremely powerful enzyme and hopefully using that en masse to break down plastics before they even reach the ocean.
​
Another idea would be running massive septic tanks with these microbes, growing them with plastic, and using them in other applications.
lacergunn t1_itqwwvg wrote
Do you have any research papers to go with this? It sounds promising
chriswhoppers t1_itqxkc4 wrote
No I don't have any personal research related to this field of science. It has been known for a while by the mycology community, and you can easily find any research you desire by looking deeper into the viability of its function by various institutes
lacergunn t1_itr4orp wrote
I'll have to look into that. A while back I had an idea to offset human carbon output by modifying a strain of azolla to grow in the pacific garbage patch, but it wouldn't work because that part of the ocean has no natural nutrients. However, if I could modify the plants to take some of their nutrition from breaking down plastics...
chriswhoppers t1_itr5an3 wrote
The problem with that is "Plants are producers, using the energy of the sun to make seeds, cones, and spores to reproduce, while fungi are decomposers that break down decaying matter" - National Wildlife Federation
lacergunn t1_itr5mrr wrote
That's what the modification is for. I dont need all of the fungi's genes, just the ones that produce the enzymes that break down the plastics into their base nutrients.
Of course this is all hypothetical, I dont have anywhere close to the resources to actually experiment with this
chriswhoppers t1_itr6gfs wrote
Theoretically its completely possible. Using yeast fermentation, specific enzymes can be targeted and reproduced rapidly with high purity through very meticulous chloroplast extractions. Then the enzyme would be introduced over generations of your plant variety, in hopes of mutations to produce a stellar variety for you specific purpose. Yeast fermentation isn't necessary, but much faster than having fungus grow next to your plant and cloning the mutants from there
Foxodroid t1_itr1hpb wrote
Are they edible? We could be solving two crises at once lol
chriswhoppers t1_itr24md wrote
Yes, look at the first link. Oyster mushrooms are edible, and mushrooms convert compost (or waste) into chitin and other cellular structures of the mushroom body. Scientists used to believe that it would make you sick to eat the mushrooms that decompose toxic items, now it has been proven false up to an extent. If I remember correctly from years ago
know_it_is t1_itr19lk wrote
This is really astonishing to me.
4quarkU t1_itr4tl1 wrote
The solution is not improving recycling efforts or reducing the use of plastics, but the near elimination of plastics through better product design that eliminates disposable products. All products should have a design objective of maximum lifespan versus minimal. Non-consumable products should be designed to outlive single, individual users so that even if a product must be created to meet the need of an individual, its cost to society, the raw materials and effort to produce, get spread across the greatest amount of time possible, thus reducing excess. Components that wear or become obsolete need to be able to replaced and upgraded and fully recyclable to ensure maximum lifespan. Think of men's razors, the old school kind that flip out like a knife. There are still tons of them in antique stores all around and the vast majority with a decent sharpening could produce a good enough shave that the casual observer would never know it was done with a razor made in say 1800. Those were nearly a perfect design in that it really needed no packaging, instruction, lasts 100s of years with adequate care and every component could be disposed without harm to the environment or completely recycled. Instead, we have how many Bics floating in the ocean or filling up landfills? Having this simple design objective of maximum lifespan would immediately reduce the plastic problem and allow us not to figure out cleaner, better plastic recycling, but use that effort and energy to clean up the plastic mess properly, a one-time effort, and recreate a product development lifecycle that eliminates disposable completely. No wasted effort and a lot less waste. Any effort that focuses on the lessening of disposables impacts versus elimination is wasted effort.
mirhagk t1_itrretm wrote
> eliminates disposable products.
This is key, it frustrates me when companies replace plastic with some customized paperboard and act like they've solved in. All that's doing is lowering the recycling rate of paperboard, because nobody wants your ink and food covered soggy mess. The reason cardboard has a high recycling rate is because it's all very similar and it's not designed to look pretty.
> Non-consumable products should be designed to outlive single, individual users
I don't think that's a goal so much as a mechanism to achieve a goal. Just because something is designed to be reused doesn't mean it actually gets reused.
Plenty of what ends up in our landfills is totally fine, just no longer useful to the individual. It's not worth people's time to try and sell it so it goes in the trash.
> Think of men's razors, the old school kind that flip out like a knife. There are still tons of them in antique stores all around
Just because they are tons around doesn't mean that a ton actually lasted this long. For every one of those in an antique store there's hundreds sitting in a landfill.
> Instead, we have how many Bics floating in the ocean
This is a misconception. Consumer plastics aren't what's in the ocean for the most part, and the ones that are are primarily because they tried to be recycled.
If you threw your razor out, chances are high that it's in a landfill.
> or filling up landfills?
Which isn't inherently a problem. People have this idea that being a landfill is automatically bad, but modern (as in the last couple decades) landfills are managed pretty well. Waste gets disposed and stays there.
People make it sound all spooky like "those razors will be there for 1000 years!" but that's actually the ideal situation we'd want. The carbon inside it is now sequestered into a landfill and we don't have to worry about it breaking down into methane (like with paper). The problem with plastics in landfill isn't that it doesn't break down, but that it does (and this is getting less and less of a problem with better landfills).
> Having this simple design objective of maximum lifespan would immediately reduce the plastic problem
Not as long as we keep buying it. For instance reusable shopping bags need to be reused hundreds of times before they are actually better.
The goal should be to reduce environmental impact, not some arbitrary semi-goal of product longevity or even waste reduction (since waste is definitely not all equal).
4quarkU t1_itrtoum wrote
Product longevity is not arbitrary, but an actual objective metric. Every products longevity can and should be measured, whereas total environmental impact is not, it's currently a subjective metric that is essentially anecdotal at best and completely meaningless at worst. The entire environmental impact of a products lifecycle is nearly impossible to objectively quantify. If you want to actually impact a metric, you better pick one that you can actually measure. Either way, the elimination of plastics is a given as better for the environment than the continued use. Reduction of environmental impact as a strategy to the given that elimination of plastics is better than even reduction, does nothing that can be quantified. Even in the title of the strategy is reduction versus elimination, which means it will fall short. The damage is already done to the environment and further damage eliminated, not reduced. Elimination, regardless of strategy, can be measured quantitatively. The rest of the argument seems nitpicky on wording or didn't allow for the complete thought to be expressed before challenging. On the landfill issue though, are you saying that modern landfill management mitigates.all environmental risk and puts the landfill at an equal state of mutual benefit to all things on this planet that it was likely in before it became a landfill? Because the standard cannot be to human negligence, but to natural order, pre-human influence.
mirhagk t1_itrwi8q wrote
abitrary and objective are not mutually exclusive. It's easy to measure products longevity, just not useful to do so. It's much harder to measure environmental impact and yet that's the thing we actually care about.
Goodhart's Law is very real and paper straws are a very good example of it.
> If you want to actually impact a metric
I don't want to impact a metric. I want to impact the world.
> Either way, the elimination of plastics is a given as better for the environment
Firstly, no it's not a given. It's only better if the replacement is better, and plastic is by no means the worst thing we can use.
Secondly that's a separate goal than you were arguing for. You were arguing for increasing the longevity of items, not for eliminating plastic.
I mean plastic has a heck of a lifespan, you're not throwing those bic razors out because the plastic broke down, you're throwing it out because the metal wore away. Most of the time when plastic is thrown out it's not because it doesn't work or isn't useful, but because it isn't desired.
Plastic forks are a great example. You walk into a lower class family, especially one with kids, and you're going to find some KFC forks in the utensil drawer that have been washed and reused a bunch of times. The reason people throw out plastic forks are because they don't want to wash dishes, not because they can't reuse them.
> are you saying that modern landfill management mitigates all environmental risk and puts the landfill at an equal state of mutual benefit to all things on this planet that it was likely in before it became a landfill?
No because the alternatives very much don't either. We have a footprint, it's literally impossible to remove that footprint. You affect the world with everything you do, your basic existence produces carbon dioxide.
> but to natural order, pre-human influence.
That's an impossible goal, and impossible goals aren't helpful. Even if you stopped breathing you have an environmental impact as your body decomposes or is disposed of.
The problem we have is these impossible goals and the obvious concessions we then have to make. Like I'm sure you went "well obviously breathing doesn't count", but why not count it? If something makes you breathe more CO2, why wouldn't we consider that?
4quarkU t1_its2v4i wrote
This seems like an irrational rabbit hole in which one wants to defend that plastics should continue to exist because they exist today. The statement of would the environment be better off without them completely than with them, then I think that one should just trust their gut and they will be correct. To say that a family needing wash plastic sports from KFC because of their socioeconomic status is an example of plastic reuse best practices and a viable method of mitigating environmental harm, well, not really sure how to address that, but find the example disturbing to say the least. I'm sure the executives of the manufacturer of those sporks and at KFC are thrilled that someone finds the catastrophe of both organizations existence a benefit to the environment and mankind are ecstatic though.
Humans existence is part of the natural order, thus all natural activities get accounted for, breathing, eating, and natural human excrement. I believe I said "pre-human" influenced state. That means that implemented a human bias into the condition, i.e. a landfill, which without being an expert cannot fathom any mutual benefit to any other thing on this planet other than say maybe pollution and landfill companies, if you want to count a human created category as thing. Exhaling CO2 is a mutually beneficial process. All plastics will degrade eventually and typically into horrible compounds like vinyl chloride. All landfills will leak eventually. To say that returning the environment to a natural order is an impossible goal is just a deflection of the argument. There are a number of examples around the globe of places that were environmental disasters than have more rapidly than expected returned to a natural, thriving condition, like Chernobyl. To discount the hard as impossible is a weak tactic which keeps us locked into actually solving problems rather recrafting the problem in some new meme of the day like upcycling or environmental impact You are impacting the world by denying that the solution is impossible and continuing to operate in denial that continuing with the problem, but changing the definitions is a viable solution. Maybe that's why the importance of product longevity is lost. Can you tell me the definition of environmental impact? Product longevity is the duration of a product from its inception to the point it is no longer used. Oh, to ever replace a product with a worse product on any attribute, is asinine and not worthy further discussion.
Kicking cans and wasting effort was for the 80s. We are well beyond the point in which our efforts can be inefficient and ineffective whether that's for the environment or for social change like socioeconomic inequality. Have actual solutions. Elimination of the use of plastics by creating products that dramatically extend their viable lifespan is a solution and does not kick the can on any level. What were your solutions, I don't recall?
mirhagk t1_its6zbs wrote
> which one wants
It's unfortunate you're making wild assumptions like this. Hopefully our discussion can be productive despite this.
Because first off I absolutely do want us to get rid of as much single-use stuff as we can. My issue is with your goal/metric, not with disposable plastic elimination.
> that a family needing wash plastic sports
I didn't say needing. You missed the entire point of that example.
Granted the lower class part was unnecessary as anyone could reuse, but I just have found people with higher incomes to be more picky about stuff. I don't care if my utensils match or look nice, I care if they function.
It was also certainly not to justify the existence of disposable cutlery. The entire point here was that the cutlery is disposable not due to anything other than the fact that it's cheap and people want to throw it out.
If metal forks were cheap people would throw them out too.
The KFC was only mentioned to mention a particular kind of plastic cutlery, because not all plastic cutlery is equal in durability. This kind (also popular in many other restaurants) prioritizes function over form, while there's fancy looking plastic forks that break after one use.
> Exhaling CO2 is a mutually beneficial process.
Only until we produce too much of it, which we are doing.
> To say that returning the environment to a natural order is an impossible goal is just a deflection of the argument.
No it's not a deflection, it's a criticism of the goal you stated. It's a bad goal, we can't achieve it, and it's so obvious we can't achieve it that you immediately made concessions and switched to qualify it.
> returned to a natural, thriving condition, like Chernobyl. T
Chernobyl is an example of how quickly nature can adapt once left alone, not an example of something returning to it's pre-human state. Chernobyl is even today still polluting the environment and causing problems. Yes nature can adapt, nature be crazy like that, but no that doesn't mean that there's no impact.
> To discount the hard as impossible is a weak tactic which keeps us locked into actually solving problems
Keeps us locked into actually solving problems? I'm gonna assume you meant the opposite, please correct me if you actually meant what you said here. You also did that a few times later on.
> some new meme of the day like upcycling
Or like "product longevity"?
> We are well beyond the point in which our efforts can be inefficient and ineffective
I 100% agree, which is why some new meme like buying razors from antique stores isn't going to solve the problem. Like why replacing one environment-harming material with another isn't going to do anything.
I mean is your razor the only thing you use? Do you use collected rainwater and nothing else to shave with? What do you do with your waste hair?
You need to consider more than just whether you're chucking something in the trash. You need to consider what you're washing down the drain. You need to consider what you're using up and where those things came from.
You need to consider... your environmental impact. A wildly subjective and hard to define thing because this is a hard issue. But just because it's hard doesn't mean we should give up and use shitty meaningless metrics which encourage waste instead.
4quarkU t1_itsbs7u wrote
Good catch on the "not" actually solving problem. I hate having to use qwerty and autocorrect.
Absolutely the environmental impact issue and human sustainability crisis is much broader than this, but this post and ensuing debate was focused on plastics. Plastics are 100% a human created problem and requires a human solution, because the impacts are broader than to just humans. I agree we shouldn't use shitty metrics that are meaningless or left undefined. And please stop with the replacing one product with an inferior or worse product. Only a crazy person would do that. Oh shit, I just realized that is really about capitalism. The feasibility or cost of effort to do what is obviously right versus what is cost effective. Because inferior products are brought to market all by the time because there is demand for cheap, lesser quality and convenient, right?. That may be a current reality, but it is not and should not be a constraint to the solution. Inferior products on any dimension, simply should not be produced. The issue isn't if a plastic spork is replaced by lead paint coated uranium spork (I know I'm being ridiculous). It's that plastic shouldn't even be an option, let alone any uranium based consumer products 😉 It's lunacy to create lesser quality product of any kind if a product of equal or greater exists and meets the demand, especially one that has poor sustainability and environmental impacts It's absurd that we consider ourselves evolved beings and yet continue to put a monetary cost and thus price to our excess, greed and gluttony. But I digress .. But this debate has long departed from the core.
I think the statement holds that the planet and all entities within this diverse ecosystem we call home would be much better off if plastics could be completely eliminated. I know that should be the goal, which is an easy metric to count, plastic production= 0. Anything less is inadequate.
Anyways, it's been a pleasure. I wish you all the best!
P.S. - you hd a few decent points. Wrong, but decent. ,😄
mirhagk t1_itsdaj3 wrote
So it definitely is better now that you've switched to inferior vs superior products and that would be a better metric (though not sufficient alone) but longevity isn't the same thing as quality.
I mean lead cups last longer than glass, but I'm glad we don't use them anymore! (And glad nobody thought to use the ultra durable uranium lol)
But we do get subjective now, since how do you compare durability to efficiency?
Paper towels in public bathrooms are a good example for this idea. They are single use disposable, but they come with a lot of health benefits. I don't think it's worth switching back to reusable towels in shared bathrooms. (I'm ignoring air dryers since they are more complex to compare)
Of course at home you absolutely should use normal towels. Context is important, and makes everything so complex we can't really make broad and general goals.
PineappleClear2380 t1_ittxqnz wrote
The right side edge of your long paragraph with no leading looks like the edge of the plastic mountain in pic
goodstorydan t1_itq7pgc wrote
We need to regulate the use of plastics to reduce the amount that is produced. We don’t need most plastics used in food grade packaging. We don’t need plastic bottles for water and sodas. We don’t need thick plastic packaging for most goods at the store. We can do better.
Delphan_Galvan t1_itq9jbj wrote
There's a technique called "Thermal Depolymerization" that can turn plastic (and organic waste) back into a crude oil which can then be processed into fuel oil or new plastics. But as soon as people hear that it makes oil you'll hear some autistic shrieking from some activist and the idea - at least for recycling, gets shelved. It may not be the best solution, but it at least takes care of part of the problem.
fakexican t1_itr2c1y wrote
Sorry, you lost me at "autistic shrieking" - do better.
[deleted] t1_itsyelo wrote
[deleted]
modsarefascists42 t1_itqo7e3 wrote
?? Why would anyone care about it being turned back into oil?
Delphan_Galvan t1_itquoys wrote
The simplest reason is that it doesn't necessarily lead to cutting back on plastic production and could even be used as an excuse to boost production of petroleum based plastics instead of plant based plastics.
Secondary is that with the glut of information and social media easily available to the public, there are legions of "experts" on topics where their only qualification is they read an opinion piece on a Facebook post. The heavy criticism of nuclear energy while ignoring "where do they get the rare metals?" for renewables is a good example. There is no quick fix to the problems currently facing humanity and sadly there will be those who cannot recognize the intermediate steps we must take to ween ourselves off our destructive habits.
crashtestpilot t1_itq43jp wrote
What seems needful is passive distributed digesters that can operate at both community and metropolitan scales.
Some form of in home preprocessing could help as well.
We shall still need these kind of scaled municipal facilities throughout the phasing out of plastic, which will probably take into the next century.
mirhagk t1_itrnbdk wrote
Honestly what we need is to just accept the reality of plastic. It's trash, not recycling. We do generate trash, and trash itself can be dealt with, but we need to be aware of that.
And we need to accept that it isn't just plastic though. The focus is on plastic because it's the worst offender, but even the easiest to recycle material, paper, still only gets 68% recycled. And if you remove newspapers and corrugated cardboard (the no-duh ones) you get 43% for paper and just 21% for packaging.
That cereal box you're putting in your recycling is not likely to be recycled. That stack of papers? Not likely to be recycled. That glass bottle? No. That metal can? Nope. The only thing that actually is getting recycled is that large bin behind the mcdonalds with a billion corrugated cardboard boxes in it that are of uniform material.
crashtestpilot t1_its9xmj wrote
You make great points.
Now that it is trash, what then should we do to keep this waste out of the environment?
If you suggest incineration with insane chimney filters, and burning it for energy, I'm okay with that.
End of day it's about:
a) phasing out consumer use of plastic.
b) disposing of consumer plastic in ways that does not create more microplastics in the environment, and in our water.
I contend that if it's not about that, then we've limited our duration as a viable species.
mirhagk t1_itsazhp wrote
Better landfill regulations to prevent those microplastics from getting back into water or food supply, and a focus on what plastic. Not all plastics are equal in how they break down, and it's a lot easier to switch types of plastic then to find replacements altogether.
Waste to energy is probably fine too, I'll be honest I'm not up to date on the latest and the tech has some bad history, but it should be viable at its core with proper regulation.
And once we accept waste to energy then we can start saying "what happens when we incinerate this?" And start choosing our materials based on that too.
I agree with the movement that says producers need to consider how to deal with the waste, I just disagree that recycling is a plausible answer. I'm totally fine with "it goes in a landfill" as long as we know and are okay with what happens in that landfill
crashtestpilot t1_itseocn wrote
Good points again.
What if there were a small appliance in home that turns mixed plastic into bricks?
Because the trip the Land Fill is where we lose a lot of plastic into the environment.
mirhagk t1_itsgu5d wrote
Ooo there is! On mobile so I don't have the link handy, but the appliance is actually you!
Take a water/pop bottle and fill it up with non-degradable waste (that flimsy plastic is a good candidate). Find a stick that you can push into the bottle, ideally as close to the size of the opening as you can while easily pushing it in. Push it in and out to jam the waste down. Screw the cap back on and repeat this whenever you get more waste. A shocking amount will fit in here and with ripping things up this covers most of the worst offenders for waste.
Eventually you'll fill it up and it will be a very dense and solid piece. With the cap on you now have a brick that you can use. Granted it's not perfectly brick shaped but since bottles are designed for packing they fit together well (if you use the same kind).
I think they are called eco bricks. I did it a while back and was pretty happy with the results but I'll be honest I just got overwhelmed with life. I'd LOVE if I had a trash compactor that did the same thing.
But it's worth noting landfills do do this already. With the proper barriers in place, trash makes a decent building material. I mean Manhattan has parts built out of trash. I know my local landfill is evaluating putting solar panels on top of it. The Simpsons made fun of it, but the idea works if done correctly. (Note I'm not claiming Manhattan did it correctly and I know a lot of it wasn't consumer waste, but just giving an example)
crashtestpilot t1_itsi4cj wrote
I like it.
I think we can do better, but your suggestion is accessible, and affordable.
It does NOT scale without behavioral change, but what does, really?
mirhagk t1_itsirfp wrote
Yeah it's why I didn't suggest it initially lol. It's cute and people should do it if they can, but it's like at-home composting and rainwater collection. I appreciate everyone who does it and we should encourage more but it's not realistic to expect everyone will do it.
Would love to see it improved upon, and combine with other methods to get a good waste management solution that isn't just built on dreams and lies.
crashtestpilot t1_itsnyzv wrote
Yep. Yep yep yep.
I love the idea of weaponizing mycelia or animals to help us save the planet we're all on.
But we threw it out, and we're going to have to help pick it up.
EmulatingHeaven t1_ittlh9y wrote
Honestly the big barrier for me in making eco bricks is cleaning the flimsy plastic that gets stuffed in. Outer wrapping from the toilet paper, that’s fine, but a lot of the garbage in my home would be from chip bags or baby food pouches.
mirhagk t1_ittlnoe wrote
Yeah that's fair enough. I got a spray attachment for my sink, so most things are an easy rinse. I also picked up a decent shredder to shred the semi-rigid plastics, which do fit in fine but are a lot of effort to tear up otherwise.
oxford101 t1_itrdkya wrote
This may be the case in the USA but certainly not the case in Europe where extensive recycling g legislation has been in place since the 1990’s. If you want to recycle plastic you have to have the right legislation and subsidy in place to enable. If you just allow market forces to dictate recycling collection schemes it will fall over. The German subsidy in the 1990s was $1500 per tonne
mirhagk t1_itrskl5 wrote
Do you have any statistics on the rates of recycling for EU or Germany? The reason USA is used is because of the EPA's extensive analysis. It's really hard to get good figures because a lot of reports very stupidly analyze collection rate rather than how much of it is actually recycled. The latter is a figure that has only recently gotten attention.
Here's some stats I've found which show that Germany is not actually recycling the vast majority of the plastic it's collecting, but it's still not the whole story.
oxford101 t1_itry3wl wrote
Plastic packaging recycling rate in Germany in 2019 was 99.6%
mirhagk t1_itrze4t wrote
That sounds like collection rather than how much ends up being used, but if you share your source I could tell better.
99.6% is a suspiciously high figure considering how much plastic breaks down and literally can't be recycled, and even for collection that's a rate that sounds like it has a very narrow definition for, like a "single-use plastics" type thing
twack3r t1_ittr07k wrote
55.2% in 2019.
Source in German:
https://deutsche-recycling.de/blog/recyclingquote-deutschland-vergleich/
mirhagk t1_ittrcfz wrote
Thanks! Yeah that looks like the right figure and matches up with what I've seen (which suggested about half was recycled).
That's a pretty good rate, definitely happy to see it. I suspect part of it is that North America had built their recycling programs based on the cheap return voyage to asia for container ships, and that fell apart. Germany wouldn't have designed around that.
But also do have to give props to Germany. They definitely do a lot of things really well, and glad to see this is one of them.
oxford101 t1_itwkn8r wrote
Please note my stats refer to Plastic packaging the 55% refers to all Plastics recycled
chriswhoppers t1_itq5139 wrote
A hybridized system of recycling the plastic and turning some into food is a good way to balance it out. There is plenty of money for investors to dish out inventions related to home recycling or commercial facilities specifically for the mushrooms, plus the added profit of selling various mushrooms on different supply chains. Overall, there is no one solution, just a bunch of good ideas.
lounge_l1zard t1_its4ngt wrote
I love the framing that blames the public while also including the line:
>the industry plans to triple plastic production by 2050.
Lolololololol. Make it illegal and there will be less plastic. We all have to get uncomfortable to fix this. Single use plastics are AN ACTUAL PROBLEM and the only way they'll stop getting used is if they stop being made available.
x31b t1_itt3ikb wrote
If only there were a way for sodas to be sold in reusable glass bottles that you could take back to the store and use over and over.
Back to the 1950s!
slightlyassholic t1_itr9bfe wrote
There are some "new" technologies such as hydrothermal carbonization, hydrothermal liquefaction, and just using it as waste derived fuel that all show promise.
There are, of course, automated or semi-automated methods of separating the various types of plastic for traditional recycling, but those don't seem to be popular or more likely, profitable.
With the above methods, you can just shove it all in and get usable a usable product or products.
My hope is that these technologies will take hold. They could actually be profitable. Hell, you don't even need to separate out the plastic from the waste stream, just pull out all of the metal and other non-combustibles such as glass. (this is a bit of an oversimplification but is true in principle without turning this into a wall of text)
k3surfacer t1_itreqgg wrote
Every person serious on environment knew that. The scam of "recycling" was pushed by money grabbing scammers who abused the feeling of people about environment.
mirhagk t1_itrtlzt wrote
While companies definitely do push the idea and benefit from the misconception, they aren't the only ones. People got irrationally terrified of landfills for some reason, and that's what pushed a lot of recycling myths.
Like plastic is far from the only offender when it comes to failure to recycle. Besides newspaper and corrugated cardboard, every material has a <50% rate of actually being recycled according to the EPA. That includes basically all the product packaging that exists, including stuff people traditionally think of as easy to recycle, like cereal boxes, glass bottles and metal cans.
ItinerantMercury t1_itrhpku wrote
There are SO many alternatives but the established institutions treat all alternatives as a threat to their dominance.
We can go no further with a Monetary System. It conditions humans to be stupid, greedy, shortsighted, dangerous, selfish & careless.
mirhagk t1_itrtsj3 wrote
The only real alternative is not making it in the first place. Lots of proposed alternatives that have their own problem, ranging from "well at least it's better" to "holy F we just invented a process to turn CO2 into methane at scale!"
Odd-Handle-1087 t1_itrrtja wrote
This is a half story, we Dutch collect our plastic separately and they will use it to make new plastic. But after a few times you need to add virgin plastic to keep the quality. So it’s patchily true
Vardagshjalten t1_itrwdgz wrote
I have seen several articles like this the last couple of days and I just want to say that you can in fact recycle (some) plastics.
Recycling is mandated by law in Sweden and almost every major grocery store has a small recycling center where you can deposit your bottles and cans and get a small cash back receipt or store credit voucher in return. The recycling (or return) rate for plastic bottles is 89% (the goal is 90%). The amount of material that is actually re-used for new bottles varies but recent reports put it at around 50%.
My point here is that stringent laws that put the responsibility on the plastic producers coupled with incentive programs for the consumer can and will make a difference.
That said the end goal is and should still be to lower our dependency on plastic and in the long rund phase it out entirely where possible.
If you want to read more on the Swedish recycling system you can visit: https://pantamera.nu/en/ and https://www.svenskplastatervinning.se/en/about-plastic-recycling/
KamSolis t1_its31n8 wrote
Well it will be nice to have a large island of plastic to live on after we raise the sea level.
bulwynkl t1_itt4jb3 wrote
Headline is missing one very important caveat...
cheaply.
heck, pyrolytic degredation to methane has been viable since the 80's, it just costs more than buying methane from the ground.
The root cause of the problem is allowing every one from the extractive industries that source fossil fuels through to the retails to externalise the environmental costs of the problem onto consumers and society...
12kdaysinthefire t1_itteab2 wrote
I don’t see any governments going after Nestle, or any protests about Nestle. Not only do they suck all the ground water out of the earth but they dump it all into plastic bottles that will never be recycled. Why are we wasting our time going after friggin plastic straws?
FuturologyBot t1_itps14t wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79:
From the article: The vast majority of plastic that people put into recycling bins is headed to landfills, or worse, according to a report from Greenpeace on the state of plastic recycling in the U.S.
The report cites separate data published this May which revealed that the amount of plastic actually turned into new things has fallen to new lows of around 5%. That number is expected to drop further as more plastic is produced.
Greenpeace found that no plastic — not even soda bottles, one of the most prolific items thrown into recycling bins — meets the threshold to be called "recyclable" according to standards set by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation New Plastic Economy Initiative. Plastic must have a recycling rate of 30% to reach that standard; no plastic has ever been recycled and reused close to that rate.
"More plastic is being produced, and an even smaller percentage of it is being recycled," says Lisa Ramsden, senior plastic campaigner for Greenpeace USA. "The crisis just gets worse and worse, and without drastic change will continue to worsen as the industry plans to triple plastic production by 2050."
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yd3b4e/recycling_plastic_is_practically_impossible_and/itpojvz/
[deleted] t1_itq2pr3 wrote
[removed]
machine_yearning t1_itq8cud wrote
O&G sees the writing on the wall, they are counting on plastics to bridge the gap as we use less methane (natural gas).
[deleted] t1_itqf6pe wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itqstre wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itqsze6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itqxeug wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_itqzhu0 wrote
[deleted]
NekoMadeOfWaifus t1_itrd6r2 wrote
I’ve only watched a handful of YouTube videos of the topic, but wouldn’t adding a balance changing tax on virgin plastics lead to more plastic being recycled into products, or is the problem that the plastics can’t be recycled for some reason?
Fluessigsubstanz t1_itremiw wrote
I meeeaaan there are a few companies and technologies trying to prove the opposite right now, atleast on the "recycling" side of things. But it hasn't been testet large scale.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce our waste output tho.
[deleted] t1_itrw8m1 wrote
[removed]
obsidianstark t1_itryw7p wrote
Gordon Bennett !!!!!!!!! Well why make me sort and collect it then, “practically impossible” !!! Now I’m gna have to keep lying to my kids
[deleted] t1_itrz1qy wrote
[removed]
PJKT42 t1_itrzrir wrote
All new buildings should have a minimum requirement of recycled plastic used to replace conventional construction materials… pretty sure there’s a whole bunch of relevant uses including creating bricks, insulating etc.
Freds_Premium t1_its59w5 wrote
The Earth created humans so that we could make plastic, a substance it couldn't make on it's own. No need to worry though, the Earth will be just fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
No_Variety9420 t1_its6rmr wrote
I have had this discussion about once a month for the last 10 years..no one wants to belive
Aggressive-Article41 t1_its7sig wrote
So it is just going to play out like that movie crimes of the future.
Elimia987 t1_itsdscy wrote
We aggressively avoid buying products in plastic packaging. We've shifted to shampoo bars, dental floss made from wax that comes in a refillable glass vial, no plastic bags of coffee, etc. Sometimes it can't be avoided but we try our best.
Additional_Buddy7020 t1_itsflbr wrote
We need community established recycling programs and study groups. Like actual official branches of the local government, on the governance of environmental protection within the community. A wing of the sanitary division of a city maybe? Not a concept by non profits, but instituted standards for environmental cleanliness. Instead of fining unequipped, untrained, and unprepared individual citizens for handling a complex matter, provide a city service to sort and clean trash and pollution. Including studying about the pollution produced in the community. Provide state backed services for using common waste products, down to the raw material level. Instead of it being a standard enforced on an unqualified public who can't regularly handle these matters.
Free-Environment-571 t1_itsl9x7 wrote
Things taste way better when stored in glass. Just saying…
MpVpRb t1_itsnlkp wrote
The headline is misleading. It confuses tech with some standard someone made up. The word "impossible" is troublesome
Current tech is very limited. Some plastic can be remelted, but it degrades with each remelt. Some factories recycle internally, adding a measured quantity of reground rejects or runners to virgin material with acceptable results. Some plastic can be recycled into lower grades for other uses. Some can be transformed into other useful materials without melting.
Experimental tech of the future will break plastic down into its components that can be reused as well as virgin plastic. The tech has been demonstrated in the lab and there is a good chance that it will be developed into an industrial process
Current plastic recycling is a lie, told by the disposable products industry. Even when technically possible, almost no plastic is currently recycled
Tdanger78 t1_itsrrox wrote
Didn’t Honeywell develop a method to recycle plastic back into oil? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-02/honeywell-touts-process-to-recycle-low-grade-plastics-into-oil
SuspiciousStable9649 t1_itst5ar wrote
What happened to the plastic eating worms? I had my hopes up.
spicy_malonge t1_itsvudq wrote
We've known its mainly just efficient/beneficial to recycle aluminum for ages now, idk why this is suddenly big news
froganddog t1_itsy4md wrote
What about the worm that the scientist found in their beehive ?
Any progress on that?
rmatherson t1_itsyfk2 wrote
Push bio-plastic. We can have our cake and eat it too.
Push bio-plastic.
Arawn-Annwn t1_itt74ff wrote
Bring back glass jars and bottles. Reusable and more recyclable than plastic.
kamden096 t1_ittezkh wrote
Recycling can be Done in many ways: reuse the bottle or melt the plastic and make new bottles, repuropse (as building material or filling etc) or as energy (use plastic as fuel). Using it as fuel in a powerplant is very common. There is even a ”trash market” in europe. Powerplants that use trash as fuel Buy it to be able to produce electricity and heat. Why powercompanies dont do it USA is beyond me. Here the fumes from the plant are filtered so they are clean. Trash in a landfill is a environment hazard.
zmedow t1_ittfq9g wrote
Can we just talk about solutions instead of listing the problem? Plastic is just another carbon chain. It’s not indestructible. Paul Stammets has been developing technology using funguses that eat plastic to basically turn it back into dirt. The article is right, current recycling methods just don’t cut it we to rethink all of this in a massive way
[deleted] t1_ittg9ji wrote
[removed]
Furlz t1_ittnc1a wrote
We need some helpful bioengineered fungi and bacteria working in tandem to eat up all that garbage
maldobar4711 t1_ittnwx2 wrote
It is quite simple - the answer to most problems like this is unlimited clean energy
And it doesn't matter how this is achieved
- renewable
- Thorium
- Fusion
Or a mix of all that 3...
It will be Fusion or potentially anti matter in 2050+/2100+
As soon as u have the clean energy u can undo every pollution if u want to. Capture CO2 from air ..
The only question is, how ugly it gets till we have this stage..and what is best way there
usman280622tech t1_itttz8r wrote
we must halter the overproduction of plastic. need to think of innovative solutions to replace its need
HomeIsElsweyr t1_ittzh2b wrote
Yet in sweden, we have to import norways recycling to keep ours going at full pace
[deleted] t1_itu2kb2 wrote
[removed]
lilmammamia t1_itu2pug wrote
The only plastic bottles I regularly consume are for the white vinegar I use for cooking and cleaning. I drink tap water and I don’t buy soft drinks, juices or things like that.
If plastic bottles are not sustainable and we can’t go back to glass either for other reasons, people need to rethink what they consume. Do you really need weekly liters of Mountain Dew or Ocean Spray in multi packs of individual bottles in your fridge to survive ? It’s just bubbly dyes and sugar.
When I want a refreshing drink, I have pure lemon concentrate in a glass bottle that I dilute in water and it’s like homemade lemonade. That bottle lasts about two months. Or just use fresh lemons.
At some point, we are all going to have to balance our personal gratification vs our actual needs vs how our consumption impacts environment.
camilo16 t1_itxbh8l wrote
Dude I don't think you are thinking about all the plastic we produce and consume.
Your phone has plastic elements in it, the airbags used to cushion items in transit use plastic. The packaging of most consumer goods uses plastic. The packaging of lots of food items such as fruits and vegetables and meat uses plastic.
Go over every item in your house, notice how many items you have that use plastic or came in a plastic packaging. The issue is beyond just consumption patterns.
lilmammamia t1_itxbxz0 wrote
I was replying to a comment thread about plastic bottles vs glass bottles specifically. Every comment one makes cannot possibly encompass the whole plastic issue.
[deleted] t1_itu6ns8 wrote
[removed]
Repulsive_Mistake_13 t1_itujpme wrote
So discovering microbes that eat plastic didn’t change things? I think not. Someone with money produce vats for the recycle center please. The “waste product “ is a product.
xnolmtsx t1_itv8rv7 wrote
Wasn’t there a worm that was recently bred that eats plastic?
blippie t1_itx7oec wrote
A solution that would work is to not produce. Plastic is forced on people, no one asked for plastic. Recycling is a con-job, a guilt trip on the public by the industries that create this crap. Bring back paper and glass, reduce use to begin with.
haraldone t1_itqsvi4 wrote
Single-stream, ie one type of plastic in consumer products, is the only way recycling can actually work properly. Otherwise it is expensive, impractical and bound to fail due to contamination with other types of plastic.
cornerblockakl t1_ittm0tk wrote
Every day 1.3 billion plastic bottles are produced. (Give or take). Just bottles. Every time I see a phony “save the planet” (mostly democrats) politician at a speech or debate with plastic water bottles all around I want them (the politicians) to have to pack all the bottles out in their asses. I remember the derisive stares from grocery checkout clerks if you didn’t use plastic bags, because “save the trees.” Now it’s a royal pain to recycle them. George Carlin does the “plastic will outlive humans” bit pretty well.
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.