Hacker News Reader

Plastic saves lives and reduces waste. Medical devices/healthcare and food packaging are the only proof you need, but it goes far beyond that.

Societal mismanagement has turned plastic in to an environmental disaster/burden. We have only ourselves to blame, not "demon materials".

Recycling is an important tool in material management in a global context. It is not "the solution" and it is not misinformation, or a conspiracy perpetuated by the packaging industry or the plastics industry, or anyone else.

Society was not prepared for the growth or complexities of plastic waste. However, we are perfectly capable of innovating through and out of the current circumstances. This is particularly true as renewable energy becomes more accessible and less expensive. Technologies such as depolymerization, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion are all viable, scalable and in practice to varying degrees. Waste to energy or incineration has a long way to go, but it may prove to be worthwhile through further innovation. I've previously posted about carbon capture as well, which could work on it's own or with processes mentioned above.

It appears to me that the Precious Plastic people are doing good work. I don't think it's fair to diminish or dismiss that good work because we have collectively created a less than optimal system for resource management.

I have had similar thoughts, but it's also worth considering the products that all that garbage protects, whether that's to prevent manufactured goods from being broken in storage and transport, or foodstuffs from spoilage. In either case, not protecting things also wastes huge amounts of resources - which isn't to say that there aren't other options for packaging than plastics.

My post suggests that we need a set of standardised, reusable, washable containers. These containers have a refund value attached to ensure they are returned.

Say for example maybe 150 different sizes and types of containers.

Companies would be legally required to ship their products in these standardised containers, or pay some penalty somehow that is a strong disincentive not to make products that do not fit the standard packages.

I looked into starting a company around this idea about 10 years ago but I don't think the world was ready for it. I think my number was 250 heh. I still don't think the world is ready for it. Manufacturers gain too much from pretty and clean and unique packaging. One solution could be to create a system whereby environmentally friendly dyes could be sprayed onto and washed off the containers to allow for differentiation.

> In either case, not protecting things also wastes huge amounts of resources

Why "also"? It's not about wasting resources, it's about producing poison. When you spill milk, you waste resources, but you do zero lasting damage. When you produce plastic and other things and they, say, end up accumulating somewhere in the food chain, that's an entirely different ballpark.

I wish that were true, but producing that milk and delivering it you required significant use of fossil fuels, which poisoned the environment. My city composts food waste, which offsets some of that, but not all.

Well the big waste is that products are manufactured to be shipped.

Germany prevents local beer from being transportable (as it reduces the flavor and protects local breweries)... has it made German beer less successful?

Absolutely. If they were actually doing worthwhile recycling they would be proudly publishing statistics on it.

We're told to put plastic/metal in one bin and paper in the other. But this includes pizza boxes with bits of food on it; things like pringle cans which are a mixture of paper and metal. And there is all sorts of plastics.

It's simply not believable that they have an efficient means of separating and recycling this mess.

They even have trouble recycling glass; surely the easiest to recycle. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-07/recycling-companies-fo...

Also relevant: http://theconversation.com/australian-recycling-plants-have-...

I believe there's regulatory capture or at least heavy revolving door activity. Politicians retiring and then being put on the board of recycling companies.

And we subsidise them: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/working-together/grants/business-r...

From your profile "I'm also fascinated in the psychology of belief."

If the environmental movement can come to understand how its belief in recycling in fact subverts its goals of environmental protection then the world will start to change.

That's the big thing; when I express doubt about the worth of separating our rubbish into the recycling bins to my wife I get dirty looks at best!

Belief in recycling allows people to avoid the deeply bothering question of why we allow packaging companies to create an infinite flow of garbage. Much of which of course ends up not in ANY recycle bin but throughout the ecosystem.

"I feel OK, I recycle, it's the best we can do."

Aren't we better served by question consumption broadly and our modes of consumption specifically, rather than questioning recycling?

You have both done well to articulate that it doesn't feel right, but do you have any actual proof against the value of recycling? And I don't mean trade-offs, I acknowledge recycling isn't perfect, but there are plenty of statistics that prove it is worthwhile.

To be honest I'm not completely sure. I'd be very interested in those statistics if you can find them.

If you can't find them ... that would tell you something.

Not trying to be trite, but that's why the saying goes:

"Reduce, reuse, recycle, in that order". Recycling is a last resort.

I think GP poster is saying that recycling is a false third option.

It simply doesn't happen except perhaps in the case of aluminum, glass or paper.

If you believe this that deeply, then I'd expect you to have some evidence of the ineffectiveness of recycling – but all I'm seeing here is really rather a lot of nonsense.

In the UK, for example, around 40% of plastic packaging waste is successfully recovered or recycled [1]

It's obvious that this percentage must become higher, and that packaging waste overall should still be reduced. But by taking steps such as standardising materials, reducing colorants and promoting better treatment of recyclables by consumers, there's no obvious blocker to this percentage increasing further, with recycling remaining a useful tool to reduce the environmental impact of plastic consumption.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... – p19

You have entirely missed the point.

Recycling is a smokescreen that distracts us from what the packaging industry is doing, which is filling the earth up with garbage.

Recycling is the excuse mechanism via which we allow ourselves to ignore the packaging industry filling the world with garbage.

It is precisely because recycling is half effective that it is such a good excuse for the packaging industry to hide behind. It's not entirely false! How perfectly magnificent for the packaging industry.... a distraction/smokescreen that isn't entirely untrue!

You have made EXACTLY the argument that the packaging industry wants to hear you saying: "what the heck are you talkign about? Recycling is pretty darn good!". Now the focus is back on recycling, and yet again, the focus is AWAY from the industry that is constantly pouring garbage into the world.

YOU want us to stop looking at the packaging industry and instead praise how 40% good recycling is. I won't do that.

Consider not recycling, but all the garbage that doesn't go into recycling.... into the oceans, the drains, the streets etc etc etc.

YOU are permitting them to get away with it by defending recycling, which is EXACTLY what the packaging industry wants and needs... people like you to stick up for recycling loudly so they can hide behind your loud defense, so the focus is now OFF them and back on recycling.

Without these pointless arguments about recycling, people would be asking the question "Hey, why are we letting this industry pour a never ending supply of garbage into the world".

You, sir, have been played like a guitar by the packaging industry. Please stop playing their game and instead hold the packaging industry to account.

YOU want us to stop looking at the packaging industry and instead praise how 40% good recycling is. I won't do that.

I won't response to the general ad-hominem, but I will point out that I said the exact opposite of that – that we need to reduce excess packaging.

This point, while maybe valid, completely ignores the point of this post (Precious Plastic).

The Precious Plastic shipping container setup clearly is not out to pad the pockets of Big Packaging. It (albeit on a small scale) takes plastic waste and makes various end products, all while being completely transparent to the end-consumer. I think this is a good thing.

What's your take on the use of plastic pyrolysis as a means of handling plastic waste?

I get the core of your message, I think. We should consider the inputs to the processes and minimize those. Focus on the outputs (recycling) does not greatly improve the situation and in fact a fixation on it is counterproductive as it steals focus away from efforts to 'reduce' and 're-use', which are more beneficial in the long run.

I ask about pyrolysis because, although it still focuses on the third R, it does seem to offer a (potentially) clean means to return plastics to their original crude state. This offers some promise that the environmental impacts of waste plastics could be removed by reprocessing, rather than the current option of reprocessing into other plastic products.

You say "packaging", but more than half of packaging is paper, not plastic. Plastic products are extremely valuable to humanity, the plastic manufacturing industry is merely meeting the demand.

Each moment humanity is without plastic is a moment hundreds of millions of people are suffering beyond contemporary compare. If the waste is unacceptable, we have to find something to do with it, because we won't (and shouldn't) stop producing plastic.

Personally I think more paper could be used, and advancements could certainly be made in paper and metal foil manufacturing to reduce reliance on disposable plastics, but painting plastic manufacturers as simple villains is childish and absurd.

I have and it makes me a little sick every time I have to throw out or recycle packaging material. I agree 100% with everything you wrote.

Another example of a smokescreen it "biodegradable". It's complete BS. For an experiment I buried a biodegradable tray in the dirt. Years later it still looks like brand new with no visible degradation.

Northern Europe seems a bit better; I understand that in Germany shippers have to accept their shipping material back, which have let them to package with actual popcorn which can be fed to live stock or simply buried in the ground.

I seem to recall that certain types of plastic that are regarded as biodegradable will only biodegrade in particular conditions, such as with heat or UV exposure. I've no citation for this, it's only a vague memory from something I saw years ago. (YMMV, it's worth what you paid for it, all that kind of thing.)

We should all live like that girl in San Francisco. Simple thread bags, cardboard, glass jars. No waste.

The amount of shit we waste, to be processed is crazy.

That's very insightful and true! But it shouldn't stop wanting to transmute the trash we've already made.