Another Dead Whale Is Reminder Of Plastic Problem

But also I think a lot of it is industrial.

[1] A bit frustrating that these were sometimes sold as eco-friendly way to recycle PET bottles.

EDIT: this comment got downvotes. Here's a newspaper article talking about microfibre pollution: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jun/29...

> Multiple studies have shown synthetic fibers to make up the lion’s share of microplastics found in oceans, rivers and lakes, and clothes made from synthetics (polyester, nylon, and so on) are widely implicated as the source of that pollution. Microfibers, as the name implies, are tiny, so they can easily move through sewage treatment plants. Unlike natural fibers, such as cotton or wool, synthetic fibers do not biodegrade, and tend to bind with molecules of harmful chemical pollutants found in wastewater, such as pesticides or flame retardants. Studies have shown health problems among plankton and other small organisms that eat microfibers, which then make their way up the food chain. Researchers have found high numbers of fibers inside fish and shellfish sold at markets.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachid_Dris/publication...

> Synthetic fibers are one of the forms in which microplastics can be found. They derive presumably from synthetic clothing or macroplastics. Different pathways are thought to be an important source of fibrous microplastics in the aquatic environment. It has been shown that laundry washing machines discharge large amounts of microplastics into waste-waters reaching 1900 fibers in one wash (Browne et al., 2011)). During wastewater treatment, synthetic fibers are known to contaminate sewage sludge (Habib et al., 1998; Zubris and Richards, 2005). The sources and fate of microplastics in the various compartments of the urban environment are poorly documented (Dris et al., 2015a); this paper focuses on the atmospheric compartment and investigates the contribution of the atmospheric fallout as a potential vector of plastic pollution

The vagueness of what happens at the recycler coupled with the fact that the packaging industry puts symbols on container that the average person thinks they mean they will be recycled, lead me to believe that a lot of this is done to make us feel better. I think we all should try to minimize the amount of packaging we use. Water bottles and plastic bags are completely unnecessary.

"Almost all plastic in the ocean comes from just 10 rivers" [0] - The source is Deutsche Welle, which appears to be Germany's equivalent of the BBC. [1]

"It turns out that about 90 percent of all the plastic that reaches the world's oceans gets flushed through just 10 rivers: The Yangtze, the Indus, Yellow River, Hai River, the Nile, the Ganges, Pearl River, Amur River, the Niger, and the Mekong (in that order).

These rivers have a few key things in common. All of them run through areas where a lot of people live — hundreds of millions of people in some cases. But what's more important is that these areas don't have adequate waste collection or recycling infrastructure. There is also little public awareness that plastic trash is a problem at all, so a lot of garbage, gets thrown into the river and conveniently disappears downstream."

Someone linked a great map of these 10 rivers in a past thread, but I can't seem to find it.

[0] http://www.dw.com/en/almost-all-plastic-in-the-ocean-comes-f... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle

There's no reason to assume that what goes in a landfill, stays in a landfill. There's the stuff that washes away or blows away during years before the landfill is completely covered up, and then there's the stuff that gradually enters the local water supply afterward.

1. How do we know that the stores actually recycle the items we give them? There are many accounts around the web that most of this stuff (plastic bags, plastic shipping material, batteries, bulbs, ...) is just emptied into a regular dumpster instead of being properly disposed. Have things changed? Do retailers have internal audits for this or is this just empty marketing?

2. Even if the plastic bags are picked up a 3rd party, is it actually recycled or just dumped? Plastic bags are very difficult to recycle and only a few facilities in the country are able to process them properly. Are they somehow shipped to these facilities?

I'm normally hesistant whenever there are new regulations. However, I totally support the mandated purchase of plastic bags. Someone can prove me wrong but I feel that environmental conservation tends to be better controlled and encouraged by pricing instead of just marketing.

Coastal regions are especially problematic in this regard, since all it takes is wind to carry uncontained litter out to sea.

Recycling bins get blown or knocked over distributing their contents on a frequent basis. People collect recyclables from bins in an attempt to earn income, the stuff collected is not reliably delivered to the recycling center. I've seen drunken idiots kick over recycling bins in SF on more than one occasion, from locations with line of sight to either the bay or the Pacific.

Vehicles transporting trash and recyclables are not 100% perfect. I've followed numerous "Recology" trucks in the SF bay area with trash flying out from under the mesh net they use to cover the trailer - it's unattached on the long edges.

Population centers are continuously adding uncontrolled trash to the environment. When they happen to be coastal, much of it goes to sea.

Recycling is most effective at giving people an impression of a 100% closed system and enabling them to continue purchasing individually packages plastic disposable^Wrecyclable goods. The actual implementation of recycling goes off a cliff the moment the bins move outside, but most people don't interact with it after that point, so the theatre is mostly effective.

This isn't even considering the fact that recycling companies are sometimes corrupt and simply dump the waste wherever is convenient rather than fulfilling their obligations.

That’s self evident in a software development context, but I feel like people lose track of that in the real world.

Asking people to correctly sort their trash in to more and more specific categories manually seems like a system set up to fail. People aren’t necessarily that trainable or malleable or conscientious.

Yelling at people to be more careful is only going to get us so far. We need robust systems that can tolerate at least a certain threshold of abuse by the user. The ideal system would require no thought on the part of the user, it would be impossible to break it through misuse.

plastic bags/wrap are really hard to recycle and some jurisdictions have stopped collecting them all together

glass jars are probably the worst though - the energy to transport, sort and reclaim is far greater than making new jars. Some of the most committed recyclers throw them away rather than burden the system.

The problem isn't plastic. It's human nature. We're lazy and default to convenience over respect for Mother Nature.

Getting rid of plastic bags and other low hanging fruit (like straws) might not make a huge difference. On the other hand part of the battle is changing human behavior so starting with low hanging fruit is a good way to get people used to looking for plastic alternatives.

This is one of those situations where something that seems intuitively bad “look at all those plastics bags!” is in no way the real problem.

> The total number used fell from over seven billion a year to less than half a billion in the first six months of the policy, saving 40,801 tons of plastic, which is the equivalent weight of roughly 300 blue whales.

All it will do is support the people who say the problem is exaggerated.

This kind of moral excoriation is not persuasive. You're claiming the moral authority to dictate which things people need, or whether an activity is permissible. You don't have that authority, none of us do, and that you feel passionately about the subject doesn't grant it to you.

Many people, especially artists, engineers, etc. work quite hard at producing such "trinkets" or their livelihoods depend on them. You're not going to persuade them by denigrating them or their work as mere consumerism.

I don't think this is a convincing argument. There are lots of things that we lived without (e.g. antibiotics) that we wouldn't now give up.

We humans are also animals that live in it. I think a first step towards fixing the problem is remembering that there is no meaningful "us versus them" issue regarding the environment.

If you don't know, ask (or better yet, research and educate the rest of us), but don't ask and imply (with no source).

The idea that laws affecting 770 million of the most affluent consumers won't have an impact is laughable. The view of "why should we do things if they aren't", is sad.

There was a study mentioned here on HN a few months ago. If someone wants it I can look it up for them.

There is still a case to be made that we (the more developed world) should practice what we preach and set a good example.

Personally I re-use all my plastic bags and they all end up in land-fill.

[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42456584

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-42512361/why-china-doesn-t-...

#boycottplastic

I was somewhat surprised when I was in the UK (IIRC) and saw apples where sold in packs of six, on a tray of Styrofoam with plastic foil all around.

While in my country it's common to pack fresh vegetables and fruits into plastic bags, those are a fraction of the weight and many people choose not to use them.

Same applies to packaging across the board: bags containing smaller bags containing individually-wrapped sweets are insane. Frozen pizzas packed in two layers of foil plus a cardboard box? The US is actually better in that regard, largely dispensing with the cardboard.

Goodie bags and bottles. That's what killed Earth. Great ain't it?