Hacker News Reader

Comment by NotQuantum | Hacker News Reader

There's this same argument with recycling, reuse, etc. I.E how many times do I have to use my cloth bag before the resources it took is less than that of a normal paper bag. Recycling is the same way, IIRC, aluminum is the only thing that's cheaper to recycle, energy wise.

I really wish more studies would look into the Energy per Ton for creating our consumer products.

View on HN

That's one thing to consider, but it's ignoring a major aspect - biodegradability. Yes, a plastic bag is in some ways more efficient per ton than a cloth bag but doesn't decompose safely and fast, cloth usually does.

What's worse, adding some inert foreign molecules to the environment, or adding some CO2, excess nitrates, and excess phosphorous, taking down a bit of native vegetation, and revolving some more soil?

I really don't know the answer, but I bet everybody on the anti-plastic crusade doesn't know either. I would really like if somebody cared to do some unbiased studies on this (not the ones full of flaws reinforcing the author desired answer - whatever that it).

You mean, is natural gas extraction and processing more harmful than agriculture and recycling?

It seems plausible that a cloth bag requires a comparable amount of petrochemicals to make than a plastic bag, agriculture is quite fuel intensive and uses a bunch of other nasty chemicals in large amounts, while a few grams of plastic require just a few grams of oil - for me it's hard to tell whether growing sufficient cotton for a single bag (which is quite a bunch of cotton plants) can be done with a few grams of fuel.

Thankfully, this is studied by experts for their entire lives and we don’t have to learn the answers by speculating on Hacker News.

I’ll note that what you’re comparing petroleum based manufacturing to is the most pointlessly intensively harmful and wasteful form of agriculture – growing conventional cotton.

Even without considering the amount of mining required by agriculture, the answer is still non-obvious.

I agree.

>inert foreign molecules

Problem is they're often not inert. The polymers may be, but the bisphenol plasticizers, UV stabilizers, dyes, brominated fire retardants, mold release agents, etc may not be, and they leach out over time.

Do they become reactive inside of living beings? Or just outside due to UV catalyzed hydrolyze?

The molecules I'm speaking of are already reactive. Again it's not just the bulk polymer, there are a bunch of "special ingredients" added to most plastics, plus contaminants introduced during recycling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Plastics_additives

How do we know that microplastics and other particulate in say human bodies or foods are somehow "inert"?

On the bright side, because it doesn't easily biodegrade, it is a form of carbon capture. If you ignore all of its other bad effects.

Taking oil out of the ground and burning part of it to create plastic out of the other part, and then throwing it away or incinerating it, isn't carbon capture :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com