Hacker News Reader

Comment by Angostura | Hacker News Reader

For certain values of 'okay'. There is no doubt that oil and plastics have been hugely beneficial in many respects. The problem is that the cost is now apparent and we must stop gorging on them. Reduction in plastic and oil can only be a good thing but let's not pretend it doesn't require substantial changes in the way that we all live - its not just disposable straws here.

Reading the article, the projection is that this could "cut petrochemical demand growth to one-third of its historical pace, to about 1.5% a year".

That's good enough. I don't want to see reduced growth rate. I want to see shrinkage.

View on HN

> let's not pretend it doesn't require substantial changes in the way that we all live

Actually, I don't really believe this. I do use/consume a lot of plastic, but I find in practice that in the vast majority of cases, the decision to make those items from plastic is an arbitrary one. The market has made decidision on my behalf, and provided me with a range of plastic options, with very few non-plastic options, for an application that has no hard dependency on plastic.

Electronics would be one of the big ones, and can largely be (and often are) made with aluminium* casings. Fittings have similar metallic alternatives. PCBs are something of an exception here: yes, there are aluminium/metallic substrates, but even those are epoxy-insulated.

Most other plastic uses are similar stories: we're provided with a range of exclusively plastic choices by the market, but that doesn't make it necessary on the production end.

Plastic is usually cheaper, yes, but this is a result of a long chain of subsidies, wars, and other market interference. This doesn't reflect true production cost.

* Worth noting, the environmental impact story for aluminium/other metals isn't too great either, but that's a separate topic.

You don't need subsidies for injection molded plastics to be massively cheaper to produce than any comparable material. Machining aluminum is very expensive, and die casting metal requires much more expensive tooling than plastics.

Also the choice to use petrochemical plastic rather than plant derived plastic or some equivalent non-plastic is mostly "because it's there". The industry exists, so its products are cheaper in the supply chain, so by the time you get to consumer level all the decisions have been made and it's the only choice offered.

Well the world is bigger than your view, needs or experience. There are many industrial appliances where plastics is not only cheapest, but also the overall best solution. Same would go for example for medicine.

Can it be fully replaced? Yes, but it will really take quite a bit of effort, or even going back to already phased out tools and materials.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post: I think we agree.

It would take an almost impossible effort (I'm not optimistic) on the part of industry. The only point I was rebutting is that our day-to-day consumer needs could not be met without plastic without significant lifestyle change by private individuals. I don't believe that this is true.

But yes, the change required on an holistic level is pretty much insurmountable.

The true cost of plastic is cheaper by far than aluminum or other alternatives. Injection molding and other plastic technologies are miraculously productive and energy efficient compared to many other forms of production.

The U.S. produces 12,000,000 barrels of oil per day. 4,380,000 barrels per year. According to https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/14/u-s-tax-code-4-6-billio..., we also subsidise this production by $4B per year, or about a dollar a barrel.

If you are saying that a $1 per barrel subsidy for oil causes the cost of plastic widgets to shrink appreciably, I think you are very wrong.

If you are saying that the total cost of the Iraq war should be rolled into the cost of plastic widgets, I think you are very wrong.

> If you are saying that the total cost of the Iraq war should be rolled into the cost of plastic widgets, I think you are very wrong.

I am saying that. I'm also saying the cost of the lifecycle of plastic production and recycling/disposal, including environmental cost (which we have plenty of proxies for these days in terms of representing using economic metrics) should be rolled in.

(and yes, the same goes for aluminium: it too has ancillary costs to consider)

Plastic is revolutionary in the medical field, that may be one of the final niches where its use cannot be prevented.

This is fine. There are niche uses for every material. The idea is for it not to be the default for every possible application.

> That's good enough. I don't want to see reduced growth rate. I want to see shrinkage.

Perhaps you mean that's not good enough?

I, too, want to see the oil industry shrink. To my mind, it's downright dangerous to devote such a large part of the global economy to an industry that is literally putting our planet in peril.

The larger conversation we need to have, however, is what a post- growth economy should look like.

I did mean not thank you :) I also agree about the conversation about post-growth

I think OP's comment was a commentary about the oil industry, rather than oil and derivate products themselves.

As in, there might be a lot of downsides to reducing or getting rid of plastic use, but the fall of oil giants is not one of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com