Hacker News Reader

Comment by BelleOfTheBall | Hacker News Reader

There was a similar thread for Germany here recently, and I remember someone saying that most companies will just start using multi-use plastics instead of single-use ones... without reusing them. Is that really likely or am I not foolish to hope that companies will eventually just research and use more biodegradable materials?

View on HN

The "biodegradable" plastics can still take a _long_ time to decompose if not put into a city compost collection bin. The city has to "biodegrade" them via a method different from what you would do at home (throw it into a heap). Wikipedia has a list of plastics that are approved for "home composting" here[0].

Plus, these plastics still take a lot of energy to produce.

I definitely think that multi-use plastics make the most sense, if we can build the supply chain to get there. Sort of like how old glass milk bottles worked: You left them out and they were collected by the milk man.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic#Home_com...

Plastic bags used to be sturdy enough to be multi-use, and I still have a collection of them that I reuse. I'm old enough that I remember when they were introduced, and how much better than paper they were, and definitely didn't think of them as disposable back then --- unlike paper ones.

I think the problem is ultimately the "disposable attitude" of most people, which drove the manufacturers to make them thinner and weaker until they're barely enough for a single use (and also for more profit, of course.) I see biodegradable in the same way as planned obolescence --- the manufacturers can both guarantee that people will keep consuming, while also exclaiming how environmentally friendly they are.

Perhaps most people just don't like reusing things?

The path of least resistance and cost will always be taken.

So if I can sell you a product in a multi-use container, pass the cost to you, and you decide to throw it away after a single use, that's what's going to happen.

If instead it's more affordable to use compostable plastics or non-plastics (e.g. aluminum), then that's what will be done.

My hunch is with low oil prices and the high cost to manufacture biodegradable plastics, the first path may unfortunately become popular (biodegradable plastics runs for roughly 10x standard plastic.)

Perhaps a minimum pricetag then? E.g. a cup or a plate must cost at least $1.00

Here's the recent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23763265

This is what I see in California with the bag ban. People use multi use bags once, resulting in a net increase in plastic use.

This is a hard problem. A ban will not fix it and may have perverse effects like increasing usage and pollution.

What is so damn bad about paper? Paper is mostly renewable (or can be) and is very biodegradable. Why not just make better paper bags

they're not waterproof (or at least, lose structural integrity when wet), and they have worse climate impact than plastic bags.

How do they have worse impact? I thought they're made of renewable lumber and compost better than plastic?

The numbers: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

>I thought they're made of renewable lumber and compost better than plastic?

All of which is irrelevant to climate impact. Taking oil out of the ground, turning it into plastic bags, then burying it is carbon neutral, if we ignore the energy required for processing. This is fair because it also takes energy to process pulp to make paper bags. Composting actually causes co2 to be released, so that's actually counterproductive.

Yes climate impact via co2 load is important. But persistent environmental pollutants is also important. That's the essential problem of plastic.

The ideal is a closed carbon loop, and the primary blocker here is the continued use of oil, coal, and gas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com