First Eco-Friendly Filter Removing 'Microplastics in Water,'
asiaresearchnews.com
asiaresearchnews.com
We do things that creates enough problem that then cause other problems. But instead of solving the root problems we solve further up the stack and in that process waste further resources. And as a byproduct create more problems.
Examples: instead of banning plastics, instead of throwing it in the water, instead of recycling we go about fixing the micro plastic that keep leeching in the water.
Plastics do decompose slowly, but they certainly do decompose -- especially under sunlight. If they didn't decompose we would have a lot more plastic in the environment than we do now.
Here's a recent study on the rate of decomposition in the ocean: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438941...
We're fixated on growth: when growing more plastic industry seems passe, we leave it on a current level (or just have a greenwashing campaign) and grow another industry to clean up the plastics.
We could dial down the plastic usage and implement some cleaner solutions but that would need some difficult decisions (am I going to have similar profit margins when changing from plastic to paper? what are initial costs?) and perhaps an inconvenience to the consumer (e.g. make bottled water very expensive, bring your own container and refill it using public water faucets).
I hope this will happen sooner than later with as many industries as possible.
Further, I don't think the quite grasp the scale difference between what we used to have made out of alternatives and what we now make out of plastics.
It's not a question of switching to glass, wood and metal, there simply isn't enough of those resources in the world to support however many billion were up to now.
name me a country that didn't increase in plastic usage AFTER banning plastic
We know the harm this stuff causes and where viable alternatives exist, we should start to transition.
Asbestos was a wonder material too. We learn, we change.
One has obvious ecological advantages over the other.
"Most of the microplastic pollution in the world doesn’t come from discarded bottles. It comes from textiles, tyres and city dust. These three sources account for over 80% of all microplastic pollution in the environment and the seas."[1]
Also the world is running out of the sand that's good for making glass (also concrete)[2], so that's not a great solution either.
We should probably just stop using both of them entirely for canned drinks. But that's a tall ask, I know (and I also struggle with).
[1]: https://www.eib.org/en/essays/plastic-pollution
[2]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is...
Also plastic is an issue beyond microplastics as it requires oil and is not really recyclable.
During communism there was a lot of glass recycling being done in my country. Glasses and jars were standardised, meaning there were few modles in circulation and one could clean off the labels and take them to a recycling centre and collect a few pennies for evey item.
How has the water to be prepared? How is it protecting fish? How does it not filter plankton?
Etc
Interesting but questions are there
If I read this text correctly it doesn't cost extra energy but filters as a byproduct of energy generation, and other wording implies it avoids issues of microclogging and requiring replacement (otherwise that wouldn't have been mentioned as a downside of filters). I suppose that does make it a lot eco-friendlier than alternatives.
The part where it only removes 24% of all microparticles means it's not going to be a complete solution however. OTOH that's 24% fewer particles to clog up later filters
It looks like they're trying to do a better job using electrophoresis, which is great!