Plastic is cheap and convenient, but its material properties are also advantageous. It's lightweight, allowing more actual product to be transported on trucks. If it breaks, it doesn't make a dangerous mess the way glass does.
We should absolutely work to reduce, reuse, and recycle, in that order of priority, but we need to recognize that other costs exist too, such as more product being damaged and more higher transportation costs (monetary and pollution wise).
All that said, I agree companies respond to incentives, and given sufficient costs, they would lean towards more recyclable products.
No, we shouldn't.
We should primarily work on scaling up our energy production. I was long in favour of nuclear, although apparently there's some exciting development in deep geothermal as well. (inspired by https://elidourado.com/blog/geothermal/ )
We shouldn't even try recycling the plastic, but simply burry it. Oil from the ground, plastic back into the ground.
With enough energy and a viable waste management process in place, we don't need to bother with reducing, reusing or recycling, but can simply enjoy our lives to the fullest.
I'm hopeful, but as far as we know it could take many hundreds of years to solve these problems - they might even be practically unsolvable. So it makes sense to also hedge our bets by making the systems we currently depend on more sustainable, rather than just assume we will transcend them on-schedule.
Small nudge to push innovation in a positive direction is an important tool, but we are getting overboard with control and regulation.
Here in Québec the law forbid plastic bags in stores, but plasticulture, packaging is a far worse problem, the law is virtue signaling instead of pushing for meaningful changes.
There is strong case to be made for progress, more energy, more food, more housing for the whole planet.
In a 100 years we will be so far away in technology that our current problem will seem like a joke.
But I think it important to be careful with things that could never recover: ocean and land diversity, contamination of groundwater/soil.
That said, externalities don't generally get solved without laws. I totally agreed that human progress, technological and otherwise cannot be ignored.
On plastics... It's undeniably true that a large portion of the garbage you might find in the woods, streets, fields, lakes or oceans is plastic. Meanwhile, a lot of landfills and other waste disposal systems suck. They pollute by design, aren't used properly or designed correctly.
It's also true that a lot of that plastic is pretty low value... It doesn't add much to a consumers' wellbeing. If it wasn't available, we'd find alternatives and be fine. Not all the plastic. Some is good value and some is essential. Most though
So... people look at all this mess. Some say "we should just stop making/using it." Others want to stop littering and improve waste disposal. In our inspired age, a common take is "market correcting." Try to internalize externality costs and "let the market work."
None of these are unreasonable. Lame or failed attempts at implementing them are not disproofs of concept. They're just failed attempts... and "politics" is often to blame, making everyone extra upset about the whole thing.
So, yes, I agree. We are progressing technologically, and that is very relevant if we're talking about ecological issues. OTOH, for all our current might, we're pretty impotent when it comes to simple basics like garbage. If plastics did not exist, we'd forgo the convenience of using plastic. We'd gain an end to our plastic waste problems.
So perhaps/probably there are ways of ending our plastic waste problem that are more efficient. If they are higher, than it makes sense to just ban plastic. Where are they? Why haven't they happened? The cost ceiling isn't that high. Low performance.
Why do you believe this? It seems to me that our production of waste and environment destruction has been basically directly tied to our technological progress. Why assume that would change in the next 100 years?
Think about how things have changed in the last 20 years with the internet. How we have improved efficiency all around, started the EV revolution, solar energy, AI, etc.
Same with internet vs before: books, schools, libraries, stores, etc.
Things like facebook marketplace: so much used stuff everywhere. For me it’s very easy to find almost anything I want used cheaply, but when I don’t need it anymore and want to sell it it’s harder (houses are already full to the rafters)
The new generation is not as much interested in stuff, there is too much stuff everywhere.
So I think we are very close to peak stuff and peak humans on the planet.
Furthermore we are being more and more careful about long term thinking our our effects: pollution, ressources, global warming.
I think we are overcorrecting, putting too much emphasis on these things and not enough on humans problems: meaning crisis, depression, suicide, nuclear war.
To me it seems we are very close to a world of abondance and safety, but we still fighting with each others.
We are looking in the rear view mirror to decide what is important, but the future that is coming is very different than the past.
You can look at Tony Seba energy transition just to get an idea of what is coming on the energy front.
We can burn it in an arc reactor or properly filtered incinerator at a lower price than raw oil to produce energy
Simply moving tens of joules of heat to the surface would have the same effect even if doing it affordably weren't scifi.
There's a limited budget of everything on earth's surface from metals to waste heat to space and we're running head first into all of them.
We could spend it on allowing a tiny portion of the world to be wasteful and craven, or we could use it for everyone to thrive.
Current primary energy: 17TW
Total insolation: ~ 180PW
Total GHG forcing: 5W/m^2
Ratio of insolation to total forcing: 40:1
USA domestic and imported primary energy per capita: 14kW
Ratio to world average: 7
Remaining headroom above US averag for 5W/m^2 (catastrophuc climate change): 75kW per person.
Remaining headroom above US average for 1W/m^2 (still bad): 3kW per person
We should primarily work on preparing for a world with reduced energy.
This is the problem that is destroying the planet. It should not be about capitalism.
My pet theory is that we're basically stripping the planet of all of the good, usable materials for "stuff" and plastic is a nice stop-gap to keep prices low. We don't do a good job of recognizing how inflation is tied to resource depletion.
The thinking was that people reused the thin store bags at least once (i.e. as a small trash liner for a work desk). Without those as an option, people switched to buying plastic bags, which were thicker and used much more material.
Personally, we always opt for plastic bags at the store, and they always get reused once if not many times. Paper bags just don't seem to hold up as well for some reason.
There is no one law, this has occurred independently in municipalities across the globe.
It's all gone pretty smooth except for grocery delivery services. Instead of using one time use thin plastic bags, they now have to use reusable bags. That they never reuse. So places like our company that get office foodstuffs delivered weekly, end up throwing away stacks of thick plastic bags.
Apparently though the legislature is working on a fix for this.
What's worse is that they're harder to reuse. Since they aren't resistant to water, there are fewer other uses that they are good for.
Businesses are far and away the biggest offenders when it comes to waste in general and particularly plastic waste. Getting individuals using reusable bags is fine but really doesn't address the biggest offenders.
When I’ve been in Europe I’ve often seen that there are no bags except for fully re-usable tote bags that you have to pay 1-2€ for. It really only takes one instance of forgetting your own bags to teach the lesson.
In terms of plastic use the reusable bags are much better. It doesn’t take too many reuses before a reusable bag is a net benefit. Compared to other energy uses the plastic bags are a tiny amount so I don’t worry too much about that.
According to this Danish study a cotton bag has to be reused over 7k times.
Most of the reusable bags in grocery stores are polypropylene, and those you only have to reuse 37 times. So that is better.
Now I have to buy my trash bags, which are not used twice and used in the same amount as the earlier bags. Also, I used to get much stuff unpacked, the bag was there to not throw a bunch of loose carrots, chicken legs and tomatoes in my carrying bag. Now, nearly everything comes prepackaged, which is single use obviously.
I don't see how my plastic consumption is down. I guestimate it's up.
I'd be interested in any evidence of the former claim.
The theory (and it may be a shit one, and I have no good claims here besides it's fun to discuss) goes like this, back in the day you could get real hardwood pretty cheap. You could build brick homes. Etc. Now you can't (i.e. it's very expensive) and that is reflected in ongoing inflation of the money supply and partially why we decoupled from gold. New technologies and materials can create substitute products, of course, but for many natural resources I think we're basically stripping or have stripped the planet for the time being. Think lobster and salmon, hardwood furniture, pollution, etc.
In reality the president doesn't control the budget. They influence it through an agenda but it's ultimately up to congress. Congress passed a lot of stimulus in response to the pandemic and much of it was bi-partisan.
> When Trump took office in January 2017, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting that federal budget deficits would be 2% to 3% of our gross domestic product during Trump’s term. Instead, the deficit reached nearly 4% of gross domestic product in 2018 and 4.6% in 2019.
> There were multiple culprits. Trump’s tax cuts, especially the sharp reduction in the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%, took a big bite out of federal revenue. The CBO estimated in 2018 that the tax cut would increase deficits by about $1.9 trillion over 11 years.
COVID-19 certainly didn't help, and you are correct that stimulus was largely bipartisan, but in common discussion "blame" for spending is usually assigned to the president and their administration. This can be observed by current members of Congress (Republicans) who have been quick to suggest that Biden has created a huge deficit, inflation, etc. while it's not only untrue but was largely due to actions from the previous administration or Congress before he was president. (In other words for every representative complaining about inflation they should be posting that they were the ones who actually voted for it).
If we were being truthful we wouldn't do this, but if we're going to continue to suggest that the deficit is (whatever insane things people are making up right now to blame Biden on) then it would make no sense to not instead blame any financial problems on the previous administration and keep assigning blame to the President.
W.r.t COVID-19 you can just say the Trump administration did a terrible job and mishandled allocations of money and that's why the deficit increased so much. I personally don't wholly subscribe to that but if Republicans are going to blame inflation on Biden it makes sense to turn around and blame it all on Trump/Republicans instead.
But not only did the COVID stimulus continue once the dems took control, they continued to pass multi-trillion dollar bills (Infrastructure & Inflation Reduction Act) along with a half trillion dollar student loan forgiveness. It's this aggressive spending, while inflation was already rising, that is giving them that reputation.
I'm not taking sides here nor do I want anything to do with Trump. Just laying it out how I see it.
I'm conflicted on student loan forgiveness, but I don't see it as any worse than numerous corporate subsidies and bailouts, and is likely a better use of money than what we normally spend. If this forgiveness bill proceeds forward as it is likely to do, I think coupling it with a measured withdrawal of the federal government from guaranteeing student loans and also allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy would be ideal.
It could still be a major solution. Novelis, an aluminum recycler in Georgia, claims $73m of aluminum are sent to landfills every year. If the southeast boosted aluminum recycling efforts it would drastically increase domestic "raw" materials. (Things like pontoon boats were aluminum limited).
Then do the same for cardboard (hello toilet paper shortage) where recycling paper products reduces energy and water inputs by 50%. Countries like Spain have cardboard thieves while in the US, it goes to the dump.
Plastic bags actually are practically superior to the alternatives in many ways. They are stronger, smaller and more water resistant than paper. They may use less material per trip than reusable bags which take ~50x more resources but are still prone to eventual breakage.
Basically everything about one time use plastics is amazing, except the potential for environmental harm.
It's stronger and easier to handle than plastic; you just need to remember to bring one with you. My partner keeps one in her bag permanently in case she shops on a whim.
But if you can reuse for !years! Are worth the price.
Personally, i reuse a backpack from high school (20 years ago) with a mended zipper. I can carry about 20lbs in it.
However - since the bag ban has been enacted here in Chicago, the amount of plastic bag litter is noticeably less.
Worth banning something? Maybe, maybe not. But I'd take an educated guess that more plastic is reaching landfills vs. waterways due to it - even if the total amount of plastic is more overall.
Or, if manufactures / retailers / etc adopted other options would consumers simply adapt? The problem here is supply side not demand side - consumers have few choices.
Here's a couple counterarguments I hear a lot:
1) "Personal responsibility - if people choose to do the wrong thing that's on them". I think we've seen that choices are influenced by the environment and not largely within the control of any random individual. People are rational actors relative to their situation but that can often mean choices that aren't rational in a larger context.
2) "Too expensive - some people need the cheaper to produce products". I think this is where markets are useful, we should be able to switch up the landscape and have the gaps filled. I think the big risk here is not having appropriate social safety nets in place to cover people while there are still gaps.
3) "Laws should be about what's 'right', not a way to control people". This seems like ultimately the same thing, someone decides what's 'right' and then makes it a law so other people will do it. We generally agree murder is wrong but it get's a lot more hazy with stuff like taxes and clear that it's a way to incentivize behavior.
Another counter-argument by example: if people choose to smoke and I sit in their second-hand smoke I suffer the consequences of their actions. Similarly, plastic waste is not a problem that stops at the individual.
The whole "personal responsibily" argument has always been a lame excuse by companies to offload responsibility to the customer.
Why shouldn't they be allowed? There are many non-plastic things that can't be recycled either. Why should plastic be singled out? As long as the proper disposal costs are being paid (ie. burial at an EPA regulated landfill), I don't see any problems.
Yeah but if they end up using more energy, which one should we go with?
The real problem is that trashing waste is often the least worst solution for our environment. Expensive “green” packaging and recycling, are too often actually worse for the environment. Feel good movements that kill the planet quicker. Often sold to us via industry propaganda but we childishly are willing recipients for mistruth: we collectively want an anodyne panacea where we can continue to consume without consequences, a convenient lie, a palatable excuse.
To fix the actual problem requires giving up our nice things, giving up on our wants, reducing our spending, or reducing population. We cannot accept those requirements, so we all merrily go along with greenwashing denialism.
The two best indicators for your environmental impact are: (1) your income, and (2) your country. I’m guessing you are a well off US citizen: you are the problem. Not some evil corporation.
I know you read the article, but there is a paragraph where they note that types 3-7 can be recycled, but that facilities to do so are not available to a substantial majority of people. That might be why they have the recycling symbol on them.
They also note, somewhat oddly, that the product of this recycling is not used for anything. Odd, because it seems like being used to create other materials is really the most important aspect of being recyclable. Maybe they should have lead with that?
How it making it a profit centre for the government gonna fix anything?