Hacker News Reader

Comment by berjin | Hacker News Reader

Pollution needs to be stopped at the source. I worry that this will be used by marking assholes, the same ones that invented the so called 'recycling' logo on plastic packaging, to keep on filling the planet with waste as usual. Hey look we don't need to ban anything, make lifestyle changes or assume chemicals are unsafe until proven otherwise because look there is this magic machine that can 'annihilate' our waste.

I put my plastic packaging in a recycling bin that is picked up by the municipality. Everything seems to come in plastic packaging but I try to avoid it where possible. I grow my own vegetables. They like to tell me I'm doing the right thing but I know it all ends up in some poorer country. The consumer doesn't really have any sway at the bottom of the cliff. Ban at the source.

View on HN

> Ban at the source.

I think we need a stricter regulatory mechanism for proving the safety of products that can pose a substantial risk to health or the environment, akin to that of the FDA.

Right now, it seems like you can put something relatively unproven on the market, and by the time we realize it’s unsafe, everyone has become dependent on it.

In response, companies cook up an analog that does the same thing, and the market switches to that.

Eventually, we discover that the analog suffers from very similar issues, and the entire process starts over again.

The bans should (and could) extend to classes of compounds, instead of just some exact compound. They manage to do it with psychedelics, that they haven't with these problematic compounds is probably because industry has a larger sway on legislators than drug enthusiasts.

Yes.

I recommend watching The Poison Squad documentary which digs into the reasons the FDA was formed in the first place. The meat packing industry used to sell a lot of spoiled food containing chemicals unsafe for human health.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuukM9OY-is

Strong arguments, ideally legislation would ensure plastics break down and if not, some sort of breakdown cost incorporated into the goods. But that stifles industry and innovation. Maybe we can have incentives for packaging that breaks down, I believe the technology exists at this point in time.

> But that stifles industry and innovation

Subsidies are what stifles innovation.

I _think_ you are not being sarcastic, but apologies if I am misunderstanding. Allowing industry to externalize costs does not promote innovation. It does the opposite, as offloading those costs to others is effectively subsidizing the behaviour.

Yes on the sarcasm, you bring up a great point. True "innovation" would take into account the optimal outcome, but sometimes that has to be legislated in. As in many industries where regulation improves outcomes for society.

Incentives are good but you still have to watch out for greenwashing lies. If you take a look at carbon credits for instance there is an incentive to plant trees but what happens in reality is quite different; the industry is full of frauds such as not planting out forests that are on someones books. Sure you can use cardboard for a a lot of things but liquids and pressurized goods like soda are difficult. I don't think there is a way to have a biodegradable coke bottle. We need go to standard sizes of glass or s/s packaging. It will require infrastructure and it will cost some money which of course the companies won't like.

> break down

If there exists a use of "«break down»" intended to mean "biodegrade", the term remains too close to "crumble".

You would not eat a bottle, but having tiny chunks of plastic around makes "you eat 5 grams of plastic - one credit card - per <period>" fully credible (i.e. you want it to stay big to stay out of the body - you want materials not to shed themselves around). Crumbling plastic just creates microplastic. Which is relevant, because some actors seem to have confused the goals - transforming vs pulverizing.

(See e.g. https://theconversation.com/were-all-ingesting-microplastics... ; https://theconversation.com/youre-eating-microplastics-in-wa... )

Break down means "to biodegrade" in American English, among other meanings

In the case of plastic, you have a chemical issue. The linguistic issue - the ambiguity and the "poor choice", that plastic will more easily "break down" in chunks, not in de-structured carbon etc. -, can point to that.

We are already seeing some material variations that are strongly ineffective for their intended purpose, and that will contribute more to the diffusion of microplastic instead of (re-)cycling.

This generation's recycling logo seems to be eco-friendly materials.

It's a hard one because cardboard containers and wooden utensils are objectively better. But clearly also serve the interests of reducing political will for legislation against plastics.

A lot of cardboard containers are lined with plastic, and come with plastic lids. So while it's arguably less plastic, it's still too much plastic...

We bought some eco "bamboo" plates for our toddler because he keeps breaking ceramic plates. But they just mix some bamboo fibres into the plastic. It does feel a bit nicer to touch than normal plastic, but I'm not sure how it is more eco-friendly. It's still plastic that's going to end up in a dump.

(That being said, I don't worry too much about the material of something that gets years of use)

You can use shellac-finished wooden plates and bowls. Biodegradable, natural, doesn’t break, lightweight, carbon-neutral material.

Does my head in seeing people put eco plant based labels on disposable ldpe packaging.

It’s still the same plastic even if you change the feedstock.

Logos. Plural. At least in the UK.

Having just looked at boxes in my kitchen I counted 5 different logos that look the same at first glance, except they're not. 3 arrows with a number in the middle, one circular arrow, 3 arrows with no number, and they're the ones I remember.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com