Tackling plastic pollution: ‘We can't recycle our way out of this’ | Hacker News Reader

Tackling plastic pollution: ‘We can't recycle our way out of this’

france24.com

86 pointsbelter83 comments

Then the mindless obsession with "keeping plastics out of landfill" leads to the terrific sounding idea of putting waste plastic into roads.

Where it is ground down by cars and trucks into microplastics and enters waterways, the soil, animals, food, the air and people.

But hey, at least it's not in landfill, right?

This is a path that India has pushed down very hard, with lots of plastic roads "reducing pollution".

Many vested interests are astroturfing Twitter too, about how wonderful plastic roads are.

You can look forward to microplastics in absolutely everything courtesy of the road outside your house.

Apparently this is what they do with wind turbines in Europe.

With what? I’m pretty sure they aren’t making alloy aluminum/plastics. So what parts do you mean?

When the turbine gets old they crush up the blades and put it in concrete for roads and bridges. They also make them into plastic pellets which get put into alloyed things like manhole covers, so you are wrong. Not sure why the downvotes and aggression.

Maybe referring to recycling blades[0], but that's not the same as taking random plastic waste and turning it into blades.

0: https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/13/23594847/vestas-wind-ener...

The road outside your house is probably the largest source of microplastics in your life already. Tires rubbing on them makes a staggering amount of microplastics! Production rates go up with weight, so these new BEV trucks and SUVs are an absolute horror show on that axis too.

The plastics need to be stopped at the source. The plastic recycling logo is a meme created by some PR geniuses trick us into accepting pollution and passing the problem down to the public.

No institution wants to tell you it's all a lie. My municipality pick up this trash under the name of 'recycling' meanwhile some naive people are busy washing out single use containers.

Decades ago when plastic was more expensive society did it right. For example Milk and beer was sold in glass bottles you'd return. Jack up the price of these nasty materials and suddenly the easiest thing to do is actually 'recycle'.

Exactly: plastics recycling is a genius jedi mind trick from the oil industry.

The penny dropped for me when taking the family plastics waste to our recycling drop off. There was a notice saying you couldn't put thermoformed pet items (Raspberry clamshells) because if that stuff was found in the 40' container the entire load has to be dumped in landfill. Thermoformed PET has the same number as molded PET (water bottles). I think "whaaaat are those symbols with numbers for then???" pulled out my phone, did some searching and discovered that the entire scheme is BS.

The problem with plastic recycling is not that it doesn't work. It doesn't, of course, but that's not the problem with it.

The problem with plastic is that it leaks into the environment. The only problem with a landfill solution for plastic is that not all of the plastic makes it into the landfill.

Wouldn't plasma gassification be a much better way to recycle plastic? In theory it might even give a way to recycle some of the metal that makes its way there.

That requires a lot more infrastructure than a hole in the ground.

Infrastructure creates jobs and inspires tech progress, and holes in the ground take up space

Yes, various types of burning with energy recovery are better than landfill on various metrics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy

You can extract metals from the ashes as you mention.

For regularly used things like drink containers it's not quite as good as recycling them though.

And as more renewables enter the grid, theres less fossil fuel to displace but if the RDF (resource derived fuel) can be stored then it acts as a kind of storage.

The problem with glass bottles is that they're heavy so transporting them results in far higher carbon emissions than making the plastic bottle.

And you can't drop them, you can't crush them to make them take up less space in the rubbish... they are objectively worse in all regards I can think of

They don't go in the rubbish as they are completely recyclable

Imagine how bloody annoying it would be if we had to bring a bag full of empty glass bottles to the supermarket every time we wanted them refilled. Thank God for plastic

I mean you’re going to the supermarket anyways, what’s the problem with taking a few bottles along with you?

Carrying weight on the way to the supermarket is worse than carrying no weight on the way to the supermarket... plus everything I already said.

Ok but like you’re carrying weight right back. Is it really that hard to put a couple of bottles in your car or bike?

I walk. It's like 10 minutes to the supermarket. So I'd rather carry weight for 10 minutes, on my way back, instead of 20, both ways.

This discussion is a waste of time. There are two options. One is easier than the other. Like everyone else, I want to take the easier one. Period.

The easiest option of dealing with plastic waste is just throwing it out your window and letting the litter pile up. Obviously people don’t do this because it has negative externalities that are undesirable.

convenience has a price. it's worth considering what that price is, especially in aggregate.

Imagine living 5 minutes from the supermarket. Then you could walk 5 minutes one way, and 5 minutes the other, adding up to 10 minutes total. Problem solved.

Yeah but this doesn’t scale. Like, there’s an assumption in these conversations that okay — glass bottles are better, but does that mean that now I’m going to hold on to and reuse every single glass bottle I ever receive from now on? Realistically? Then extend that to everything you use.

I can imagine ending up with a house full of glass bottles. Where does it reasonably stop for the individual?

The conversation also highlights that our intuitions about what the most environmentally friendly thing is can’t be trusted.

Individuals can’t solve this, that’s for sure.

Back before plastics took over everything, not all products were packaged in glass containers. Many were packaged in metal, paper, or cardboard containers. Examples:

    Glass container (not reused): Ovaltine
    Paper container (not reused): Chips Ahoy cookies
    Cardboard container (not reused): washing detergent powder
    Metal container (not reused): Hershey's chocolate powder

I believe that the health and environmental issues caused by plastics are far more bloody annoying.

i do this and it is not as annoying as you're making it out to be. you get used to the process and, as a reward, you and your fellow earth inhabitants don't have to deal with all of the waste later.

Having to move and handle all that glass might be good physical exercise for many. So, it's even more of a win-win.

When I was a kid glass reuse was the norm. Yes, you take the large soda bottles back to the supermarket. Everyone did it and it wasn't a big deal.

Which might be solved with a switch to EV delivery vehicles

Not driving at all is better than driving an EV vehicle.

I just drove an EV from Palm Springs to Seattle without much issue. I actually really enjoyed it. Much better than an ICE road trip.

I was going to ask for a citation but a quick search gets me this:

https://theconversation.com/ranked-the-environmental-impact-...

I see in shops drinks bottled thousands miles away (cheap transportation and economy of scale makes it profitable). May be with the sift to glass production will be more distributed and close to consumers.

How and why are you so angry about this?

Lifecycle analysis seem to show potential benefits but you seem bizarrely sure that it not only doesn't work, but it's some dark conspiracy to attack the noble landfill industry and poison our pristine roads.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343789799_Recycling...

It's not like standard asphalt is made of rainbows and sunshine:

> asphalt, black or brown petroleum-like material that has a consistency varying from viscous liquid to glassy solid. It is obtained either as a residue from the distillation of petroleum or from natural deposits. Asphalt consists of compounds of hydrogen and carbon with minor proportions of nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen.

I have a neighbor who was looking at those plastic boards some people will use instead of wood for a patio. He goes to the factory for this big presentation with an audience and they start talking about the boards being made from recycled plastic. My neighbor wants to know how much recycled plastic was in each board...the guy gets evasive and the neighbor presses him, and come to find out it was the bare minimum legal requirement to label them as being made from recycled material. It was some stupidly low amount, like a single water bottle or plastic bag per batch.

The problem is why "bare minimum legal requirement" is so low?

Excellent question, you should ask your representative in the next townhall

Few people remember it, but before plastic packaging there was cellophane. A cellulose based wrap, essentially transparent paper, biodegradable. Early versions weren't moisture proof, but this was fixed later.

I'm sure there are nowadays other, more modern, biodegradable alternatives to plastic packaging. Though apparently they are not as cheap as plastic.

Cheap to produce. The true cost is for the commons to absorb. (Quite literally, thanks microplastics in food!)

Unfortunately!

We could also replace most synthetic fibers with cotton, I assume.

Time to go back to bottles and paper. But, right now bottles, and paper are not recycled in any significant amount.

We are starting to see the costs of "cheap" plastics, this will probably take more then was saved in costs + some to cleanup. Time to force these companies to start paying large amounts for the cleanup.

As a very young child, I remember there were paper drives a few times a years were people would save their paper for these drives. The paper was then recycled. Bottles were also recycled also.

I assume you mean GLASS bottles (since the plastic ones are part of the current problem), we recycle about 1/3 of those in the US[1], but in the EU the rate is more than twice that at present[2]. Paper is even better, depending on the form, for example 96% of all cardboard is recycled in the US (which I take it is driven primarily by businesses).

1: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...

2: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1258851/glass-recycling-...

Glass bottles can be re-used, not recycled. That's how milk was delivered when I was a kid. Milkman took the empty bottles.

For sure, I know in Germany reuse of beer bottles is still common, if not without a few gotchas[1]. Clearly one advantage of glass and paper both is that they are not nearly as polluting as plastics when the aren't recycled, glass is just silica, paper breaks down pretty quickly.

1: https://www.dw.com/en/german-beer-producers-running-out-of-b...

Yes, glass bottles.

As a very young child, I remember there were paper drives...

Newspaper drives. Like, you let your newspapers that are printed on real wood pulp pile up, then the Boy Scouts come and pick that pile up. But two things:

1. Who the hell still gets a physical newspaper anymore? (Yes, we all know you do, Captain Pedantic.)

2. Were I a physical paper subscriber, I would toss it in the recycling bin (a dearth of which were why we had "paper drives" back in the day) when I'm done.

Bottles were recycled, yes, and Federal law requires that every time the topic comes up that we all be reminded that glass bottles weigh a fuckton, and the extra fossil fuels required to tote them around might make it a net loss on environment-saving. Though I'll admit I've not seen solid numbers (as in, perhaps a real study) one way or the other.

Something I often wonder about this is how much are the assumptions about the fuel cost of transport based on the current economic mode?

For example, if we outright banned plastic bottles, would that incentivise a more distributed network of recycling and bottling centres, bringing the transport costs back down?

Likewise, I see similar statistics around plastic packaging reducing food spoilage during transport.

To a know-nothing like me, it feels as though the real effect would be lessened by the economy finding a new equilibrium in response to a plastic ban, but I have no idea how much we might expect that effect to be, or what kind of timescale and capital investment it might require.

There are zero waste alternatives that don't even need to recycle. You just wash containers when they are returned and then re-use them. I honestly would prefer that to all the junk in weird boxes and marketing that intentionally makes it harder to shop. I started buying spices in bulk lately and it's less than 1/10 the cost of packaged spices...

https://ecocart.io/zero-waste-grocery-shopping/

Mail spam not only produces more trash than newspapers, it also uses types of paper that are less recyclable.

$4 in the U. S. makes most of it go away:

https://www.dmachoice.org/static/about_dma.php

After a few years, some new stuff slowly creeps back in, but for the most part what shows up in my mailbox is stuff I care about.

Or, you can get on the "Deceased Do Not Contact List" for free :)

https://www.ims-dm.com/cgi/ddnc.php

> Time to go back to bottles and paper.

In the 90's, it was all about saving the rainforest and reducing paper usage. Which led to the rise of plastic bags and bottles.

Turns out - doing what sounds and feels good is often completely unscientific. A la banning plastic straws...

> A la banning plastic straws...

...and replacing them with paper straws containing PFAS:

https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Biodeg...

The fundamental problem is there are too many humans on Earth

There were never "cost" savings. Look up "negative externalization"; this has become (or, arguably, always has been) the modus operandi of capitalism.

I'm not entirely sure many paper containers are better than plastic. Many times they end up in some combination of paper and plastic, or paper, plastic and metal. Which makes them impossible to recycle.

“There’s a myth with plastic recycling that if the quality is good enough the plastics can be recycled back into plastic bottles,” says Natalie Fée, the founder of City to Sea, a UK-based environmental charity.

“But as it goes through the system, it becomes lower- and lower-grade plastic. It's down-cycled into things like drain pipes or sometimes fleece clothing. But those items can't be recycled afterwards.”

It is therefore difficult to make the case that recycled plastic is a sustainable material, said Graham Forbes, Global Plastics Campaign leader at Greenpeace USA, in a statement this week."

>It's down-cycled into things like drain pipes or sometimes fleece clothing.

essentially, it keeps getting recylced until it turns into microplastics and we eat it.

... and we breathe it in.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35977640/

I hate plastics. But I hate things that say “made from x% recycled plastic” more and avoid those - just to vote with my wallet that it is not an acceptable solution.

A simpler way is to just burn it for fuel. And use it to replace the oil to energy production currently in place.

Or maybe we could liquify and pump it back down to where the oil was.

I suppose you're potentially using a lot of energy to do this, but its better than just releasing the pollution imho.

Or we could at least drastically reduce use of plastics. We should start off with disposable plastic stuff.

That doesn’t solve the current plastics.

More energy consumption means more CO2 unless there is too much power generated from emissonless tech which won’t be the case for a while.

So might as well burn it.

Denmark has done this successfully. They now import garbage from the EU b/c they ran out of their own to burn.

What’s the remains of burning plastics? Are there any toxic remnants?

Dioxins, mostly from chlorinated plastics.

Won't there be toxic remains?

Not if you're running a flame hot enough to guarantee complete combustion; this is the difference between a proper waste incinerator and a burn barrel.

Plastics are hydrocarbons; nothing special going on there.

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks.

there are many additives in plastics so often they're not only hydrocarbons. BPA, PCB, flame retardants, colors and UV protection, etc

We can burn plastic as fuel in a proper incinerator, the fuel can power the incinerator, and we can achieve a damn-near perpetual machine with the amount of plastics we have.

(I'm being facetious, of course)

Chlorinated plastics produce dioxins when burned.

Or break it down to gasses or oil and make new plastic with that.

Single use plastics and plastic packaging need to be banned worldwide for most use cases, instead there’s more and more plastic and the packaging is getting thicker and more elaborate…

I can already hear the chorus of “but”… and this is why micro plastics are in everything from in vitro baby guts to the bottom of the Marianas trench

https://www.reddit.com/r/ZeroWaste/wiki/index/

Some of the posts in that sub reddit go to the extremes. Probably wasting more energy re purposing than actually saving by not replacing.

Probably too expensive but how about throw it out into space, towards the sun (making sure it won't land in orbit)?

Getting stuff to sun is actually extremely costly energy wise. We are going around sun very fast. And we need to kill that speed. There is no atmosphere like we do when getting stuff back to earth.

It doesn't really need to make it to the sun, as long as it leaves orbit and goes into deep space

Reply on news.ycombinator.com