Textiles are non negligible, but packaging is almost certainly a better target for inexpensive impact. Tons of stuff doesn't need plastic wrapping.
If that's what you're concerned about, a focus on textiles is warranted.
I'm not aware of any major use of plastic where going backwards in time is on-net more environmentally friendly. Most reports discussing plastic replacements make unreasonable reuse and durability assumptions. Often they ignore or downplay consequences of switching like increased transportation pollution or pollution from assumed recycling.
Literally all of them. They reduce plastic pollution to 0. CO2 pollution is not the driving factor behind plastic reduction.
That's one situation where I think "doing something" for the sake of it is the worse option.
Only with the following assumptions:
- "0 plastic" is a hollow marketing claim and not a real thing (what do you even mean by that?)
- the overall effect on Earth's biosphere is worse with no plastic than with plastic
Neither of those is obvious so it's counterproductive (and suspicious) to be pro-plastic here.
Plastic use is a tradeoff, removing plastic has side effects that need to be addressed. "0 plastic" is a marketing claim because it doesn't guarantee it puts us actually in a better place.
To take a simple example: let's say tomorrow we replace all the plastic in cars with metal. Would the manufacturing required to get that metal in place, and the additional energy needed as the cars get significantly heavier counter balance the amount of plastic that won't be released in nature ? I'd wager that no, that would be a stupid idea, even if it reduces plastic.
And there's an infinite number of other stupid ideas to reduce plastic. That's why "0 plastic" is meaningless, what matters is if there's an actual improvement, including keeping using plastic where we don't have better alternatives.
It's only a marketing claim if it's used in marketing. It can also be a statement of fact... Plastic pollution and CO2 pollution are separate phenomena and we could theoretically achieve 0 plastic and that could be a genuine victory for the problem of plastic pollution.
Anyway I realize my initial statement came off strong. I want to be clear I'm not saying zero-plastic is the goal we should actually be pursuing. But "Net environmental effect" is so complicated as to maybe not even be measurable. Are we talking about extinction rate? Biodiversity? Cancer rate of wild animals? Ecosystem collapse?
Additionally - as many ways as there are to evaluate our effects on the biosphere, there are ways to address the problems. Plastic reduction doesn't have to mean 1:1 replacement; that would be shortsighted. Holistic societal changes are necessary, and I think we're actually both agreeing on that. E.g. don't replace plastic car parts with metal - get more cars off the road.
Hemp is only used a low scale so I don't think we have enough data on what would happen if tomorrow we decided to replace all the plastic bags with hemp bags and how we'd produce that. It's not guaranteed to be better until then.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_paper
It's complicated.
- new growth is monoculture, and we're having health issues coming with it (Japan is trying to do something about its pollen problem, but not until two decades from now). It's also more fragile areas, including geologically.
- new growth also means the process that took centuries to build forests is not starting either.
- if the plan is to produce more paper (replace current plastic use with paper use) we can't just keep the current tree farms. It will be expanded and eat up on the legacy forest, as it needs the right niche to efficiently grow.
On the last point, if we were really good at farming new trees, we'd have tree fields not far from manufacturing centers. That's not the case, we're still relying on favorable places where forests used to grow, which doesn't bode well for further mass production in the future.
I will agree that monoculture is no good and neither is taking over virgin forest, but this isn't exactly the only industry on this planet that behaves like this either. Rather than trade paper for plastic we can instead consider how we protect virgin areas from any sort of development. Monoculture is also a risk for industry in the form of crop loss from disease, so I wouldn't be surprised if this begins to change in the future and we see more polycultures farmed, not just in trees either. So if there is a plastic ban favoring domestic paper products instead, as well as sufficient protections in place for existing virgin forest, you can probably expect the value of a tree farm to go up to the point where people who might be using their land for one thing being more inclined to farm trees on this land.
We should really look for more lower hanging common sense solutions.
Let me give you one… the boxes that are used to transport food to a grocery store are all crushed and go back into the recycling system as bundles. Why aren’t we sending boxes that can be used in place of paper and plastic bags? It would immediately offset a lot of purchases that require bags.
Costco does it. Sam’s Club sometimes too. But manufacturers don’t make boxes designed for the purpose of a second use before recycling, and the vast majority of stores don’t offer it.
That would take a waste stream and give it a second use before being recycled.
Simple, common sense solutions like this one are all around us but we keep looking for a “solution” rather than an “improvement.”
Whatever you do to producer, it will affect consumer.
Increase cost of production? Cost of product increases.
Decrease production output? Cost of product increases. (Assuming demand did not change)
Forbid a product? Consumer looks, for next best alternative which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick).
Regulate prices? Output is reduced. To fill in the gap, consumers look for next best alternative, which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick)
The only alternative is for consumer to stop desiring the product somehow. E.g by changing of definition of “good” via education, morals or religion.
It doesn't work for everything but it's the exact playbook we followed for LED lightbulbs.
Trying to chase at least a tiny bit of “technically correct”: during subsidisation period, consumers are the ones paying for it with their taxes.
My guess would be fishing nets. These are the main source of plastic pollution in the ocean.
Per unit length of netting with the equivalent strength, cotton/hemp netting will weigh more, require more frequent replacement, require horrible preservatives which will leach into the marine environment, require more fossil fuels to till and fertilize the cotton, consume more freshwater in production, result in more top soil loss due to mono-cropping, need more pesticides, etc.
Direct plastic pollution in the ocean would be reduced yes, but at the cost of higher pollution and environmental degradation elsewhere.
Humans nor nature have a way of dealing with the myriad of plastics and the way it degrades (or doesn’t).
“Horrible preservatives” sounds like injecting FUD. Hemp also doesn’t require fertile soil, so the fertilization overhead is also less.
While there are use-cases where plastic is indispensible, it’s outweighed by the completely asinine usecases.
The premium "not from concentrate" orange juices contain additives not required to be listed on the packaging.
Great value "natural flavor" chocolate syrup contains vanilin (artificial vanilla). So I guess the natural part only applies to the chocolate and not other flavors used.
Many "100% alpaca" socks contain other fibers too (elastics, etc).
The list goes on...
Edit: why disagree? You can even see stuff like "100% cotton with Scotchgard" or the sublimation process used on clothes. Want to share any evidence to the contrary or tell me why it's wrong?
No: Cotton is chemically treated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrinkle-resistant_fabric
Perhaps you are thinking of "However, almost all the wrinkle resistant garments are made with poly/cotton blends fabrics."
A quick review of Wikipedia indicates dimethylol ethylene urea (DMEU) is used to crosslink the cellulose polymers itself.
Cotton is already a polymer (albeit a bio-degradable one). DMEU is not a polymer/plastic in its own right.
As far as I was able to see, permanent press is biodegradable.
Humans on the other hand might have tougher time during each next century.
I would add that it is also not true that life will bounce back; Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the vast majority of which time it was inhabited by no more than microbes; and we have 1 billion years left before the sun boils the oceans. Humans are the first technological civilization the Earth has seen, and will likely be the last - there isn't time for another go-around.
Addendum: I googled "akshually the planet will be fine" and the top result was this[0] HN thread. Even has the "one amoeba" line. Is anyone working on some sort of platform that can crosslink parallel discussions so we don't have to have the same discussions over and over ad nauseam forever?