Hacker News Reader

There are actual reasons different plastics are used in different situations… it’s not just companies saying “ha ha this will be extremely difficult on the recyclers!”

Some plastic needs to be heat resistant, some, it doesn’t matter. Some plastic needs to be easy to tear, some needs to resist tearing. Some plastic needs to be flexible, some needs to be stiff.

Easily removable labels often fall off before they are actively removed.

Restaurants probably tried only paper and their customers complained when the food soaked through and/or the container collapsed.

So what might square this circle is to develop several materials that all can be broken down/recycled by a common process.

Far easier said than done, I'm sure. But someone has to say it before it can happen.

Insert XKCD standards comic here

Manufacturing works very much like software in this regard - i.e. VHS vs BetaMax

Of course there are always reasons. But as long as the costs of recycling are not borne by businesses doing the packaging, the business will always go with the 1 cent cheaper option, even if it makes recycling 100 times harder.

Dumb q: could one stay the catalyst on everything, let the PET break down, then separate from the other polymers?

This is actually one of the use cases the authors discuss in their paper. Sending mixed plastics through this process to extract the PET/PBT containing bits, and send the rest along their way.

The top comment could have been prevented had the OC read the article...

Apparently they did as they know that the article is about PET only.

And as someone who is interested in the discussion and doesn't have time to read the article, I appreciate it.

The first few numbered plastics have different physical properties and can be sorted roughly by physical processes such as floating them on water. Past that you need more sophisticated techniques, maybe robots.

Those clear PET bottles for instance are common and worth recycling, but if a brand makes green PET bottles those need to be separated from the clear ones if you want good-quality clear PET which can be used to make clear PET bottles or blending with a colorant to make green bottles.

Many of the big brands are standardizing on clear PET, both Coke and Pepsi are even using 100% post-consumer bottles in some geographies. In gas stations in upstate NY I frequently see Coke products bottled in 100% post-consumer recycled clear PET bottles.

When the team tested the process on real-world materials like plastic bottles, shirts and mixed plastic waste, it proved just as effective. It even broke down colored plastics into pure, colorless TPA.

-- the article

so that's good I guess

> Why we allow making packages (especially for take-away food from pseudo-paper (which is a paper with plastic coating), which is not recyclable at all and, in fact,

I agree that plastic is in most cases a better solution, however you are wrong to say the paper+PE board can't be recycled. Currently here in the UK they are not collected in household waste, but many businesses are recycling them and there is a lot of capacity available.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/news/ds-smith-makes-100-uk-coffe...

https://www.thefirstmile.co.uk/online-waste-services/busines...

Some of the issues are the collecting and sorting streams, then there are the commercial aspect of how to sell on the recycled material because it needs to be commercially viable.

> "Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses"

The UK has recently introduced Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging legislation where the theory is the brand owner pays for the entire recycling and collection process of any packaging they put onto the market. Note this isn't just takeaway & food packaging, it's everything. The system though is an unworkable mess, it's so complicated trying to track every item of packaging and who is responsible for paying the tax down the entire supply chain.

In Norway I know the ketchup bottles (which is made from PET) changed the labels to be also made from PET, so it could be recycled with automated recycling machines. So I think something like that is what we want. The whole bottle should be recycled as one material.

If you also avoid black colour it should be possible to recycle the plastic with automated sorting machines.

I think there should be a rule that to sell a certain amount of plastic products you should need to gather a certain amount of plastic trash.

Some times recycling, while possible, is not the best solution. Biodegradability makes a lot more sense in a lot of cases.

Very good questions, but the answer is disappointing:

because money

Only in some ways. Mostly it’s due to use case and desired characteristics of the container, one of which can be cost. As another poster noted, different products need different packaging solutions.

That's an important point you're making here...Can you expand on that with an example? A specific use of plastic as a container that gives the desired characteristics...specifically where those characteristics could not be met by another (if expense isn't a consideration) material?

If there are less toxic materials that could "do the job" but are more expensive then it really is about money no?

Prescription canisters (the tamper resistant/child proof ones). You could do without it but you now subject children to accidental ingestion.

Single meal frozen food containers. You need a seal. Some impregnated cardboard can work, but not as well and is full of chemicals to overcome its disadvantages.

Disposable water bottles. You can use metal vessels, they cost a bit more, but doable.

Packaged frozen meats (they keep longer). Not sure there is a good alternative to plastics other than having people buy meats semi-daily from the butcher.

Some plastics need to be heat resistant, others solvent resistant, others flexible, others stretchy, etc. Different formulations give you what you need at a price point.

Yes we could go back to the 1920s but then life would have to be adjusted to the 1920s. You’d need someone to remain “domestic” at home, etc. as more time is needed to carry out house work without the convenience of modern materials.

Thank you...excellent examples. I think this is a conversation though that must be framed correctly. There's a balance between modern convenience, expense etc. and literally the harm we're possibly doing to our endocrine systems. Right now there seems to be very little real repercussions for companies and we have a bit of a corporate Wild West in play here. Surely that must change.

I think perhaps that “possibly” needs to be nailed down a little better

If you look at it holistically, I might get boxed cereal from the grocery store that’s bagged in a cheap, microbe-blocking, shelf-stable and lightweight plastic bag in a cardboard box.

I could also go to a bulk goods store instead and fill a container.

But one of these options is much more convenient… and that’s fundamentally why society is having hell of a time getting rid of plastic. These plastics are bad for the environment but they bring a lot of material properties that other materials like metal, wood or glass don’t provide.

Obviously bagged cereal is a drop in the bucket but this materials calculus is applied everywhere and at every stage.

"Because money" always boils down to "because it requires a lot of resources".

It's not about random pieces of paper with numbers.