[HN Gopher] The recycling myth: A plastic waste solution littere... ___________________________________________________________________ The recycling myth: A plastic waste solution littered with failure Author : laurex Score : 231 points Date : 2021-07-31 13:42 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | samstave wrote: | And dont forget that California looted the CRV fund that was | supposed to go to help pay for these programs and spent/stole the | money for other things... NPR had a story on it a few years back. | | https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=npr+story+on+california+crv... | mothsonasloth wrote: | Renewlogy sounds like the Theranos of recycling. | pessimizer wrote: | No, Theranos's entire purpose was to attract huge amounts of | investment. Renewology is filing for $250,000 grants and has | garbage piled up behind an empty warehouse. Renewology is one | of many excuses propped up by the oil industry as a reason for | us to continue to produce disposable plastic (or to produce | even more disposable plastic.) | throwaway984393 wrote: | I love this classic journalistic style. No editorializing, simply | stating collected facts - and actually following up on | information, and then reaching out to all parties for comment, | and publishing it, whether it fits "the narrative" or not. I know | pop journalism will never go back to this style, but I wish we | could make it popular so that people don't lull themselves into | seeking entertainment over information. | aurizon wrote: | On the face of it, this is like a bottle deposit - an incentive | to return the glass bottles = clean, check and refill. This works | well with beer/soda bottles made of glass. Enter plastic bottles. | The soft nature of plastics make wash/test/inspect/re-use | impractical with a high fail rate(unless you started with better | bottles) makes recycled bottles cost more than new ones. The | basic nature of packaging must be changed so the life-cycle cost | is applied at the front end. So Coca-Cola sells a 1 liter of coke | = they pay a recycle cost of - say 39 cents and that is collected | by an account bot, which prints a unique ~48 bit unique ID on the | bottle and which follows to the recycle end and which can be | redeemed to grab and segregate the bottles into unique piles of | pure plastic and the bot tallies and funds each stage = the | motivation that replaces altruism to make it happen. Money works | this way, if you throw away or lose money, people will 'recycle' | it... I feel the only way to deal with the amount of trash we | create is to interdict the production in the first place (if | possible) and to adequately monetize the trapping and re-use of | whatever waste we make. We are in a 'stern chase', so it will | take years. The border is a good check point. Imports bar code | and the fee charged at importation - no matter how they | wiggle/squirm/lobby - they must pay the end case recycle/reuse | fee up front. Same for all domestic manufacturers. It will take | years to implement, but the crap in the ocean has taken years to | build up = the build-down will take as long - but it must be | done. | jvanderbot wrote: | I agree with the sentiment of the article: Inter-state and global | companies making cost-saving moves to plastic benefiting big | plastic producers and passing the pollution blame to consumers / | local governments is a move we've seen far too often. | | > The trouble, it said, was that Boise's waste was contaminated | with other garbage at 10 times the level it was told to expect. | | > Boise spokesperson Colin Hickman said the city was not aware of | any statements or assurances made to Renewlogy about specific | levels of contamination. | | Classic. There's definitely contamination level agreements for | recycling companies, which Renewlogy probably got, yet Hickman | said he never made statements or assurances to Renewlogy. (Which | is probably true -- they were communicated to the recycling | pickup companies!). | | And hang on: | | > It's being trucked to a cement plant northeast of Salt Lake | City that burns it for fuel. | | That's ... a win? | | > Most of those endeavors are agreements between small advanced | recycling firms and big oil and chemicals companies or consumer | brands, including ExxonMobil Corp, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and | Procter & Gamble Co (P&G). All are still operating on a modest | scale or have closed down, and more than half are years behind | schedule on previously announced commercial plans, according to | the Reuters review. | | Sounds like the ``perpetrators'' are funding possible solutions | instead of shutting down entirely. Demonizing this is not going | to help, you know. | softwaredoug wrote: | Honest question: isn't putting plastics in landfills the ultimate | form of carbon capture? Or is there a version of doing this that | is net negative carbon? | dccoolgai wrote: | I remember when the film "plastic China" came out and blew the | lid off this whole "industry". Looking back, I think it's in the | running for one of the most impactful works ever produced on | film. | antattack wrote: | We need to disincentivize use of food containers that are hard to | recycle. | | For example: Some yogurt containers are pure plastic with paper | ring around that has text/graphic. After use paper ring is easy | to take off and plastic easy to recycle and better quality. | | Also, I recently found that black plastic is not being recycled | at all because it's impossible for current technology to sort it | (because it's black). | fmajid wrote: | The EU is banning single-use plastic. | antattack wrote: | Are yogurt containers considered single-use? What would they | use instead? | dang wrote: | Recycling threads, recycled: | | _Oil Companies Touted Recycling to Sell More Plastic_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24454067 - Sept 2020 (232 | comments) | | _How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be | Recycled_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24441979 - Sept | 2020 (313 comments) | | _Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24440516 - Sept 2020 (395 | comments) | | _Plastics pile up as coronavirus hits Asia recyclers_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23040674 - May 2020 (19 | comments) | | _' Horrible hybrids': the plastic products that give recyclers | nightmares_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22927072 - | April 2020 (40 comments) | | _Industry spent millions selling recycling, to sell more | plastic_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22741635 - March | 2020 (105 comments) | | _Coke and Pepsi are getting sued for lying about recycling_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22467015 - March 2020 (170 | comments) | | _Is Recycling a Waste of Time?_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22318165 - Feb 2020 (94 | comments) | | _Recycling Rethink: What to Do with Trash Now China Won't Take | It_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21837414 - Dec 2019 | (152 comments) | | _The Great Recycling Con [video]_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21742196 - Dec 2019 (77 | comments) | | _How Coca-Cola Undermines Plastic Recycling Efforts_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21303618 - Oct 2019 (132 | comments) | | _All plastic waste could be recycled into new plastic: | researchers_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21297639 - | Oct 2019 (150 comments) | | _We asked three companies to recycle plastic and only one did_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21102560 - Sept 2019 (64 | comments) | | _Exposing the Myth of Plastic Recycling_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21043986 - Sept 2019 (17 | comments) | | _Plastics: What 's Recyclable, What Becomes Trash and Why_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20762789 - Aug 2019 (215 | comments) | | _Smart plastic incineration posited as solution to global | recycling crisis_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20728911 | - Aug 2019 (84 comments) | | _' Plastic recycling is a myth': what really happens to your | rubbish_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20726689 - Aug | 2019 (63 comments) | | _Americans ' plastic recycling is dumped in landfills_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20549804 - July 2019 (282 | comments) | | _Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20433851 - July 2019 (336 | comments) | | _I work in the environmental movement. I don't care if you | recycle_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20134641 - June | 2019 (15 comments) | | _Why Recycling Doesn 't Work_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19889365 - May 2019 (216 | comments) | | _Reycling Plastic from the Inside Out_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19844551 - May 2019 (46 | comments) | | _Bikes, bowling balls, and the balancing act that is modern | recycling (2015)_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19799348 | - May 2019 (35 comments) | | _Just 10% of U.S. plastic gets recycled. A new kind of plastic | could change that_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19728391 - April 2019 (116 | comments) | | _America Finally Admits Recycling Doesn't Work_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19483074 - March 2019 (35 | comments) | | _The World 's Recycling Is in Chaos. Here's What Has to Happen_ | - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19399543 - March 2019 (25 | comments) | | _What Happens Now That China Won 't Take U.S. Recycling_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19346342 - March 2019 (219 | comments) | | _The Era of Easy Recycling May Be Coming to an End_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18893252 - Jan 2019 (84 | comments) | | _Recycling in the United States is in serious trouble. How does | it work?_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17841584 - Aug | 2018 (94 comments) | | _Trash piles up in US as China closes door to recycling_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17677698 - Aug 2018 (272 | comments) | | _Californians love to recycle, but it 's no longer doing any | good_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17495872 - July 2018 | (14 comments) | | _Plastic recycling is a problem consumers can 't solve_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17409152 - June 2018 (441 | comments) | | _An enzyme that digests plastic could boost recycling_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16856246 - April 2018 (122 | comments) | | _Plastics Pile Up as China Refuses to Take the West's Recycling_ | - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16174719 - Jan 2018 (71 | comments) | | _Recycling Chaos in U.S. As China Bans 'Foreign Waste'_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15888827 - Dec 2017 (233 | comments) | | _China Bans Foreign Waste - What Will Happen to the World 's | Recycling?_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15528740 - Oct | 2017 (63 comments) | | _Is it time to rethink recycling?_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11083898 - Feb 2016 (147 | comments) | | _The Reign of Recycling_ - https://archive.is/o8LBm - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10327585 - Oct 2015 (34 | comments) | | _Recycling is Garbage (1996)_ - https://archive.is/JKG7y - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9757853 - June 2015 (55 | comments) | | _Is Recycling Worth It?_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7778956 - May 2014 (13 | comments) | | _Recycling is Bullshit; Make Nov. 15 Zero Waste Day, not America | Recycles Day_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1186666 - | March 2010 (18 comments) | | _The Recycling Myth_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=937097 - Nov 2009 (36 | comments) | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | > Pressure is also building for "polluter-pays" laws that would | shift the cost of waste collection from taxpayers to the | companies that make and use plastic. Earlier this month, Maine | became the first U.S. state to pass such legislation... The | American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry group whose | membership is dominated by plastics makers, says polluter-pays | measures would hurt the economy. | | This is the kind of solution that seems to appeal to HN and | appeals to me personally. It's a system-wide incentives problem. | So just change the incentives and price in the externality, | right? Same goes for carbon taxes. I hope these kinds of laws | catch on. | brisance wrote: | The tone of this article feels like fear-mongering. There are | bioplastics which are less harmful on the environment, are | compostable and sourced from 100% renewable and sustainable | sources. Some bioplastics like PLA are biocompatible; sutures and | tea bags are made from it. We're still in the early stages of | this technology and it seems premature to tar everything with | such a broad brush. | olivermarks wrote: | The Chinese used to manually process imported western recycling, | they stopped in 2017. https://youtu.be/jnNNnHTLjmg It's a | complicated global issue far greater than the use of oil to run | vehicles via petroleum/gasoline which is highly energy efficient. | | We are focusing on ending this instead of the use of oil to make | tires (22 gallons per unit,Tire particulate pollution in cities | is a huge issue for clean air) and plastics which produce a lot | of pollution and waste and which vehicles are increasingly made | out of. . | | There are bio product alternatives for many plastic packaging | products but little pressure to evolve... | legitster wrote: | I don't understand the argument against plastics. | | - Extract oil from underground | | - Buy oil off the market, prevent it from being burned | | - Turn it into affordable and useful goods | | - Properly dispose of it by burying it underground again | | Obviously a bit simplistic, but it seems like plastics are a | rudimentary carbon sequestration technology! | ceejayoz wrote: | If the goal is carbon sequestration, just skip... all of your | steps, and leave the oil in the ground, where it is already- | sequestered carbon. | [deleted] | [deleted] | relax88 wrote: | One thing I'm always curious about is why we are so concerned | with plastic waste. | | My local grocery store recently switched to paper bags. So I got | curious. Turns out you have to re-use a paper bag 43 times for | the energy use to be the same as plastic grocery bags. This is | impossible since they are made of paper. Aluminum and glass | bottles require several hundred times more energy to produce as | well (between 170-250x). | | Then when you look at plastic pollution and see that for the most | part North America is quite good at properly disposing of plastic | you wonder why we are so obsessed with this as a problem. | | Plastic waste really isn't a big problem unless you're talking | about developing nations. North America is responsible for about | 3% of mismanaged plastic waste. Asia and Africa account for 86% | of it. | | Don't get me started on plastic straws. They make up 0.03% of | plastic waste in the ocean. | | If we want to make a difference here we should be helping | developing nations to better manage their plastic waste so that | it doesn't end up in waterways. | | The Yangtze and Ganges are releasing plastic into the ocean at a | rate far greater than all of North America combined, and our | response is to expend huge amounts of energy produced by fossil | fuels trying to recycle our plastic instead of burying it in a | landfill where it is unlikely to pose a major ecological threat. | | Like many environmental initiatives I worry that we're more | concerned about making ourselves feel better than actually | solving the problem. | titzer wrote: | > Then when you look at plastic pollution and see that for the | most part North America is quite good at properly disposing of | plastic you wonder why we are so obsessed with this as a | problem. | | Go to any waterway in the US and you will find it. Plastic | bottles, bottle caps, chip bags, cpu lids, straws, milk jugs, | food containers, chewing tobacco cans, lighters, ping pong | balls, syringes, milk crates, fishing line, bobbers, clothes | hangers, insulation, O-rings, tires, fishing nets, pens, pen | caps, grocery bags, six pack rings, chew toys, fake flowers, | buckets, handles, 55 gallon drums, soccer balls, the broken | plastic housing of almost any consumer product you can imagine. | | I have with my bare hands picked up over 500 bags of this shit | off coastlines and waterways and highways on three different | continents. Based on my experience, every single mile of ocean | coastline and nearly every waterway is littered with plastic | waste to a greater or lesser degree. | | The problem is so bad that unless you are in a national park a | hundred miles from civilization, you cannot walk more than 100 | feet along a waterway without seeing some kind of garbage, | unless someone has specifically detrashed there, thoroughly, in | the past week. The water is full of our junk. | | > Don't get me started on plastic straws. They make up 0.03% of | plastic waste in the ocean. | | The tone of this comment really raised my hackles. I'm not | going to unload on you, but I am so tempted to right now. But | holy shit, if you'd dragged 5 tons of shit out of the creek | you'd not complain from behind your keyboard that they want to | take your stupid straws away. | | I say ban all single-use plastic. | lumost wrote: | I'll be honest, I spend a lot of time outdoors in New | England. Plastic waste is not nearly as endemic as you | describe in North America. The only area that gets comparable | to what you describe are waterways in major population | centers such as the Charles river and Boston harbor. | | Banning single use plastic is still a great way to cut down | on | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > Plastic waste is not nearly as endemic as you describe in | North America | | Plastic waste isn't really endemic to North America. Surely | there are some locations with plastic waste problems, but I | do a lot of hiking and local travel and I can't remember | the last time I saw huge swaths of plastic waste. People | around here are generally good at picking up behind | themselves and even picking up waste that others mistakenly | leave behind. | | That said, I've been to some developing countries and been | absolutely shocked at the quantities of plastic waste I | encountered in certain locations. Unfortunately these are | the same places least likely to switch to use degradable | plastic bags if they're more expensive. | titzer wrote: | It's a sliding scale, which is why I mentioned the national | parks. More people = more trash. Take a little plastic bag | with you next time and pick up every piece of trash you | see. Suddenly it will pop out of the woodwork. Waterways | collect and concentrate it. | greeneggs wrote: | > I say ban all single-use plastic. | | The alternatives are worse. They use much more energy, and | you can't go outside without seeing how bad global warming is | now, and how devastating it soon will be. | | We need to forget plastics recycling entirely, and spend all | that effort on redirecting trash to landfills. | industriousthou wrote: | If plastic that's "properly" disposed of still ends up in the | environment, how do you dispose of all the trash you collect | to ensure that it doesn't end up back in the environment? | vesinisa wrote: | > Turns out you have to re-use a paper bag 43 times for the | energy use to be the same as plastic grocery bags. | | This sounds _way_ too high. And indeed, this BBC article cites | paper bags being just four times as energy intensive as plastic | bags: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47027792 | | That's a difference of an _order of magnitude_. It would be | very interesting to hear where you sourced that number from. | | As others have pointed out, the whole equation involves also | recyclablility. Plastic bags - unlike paper bags - are very | hard to recycle, as this article demonstrates. Therefore | efforts to reduce the amount of waste generated in the first | place are preferable. | | Before we can begin to solve plastic waste problem abroad we | need to first develop lasting and scalable solutions at home. | Caricaturizing the problem to encourage people to close their | eyes of the issue might make you feel better but is entirely | unhelpful. | moooo99 wrote: | > My local grocery store recently switched to paper bags. So I | got curious. Turns out you have to re-use a paper bag 43 times | for the energy use to be the same as plastic grocery bags. This | is impossible since they are made of paper. | | This is true, but thats just one side you of a tradeoff you | have to make. The main concern with plastic waste is the | duration it takes until it degrades. Also, microplastics are an | issue too. And even the plastic waste that makes it to | recycling facilities is often impossible to recycle due to the | material composition, its often just burned instead, releasing | Co2 in the air. | | > Then when you look at plastic pollution and see that for the | most part North America is quite good at properly disposing of | plastic you wonder why we are so obsessed with this as a | problem. | | > Plastic waste really isn't a big problem unless you're | talking about developing nations. North America is responsible | for about 3% of mismanaged plastic waste. Asia and Africa | account for 86% of it. | | So are most parts of Europe, but properly disposing the waste | is just one part of the equation. The other more challenging | part is actually getting rid of the waste we produce. And an | important cornerstone of the waste strategy is to export it. In | January to June 2018 the US alone exported 150,000 metric tons | of plastic waste to Malaysia, 90,000 to Thailand, and a | considerable amount to other nations [1]. With the EU | countries, its even more extreme with 362,000 tons plastic | waste being exported to Malaysia in 2020 [2]. | | So I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that a significant | portion of the plastic waste that is sent to the ocean in | developing countries is actually the export of developed | nations. | | > Don't get me started on plastic straws. They make up 0.03% of | plastic waste in the ocean. | | thats true, thats just virtue signaling. | | > If we want to make a difference here we should be helping | developing nations to better manage their plastic waste so that | it doesn't end up in waterways. | | The best way to go into the future is to just quit producing so | much plastic waste. Plastic is a great material, its super | durable while also being super cheap. That makes it useful for | a lot of purposes, but also pretty unsuited for many others. | Look at how much (unnecessary) product packaging is made of | plastic. It's a material that can easily last decades and is | instead used massively used to produce single use items just | because of the low price. | | My best guess as to why plastic is so massively used: | | As the world moves towards renewable electricity sources and | away from fossil fuels, plastic production is one of the | biggest (growing) markets that will remain interested in oil. | Stopping to use plastics that excessively would of course hurt | that growth. [3],[4],[5] | | > Like many environmental initiatives I worry that we're more | concerned about making ourselves feel better than actually | solving the problem. | | Unfortunately, that is very often the case. I guess it's easier | to make one feel better by sacrificing something like plastic | straws instead of actually trying to change the own lifestyle | to drive actual change. | | [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/892470/us-exports- | plasti... | | [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1235938/annual- | plastic-w... | | [3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-petrochemicals-iea- | idUSKC... | | [4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/664933/oil-demand- | plasti... | | [5] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21419505/oil- | gas-... | yarky wrote: | I'm not an expert, but a plastic bag takes longer to disappear | naturally than a paper bag. | | Your energy accounting and waste source/destination issues are | just the top of the iceberg. The elephant in the room is the | plastic. | skohan wrote: | Yeah and haven't microplastics been found in basically every | organism by now? I feel like this is something which we may | look back on like lead in 30 years. | exporectomy wrote: | Radioactive particles from nuclear testing are in every | organism too. Just because something exists doesn't mean | it's a disaster. You'd need science to back up a feeling | like yours otherwise you're probably just regurgitating | what popular opinion has indoctrinated you with and that's | whatever's widely emotionally satisfying to believe. | skohan wrote: | Oh sure, I'm just speculating. But if you always waited | for concrete evidence to conclude that something might be | a risk, you would have may have been wearing hats coated | in mercury in the 19th century, and eating of uranium- | infused plates in the early 20th century. | the_mitsuhiko wrote: | > Turns out you have to re-use a paper bag 43 times for the | energy use to be the same as plastic grocery bags | | But that's okay. Energy is not the issue with bags but the fact | that they don't decompose. Using more energy to switch to | something that decomposes is a good enough deal. | relax88 wrote: | A plastic bag in a landfill is less harmful to the | environment than a paper bag that costs 43x more energy to | produce. | | The former is trapped underground in a location engineered to | prevent seepage and runoff, and will be sitting there for a | thousand years where it only poses a threat to the bacteria | and worms in the landfill. | | The latter required a tree to be cut down and used 43x more | energy, and therefore it's waste is in the atmosphere warming | our planet. | goodpoint wrote: | > A plastic bag ... is less harmful ... than a paper bag | ... | | This is a strawman: you insist comparing two harmful | options and ignoring others. | | For example, in many countries own reusable shopping bags | made of cotton. | | They last a decade and are even more comfortable to carry. | Zarel wrote: | Most sources say that cotton is worse than plastic or | paper. | | https://qz.com/1585027/when-it-comes-to-climate-change- | cotto... | | Intuitively, this makes sense to me: cotton comes from a | plant that can be harvested and replanted, just like | paper. The main difference is that you use a lot more | cotton to make a cotton bag. | 8note wrote: | Why limit your analysis to the cost of production, rather | than a full lifecycle? | mdorazio wrote: | Multiple misconceptions here: | | 1) We don't cut down old growth trees to make paper | products - we cut down fast-growth trees that are farmed | for exactly this purpose. Cutting down these trees is not a | problem, and in fact pulls some carbon _out_ of the | atmosphere because the trees captured it and the paper | product end of life is usually getting buried where the | carbon is mostly trapped. | | 2) You're ignoring that renewable energy can be used for | production. | | 3) You're also ignoring that common plastics start with | oil, which isn't just used for making plastic products. If | you see a bunch of plastic bottles, you should also be | thinking about the other oil products associated with them | that got burned and turned into GHG. | relax88 wrote: | The paper industry ranks #5 in carbon intensity and is | responsible for something like 9% of global CO2 | emissions. | | Do you honestly think that industry uniformly manages | their forestry in an environmentally friendly manner? | | You could use renewables but the fact is that most of the | input energy into paper mills is natural gas co- | generation because you need both heat and electricity. | | Petrochemicals are used in 90% of the regular every-day | items we live our lives with. Clothing, furniture, our | homes, cars, personal belongings... banning single use | plastics isn't going to change that. | | I'd rather plastic waste in landfills than more CO2 | emissions. | mdorazio wrote: | You really need to provide sources for claims like that. | Here's the EPA saying that land use and forestry is a net | carbon sink in the US [1]. If you're talking about | international then that's a completely different | conversation entirely, especially since the US exports | about as much paper product as it imports, and unlike | plastic, paper is actually recycled really well [2]. If | you want to talk about countries that don't give a shit | about the environment... not giving a shit about the | environment, then there's really no conversation to be | had here. | | [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse- | gas-emis... | | [2] https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about- | materials-waste-... | [deleted] | dheera wrote: | Energy is only one issue. There is also that plastic is a | petroleum product. Also even if "managed" well ultimately ends | up in the landfills, and its resources don't get recycled by | the environment for thousands of years. It also wreaks havoc on | the environment if it ends up in the wrong place; paper largely | doesn't. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | Disposable plastic versus disposable paper is the wrong choice. | Buy half a dozen reusable cloth bags and leave them in your | car, and you don't need either. | | We're obsessed with finding the best disposable option, | trusting our ingenuity to find a way to make our conveniences | responsible, rather than starting with responsible stuff and | trying to make it convenient. As the article covers, we're | failing at that. | Voloskaya wrote: | > Plastic waste really isn't a big problem unless you're | talking about developing nations. North America is responsible | for about 3% of mismanaged plastic waste. Asia and Africa | account for 86% of it. | | Because North America sends all its plastic to be recycled in | Asia. See Canada-Philippine waste dispute: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-Philippines_waste_dis... | refurb wrote: | Unless it's our plastic waste that's ending up in the ocean | I'm not sure this matters. | Spooky23 wrote: | Energy is one dimension of resource utilization. Plastic bags | clog sewers, kill wildlife and generate a lot of rubbishy. | | Paper bags are reusable, made of a renewable material, and | break down in weeks or months. They are a better solution. | 3grdlurker wrote: | > North America is quite good at properly disposing of plastic | you wonder why we are so obsessed with this as a problem. | | Yeah, about that, North America ships garbage to China and to | poor countries in Southeast Asia to be burned there, or to be | dumped in a forest/farmland next to low-income rural | communities. | | > we should be helping developing nations to better manage | their plastic waste so that it doesn't end up in waterways | | I don't know why you say that like it's easy, but in the first | place, maybe plastics just shouldn't be forced upon developing | nations as conditions of trade if we already know that they | don't have the infrastructure to manage it, in the first place? | | > The Yangtze and Ganges are releasing plastic into the ocean | at a rate far greater than all of North America combined, and | our response is to expend huge amounts of energy produced by | fossil fuels trying to recycle our plastic instead of burying | it in a landfill where it is unlikely to pose a major | ecological threat. | | I never understood this line of reasoning, to be honest. So you | have a ton of problems, some bigger than others. Why does the | fact that you have bigger problems in your backlog negate | working on the smaller, quicker wins first? Also you keep | talking about "North America" as if it's a single, sovereign, | unified country that has no conflicting interests. | | > Like many environmental initiatives I worry that we're more | concerned about making ourselves feel better than actually | solving the problem. | | Didn't we already make ourselves feel better by arguing | ourselves into what is effectively indifference about the | problem of pollution? | kingdomcome50 wrote: | > we should be helping developing nations to better manage | their plastic waste so that it doesn't end up in waterways | | >>I don't know why you say that like it's easy | | Are they saying that like it's easy? How should it be said? | Your tone is so defensive... | 3grdlurker wrote: | Buddy, that wasn't even a comment on his tone. | gurkendoktor wrote: | > Why does the fact that you have bigger problems in your | backlog negate working on the smaller, quicker wins first? | | One should pick the tasks with the best cost/benefit ratio | first. It seems intuitive enough to me that the same amount | of $ will go much, much further around the Ganges than in an | effort to ban plastic straws in developed countries, or | whatever else I see political capital being burnt on. | 3grdlurker wrote: | Is it just the cost/benefit ratio that you have to | consider? How about the quality of being realistic? Tell | me, and in the context of the previous responses--how | realistic is it that North America will be able to carry | out and enforce its agenda in the Ganges? | relax88 wrote: | Agree on your first two points. That's what I mean about | helping developing nations. We shouldn't be exporting | billions of pounds of plastic waste to places that cannot | ensure proper disposal. | | By focusing resources on waste management and international | cooperation we would be focusing on 90% of the ocean plastics | problem instead of directing our resources at well managed | waste streams that do little environmental damage by | comparison. | | Being pragmatic is very different than being indifferent. At | the end of the day a plastic bag in a landfill is a way | better outcome than a plastic bag in a waterway, and also | arguably better than spending 43-250x more energy mostly from | fossil fuels producing paper/glass/aluminum instead. | | When there are no perfect solutions, you must choose the | least harmful. | Trex_Egg wrote: | good | goodpoint wrote: | No, there is no such thing as "proper disposal" of plastic. | 3grdlurker wrote: | And the least harmful is not to dump plastic in a landfill, | but to not produce plastics at all. :) Similarly, we can | put more money into research on how to produce | paper/glass/aluminum/others with less energy, and also | redesign consumerism and normalize bringing refillable | containers to the grocery down to the household level. | There's a lot that can be done that doesn't involve | polluting the environment. | goodpoint wrote: | > redesign consumerism | | Better: eliminate consumerism | 3grdlurker wrote: | Absolutely, I just made the wording a little bit | """moderate""" to avoid debates I'm not in the mood to | have, but I agree. | nitrogen wrote: | _And the least harmful is not to dump plastic in a | landfill, but to not produce plastics at all._ | | And all of the human advancements in sanitation, food | safety, and transportation energy afforded by plastics? | You'd significantly increase CO2 output of transportation | if every plastic item was replaced by something heavier. | Stopping all plastic production would be _very_ harmful. | | As for people bringing reusable containers to the store, | this was stopped because it's a health hazard. | 3grdlurker wrote: | OK, we need to be specific that most of the plastic that | end up in oceans and landfills are those called "single- | use", mostly used in food packaging. | | > all of the human advancements in sanitation, food | safety, and transportation energy afforded by plastics | | The pollution negates the health benefits of sanitation | and food safety though, especially in the places where | they are dumped, which are in rural communities in | developing countries, whose people are somehow expected | to make a living out of it for themselves and for their | children. | | Besides, there are so many uses of plastic in food | packaging that aren't even necessary to begin with, and | which shouldn't exist. How much of single-use plastics | are just bags of unhealthy junk food and candy wrappers | and carbonated soda? Is it even necessary to have such a | large economy based on unhealthy food sources? | Trex_Egg wrote: | I agree. | NohatCoder wrote: | Could you provide a credible source for those 43x and 170-250x | numbers? | | Trying to find some numbers for CO2 in paper production, | numbers vary a lot depending on source, and I assume that they | also vary a great deal between different paper products and | manufacturers. In any case, this paper | https://www.transitionpathwayinitiative.org/publications/49.... | would suggest an average of around 0.7 tons of CO2 per ton | paper produced. | | Meanwhile polyethylene might be cheaper and less energy | intensive to manufacture (depending on how much of the refinery | process you include), but it emits 3.14 tons of CO2 per ton | plastic when decomposed. | | A paper grocery bag might need to be a bit heavier than a | plastic bag to have equal utility, so in total I guess they are | not wildly different. | itronitron wrote: | This is why I like glass deposit bottles. | tonmoy wrote: | I personally think you are spot on. I am yet to find any major | environmental issue with landfill plastics or any health issues | with micro plastics - especially compared to the harm caused by | GHG. If using paper bag produces significantly more GHG | compared to plastic then using our green political resources to | reduced plastic use not only detracts us from focusing our | resources into something more useful, but it may be more | harmful by producing more GHG in the long run. | xenocyon wrote: | You're leading with energy use but that's really not the point. | | The point is that plastic takes many centuries to degrade, and | we go through a lot of single-use plastic. For example, a | disposable diaper takes >500 years to biodegrade. | | It's nice to imagine all this plastic going into walled-off | landfills that protect the rest of the earth and water from | being contaminated, but in practice this is a myth. US | localities are seeing an unsustainably growing amount of | plastic contamination in local waterways and beaches, some of | it visible, some of it not. | | Incidentally, this doesn't mean you need to use a single-use | paper bag instead of a single-use plastic bag. Instead, use a | durable bag made out of any material you like. The phrase is | "reduce -> reuse -> recycle". Recycling was never meant to be | the foremost part of our sustainability efforts. | exporectomy wrote: | You seem to be directly contradicting your parent commenter | about US releasing plastic into the sea. Even if it's | growing, do you still agree that it's insignificant compared | to less developed countries? | | A lot of the arguments against plastic miss this anyway. They | say "don't put it in the landfill" but the landfill is | exactly where it's walled-off and safe. If it was about | getting into waterways, it'd be "Put your plastic in the | landfill instead of the street". | | Why does it matter how long it takes to break down? As long | as it's secure, it'll just sit there doing no harm. Is there | any evidence that landfills will one-day release their | contents on a large scale and cause an environmental problem? | Presumably that will happen in some post-apocalyptic world | where people no longer bother to maintain things and the | apocalypse will be tolerable but not the plastic? | biasedbrain wrote: | Still, it is mostly a cosmetic problem, while we are supposed | to believe that global warming will kill us all in a short | amount of time. So the priorities should be clear. | lurquer wrote: | > The point is that plastic takes many centuries to degrade | | So? Is there a shortage of centuries? Do you really think-- | 300 years from now--they'll be using plastic? | southeastern wrote: | There have been numerous cases of finding plastic waste in | some fish, and because it doesn't decay organically it can | form blockages in their digestive tracts. Whatever they're | using in 300 years, they'll still be finding plastic in | oceans and rivers(absent a massive clean up program) | lurquer wrote: | Bits of plastic can form blockages? Says who? I seriously | doubt it. | | A bit of plastic -- to a fish gut - is no different than | a pebble, chunk of coral, bit of bone, etc. | | Littering is bad. | | And litter that doesn't naturally decompose is annoying. | | But, it's an aesthetics problem. Plastic is harmless | (despite the occasional picture of a turtle with a straw | in its nose...) | | Over time, whether is decomposes or not, it will be | covered with sediment and gone from the ecosystem. | nicoffeine wrote: | Don't worry, the only people saying that are the | scientists who are studying it. | | "When Browne experimented with blue mussels back in 2008, | many researchers thought animals would just excrete any | microplastics they ate, like "unnatural fiber," as Browne | called it--but he wasn't so sure. He tested the idea by | placing mussels in water tanks spiked with fluorescent- | tagged microplastic particles smaller than a human red | blood cell, then moved them into clean water. For six | weeks he harvested the shellfish to see if they had | cleared the microplastics. "We actually ran out of | mussels," Browne says. The particles "were still in them | at the end of those trials." | | The mere presence of microplastics in fish, earthworms | and other species is unsettling, but the real harm is | done if microplastics linger--especially if they move out | of the gut and into the bloodstream and other organs. | Scientists including Browne have observed signs of | physical damage, such as inflammation, caused by | particles jabbing and rubbing against organ walls. | Researchers have also found signs ingested microplastics | can leach hazardous chemicals, both those added to | polymers during production and environmental pollutants | like pesticides that are attracted to the surface of | plastic, leading to health effects such as liver damage. | Marco Vighi, an ecotoxicologist at the IMDEA Water | Institute in Spain, is one of several researchers running | tests to see what types of pollutants different polymers | pick up and whether they are released into the freshwater | and terrestrial animals that eat them. The amount of | microplastics in lakes and soils could rival the more | than 15 trillion tons of particles thought to be floating | in the ocean's surface alone." | | https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to- | huma... | lurquer wrote: | Ha. | | Let me know when the ocean has .5grams of nano-sized | plastic particles per Liter. | | That would be around 300000000000000 Tons of plastic, all | in the form of nano-sized particles. | | Then -- and only then -- would you begin to see an effect | on Mussels. | | But, of course, long before that, the world would have | ended. | woodruffw wrote: | > A bit of plastic -- to a fish gut - is no different | than a pebble, chunk of coral, bit of bone, etc. | | There's reasonable empirical evidence that plastic | accumulation in fish causes them to reproduce less than | they otherwise would[1]. The prevailing theory is that | most plastics leach at least some of their chemicals in | seawater. | | [1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from- | fish-to-huma... | dmitryminkovsky wrote: | > You're leading with energy use but that's really not the | point. | | Isn't that _the_ critical point? Of all our environmental | problems, atmospheric CO2 is the biggest one, right? My | assumption is that the energy used in industrial | manufacturing is almost always non-renewable. If we 're | advocating for using paper bags over plastic bags, that means | we're advocating for way more CO2 in the atmosphere. So what | we should actually be advocating for is mandating that people | reuse bags, bottles, and containers of all kind. | | It's been a long time since I've been involved in chemistry, | but my understanding is that extruded polymers like plastic | bags, wraps and containers are almost always synthesized from | waste products of fossil fuel refinement. If it wasn't for | products like plastic wraps and bags, these "waste" gasses | that are polymerized into plastics would be released into the | atmosphere (especially in places without environment | regulation or enforcement). The production of plastics at | least traps those gasses into some solid state that we can | then hope to maybe possibly bury in a landfill. I know it's | ugly and pretty horrible, but from a climate perspective I'd | go so far as to say that I'd prefer the plastic in a body of | water than in the atmosphere. | robocat wrote: | > So what we should actually be advocating for is mandating | that people reuse bags | | Except that many reusable bags are likely a waste of | resources: | | Danish study: "polypropylene bags (most of the [] reusable | bags found at supermarkets) should be used 37 times paper | bags should be used 43 times, cotton bags should be used | 7,100 times." | | UK study: "paper bags should be used three times low- | density polyethylene bags (the thicker plastic bags | commonly used in supermarkets) should be used four times, | non-woven polypropylene bags should be used 11 times, | cotton bags should be used 131 times." | | https://phys.org/news/2018-08-reuse-bags.html | | A simple approximation for environmental damage is the cost | in $. If a plastic bag costs 1c, and a jute bag costs $2, | then you can guess crossover point is 200 usages (weekly | shopping for 4 years to reach _breakeven_ also presuming | you value your extra time and hassle at _zero_ ). | | Reusable bags are a huge waste IMHO. | | I dropped a bottle of wine the other day because I didn't | have a plastic carry bag - cost equivalent of 1000 plastic | bags... Arrrrghhh! | dheera wrote: | > Isn't that the critical point? Of all our environmental | problems, atmospheric CO2 is the biggest one, right? | | Energy is important, but the energy consumption of a | grocery bag is small compared to the energy consumption of | most of the things _in_ the grocery bag, and if you drive a | car to the grocery store, the energy consumption of the car | for the roundtrip (~0.3 kWh per mile). | | I'd say for grocery packaging the ecological impact should | be the bigger concern. | | Honestly the solution is easy, change the $0.10 grocery bag | surcharge to $1.00 and people will stop using single-use | grocery bags tomorrow. $0.10 is not enough for people to | care. | njarboe wrote: | Even better solution. Charge $100 to go into the grocery | store and that will greatly reduce people driving to | stores, shopping and using single-use bags. | JulianMorrison wrote: | > Of all our environmental problems, atmospheric CO2 is the | biggest one, right? | | We honestly don't know how bad micro-plastic is. Our | experience with asbestos, another fibre that can penetrate | cells, suggests "very bad" is on the list of potentials. We | do know that it's in literally everything from dirt to | water to air, and that it has circled the globe and got to | places no human sets foot. | | Like soil depletion and loss of insects, it's on the list | of problems which aren't trendy to focus on right now, but | might end up being really serious. | dmitryminkovsky wrote: | Yeah microplastics might indeed be worse. I didn't know | microplastics potentially had so much in common with | asbestos. | joecool1029 wrote: | >Yeah microplastics might indeed be worse. | | Doubtful, not saying it's harmless but microplastics are | everywhere, asbestos is not. We should research it but | should not jump to the conclusion that it might be worse | than a known horrible material. | | Asbestos had clear links to various kinds of horrible | conditions known all the way back to the early 1900s. | Microplastics might increase some kinds of cancer and | screw with some hormone signalling but we haven't seen | such clear links yet to the same kinds of conditions. | Symmetry wrote: | Microplastics are a good reason to make sure your plastic | makes it to a landfill instead of the ocean more than a | reason to give up plastic entirely. Of course, not every | country has government provided waste disposal so to the | extent that our rich world preferences get foisted onto | developing countries by default I guess that is a valid | reason to want to reduce plastic use. | | But on the third hand locking up hydrocarbons in plastics | while we're dealing with global warming seems like a | positive good. | JulianMorrison wrote: | Also landfill becomes like a nuclear waste site, a burden | on the future. You can't let it puncture, or be dug up | (by humans or animals), or landslip, or flood. You have | to cosset the damn thing in perpetuity, or until someone | invents plastic-eating fungi (which dump it into the | carbon cycle instead). | cronix wrote: | From what I understand, most microplastics in the | environment are from washing clothing made of synthetic | fibers[1] instead of natural products like cotton. It's | rare to find something made from 100% cotton - it's | usually a blend of mostly synthetic and sometimes natural | fibers. Every time you wash them millions of microfiber | plastics are released into the sewer system and there is | no filter system capable of removing them so they end up | permanently in the water cycle. They even end up in rain | and snowfall[2], and have been found in organs of the | human body[3] and of course wildlife. | | > Microplastic pollution caused by washing processes of | synthetic textiles has recently been assessed as the main | source of primary microplastics in the oceans. | | [1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43023-x | | [2]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article | /micro... | | [3]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/17/mi | cropla... | techbio wrote: | Unfortunately there is no winner take all solution for | environmental impacts, it is a many-fronted theater. | | So better plastics solidified and made useful than released | as fumes, but your decisive line of argument omits the | carbon sequestration possible with large-scale paper for | one thing (just not the kind that spills outflow directly | into waterways), and the general degradation of the living | oceans. | faeyanpiraat wrote: | If you factor in cleaning into the reuse process you might | end up with more waste: | | - cleaning products (with plastic containers | | - water (warmed by burning gas) | | - spending time which could be used in any other way | | - who knows what else | justnotworthit wrote: | Jokes on you: I never wash anything! | rakshazi wrote: | > If we're advocating for using paper bags over plastic | bags, that means we're advocating for way more CO2 in the | atmosphere. | | Not exactly. The point is not to use paper bag, but to use | durable/persistent bag from any material (even plastic) as | long as you can. | | For example, I almost never use one-time plastic bags, | because I have backpack, so when I go to a grocery store, | all the things placed into the backpack. | | In such case (from energy perspective) it's easier to | peoduce 1 backpack (32l) for several years of daily use | instead of paper/plastic/etc ONE-TIME bag. | | Unfortunately, that approach doesn't work with other | things. For example, it's impossible to buy yogurt not in | one-time plastic package and we didn't find a "mass market" | solution to that problem. Same goes for any other ONE-TIME | package | phreeza wrote: | > For example, it's impossible to buy yogurt not in one- | time plastic package and we didn't find a "mass market" | solution to that problem. Same goes for any other ONE- | TIME package | | Actually there are completely package-free supermarkets | in Europe (and probably the US, too) now, where you bring | your own container and pay by weight. It's very niche now | but I can imagine it increasing in popularity. | dmitryminkovsky wrote: | Can you please name them? This is my dream. I would like | to learn more. | penteract wrote: | https://scoopwholefoods.com has stores in Australia, | Singapore, and the UK, although I'm not sure if it has | yogurt. | Forbo wrote: | SciShow did a great episode on this very issue: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvzvM9tf5s0 | dmitryminkovsky wrote: | Thanks a lot, will check this out. | dmitryminkovsky wrote: | > The point is not to use paper bag, but to use | durable/persistent bag from any material (even plastic) | as long as you can. | | Of course. I was referring/responding to the parent | comment. | 08-15 wrote: | > extruded polymers like plastic bags, wraps and containers | are almost always synthesized from waste products of fossil | fuel refinement | | That's almost completely false. | | It obviously depends on the kind of plastic. PE and PP are | made from ethene and propene, which are indeed byproducts | of fuel refining. But demand far outstrips supply now, so | these are now made on purpose. PS is made from styrene, | which is not a byproduct. It is made from low-value | chemicals, so it's upgraded waste. PET is made from | terepthalic acid, which is very much not a waste product of | any process. | | Even if there were any waste products from fuel refining, | they would certainly not be vented. They'd be burned as | fuel. Which is also a sensible thing to do with waste | plastics. (Someone is going to object that this releases | CO2. It does. Burning fuel releases CO2. We can come back | to this point once we longer burn coal or methane for | energy.) | bobiny wrote: | Wiki and some other sources say that PE is made from | crude oil byproducts https://extension.psu.edu/how- | plastic-is-made-from-natural-g... | atonse wrote: | Yes I keep preaching this to anyone that will listen. It was | THREE Items that form the phrase. And we just don't reduce or | reuse given how easy it is to buy more stuff. | | At my house, we have a whole "fixin' stuff box" full of items | that broke but not seriously enough that maybe we can figure | out how to fix them. I started this to teach my kids that we | can repair stuff rather than throw it. I still have really | fond memories of fixing things around the house in India in | the 1980s with my grandpa. Although those days most fixes | involved either adding oil, or taking things apart and | cleaning the dust. | | What does make me happy is now, sometimes when I say let's | throw something my 7 year old son says "come on let's at | least try to fix it first". We have fixed his headphones | twice by taking it apart and re-soldering wires that came | loose. And it feels so satisfying to know you can bring | something back to life. | | It's had mixed results. The biggest pushback even with me is | time. Do I have the time to fix that broken pencil sharpener | or can I solve this in 2 mins on Amazon because I have 50 | other things to do. | | And more often than not the 2 mins wins. | | I think if fixing things was more socially present (you saw | more people around you doing it), more people would do it. | laurex wrote: | This becomes a reinforcing problem as we purchase cheap | solutions in the quick fix option, ones that are more | likely to break, be more difficult to repair, and more | likely to let us to another quick fix. | MereInterest wrote: | And it is nigh impossible to know ahead of time how | repairable a device is. | colechristensen wrote: | You can just burn plastic though, lots of places do for | energy. | | And if you put it in context, you're already "burning" the | carbon in the food you eat and plastic just adds a little bit | of overhead to that. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Uh that just releases more carbon dioxide faster, how is | that a solution to anything other than maybe landfill | issues? I would personally say that's worse as it is | contributing to our biggest problem of all which is climate | change. At least if it's buried it takes centuries to break | down | atonse wrote: | Depending on the technology used by whichever | incinerator, they do go through multiple passes and | filtration steps but I am not actually sure what that | does about CO2 emissions. | colechristensen wrote: | The extra processing done is to clean up incomplete | combustion and particulate. CO2 is the end of the line. | The CO2 molecule is very similar in size to N2 and O2. | | It can be separated and captured in various ways, but | they are quite energy intensive (though occasionally | power plant output will be used as input for industrial | CO2 "manufacture" where they separate, liquefy or freeze | it, and then sell it for whatever purpose. | colechristensen wrote: | Well we already burn the same fossil fuels for power... | instead of an oil fired plant you add an extra step and | turn that oil into packaging for a while before burning | it. As long as some of your power comes from fossil fuels | it would really seem to be carbon neutral because a | similar amount of carbon was going to be burned anyway. | | And the amount of plastic actually burned is quite small | when you compare it to everything else. | Zababa wrote: | > The phrase is "reduce -> reuse -> recycle". Recycling was | never meant to be the foremost part of our sustainability | efforts. | | The thing is, "recycle" is the only one that preserves the | economy, so that's what everyone jumped on. | seventytwo wrote: | But reduce and reuse are bad for bottom lines!! | eloff wrote: | We have no shortage of space for landfills. As the OP | mentioned, we manage or garbage well in North America and | most of it is disposed properly. I would argue the opposite | of you, the energy consumption of production and shipping is | more important than if it's biodegradable quickly or not. | croes wrote: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics | LatteLazy wrote: | Of course, to make plastic you need oil and that either means | dirty fraking or sending cash to some particularly horrendous | regimes. | | I'm not sure how we compare human rights to polluted land to | dead fish or trees to Co2E, so I won't say you're wrong. I | think the lack of a single measure is why we make so little | progress. I wish I had an answer... | jdasdf wrote: | > One thing I'm always curious about is why we are so concerned | with plastic waste. | | Because of virtue signaling. | | That's literally it, it doesn't matter how effective or | ineffective something is, what matters is that politicians (and | companies) are seen to be taking a stance against pollution | (regardless of how sincere or effective that stance may be) | jdavis703 wrote: | I live in the US on the coast. The top waste I see in the | brackish waters are plastics and car tires. | | People (everyone from consumers to scavengers) tend to recycle | glass and metal because they're valuable. And paper seems to | break down quickly. | | Paper may be bad for energy usage. But energy consumption is | not the only environmental issue to be concerned about. | noxer wrote: | Its the same reason as allays, some kind of subsidies. Created | by politicians who are fooled/bribed by lobbyists. Same reason | the US replaces certain % of fuel with bio-fuel. It does make | any sense. It pollutes more to create the bio-fuel than if you | would use normal fuel. Its also not carbon neutral and it | destroys incredible amount of land and the soil and even fossil | water is used up sometimes. | | Obligatory PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT S02EP05 Recycling | https://www.bitchute.com/video/j0Hd6UfA4MKo/ | trainsplanes wrote: | Have you gone to a beach lately? | | I don't live in the US but it's certainly not a developing | country. Beaches are absolutely covered in plastic waste and | it's noticeably worse each time I go. Forests are steadily | becoming filled with plastic that either gets tossed there or | blown there. Animals eat garbage and die. It's horrible. | Assuming I live a very long life and die in 70 years, that | plastic will still be there. New plastic will be there as well. | | America and the EU "manage" their plastic waste by literally | shipping it to other countries, then blaming them for | mismanaging it. Most was sent to China, then it was banned by | China.[1] Now the EU and US ship it to other countries, claim | they manage their plastic, and blame new countries. The US and | EU have yet to manage their plastic, though. They're just | dumping it on their neighbor's property. | | My worry about paper bags is that, corporations doing what they | do and going for the lowest bidder, they'll be made with clear- | cut rainforest wood from Indonesia and Malaysia instead of | sustainable sources. I'm sure a lot are. | | I just reuse bags and never use paper or anything unless it's | forced upon me. I bought some durable bags 5 years ago. I keep | a couple in my vehicle, a few at home, and others in other | places so I almost always have a bag with me. | rufus_foreman wrote: | >> Forests are steadily becoming filled with plastic that | either gets tossed there or blown there | | The forests would be a lot nicer if we spent more time raking | and cleaning them, like in Finland. | colechristensen wrote: | The US had problems with littering that were mostly quashed | with some public efforts in the middle to later periods of | the last century. Our beaches are mostly clean and our | forests and wild places are too. Not pristine and littering | still happens but so do efforts to cleaning it up like "adopt | a highway". | zelphirkalt wrote: | True, and educating all people in a country to not leave | their trash where it does not belong is a part of managing | our trash as well, which is very neglected. | | It is just assumed, that everyone knows what to do with | plastic bags and stuff, but the reality is, that many people | do not have any sense of responsibility and throw stuff | everywhere. Every week I see new heaps of trash in forests, | which were definitely not there the week before. We need to | start educating dumb/lazy/irresponsible people not to throw | their trash everywhere, if needed by leveling up punishments | and rewards. | | If anyone is caught throwing trash into the forest, there | should be hefty fines for that. If anyone takes time, for | example on their weekends, to clean the forest, there should | be rewards. | D13Fd wrote: | I'm posting this from an east coast (U.S) beach. I've walked | up and down multiple beaches in the last two days, and I | haven't seen any plastic trash at all, although I did see | someone find an old rusty fish hook today. | Retric wrote: | The vast majority of plastic doesn't last that long when | exposed to the elements. Micro plastics are a significant | concern but their extreme surface area to volume ratio is | associated with a short individual lifespan. What's going on | is new plastics are introduced from littering and fishing | nets which continuously replaces the plastic which is | breaking down. | southeastern wrote: | >Micro plastics are a significant concern but their extreme | surface area to volume ratio is associated with a short | individual lifespan | | Isn't the whole issue that they DON'T break down? Yes they | can wear into smaller pieces of plastic, but chemically | they're still plastic. And when they get to a certain size, | they become small enough to easily absorb into the body. | Retric wrote: | More that the don't break down fast enough. Most | individual plastic molecules on their own doesn't last | that long. Polyethylene the most common plastic is simply | a very long chain of carbon and hydrogen it's a ready | food sources for many different kinds of bacteria and is | broken down by sunlight etc. | | There are of course more and less chemically stable | plastics, but they all last much longer in a landfill | than the vastly more harsh aquatic environment. | carbine wrote: | I just learned that depending on what reusable bags are made | of, they can be many orders of magnitude worse than plastic. | Cotton bags need to be reused thousands of times to make up | for the additional environmental impact it takes to produce | them. Organic cotton, even moreso. | https://qz.com/1585027/when-it-comes-to-climate-change- | cotto... | | This last bit is not directed at you but re: the issue in | general: I get really frustrated with how distorted the | notions of "right" and "wrong" behaviours are among many | environmentalists -- rather than being rooted in fact, | they're all about virtue signalling. | | My local grocers are all eliminating plastic and switching | everything to paper, and I highly doubt that decision was | informed by a thoughtful analysis of potential environmental | impact. | burlesona wrote: | As an American, one of the things that shocked me the most in | visits to Europe was how much litter there is. I lived in | Italy, and it was astonishing how there was just trash | everywhere, even though Italy is a wealthy nation. I've | traveled all over Western Europe and the only part that felt | relatively "clean" to me was London - clean as in comparable | to NYC or other major US urban centers in terms of litter | level. | | By comparison, I've lived and traveled all over the US, | cities and rural areas, beaches, forests, etc. Litter is | rare. Where you will find it are freeway underpasses, | neglected urban or near-urban waterways and railways: places | where people aren't really "supposed" to go, and are | therefore loitered in and rarely cleaned. | | There are many areas where the US lags Europe, but in my | experience when it comes to litter, we have far less of it. | Swizec wrote: | You must be going to different parts of Europe than I have. | American cities (not suburbs, the actual cities) are | absolutely filthy with trash and litter. European cities | feel squeaky clean in comparison. | | And what's with all that trash on freeways? I've seen a | whole couch casually waiting to biodegrade by the side of | the freeway. Discarded bumpers and tyres aren't even worth | mentioning anymore there's so many everywhere. Large debris | like that gets cleaned up immediately in Europe because | it's a hazard. | edflsafoiewq wrote: | Don't know what you're talking about. You can walk down any | highway I've ever seen in America and pick up trash for | miles and miles. | throwawayboise wrote: | It's better than it used to be. The anti-littering | "crying Indian" and "Give a Hoot" ad campaigns in the | 1970s actually worked. | | Perhaps things are trending the other way lately. I do | seem to notice more litter now than I did when I was | younger. But there are more people now also. | crazygringo wrote: | I live in NYC, we actually have tons of beaches here in the | metropolitan area, and they're certainly _not_ covered in | plastic waste. Nor are our forests -- the hiking trails | around here are great. And I 'm talking about the single most | populated metropolitan area in the US. | | Sure there are a few strewn candy wrappers or something, but | there really isn't any big problem. It's all quite nice. | | What country do you live in that your beaches are so bad? | morpheos137 wrote: | Not GP but Maybe Somalia? Yeah the hysteria about | environmental degradation in the USA is among some online | people who don't even bother to go outside is absurd. | Within 50 miles of NYC are pristine woods, mature second | growth trees, deer and black bear. And yeah near the road | side you may see a plastic bottle every couple hundred | feet. The sky is not falling. | msdrigg wrote: | Im on the east coast and Ive never seen more than a plastic | bag or two on any beach. Even less in forests. Any plastic | waste Ive seen outside of a city area is an isolated | incident. | protoax wrote: | You also live in one of the richest cities in the US, so I | think your experience may be slightly skewed. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | "By 2025, the ocean will contain around one ton of plastic | for every three tons of fish. By 2050, there will be more | plastic than fish" | | It washes up on beaches. Uninhabited islands thousands of | miles from the nearest settlement are covered in plastic: | | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/henderso | n... | trainsplanes wrote: | NYC probably has people actively cleaning trails and | beaches. | | Japanese beaches that aren't ultra popular tourist | destinations are currently flooded with trash. Going | through Shizuoka, Aichi, and islands of Kagoshima, they're | increasingly looking like dumps. Some are completely | covered in pieces of trash, and most of it isn't Chinese. | It's washed up laundry detergent bottles and toys and stuff | all from here. Some places like Okinawa and Kamakura beach | are generally cleaned, but having visited Kamakura 4 years | ago and again a year ago, it's noticeably filthier. | | Major beaches are maintained and cleaned daily. Walk a few | hundred meters beyond the crowds and there's a good chance | you'll see trash everywhere. Two weeks ago I visited a | beach I last went to a couple years back, and it was | depressing seeing the state of it. The beach used to have | crabs and isopods roaming the sands and crawling around the | rocks. Now it's covered in shards of plastic and washed up | tires and other things. Not a crab to be seen. | titzer wrote: | > NYC probably has people actively cleaning trails and | beaches. | | > Japanese beaches that aren't ultra popular tourist | destinations are currently flooded with trash. | | This is exactly my experience as well. Every place that I | have been, if it is a remote site that no one is actively | cleaning up, then it has weeks, months, years, or even | decades of accumulated garbage. Popular destinations, | like beaches around resorts, well-maintained hiking | trails, private beaches; these all have people regularly | picking up garbage. | | Some of the most "pristine" beaches I've seen were on | outer islands of Fiji. But they were pristine because | they had resorts on them, or near them. Kayak over the | other side of the island, where no one picks up, and it's | trash city. The global ocean system deposits garbage | everywhere, on every beach. Depending on where you are in | the various gyres, that beach gets more or less washup. | I've been to beaches in New Zealand, Australia, Japan, | Hawaii, Fiji, Africa, Europe, and both coasts of the US. | The primary discriminating factor on how much garbage you | see is how regular and thorough the pickup is. | Retric wrote: | The outer banks of North Carolina has miles of beaches | linked to nature reserves that don't get cleaned or | accumulate such trash. Japan is surrounded by a sea of | trash due to the countries surrounding it. | | Litter ends up in streams, rivers, and eventually the | ocean. You can argue it's an issue with plastics, but | it's equally an issue with trash. | titzer wrote: | I was in North Carolina in 2019, in the outer banks. I | did see plastic bags and such washing up on the shore, | like I've seen everywhere else. They weren't "covered" in | garbage, but it's there. It's a sliding scale, a | spectrum, which has a lot to do with ocean currents. But | yes, there are regular cleanup efforts for these beaches | run by the parks service. They'd look much worse if it | were not so. | Retric wrote: | Sitting at the bottom end of that scale you're mostly | seeing litter from tourists. North of Corolla is a long | stretch of beach that lacks road access, it's shockingly | pristine and doesn't see regular cleanup efforts. | titzer wrote: | Ok, I haven't been to those specific spots. But I bet | you'll find small plastic debris (1-3cm in size) at the | high tide line on beaches. They're everywhere in all | oceans. | Retric wrote: | That's possible. I never specifically went looking for it | and could easily mistake something that small for bits of | shell etc. | titzer wrote: | This is the unfortunate thing about giving a beach a deep | clean. Now you start to see it everywhere. | | It can also be _under_ the sand. | | I once spent a morning cleaning ~50 plastic bags in the | wet sand of the beach at low tide. They were empty | shopping bags, but had opened up and filled with sand, so | they were basketball-sized and really deep; they required | _digging_ every single one to get them out. Next day, 50 | more were there. There was no way that many washed up in | one night. So I did a little digging with a spade, as | deep as I could go in the sand, all the way down to my | armpit. And I brought up piece after piece of plastic | from the depths, punching through bags on the way down; I | don't know how many layers deep. Then I realized these | "new" 50 bags had just been there under the surface. The | layer of sand made free by yesterday's cleanup was now | washed away by the tide to reveal them. That was just the | worst feeling, knowing that that beach was basically a | 1km-long landfill, riddled with garbage at least a meter | deep. An extreme example, but it kind of broke me. | trainsplanes wrote: | >Japan is surrounded by a sea of trash due to the | countries surrounding it. | | I'm seeing mainly trash from Japanese companies that are | Japanese products with Japanese labels. It's easy to | recognize. Externalizing blame isn't the solution because | it's not the problem. | | Currents likely help carry trash away from certain | regions. Japan's east coast isn't really being affected | by trash that would be coming from, say, China, because | currents don't carry most of it to our beaches. It's | stuff being washed out locally and brought back by waves | here. Much more is likely being passed out into the | middle of the ocean. | nitrogen wrote: | The problem seems to be that the trash is getting into | the water. Who is dumping laundry detergent bottles into | rivers and oceans? Solve that problem. If the bottles | switch to some other material, whoever is dumping them | now will keep dumping them. Get trash into landfills and | the water will be fine. | Retric wrote: | Ok, a little digging shows Japan has a much larger | littering problem than I thought it did. | | That said, Asia really does have a much larger issue here | than the rest of the world. 90% of plastic pollution | comes from "Asia: the Yangtze; Indus; Yellow; Hai He; | Ganges; Pearl; Amur; Mekong; and two in Africa - the Nile | and the Niger." | | https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic- | polluti... | trainsplanes wrote: | The link in the very first post I made was about the US | and EU literally shipping their plastic to other | countries as part of their "waste management" program. | | > Upon implementation of the policy in 2017, plastic | imports to China plummeted by 99%.[9] This led to waste | stream backlogs across Europe and North America.[9] When | they could find buyers, most European plastic was | diverted to Indonesia, Turkey, India, Malaysia, and | Vietnam.[9] | | Western governments are sending trash to these places | _knowing_ it 's finding its way into rivers just so they | don't have to spend money processing it themselves. These | impoverished countries are overwhelmed with trash that | isn't theirs. It's a problem because Western countries | are selling trash that they claim is recyclable and a | valuable resource, but is literally useless trash. The | moment one country bans the system (such as China), the | EU and US find another place to dump it instead of | processing it on their own. | Retric wrote: | The import bit was: "When they could find _buyers"_ | | The US and EU have plenty of landfills, their exporting | plastic which was actively separated from the waste | stream for recycling which can be profitable. If nobody | wants to pay for it then the default is to burn it | domestically for energy. | trainsplanes wrote: | The link mentioned that a lot of it was "contaminated" | recyclables. | | Contaminated recyclables are just garbage. Countries are | getting fed up with the EU and US sending supposedly | separated recyclables because it's pure garbage falsely | labeled as usable plastic. [1] | | [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-48444874 | Retric wrote: | Contaminated recyclables isn't the equivalent of garbage. | | The issue is the degree of contamination. Different | municipal waste streams all have their own internal | systems a 98% plastic stream and a 99.9% plastic stream | are very different economically. | | Completely separate from that it's a political issue as | nobody wants their country to be thought of as a dumping | ground. "Malaysia says up to 3,000 tonnes of rubbish will | soon be returned to the UK, US, Japan, China, Canada, | Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Saudi Arabia, | Singapore, Bangladesh, Norway and France." what's not | mentioned is this represents 1% of plastic sent to the | country. The don't want to ban the process because the | other 99% is quite valuable domestically. | crazygringo wrote: | No, this is a sadly common misconception. | | Trash in rivers in Asia is from _local_ littering, pure | and simple. | | Trash that Western countries send over is simply buried | or burned. It's _not_ the source of plastic pollution in | rivers. There 's real concern with it being a source of | _air_ pollution when burned... but it 's simply _not_ | turning into litter. | qiqitori wrote: | Yes, agreed. I lived in Matsue a couple years ago and | found a couple nice spots that were covered in ocean | trash. Loads of plastic bottles both from Japan and other | countries (there was a milk carton from Australia), | styrofoam, polyester apparel, some random other stuff. | | Pic: https://blog.qiqitori.com/wp- | content/uploads/2017/08/DSC0249... | | Boring blog entry: | https://blog.qiqitori.com/2017/08/beach-cleaning-in- | matsue-j... | latchkey wrote: | Vietnam. Cambodia. Laos. I spent 4 years living and | traveling all over those countries by motorbike. | | Not just the beaches, but every single waterway, alley, | forest, jungle. Literally everywhere. | | I have pictures of the waterways in Saigon at low tide and | the ground is covered in plastic. At high tide, there are | government run boats that go up and down some of the | waterways to collect a fraction of the trash that people | just dump in there. | | Every single little town/commune/village has a spot on the | way in/out of town with mounds of trash (mostly plastic). | Usually partially burning, smelly and covered in bugs. | | It is tragic. | 4r4r4r wrote: | Hong Kong. Beaches are littered with plastic garbage | including bottles, bags, and wrappers for about 5 meters | off shore. After that its microplastics. This is across the | street from the Ferrari showroom. | acituan wrote: | > Beaches are absolutely covered in plastic waste and it's | noticeably worse each time I go. | | No disrespect but I don't think anyone can uniformly sample | all the beaches. There might as well be prevailing currents | that fill certain places disproportionately more, and leave | others disproportionately pristine. | | This "making a global inference based on the beaches we've | personally been to" is going to be deceptive in either | direction of the argument. | titzer wrote: | > This "making a global inference based on the beaches | we've personally been to" is going to be deceptive in | either direction of the argument. | | I've been to beaches on four continents and every. single. | one. The only place you _do not see_ [1] trash is where | someone has specifically picked up there, recently. That | tends to be places around resorts and people's homes. | Unless someone does it out of their own goodwill or is paid | to, the trash just floats up and accumulates. | | There's a place for healthy skepticism, but not denial. | | [1] You don't see it, but microplastics are _thoroughly_ | distributed through the ocean by this point. There is | literally no way of cleaning up microplastic pollution at | this point. We can only improve the optics at our scale. | morpheos137 wrote: | There is a huge difference between seeing a piece of | "trash" like a soda bottle or two every couple acres of | sand and a beach "covered" in trash. In my life I have | only seen one "beach" "covered" in trash in person and | that was Race Point at Fishers Island New York. It is | where much of the water exchange with the open ocean and | the eastern end of long island sound occurs so it stands | to reason that stuff would collect there. A mile away | there is a pristine sand beach. At race point there was | also a lot of drift wood when I visited including whole | tree trunks that had washed up. Much of the human created | waste was old, including metal debries like very old very | rusted rifle bullet casings presumeably from soliders at | the now abandoned pre world war two fort behind the | beach. Who knows the beach may have been the fort's dump. | acituan wrote: | > There's a place for healthy skepticism, but not denial. | | I'm not saying I'm necessarily denying your premise, at | least not wholesale, but what is the point of skepticism | if it doesn't include the possibility of rejecting a | premise? | | It's like saying "I'll allow you to ask questions but | ultimately you have to come my conclusion" | | We can be passionate _and_ rational at the same time. | titzer wrote: | We're in the middle of a discussion about plastic waste, | and some people add to the discussion by posting their | personal experiences as counter to people who have | clearly no personal experiences, and some other people | push back which what sounds like rational skepticism but | is really just shifting the burden of proof to an absurd | level, like they are going to dedicate years of their | life to visit a representative sample of beaches to even | post a comment. | | There's a point where skepticism becomes more than just | irritating, but entirely subtractive from the discussion. | It's hard to know what your intentions are from that | pushback, but it was borderline IMHO, and it certainly | muddies the waters. | | I'll be completely open about my intentions. I want | people to stop fucking up my river and, damn it, it's not | China or India's fault. OP is a complete distraction from | a real problem that exists _where I live_. I 'd like to | dump a few bags of garbage I picked up from the river on | their lawn and see what they think about some vague plan | to clean up the Ganges. | acituan wrote: | I'll try to be as clear as I can. | | There were several weaknesses with your argument that I | was hoping you to strengthen; | | - you were making yourself prone to availability bias; | I've been to beaches recently and none of those have the | problems you mention. That doesn't mean the problem | doesn't exist, it means we don't get to make sweeping | generalization from the partial reality we contact. Your | original rebuttal to the OP was "have you ever been to a | beach lately" | | - appeal to emotions; I'm personally sorry to hear your | local beach is in heartbreaking condition, but that alone | _does not_ amplify the strength of your claim that | "beaches are covered with litter". In fact it makes it | more easy to refute for anyone who doesn't readily | sympathize with your story, and that would harm what I | assume to be your ultimate goal which is a reduced | pollution. | | - overgeneralization: you're perfectly entitled to talk | about your personal experience, but when you assert that | as a method of establishing the global truth, that is the | motion that brings the burden of proof on you, not me | pointing that out. Maybe keep the strength of your | assertion in proportion to the data you personally have. | | It might look like waters are muddied for you, but I | think you might be the only one in confusion probably | because you seem to be very emotional about this topic. | Which is OK, like I said being passionate is OK, but the | weaknesses in your argumentation will only hurt your | cause. | titzer wrote: | This exactly the kind of snooty academic dialogue that is | subtractive. A personal attack couched as some kind of | psychological diagnosis. "You're being emotional." Please | deal with the substance of arguments, and don't make the | person the subject of discussion. That's textbook | distraction and is a logical fallacy. | | I'll be getting back to my representative sampling of the | world's beaches. And you made a mistake in that I didn't | claim that "all beaches are littered". Someone else | posted that. I wrote, "I've been to beaches on four | continents and every. single. one." That's about my | experiences. | | > appeal to emotions; I'm personally sorry to hear your | local beach is in heartbreaking condition | | You also misattributed this as an appeal to emotions. I | have a local problem. People are arguing about problems | in other countries as excuse to block action here. Stop | doing that. | | > overgeneralization: | | Again, I didn't. I pointed out the scale of the problem | is at least as big as my personal experience. It is, in | fact, larger than that. | | This side turn is subtractive from the discussion and I | hope you would consider not replying again with how wrong | I am and how my arguments are so bad. | acituan wrote: | > This exactly the kind of snooty academic dialogue that | is subtractive. | | It might feel like it is subtracting from your sense of | being right, which I am not saying you're definitely not, | but I think some readers might find it valuable in terms | of reaching to more well-thought-out conclusions. | | > A personal attack couched as some kind of psychological | diagnosis. "You're being emotional." | | I'm sorry you felt attacked, that wasn't my intention. | Having emotions is a human condition, not a psychological | diagnosis, and I thought I made it clear that I didn't | find anything demeaning about it. You just can't base | your arguments mainly on it though. | | > Please deal with the substance of arguments, and don't | make the person the subject of discussion | | It so happens you made your _personal experience_ and | your feeling about it the grounding of your argument; | making rebuttals on that basis is not making it personal, | it is actually an argument _against_ making things | personal. And at no point I invalidated your experience | or emotions or your personhood. | | > You also misattributed this as an appeal to emotions. I | have a local problem. People are arguing about problems | in other countries as excuse to block action here. Stop | doing that. | | Maybe the readers were mislead when you talked about 4 | continents, especially after an opener of "have you been | to any beaches recently". It wasn't clear, at least to | me, you were interested in talking about the local | phenomena. But thanks for clarifying that. | | Let's get one thing clear though, since we can't read | people's minds, it is equally undesirable ascribing | intentions of blocking action and other negative | predictions salient _to you_ in your mind, to others. So | I 'll kindly ask you to refrain from that first. | | > I hope you would consider not replying again with how | wrong I am and how my arguments are so bad. | | I've considered and still I think it would be to the | benefit of the community to remove the confusion between | the local-global, personal-general, emotional-rational. | If you are upset about receiving responses, you always | have the option of removing yourself from the discussion | first. Asking others to stop talking is a bit censor-y. | titzer wrote: | > especially after an opener of "have you been to any | beaches recently" | | I didn't write that, please check the thread. That was | someone else. | | > > don't make the person the subject of discussion | | Each time I replied I brought the discussion back on | topic and strengthened my arguments but your entire reply | is about me again, and there is precious little that | steer it back to a good resolution. | | > you always have the option of removing yourself from | the discussion first. Asking others to stop talking is a | bit censor-y. | | There is a different, meta-level dialog embedded in our | dialog, but this terribly ironic juxtaposition is exactly | the kind of distracting, subtractive, thing I meant. I | regret this exchange terribly at this point. I'll go back | to picking up garbage, since in my experience, that is | the only activity that reliably has impact. | acituan wrote: | > > especially after an opener of "have you been to any | beaches recently" I didn't write that, please check the | thread. That was someone else. | | Sorry I was confused about this, but the context to which | you seemed showed up in defense of; namely a personal | "observable"ism as a sufficient means to define the | nature of a global phenomena, makes the point stand. | | > There is a different, meta-level dialog embedded in our | dialog, but this terribly ironic juxtaposition is exactly | the kind of distracting, subtractive, thing I meant. | | I've been following that meta dialogue very closely and | here's what I wish we can agree on. Distraction and | subtraction hinges on our _personal_ formulation to solve | the problem at hand. | | My formulation strongly presupposes that rational | argumentation can scale through time and people better | than an emotional and personal appeal, at least in forums | similar to this. Your formulation seems to presuppose | that concentrating on the emotionality of your personal | experience and impressing the audience to action through | that is a better way to get results. You seem to feel any | poking holes in the logic is a disservice because it | takes away from that concentration of emotions and | impressions. | | To the extent these approaches are at odds (and I don't | think they necessarily are) any one could accuse the | opponent formulation of being subtractive, distracting, | action stopping etc. | | My plea is for you to see that you're willfully asserting | a supremacy of your particular formulation in this meta- | dialogue, without clear evidence that it is the case, and | with a desire to evacuate alternative formulations out of | an open forum. | | > I'll go back to picking up garbage, since in my | experience, that is the only activity that reliably has | impact. | | Since you've shared this, it is fair game to ask about | it, and I know it might piss you off but bear with me | because it has a point; is it an impact to the | environment or impact to your conscience? One could cut | their arm to feed the hungry, but how far could that go | for making a change? | | I'm bringing this up because it ties back to my original | point of taking time to _make sure we have the right | formulation_. The observable, the immediate, the | emotional is super-salient to us but that doesn 't | automatically mean more true, more effective and | ultimately the best thing to follow. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | But the question was about _why_ there was such an | obsession with plastic waste. If a lot of it was | accumulating at your beach, that would be all the sample | size you need to form an opinion. | 8note wrote: | Has north america stopped shipping it's plastic waste to Asia | now? | | Otherwise, that properly disposed of American waste likely | counts in Asia and Africa's mismanaged waste. Tacking somebody | else's name on the problem doesn't put you in the clear | Chris2048 wrote: | It also ignores having to double-bag stuff, or losing produce | when the bags get wet and split. | [deleted] | delfinom wrote: | >Then when you look at plastic pollution and see that for the | most part North America is quite good at properly disposing of | plastic you wonder why we are so obsessed with this as a | problem. | | You have read FAR too much into propaganda my friend. | | We ship our plastic waste to the third world you are saying | mismanages it. | | You are a degenerate like the rest of Americans. | morpheos137 wrote: | Added to what you said is the fact that the most commonly used | plastics like polyethylene are biological inert. Thus most | plastic is about as harmful as sand which only really harms | life in a mechanical way if at all. | | I think it is a mass hysteria fueled by social media. Plastics | are not bad for the environment in of themselves and certainly | not worse than chopping down trees to make paper or burning | coal to make glass. | | Solar produced polyethylene could be a terrific carbon sink if | there was not a mass hysteria about "plastics." | | It is so fascinating how the general public can demonise | something they don't even understand. | | "Plastic" in general is harmless to the environment. That is | because it is chemically inert. Plastics are used every day in | medical proceedures and medical devices. Plastics provide | habitats for small organisms. Ever find a discarded plastic | bottle that has been sitting in the woods for years? Usually it | is teeming with life, from algae to spiders, to worms and other | invertabraes. | GordonS wrote: | I don't disagree with everything you're saying here, but some | plastic products (especially bags, polystyrene boxes and | small pieces of plastic) are definitely harmful to some | animals, who of course form part of the environment. | seventytwo wrote: | If you want to view this from an entropy perspective, then | fossil fuels are basically cheating because their use can't be | used as part of a closed system (closed with respect to the | sun's lifetime) unless we factor in the energy and time | required to convert sunlight into crude oil or natural gas. | mschuster91 wrote: | > for the most part North America is quite good at properly | disposing of plastic | | Shipping trash to piss poor Asian and African countries is | _not_ adequate disposal | capybara_2020 wrote: | Just a quick search shows how even though it might be just 3%. | 3% is a huge number with the US being the biggest plastic waste | generator. 3% = 1.25 million metric tons. | | And in 2016, more than half of all the plastic collected in the | US was shipped abroad. To places that supposedly "mismanage" | plastic waste. | | I have personally seen the impact when China banned all this | waste from landing. It moved to places like Malaysia and | Indonesia. I got more than a few calls to try and see if they | could move that plastic from Malaysia and Indonesia to other | countries. It is still a massive ongoing problem. | | Basically the US and a lot of western countries have outsourced | pollution and then blame developing countries. This happens | when discussions about CO2 emissions also comes up. When most | of that pollution is generated production cheap goods for the | west. | | Source: | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/us-pl... | vimy wrote: | > This happens when discussions about CO2 emissions also | comes up. When most of that pollution is generated production | cheap goods for the west. | | 87% of Chinese emissions are attributable to domestic | consumption. https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds- | largest-co2-import... | jka wrote: | > Like many environmental initiatives I worry that we're more | concerned about making ourselves feel better than actually | solving the problem. | | Either way, instead of reifying the relevant facts and | statistics and iterating on them (or upturning them when | invalidated), we tend to debate them repeatedly, even over | decades as manufacturing methods and trends in society change. | | (this is me pining for a system like arguman[1] with the | critical mass of wikipedia to help forge these debates into | more reliable, long-term results) | | [1] - https://github.com/arguman/arguman.org | MattGaiser wrote: | Mostly because it is clearly visible and enduring pollution I | think. | [deleted] | superflit wrote: | Because the US is not the problem. | | The lobby is So strong against US that even if we take photos, | investigate where is the problem people will come and say: | | "The evil US made they do it." | | Because maybe the US Pay and ship a fraction to be recycled | outside US. But still US is blame for other countries | corruption too. | | It really does not matter. | | "Green" will became a hidden tax on middle class to power | elite. | ssivark wrote: | While the point about the energy consumption of paper -vs- | plastic is certainly worth considering seriously, you might | need to take a more careful look at your assumptions about | plastic disposal. | | Mismanaged plastic waste in Asia/Africa and really clean | numbers for North America are two sides of the same coin -- | flawed accounting. _The developing world certainly does not | consume, or generate anywhere close to the same amount of | waste, (per capita) as North America._ | | Part of the reason North America appears to have such clean | numbers for "properly disposing of[f] plastic" is that garbage | is _exported_ to poorer countries, either for "recycling" or | more likely burning/landfills (thereby externalizing the | accounting, and also most of the damage). | | Eg, see: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/30/21542109/plastic- | waste-u... and | https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/03/13/7025017... | beached_whale wrote: | A large chunk of the recycled materials in Canada and the US is | not recycled domestically and a majority of that is sent to | countries with inadequate controls. So the culpability starts | with the users/manufacturers. | vimy wrote: | I often see this claim but never any evidence for it. How do | we know it's Western plastic being dumped in rivers instead | of their own thrash? | beached_whale wrote: | That doesn't matter. | | Until the countries have processes and infrastructure in | place to properly handle it, it should not be sent there as | that is relying on inadequate laws to reduce costs. And | here we are. | | But here is an article that talks to some of it, single | source so grain of salt. https://www.plasticpollutioncoalit | ion.org/blog/2019/3/6/1570... | Trex_Egg wrote: | The Plastics from the North America is being shipped to south | and southeast Asia, probably. So what good it does to them. | sjg007 wrote: | Ummm... the USA exports a lot of plastic recycling. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/12/climate/plastics-waste-ex... | stjohnswarts wrote: | I think like a lot of this stuff it is virtue signaling by | stores and local governments. To be fair it does cut down a bit | on them flying around the neighborhood though. The plastic bags | in grocery stores aren't the real problem. The real problem is | plastic recycling is a joke and that we need to get people more | involved in reusing like we used to with glass or just using | your own containers. The fact is that Asia is the one dumping | 80% of the plastics into the ocean. Obviously Asia has a lot | more people than North America so the amount per capita might | not be all that different. We all need to adjust our ideas of | consumption. | [deleted] | jvanderbot wrote: | OK, the greenhouse-gas argument is correct, but misses the | point of plastic recycling. The point is not oil use, it is | plastic use and plastic pollution. If you've ever been to a | beach in some countries that's completely covered in plastic | bags, you'll instantly feel differently about disposable | plastic, which just seems to blow in the wind and float up to | the beaches. If oil were free and environmentally friendly, I'd | ask them to burn more of it to give me a solution to plastic -- | not more plastic. | | Glass is sand -- throw it in the deep ocean or pile it up I | don't care. Aluminum is recycled because it is cheaper than | mining new aluminum. That's a win. | | Still, your comment is spot on. Many, many environmental | initiatives have feel-good effect (Straws!?) and many, many | legislation efforts are not based on sound math. | | However, _trying_ to recycle plastic is noble enough, | especially if we're trying some fairly advanced methods. A | sound recycling method that produces usable fuel would go a | long way for those third world countries. I can think of no | greater incentive for recycling than a little cash in the | pocket of those who collect and return. Hell, every Tuesday | some poor soul comes and steals all the aluminum cans out of | our recycling bins for precisely this reason. Imagine if | plastic were equally reimbursed. | relax88 wrote: | The beaches covered in plastic bags are exactly my point. The | problem is plastic waste being mismanaged. | | Recycling is not a solution to mismanaged waste streams, and | yet for some reason everyone loves talking about recycling | plastics and nobody talks about ensuring that the other 80% | of plastics that aren't recycles or burned are properly | disposed of in landfills. | | The entire reason glass and aluminum are reimbursed is that | they are orders of magnitude more energy intensive to | produce. | | If the current recycling technology can't make a profit | recycling plastic bags then the solution is making sure each | and every piece of that plastic is properly disposed of in an | engineered landfill. | jvanderbot wrote: | I'm actually not disagreeing with you ("Still, your comment | is spot on."), just clarifying the motivation to remove | plastic and trying to show how recycling efforts do make | sense. | | > The beaches covered in plastic bags are exactly my point. | The problem is plastic waste being mismanaged. | | Yes, I agree. | | > Recycling is not a solution to mismanaged waste streams, | | Well, it can be. Incentivized collection (e.g., aluminum | and glass) motivates consumers better than providing | passive options that don't work well (like expecting | perfectly non-contaminated and sorted plastic from everyday | consumers). | | > If the current recycling technology can't make a profit | recycling plastic bags then the solution is making sure | each and every piece of that plastic is properly disposed | of in an engineered landfill. | | One solution is doing that. Another solution is not using | plastic or using less. A third is fixing current recycling | technology with (4th option) perhaps involving the plastic | producers and making plastic easier to recycle. | | You made an excellent point about waste management being a | very good cost effective solution to reducing plastic | pollution. You're fundamentally right, but absolutism based | on assumptions about people you disagree with doesn't help. | We can fix waste management, improve recycling, and reduce | supply all at once which _also_ reduces oil use at the same | time. | 3grdlurker wrote: | > everyone loves talking about recycling plastics | | Who's everyone? I've read more about economists and | environmental scientists outright calling out recycling, | and then proposing a complete abandonment of plastic | altogether. | noxer wrote: | The aluminum cans are stolen because they actually have a | intrinsic value. The plastic bag does not and there is no way | to artificially add value to it so people collect and return | them. | | >Glass is sand -- throw it in the deep ocean or pile it up I | don't care. | | But who gonna do that? And why would someone do that but not | do it for plastic? | | The reason we dont have a floating patch of glass in the | ocean is not because humans piled it up on land its because | its sinks and rather fast reaches a destination where it | stays for hundreds of years. Unlike plastic which falls apart | floats around get eaten by animals etc. etc. | | The oceans must be full of human made glass its just not | visible and has no known severe effects. But replacing all | plastic with glass/aluminum just for the small fraction that | will ends up in the ocean makes no sense. The extra pollution | cased by not using plastic is far far grater. Instead we | should focus on the moment plastic turn to pollution. Ive | used thousands of plastic bags in my life and none of them | ended up in the ocean. This is true for most people so where | do the bags actually "leak" into the environment. I would | assume there are places where rivers are used as garbage | trucks to move the trash away. This is the real problem. Not | people who actually use the plastic bags. Its people who | intentionally "dispose" trash in the environment. | sokoloff wrote: | Given how prevalent and light they are, I suspect some of | "your" bags have actually ended up as pollution (blowing | out of trucks, being mis-managed in waste processing, or | otherwise escaping the system that you dutifully turned | them over to). | | It's not like all the trash out in the ocean was dropped | off a boat by the original users. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | >"Ive used thousands of plastic bags in my life and none of | them ended up in the ocean." | | 99% chance this is wrong, just because you placed it into | garbage big does not mean it wasn't shipped off to china to | a poorly managed facility and didn't end up in the ocean | | >"But replacing all plastic with glass/aluminum just for | the small fraction that will ends up in the ocean makes no | sense." | | Do you remember when milk was delivered to your door, and | you returned the bottles, and they were reused? Reused | glass products make perfect sence. | | We now use inefficient, plastic laden and polluting | processes because we are lazy. Most people don't have a | real coffee machine, they buy shitty overpriced plastic | pods filled with second rate coffee that then pollute the | environment for 'convenience' | skripp wrote: | >The aluminum cans are stolen because they actually have a | intrinsic value. The plastic bag does not and there is no | way to artificially add value to it so people collect and | return them. | | Sure there is. When you buy a bag have it cost $1. If you | return the bag you get that back, or maybe $.90 to cover | the cost. Not sure about the US, but this is done with | glass and plastic bottles in a lot of countries. | saddlerustle wrote: | > It's being trucked to a cement plant northeast of Salt Lake | City that burns it for fuel. | | That seems way _worse_ than putting it in a landfill? | thrower123 wrote: | With modern emissions controls in an incinerator, you take a | tractor trailer load of waste and turn it into a coffee can of | ash that needs to go in the landfill. | | And you get a megawatt/hour of electricity out. | saddlerustle wrote: | A landfill is a far more sensible place for the waste to end | up than the atmosphere. | crisdux wrote: | Not necessarily. In countries like Japan and Sweden, they | claim that their waste to energy (trash burning) operations | reduce greenhouse gases when all factors are considered. So | much so that Sweden imports trash to burn. Landfills arent | the best place either. For example, organic waste | decomposing in landfills produces methane gas, which is way | more potent than carbon dioxide. There is an argument to be | made that burning organic waste is better than burying it. | | Trash incinerations are too controversial in the US to | expand much. I think because of a ill-informed public. | saddlerustle wrote: | Volatile organic waste yes, but most plastic waste | doesn't decay into methane in significant quantities. | crisdux wrote: | But still, America has a large untapped opportunity to | curb greenhouse gas emissions through more use of trash | burning power plants. What's required is the right | controls, technology and public education. That included | mixed trash with plastics. Our efforts to reduce | emissions need to be multi pronged. | ashtonkem wrote: | On which metric? For global warming it's worse, but it's | probably better in terms of water and soil pollution. | Forge36 wrote: | Is burning the waste to CO2 worse than the methane from decay | in a landfill? | saddlerustle wrote: | Plastics don't decay into methane in significant | quantities. | saddlerustle wrote: | The water and soil pollution from a landfill is predominantly | caused by biodegradable waste. Hard plastics aren't a big | contributor _because_ they 're stable for a hundred years. | TheRealPomax wrote: | "This is future humanity's problem, if there ever is one" | is not a great argument though. Eventually it destabilized, | and 400 years from now all the plastic we've put in the | grounds in the last few decades will "suddenly" all create | a whole new problem. | saddlerustle wrote: | Yes, but climate change is definitely going to cause | problems in far less than 400 years, and landfill soil | pollution is highly regional problem, not a global | problem. | zug_zug wrote: | Well, I'd presume it's releasing a lot of chemicals into the | air. | | https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/21/bpa- | exp... | ashtonkem wrote: | I skimmed, but I don't see anything in that article about | burning. Given that BPA begins to decompose at a measly | 227C, I doubt a lot of it would escape a proper | incinerator. | Spooky23 wrote: | Cement is a cornucopia of nasty stuff anyway. | ashtonkem wrote: | It also releases CO2 at roughly a 1:1 ratio too. One ton | of cement is roughly one ton of CO2. | ju-st wrote: | It's better for global warming when the plastic is replacing | oil/gas in the cement plant. | toast0 wrote: | Burning waste for fuel is generally a good thing, if done with | reasonable emissions controls. | | Less waste to store in a landfill. Less new fossil fuel | extracted to run the cement plant. Less fuel used to transport | the fuel. | saddlerustle wrote: | It makes no difference to the atmosphere whether you're | burning oil or plastics made out of oil. It's better to not | burn oil at all! | nostromo wrote: | The cement plant was using coal and would continue to do so | without the recycled plastic. | | Saying, "just don't make cement" isn't a serious answer. | 8note wrote: | Make significantly less cement could be an answer though. | | If we design structures to last much longer, we don't | need to keep replacing them | samstave wrote: | I've always wondered how a better filter could be for | factory emissions, specifically, if you could pipe the | emissions to come out of the bottom of a giant pond, filled | with water that will capture a lot of the particulate as it | aerates up through the water? and then treat the water the | same way you would normally | | Like if the bottom of the pond was filled with layers of | activated charcoal, aerogel pellets (aerogel is known to | collect heavy metals pretty efficiently... and then sand. | | A reverse water filter basically. | escape_goat wrote: | This is a somewhat blinkered perspective. It's true in a | sense, but the emissions can be offset by not burning some | oil that's in the ground not causing any problems. In the | meantime, it is an optimal way of getting rid of huge | categories of toxic or otherwise intransigent waste that | will have harmful effects if they are not removed from the | biosphere. | saddlerustle wrote: | But carbon in the atmosphere has a _much_ worse effect on | the biosphere than plastics in a landfill. | escape_goat wrote: | This is a false assertion. There is always carbon in the | atmosphere and there should always be carbon in the | atmosphere. The only thing that has a negative impact is | when the total amount of carbon is excessive. "Plastics | in a landfill" are poorly and temporarily sequestered and | are a potential source of future groundwater | contamination. | saddlerustle wrote: | It's very well established that the current amount of | carbon is the atmosphere is excessive. | escape_goat wrote: | Yes. That was not what you claimed and it does not imply | that your argument is correct, for reasons that I feel | I've spelt out fairly patiently. You are welcome to | remain opposed to the incineration of plastic waste, but | I feel that your reasoning suffers from tunnel vision. | speeder wrote: | I was thinking these days, that when I was a kid some 20 years | ago, people were all the rage against paper, because you had to | cut trees and whatnot, everything was switching to plastic so you | could "save the trees" | | I still wonder what that was about, all it did was screw the | paper companies that had their own private forests, and cause the | stupid plastic patch on the pacific ocean, and now everyone has | to switch BACK to paper. | samstave wrote: | Could have been a PR campaign from Big Oil to sell more | plastics only. | nitrogen wrote: | If previous environmental outcries were driven by PR, what's | driving the current plastics outcry? Why should one believe | that "this time is different?" | [deleted] | hoppyhoppy2 wrote: | Maybe the overarching moral of the story is that single-use | "disposable" products aren't a good environmental option | regardless of what material they're made of. | jolux wrote: | This is true but the incentives are currently not calibrated | to ensure that more durable products are used. Making | disposable bags more expensive, or similar to, reusable bags | would go a long way here, I think. | | And there are some cases where disposables are important for | hygiene and safety, like medical usage. But it would be best | to reduce production to those things that have a strong | reason to be disposable. | cogman10 wrote: | I have a little bit of a different take here. | | Paper products represent carbon sequestration. Single use | paper products are great in that they are capturing and | locking atmospheric carbon. | | Trees are renewable resources that can be farmed. I never | understood the "save the trees" argument. From what? Most | modern lumber harvesting not only cuts down trees, but plants | new trees for later harvest. Same way we plant other | consumables. Where's the "save the potato!" movement? | alkonaut wrote: | Fwiw I never heard the "save the trees" only "save the | rainforest" (which still makes sense). I grew up with 10k | trees per capita though and now it's probably more because | farmland is abandoned. | 8note wrote: | Sequestration only works if the carbon stays locked up. | | If you dispose of the bag, and it decomposes to methane in | the landfill and is then burned, you've barely done any | sequestration | the-smug-one wrote: | Well, the slogan should be something like "Save diverse | fauna, flora and funghi which goes through a natural life | cycle inside of a vast forest with trees of varying species | and ages", but that doesn't fit on a t-shirt :). | | Edit: Apparently _all_ living organisms are collectively | called "biota", cool. | refurb wrote: | But that's rarely been highlighted. Plastic bags in grocery | stores are banned but I've always reused them multiple times. | Now I just buy bags to replace the ones I don't get now. | | If the message is "be diligent and minimize use of materials" | that's a pretty agreeable statement to most. | kaybe wrote: | I wish the plastic packaging of the toilet paper was even | better suited as a liner for the bathroom bin. It's just | good enough as it is, but the producers don't even seem to | be aware of this fantastic secondary function. | ip26 wrote: | 30-40 years ago logging was running at an unsustainable clip, | so it was probably a fair criticism at the time. | tobias3 wrote: | Then you had a different experience from me. Some teachers in | e.g. elementary school forbade binding our loaned books with | plastic and had us use paper instead even though that broke | much too fast and we had to redo it all the time. This was in | Germany. | gotoeleven wrote: | I mean I guess it's nice that a mainstream press outlet is | finally admitting what has been known for 20+ years--that | recycling, with few exceptions like aluminum, is a big waste of | energy and wealth and is a net negative for the environment | overall--but only when they can somehow blame it on "big oil." | Maybe we can end the idiotic ritual of sorting our garbage like | hobos now? | | The focus should be on reducing plastic usage overall and using | paper-based materials except where absolutely necessary. The | recycling catechism telling us the answer to waste is recycling | has probably done more harm than good because it has prevented us | from thinking properly about the problem. | stewbrew wrote: | Again? This is getting tiresome. | fmajid wrote: | Plastic recycling is a scam designed to lull people's conscience | with the illusion that it will be taken care of, when the reality | is it ends up in landfill or worse. | | I think we should phase out plastic for aluminum instead. It's | estimated 75% of all the aluminum ever produced is still in use | because of recycling. Instead of wasting time and effort in | trying to make material that is inherently hard and unprofitable | to recycle recyclable, use one that has a proven track record of | being profitably recycled. | ggcdn wrote: | We've been misled for so long into thinking this is a consumer | problem that needs downstream solutions. Actually I think it's a | regulatory problem that needs upstream regulation | samstave wrote: | I agree, I have always thought that these biggest CPG (Consumer | packaged goods) companies, oil and plastics companies should be | required to have a larger % of their packaging as glass, paper, | mycelium, etc. and they should be required to accept any and | all used products containers and recycle them themselves. | | We think of milk men and the reusable coke bottle programs as | archaic in the day of instant gratification from something that | you then just throw away after single use. | | Milk companies, and the coke cleaning recycling program (in the | Philippines) for example are good examples of a more closed | loop packaging solution. | lou1306 wrote: | Somewhat related: John Oliver recently did a segment [0] on | plastics and how we recycle it (spoiler: mostly we can't). | | It seems regulations are sorely needed: differentiating domestic | plastic waste will not get us very far. Still, research on waste | reuse must continue: I'm afraid we won't put effort into really | cleaning up our mess unless it becomes a somewhat profitable | business. | | [0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiu9GSOmt8E | delfinom wrote: | Not to worry, people want to recycle it by turning into roads! | | Completely ignoring the microplastics disaster it will | accelerate | 8note wrote: | Let alone that blacktop is the big win of reuse and recycling | already, and these plastic additives likely make it less | reusable | golemiprague wrote: | Japan burns most of its plastic for energy in a pretty clean way, | why not copy it to other places? Maybe not ideal but pretty | decent solution | ezconnect wrote: | As much as we hate plastic waste it made our food distribution | safer and cleaner. | londons_explore wrote: | Plenty of paper bags don't really break down either. From the | 'inks' which are actually a plastic coating, to the plastic based | glue, to the paper itself which seems to rot far far slower than | wood fibers, presumably because of some additive. | | Try it today - put a grocery store paper bag in your compost, and | watch it still be there in a decade. | beckman466 wrote: | From the top comment and others like it, it seems many of us are | looking at this from a non-systemic viewpoint. Example: | | > Plastic waste really isn't a big problem unless you're talking | about developing nations. North America is responsible for about | 3% of mismanaged plastic waste. Asia and Africa account for 86% | of it. | | Except when you look at the logos that are on the waste, you see | that they are all products made by Global North/Western companies | (Coca Cola bottles, etc.). So is it really fair to blame workers | who buy things in unsustainable packaging that is produced by a | big company? | | I love the short movie 'The Story of Stuff'. It does a great job | of illustrating that we should focus on the point of production | (and the pollution caused there by big companies), instead of | looking at the point where we meet the products for the first | time (on a shelf in a store). | | The Story of Stuff by Annie Leonard: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM | Meandering wrote: | Thanks for linking "The Story of Stuff". I remembered the | content but forgot the title. I would look at how gasification | is evolving for waste disposal. | | So, who is responsible for improper disposal of waste? I would | say that the end consumer has a responsibility to dispose waste | correctly. However, it seems the ability to do so has been | tainted by a horrible waste management system. | | Plastic Wars: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic- | wars/ | | Plastic is a cheap and versatile material. It is a by-product | of an independently lucrative business; oil. I would love to | see alternatives but, the development of sustainable packaging | is hiding behind a research market barrier and the economic | cost difference between the cheap "waste" product of oil. I | hope consumer choice leads use to a better system... where | those choices are informed and have influence. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-31 23:00 UTC)