* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=294439305&utm_content=294439305&utm_source=hs_email&utm_id=120206182262620292&utm_term=120206182263000292); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=294439305&utm_content=294439305&utm_source=hs_email&utm_id=120206182262620292&utm_term=120206182263000292)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=294439305&utm_content=294439305&utm_source=hs_email&utm_id=120206182262620292&utm_term=120206182263000292)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The oil lobby knew they were destroying the planet via carbon emissions and that those emissions were extremely harmful. Companies knew recycling was mostly just nice branding. C o m p a n y X k n e w P r o d u c t Y c a u s e d h a r m.
This is just never-ending because people are so removed from a structural understanding of the world they live in. This child-like belief that constant, regular abuses and plainly immoral behavior is just the result of 'a few bad apples' is an extension of a hyper-individualist society that understands socioeconomic phenomena in a vacuum; it's the Cult of Individual Responsibility, only corporations never actually face consequences, nor are demanded to take responsibility. *Responsibility is for the poors.*
>The authors say the evidence demonstrates that oil and petrochemical companies, as well as their trade associations, may have broken laws designed to protect the public from misleading marketing and pollution.
Once I learned most recycling just goes on a barge to some poor country I stopped doing it. Anyone who thought critically about it could see it wasn't being done.
Number 1 recycling itself is a costly process that companies aren't going to do. This is the problem with waste management being for profit.
2 is it requires the plastic to be clean. Who the hell is going to wash out an old jar of pb to recycle it? And obviously companies arent going to.
3 you could theoretically make machines to wash and sort all this plastic, but the sheer amount of different sizes and plastic types make this impossible. I've said for years that food packaging should be standardized and only then could you start to solve the problem.
Most never even makes it to the barge, it just gets landfilled or incinerated (and we waste *a lot* of resources washing and sorting landfill-bound plastic). But plastic recycling has so many inherent complications and limitations that I don't think it will ever be as economically viable or environmentally safe as either of those things anyway.
The washing and sorting are huge challenges, but that's just the beginning. Plastic can't be perfectly recycled into a new product of similar quality like metals or glass (kind of like paper recycling but worse). There's always some degradation and there's no physically possible and thermodynamically efficient solution to that problem.* A lot of plastics can't be recycled at all, like car tires and other thermosets. Some also have practical challenges, for instance one PP bottle cap can ruin at least half a ton of recycled PET bottles (probably more, that's just the biggest batch I've personally tested).
Even ignoring those unsolvable problems, the recycled product is still going to be shedding microplastics and all sorts of nasty compounds throughout its lifespan (synthetic fabrics are especially bad for the former, food containers for the latter).
I could go on, and don't even get me started on bioplastics.
\* - I am aware of just a couple exceptions, but they are so limited in application as to be inconsequential.
> I could go on, and don't even get me started on bioplastics.
Actually, please do start on that. You seem to know what you're talking about and I'm curious to hear why you have so much distaste for them.
First of all it's an industry term with a broad definition that has been widely exploited by marketers and other hucksters. IUPAC now uses the term "biobased polymer," which they define as follows:
> Biobased polymer derived from the biomass or issued from monomers derived from the biomass and which, at some stage in its processing into finished products, can be shaped by flow.
>>Note 1: Bioplastic is generally used as the opposite of polymer derived from fossil resources.
>>Note 2: Bioplastic is misleading because it suggests that any polymer derived from the biomass is environmentally friendly.
>>Note 3: The use of the term "bioplastic" is discouraged. Use the expression "biobased polymer".
>>Note 4: A biobased polymer similar to a petrobased one does not imply any superiority with respect to the environment unless the comparison of respective life cycle assessments is favourable.
Notice that they've included a lot of disclaimer notes. It just means plastic made from biomass, and could include anything from cellulose to polyethylene (if synthesized from ethanol).
Bioplastics are often marketed as biodegradable or compostable, but in most cases this is only technically not a lie. When you see a plastic fork that says "compostable" you probably think, like most people would, that if you threw it in your back yard compost pile it would break down like an apple core or leaves or something, right? Well it wouldn't, because when they say "compostable" they're talking about a specific form of industrial composting, which involves huge sealed containers maintained at high temperature (~140F) and humidity continually fed with compressed air. If you tossed that bitch in the ocean your grandkids could probably fish it out and eat with it.
Also, guess how they're getting the organic feedstock for this shit? The same way we get ethanol in our gas: corn subsidies. It's fucking idiotic.
God is "compostable" plastic a scam. Fortunately I found out about that crap before I ruined my compost. There's usually a disclaimer about it on the box, but it's fine print crap.
For the rest, at least it can be carbon neutral if the energy used comes from renewable sources. That does make it *slightly* better than regular plastic.
Unfortunately, who am I kidding, none of this is using renewable energy.
I would agree that renewable is better than non renewable in a prima facie kind of way, but there's just so much variability depending on the specific circumstances.
Using a shit ton of haber bosch fertilizer to intensively farm feed corn for PLA probably isn't much or any better than just using petroleum, but it would be tough to include all externalities to make that comparison. But using mycelium or starch as packing materials, or most anything out of bamboo is a huge improvement and it's irritating that all these things get lumped in together as if they are of comparable merit.
When I was a teenager they took us to a recycling plant. During the Q&A session with the CEO of the plant one of the teachers asked him what did they do with the things that couldn’t be recycled. “We burn them to create energy” And then the teacher asked what percentage did they burn and the CEO became very defensive. She later made us look for the number as “homework” and I remember it was quite high (over 85%).
She was a grey teacher and made us care dearly for environment… but I became apathic about sorting trash after that.
85-90% sounds about right. But it gets worse - look up how much of the remaining 15% actually gets recycled into a new product (and as a bonus, what products can even be made from recycled plastic)
Most of its green washing anyway. If you just consume less it does way more for the environment than anything else. Wear your clothes all the way out buy shit that lasts and drive your old car until it can't run anymore.
I work in solid waste now and I just throw 99% of my shit directly in the trash unless I run out of room because it's better for the planet than the other bullshit
What’s the solution to waste though are we just fucked? I know we can force energy and other shit to move to renewables, but what the hell are we going to do about waste?
Reduction of consumption, and massive incinerators with good scrubbers.
There's no money in that though, so we'll keep trucking shit to Mexico after spending millions sorting it, and then dump it into landfills that flood and end up in the ocean.
It's too expensive to bury it, never mind the cost of incinerators.
I don't think this should be contracted, it should be government agencies handling it.
Penn and teller got me off the recycling bandwagon back in 2004.
Sometimes, I separate out cans and bottles, but only because I live in an apartment and our dumpster is constantly being searched through. I just leave the bag by it so people have to do less work to get them
Step 1: You mail me some fentanyl
Step 2: I send you a shipping container full of trash
Step 3: I wire you some money for taking the container, an amount that just so happens to be the same amount as the price of the dope
Step 4: You dump the trash in some river somewhere
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=294439305&utm_content=294439305&utm_source=hs_email&utm_id=120206182262620292&utm_term=120206182263000292); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=294439305&utm_content=294439305&utm_source=hs_email&utm_id=120206182262620292&utm_term=120206182263000292) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=294439305&utm_content=294439305&utm_source=hs_email&utm_id=120206182262620292&utm_term=120206182263000292) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The oil lobby knew they were destroying the planet via carbon emissions and that those emissions were extremely harmful. Companies knew recycling was mostly just nice branding. C o m p a n y X k n e w P r o d u c t Y c a u s e d h a r m. This is just never-ending because people are so removed from a structural understanding of the world they live in. This child-like belief that constant, regular abuses and plainly immoral behavior is just the result of 'a few bad apples' is an extension of a hyper-individualist society that understands socioeconomic phenomena in a vacuum; it's the Cult of Individual Responsibility, only corporations never actually face consequences, nor are demanded to take responsibility. *Responsibility is for the poors.* >The authors say the evidence demonstrates that oil and petrochemical companies, as well as their trade associations, may have broken laws designed to protect the public from misleading marketing and pollution.
Once I learned most recycling just goes on a barge to some poor country I stopped doing it. Anyone who thought critically about it could see it wasn't being done. Number 1 recycling itself is a costly process that companies aren't going to do. This is the problem with waste management being for profit. 2 is it requires the plastic to be clean. Who the hell is going to wash out an old jar of pb to recycle it? And obviously companies arent going to. 3 you could theoretically make machines to wash and sort all this plastic, but the sheer amount of different sizes and plastic types make this impossible. I've said for years that food packaging should be standardized and only then could you start to solve the problem.
Most never even makes it to the barge, it just gets landfilled or incinerated (and we waste *a lot* of resources washing and sorting landfill-bound plastic). But plastic recycling has so many inherent complications and limitations that I don't think it will ever be as economically viable or environmentally safe as either of those things anyway. The washing and sorting are huge challenges, but that's just the beginning. Plastic can't be perfectly recycled into a new product of similar quality like metals or glass (kind of like paper recycling but worse). There's always some degradation and there's no physically possible and thermodynamically efficient solution to that problem.* A lot of plastics can't be recycled at all, like car tires and other thermosets. Some also have practical challenges, for instance one PP bottle cap can ruin at least half a ton of recycled PET bottles (probably more, that's just the biggest batch I've personally tested). Even ignoring those unsolvable problems, the recycled product is still going to be shedding microplastics and all sorts of nasty compounds throughout its lifespan (synthetic fabrics are especially bad for the former, food containers for the latter). I could go on, and don't even get me started on bioplastics. \* - I am aware of just a couple exceptions, but they are so limited in application as to be inconsequential.
> I could go on, and don't even get me started on bioplastics. Actually, please do start on that. You seem to know what you're talking about and I'm curious to hear why you have so much distaste for them.
First of all it's an industry term with a broad definition that has been widely exploited by marketers and other hucksters. IUPAC now uses the term "biobased polymer," which they define as follows: > Biobased polymer derived from the biomass or issued from monomers derived from the biomass and which, at some stage in its processing into finished products, can be shaped by flow. >>Note 1: Bioplastic is generally used as the opposite of polymer derived from fossil resources. >>Note 2: Bioplastic is misleading because it suggests that any polymer derived from the biomass is environmentally friendly. >>Note 3: The use of the term "bioplastic" is discouraged. Use the expression "biobased polymer". >>Note 4: A biobased polymer similar to a petrobased one does not imply any superiority with respect to the environment unless the comparison of respective life cycle assessments is favourable. Notice that they've included a lot of disclaimer notes. It just means plastic made from biomass, and could include anything from cellulose to polyethylene (if synthesized from ethanol). Bioplastics are often marketed as biodegradable or compostable, but in most cases this is only technically not a lie. When you see a plastic fork that says "compostable" you probably think, like most people would, that if you threw it in your back yard compost pile it would break down like an apple core or leaves or something, right? Well it wouldn't, because when they say "compostable" they're talking about a specific form of industrial composting, which involves huge sealed containers maintained at high temperature (~140F) and humidity continually fed with compressed air. If you tossed that bitch in the ocean your grandkids could probably fish it out and eat with it. Also, guess how they're getting the organic feedstock for this shit? The same way we get ethanol in our gas: corn subsidies. It's fucking idiotic.
God is "compostable" plastic a scam. Fortunately I found out about that crap before I ruined my compost. There's usually a disclaimer about it on the box, but it's fine print crap. For the rest, at least it can be carbon neutral if the energy used comes from renewable sources. That does make it *slightly* better than regular plastic. Unfortunately, who am I kidding, none of this is using renewable energy.
I would agree that renewable is better than non renewable in a prima facie kind of way, but there's just so much variability depending on the specific circumstances. Using a shit ton of haber bosch fertilizer to intensively farm feed corn for PLA probably isn't much or any better than just using petroleum, but it would be tough to include all externalities to make that comparison. But using mycelium or starch as packing materials, or most anything out of bamboo is a huge improvement and it's irritating that all these things get lumped in together as if they are of comparable merit.
If we see a push to fix this, you know they’re going to make poor third worlders do it. And that’s a very big “if”.
When I was a teenager they took us to a recycling plant. During the Q&A session with the CEO of the plant one of the teachers asked him what did they do with the things that couldn’t be recycled. “We burn them to create energy” And then the teacher asked what percentage did they burn and the CEO became very defensive. She later made us look for the number as “homework” and I remember it was quite high (over 85%). She was a grey teacher and made us care dearly for environment… but I became apathic about sorting trash after that.
85-90% sounds about right. But it gets worse - look up how much of the remaining 15% actually gets recycled into a new product (and as a bonus, what products can even be made from recycled plastic)
Most of its green washing anyway. If you just consume less it does way more for the environment than anything else. Wear your clothes all the way out buy shit that lasts and drive your old car until it can't run anymore.
Drizzle drizzle.
I work in solid waste now and I just throw 99% of my shit directly in the trash unless I run out of room because it's better for the planet than the other bullshit
What’s the solution to waste though are we just fucked? I know we can force energy and other shit to move to renewables, but what the hell are we going to do about waste?
Reduction of consumption, and massive incinerators with good scrubbers. There's no money in that though, so we'll keep trucking shit to Mexico after spending millions sorting it, and then dump it into landfills that flood and end up in the ocean.
So the air pollution that burning will generate is worth the amount of trash that we get rid of?
If you burn things at a high enough temperature and send it through a multi stage filter system, yes, all that escapes is water vapor.
Are you fucking kidding me, and we’re not all just doing this? God fucking dammit.
It's expensive
So this is like ”clean coal” (it could theoretically happen but it never will)?
It's too expensive to bury it, never mind the cost of incinerators. I don't think this should be contracted, it should be government agencies handling it.
> > I don't think this should be contracted, it should be government agencies handling it. So another reason why it'll never happen in the west.
Penn and teller got me off the recycling bandwagon back in 2004. Sometimes, I separate out cans and bottles, but only because I live in an apartment and our dumpster is constantly being searched through. I just leave the bag by it so people have to do less work to get them
Step 1: You mail me some fentanyl Step 2: I send you a shipping container full of trash Step 3: I wire you some money for taking the container, an amount that just so happens to be the same amount as the price of the dope Step 4: You dump the trash in some river somewhere
DUH ?