You must log in or # to comment.
I have long known that plastic “recycling” in less-developed countries meant bury or burn. Now it is becoming apparent that the same applies to developed countries too. Six percent actually recycled is worse than a joke, due recyclers’ contribution to micro plastic pollution. Waste-to-energy is the only way we’ll ever get a handle on the problem. Hopefully the dioxin-like byproducts will kill fewer of us than micro plastics themselves.
I’ve recently been thinking a lot about the recyclability of plastic. I have several stacks of plastic drink cups from various fast food joints in my kitchen; as much as possible, I try to save up and bundle together similar types of plastic before I throw it in the recycling bin, to try to save some sorting effort. And in doing so, I noticed something.
The thing is, a lot of single-use plastics have very similar properties. PETE, HDPE, Polypropylene, solid polystyrene, they’re all used to package similar or identical products. I think they’re more or less interchangeable, and the choice of a given plastic for a given application has more to do with cost, availability and the preferences of the product engineer than any specific material properties of the plastic itself. There’s obviously going to be some exceptions, but I think those are going to be few and far between, and a lot of them could be addressed by switching to other materials.
I think a great first step would be for regulators to encourage/force industries to standardize on one or two types of plastic at most, and eliminate plastics that aren’t worth recycling, like polystyrene. That should reduce the manual labor required by a significant amount once the other plastics are eliminated from the waste stream, and make it feasible to recycle plastics locally instead of shipping them off to a third world country.
I think companies should be taxed or otherwise penalized for the plastic waste they foist on consumers, because often there’s little choice involved unless you want to boycott a company entirely. If I wanted to eliminate plastic cups from my life, I’d pretty much have to stop getting fast food altogether (yes I know I should probably do that anyway, but that’s beside the point). A tax on bulk purchases of plastic may end up being passed down to consumers, but the revenue could be put towards subsidizing production of more renewable materials.
I think food stamp programs could be a strong driver for change on this, as they could refuse to cover products that generate excessive waste. With enough warning, there should be enough time for companies to switch their products to be compliant with little disruption to the consumer.
A tax on bulk purchases of plastic may end up being passed down to consumers
Which is how it should be. The cost is being paid either way. It’s either the consumer that pays, or we all pay for it.
We’re posting quillette now?
Jesus Christ how low we have sunk.
Never heard of the site before. What’s the backstory?
Long story short, they carry water for “the alt right”, aka the current rebrand of fucking Nazis.
I’m not familiar with quilette, but there was a great Washington Post op-ed that broke down exactly why trying to recycle plastic is a bad idea. Here’s a link to it, no paywall: https://wapo.st/3VRnTNl
1.) Plastic breaks down into micro- and nanoplastic particles and get inhaled or consumed by everybody, and we’re just starting to understand how these bits affect our health (like increased systemic inflammation). Recycling facilities breaking down used plastic release untold amounts of plastic bits into their surrounding environments.
2.) “Recycling” old plastic into usable material requires the addition of a LOT of brand new, never-recycled plastic. It’s not a process where you put in used plastics and get some amount of usable plastic out, recycled plastic is like 30% old plastic and 70% new plastic to hold it all together. This is a process we’ve been trying to optimize for 50 years, and the improvements are negligible.
3.) The recycled plastic we get out of it isn’t safe to use for food and drink. (Have you seen those 20 oz. Coke bottles that say “I’m 100% recycled!”? Don’t drink those.) Nobody’s laying down the law and saying they can’t do that, and it’ll be a long time before anyone overcomes the social inertia and corporate lobbyists to stop that from happening.
Plastics are for landfills. I feel like such a piece of shit every time I throw another piece of plastic in the trash, but it’s the option that’s safest for everybody. (I feel like the French climatologist in Project Hail Mary every time.) Recycling isn’t a goal that will help; we need to adapt and reduce how much plastic we use.
To dismiss any information merely because it emanates from a source they disfavor is the epitome of liberalism, a testament to their steadfast commitment to ideological purity over factual veracity.
dismiss any information merely because it emanates from a source they disfavor is the epitome of liberalism
But there are sources that we’d doubt more, right?
In this case, I think the info is decent, since other sources say similar stuff and it makes sense withp previous info/experience.
Not related to science news, but I’m careful of sources with a right-wing bias in the context of general news. I’ve had experiences where they had exaggerated or twisted news. Not that left-wing sources are totally free of it, but it the scale n frequency in exaggeration seems different. And it often gets criticises by left-wing people too.
So, I am more careful of those rightwing sources. Am I a liberal because of that?
The reality is that every source will have some sort of a view point which constitutes a bias. I think people should be careful with all sources, and it’s actually good to look at viewpoints from across the spectrum. You don’t have to agree with them or trust them, but it’s often useful to understand their perspective even if for the purpose of framing a counterpoint. If you know a source like quillette has a particular bias, then you just keep it in mind when you read it.
The sources I dismiss are the ones that can’t provide primary sources for the claims they make or are known to be factually wrong. These are the kinds of sources that constitute a waste of time and should be avoided.
Hold your horses pardner.
First of all, I didn’t comment on the merits of recycling plastic. I know it’s stupid. Everyone knows it’s stupid.
Second, the assertion that “To dismiss any information merely because it emanates from a source they disfavor is the epitome of liberalism” requires some seriously odd definition of “liberalism” to be true.
Third, quillette can go get very fucked all the way.
Fourth, “the epitome of liberalism, a testament to their steadfast commitment to ideological purity” is legit the funniest shit I’ve heard all week. You are accusing liberals of striving for ideological purity? Liberals?
Yes, libs value ideological purity above all else, and anybody outside the lib bubble can see that. It’s the most insular ideology by far.
Ok, let’s do this.
Can you please explain to me the tenets of the supposedly dogmatic ideology of “liberalism” as you understand them?
I am asking you. And I’m asking a substantially more specific question than “what is liberalism”.
At least you could cite the relevant sections of that mammoth document.
It’s kind of weird to ask for what my view of liberalism is, and then immediately reject a detailed explanation you’re provided with. It’s as if you don’t actually care for the answer to your question. That said, I’ll sum up the relevant points for you here.
The English revolution of 1649 led to the rise of a liberal capitalist system based on greed, exploitation, and violence. The western political-economic system, with its focus on profit and expansion, is a direct result of this historical process. Freedom under liberalism primarily refers to freedom of those who own private property to exploit others for their benefit.
The commercial mindset permeates every aspect of life, with money becoming the central focus of thought and action creating a society that is inherently expansionist and imperialist, fueled by a relentless pursuit of new markets and profit. This expansion is achieved through violence and subjugation. The imposition of the capitalist system that is at the root of liberalism is based on violence and coercion, forcing individuals to conform to its principles or face dire consequences.
Liberalism has two distinct aspects: political liberalism, which champions individual freedom and democracy, and economic liberalism, which is synonymous with capitalism. While appearing compatible when fighting against oppressive regimes, the two faces of liberalism clash once power is attained. Political liberties are inevitably sacrificed to protect the economic interests of the ruling class.
When threatened by populism, liberalism readily abandons its political ideals in favor of preserving the capitalist economic system. Liberalism ultimately serves as a mask for capitalism, concealing its exploitative nature behind a facade of individual freedom and democracy.
The concept of property, central to liberalism, is presented as a cornerstone of freedom. However, it ignores the fact that individual property can represent a theft from the community, and its protection justifies state violence. Liberalism’s commitment to freedom of expression is undermined by its legal and constitutional protections of property, which remove the issue of property rights from the realm of political discourse.
Overall, liberalism is a deceptive ideology that masks the exploitative nature of capitalism. It prioritizes the protection of property and economic interests over genuine political freedom and open debate.
