Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 253 posts

Re: 91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

#121

Post by cmrdporcupine »

afarrell wrote: post #97
ngokevin wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An idea is to get the companies to internalize these costs through a carbon tax which can be invested into climate change action (which is another story). At the moment, the consequence is that companies have zero incentive to act for the planet, so they will continue their behaviors. Perhaps they pass some of these costs down to consumers which makes them less likely to purchase (and then litter) non-biodegradables.…

If the plastic is sequestered in a landfill, then what is the carbon externality? Does decomposing plastic emit methane?

I think it's important to at least partially separate the issues of climate change from plastic pollution. For some reason these two have become entwined together in the public mind. We need to get a handle on plastic pollution, and yes, it's a product of the petrochemical industry so there is that, but it's not the same type or scale of problem as the emergency around tailpipe / smokestack CO2 or methane emissions.

Re: 91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

#122

Post by R0b0t1 »

davinic wrote: post #112
jlmorton wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hauling millions of bottles around the world If it's a 1:1 transition from plastic bottle to glass bottle, it would be 35 billion bottles annually, in the US alone.

It wouldn't be. Forcing the producers to pay for their externalities will also make some products like bottled water cost-prohibitive to sell in glass bottles and reduce demand or increase packaging sizes to more is bought in reusable plastic carboys, etc. "Reduce" is more important than reuse or recycle and while there is an obvious need for cheap bottled water, probably at least 80% of plastic disposable water bott…

But how much other economic activity are you limiting and what other products are affected? For example, what about plastic for prototyping and engineering use? Are you going to force products to use higher cost and higher impact materials like brass and aluminum?

The issue is I can't see any of these restrictions accurately reflecting cost. If they could these things would not be a concern.

Any of these suggestions that apply only within a national market are also ineffective, as by their very nature they are going to reduce economic activity in that nation... which will be picked up by someone else who doesn't care. The laws need to take this into account.

Re: 91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

#123

Post by R0b0t1 »

ouid wrote: post #115
gruez wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Plastic recycling process as a whole is an incredibly succesful cost externalization for the petro-chemical and packaging industries. At the risk of sounding like an industry shill: why is it being characterized as an cost externalization by the petrochemical/packaging industries, rather than the consumers? I agree that any pollution generated during extraction and manufacture can be attributed as an externaliz…

All you have to do if you're looking for a "market" solution to this, is price in the externality somewhere . What portion of the externality the consumer and the producer end up being responsible for will ultimately be decided by the price of the product. As for why the externality should be recouped at the industry level, the accounting is just a lot less expensive there.

What externalizes? Most talk of the externalities assumes some quantity that exists somewhere, but without a good reason to believe they exist why should we?

A simple example is the current cost of recycling plastic: it's too expensive so it won't happen. Consequently putting these on the sheet as an externalities doesn't make sense Forcing it to happen is probably nonsensical, why not fund research into plastic recycling instead instead of deadening the economy through unintended consequences?

Re: 91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

#124

Post by Kluny »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #19

The Plastic recycling process as a whole is an incredibly succesful cost externalization for the petro-chemical and packaging industries. Governments and consumers need to get serious with these lobbies: - Ban ALL single-use plastic (except for medical supplies). - Heavily tax plastic packaging - Tax breaks for glass and paper packaging - Force plastic return deposit schemes at supermarkets _payed for by manufacturer…

Yes yes yes. Saved for copying and pasting, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I've been studying plastic waste for years as a member of the Surfrider Foundation, and right now I'm in a BBA program called Business and Sustainability, and my colleagues are having a really hard time getting past the idea that recycling+electric cars=sustainable.

Re: 91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

#125

Post by MayeulC »

ars wrote: post #83
hristov wrote: post #61

As I have said before the solution is compostable plastic. It solves the problem with the smallest net change in behavior of the affected parties. As we have regrettably seen with the coronavirus changing the behavior of large populations is incredibly difficult even if there are dire repercussions for failure to change. The cost of compostable plastic is slightly higher than the usual plastic, so the governments wil…

I disagree. The solution is burning plastic for energy. You get to use the oil from the ground twice: Once as plastic, and again for energy. It's a win/win since you reduce oil you burn and get rid of plastic waste.

While it's better than burning oil for energy, that's still a loss for carbon emissions, though. And you still need fresh oil to produce more plastic.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but this is not the end game. The end game is either:

~ 100 % reduction in plastic use.

~ 100 % recycled plastic

Those two goals are not mutually exclusive either. Yes, it might cost a lot of energy to recycle plastic. As long as that energy comes from a clean source, it shouldn't matter much.

Obviously, only the first goal reduces the amount of plastic in the ocean, soil, rivers, etc. I am hopeful that bacteria will develop that can ingest plastic, which would both get us rid of the waste, and limit plastic usefulness, but it can't really be counted on in the short term. And plastic waste has a mostly local, short-term effect. Carbon dioxide has a long-term, global effect. So I'd prefer it to be buried until it can be recycled.

Re: 91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

#126

Post by pingpongchef »

gruez wrote: post #60
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #19

The Plastic recycling process as a whole is an incredibly succesful cost externalization for the petro-chemical and packaging industries. Governments and consumers need to get serious with these lobbies: - Ban ALL single-use plastic (except for medical supplies). - Heavily tax plastic packaging - Tax breaks for glass and paper packaging - Force plastic return deposit schemes at supermarkets _payed for by manufacturer…

> The Plastic recycling process as a whole is an incredibly succesful cost externalization for the petro-chemical and packaging industries. At the risk of sounding like an industry shill: why is it being characterized as an cost externalization by the petrochemical/packaging industries, rather than the consumers? I agree that any pollution generated during extraction and manufacture can be attributed as an externaliz…

I might be in the minority, but I don't read you as being a shill. It's a reasonable framing of the problem, i.e., not as a problem of production but of disposal. We already have markets, taxes and subsidies around the waste disposal lifecycle. What if we simply left it to waste disposal firms to run?

I suspect there is criticism in two areas, one in that putting the costs on consumers is either unreasonable or impractical. I don't agree it's unreasonable, but concede that it may be politically undesirable. The other is that waste disposal firms are likely to continue to do harm in the form of dumping waste into oceans (or similar approaches), which I see as fair. I'd be in favor of pursuing disincentives to such practices.

Re: 91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

#127

Post by jakobmartz3 »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #19

The Plastic recycling process as a whole is an incredibly succesful cost externalization for the petro-chemical and packaging industries. Governments and consumers need to get serious with these lobbies: - Ban ALL single-use plastic (except for medical supplies). - Heavily tax plastic packaging - Tax breaks for glass and paper packaging - Force plastic return deposit schemes at supermarkets _payed for by manufacturer…

Yeah, I wish we had a president who actually cared about this and made it a priority, instead of tweeting bullshit.

Re: 91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

#128

Post by aksss »

TylerE wrote: post #45
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #19

The Plastic recycling process as a whole is an incredibly succesful cost externalization for the petro-chemical and packaging industries. Governments and consumers need to get serious with these lobbies: - Ban ALL single-use plastic (except for medical supplies). - Heavily tax plastic packaging - Tax breaks for glass and paper packaging - Force plastic return deposit schemes at supermarkets _payed for by manufacturer…

You're just assuming that glass is better than plastic. I challenge that assumption. Glass is much heavier and bulkier (so a truck will carry less product, and burn more fuel and cause more road wear to do so), and more product will be lost to spoilage.

Even this assumes that people will bother to even transport the heavier alternative. There are places in the world where goods just won't be available anymore. Doesn't affect me, but not every place on the planet gets to make choices like "just switch to glass".

Re: 91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

#129

Post by Rayhem »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #122
davinic wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be. Forcing the producers to pay for their externalities will also make some products like bottled water cost-prohibitive to sell in glass bottles and reduce demand or increase packaging sizes to more is bought in reusable plastic carboys, etc. "Reduce" is more important than reuse or recycle and while there is an obvious need for cheap bottled water, probably at least 80% of plastic disposable water bott…

But how much other economic activity are you limiting and what other products are affected? For example, what about plastic for prototyping and engineering use? Are you going to force products to use higher cost and higher impact materials like brass and aluminum? The issue is I can't see any of these restrictions accurately reflecting cost. If they could these things would not be a concern. Any of these suggestions…

> Are you going to force products to use higher cost and higher impact materials like brass and aluminum?

The post above you didn't suggest using higher impact materials like brass and aluminum, they suggested making manufacturers pay for externalities which would be the case for plastics or metals.

Re: 91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

#130

Post by aksss »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #100
ummonk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most glass and paper doesn't get recycled either. Recycling is broadly speaking nonexistent. Most ends up in the landfill or incinerated.

> Recycling is broadly speaking nonexistent. Can you link to a source for that claim?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china...

https://www.wired.com/story/since-chinas-ban-recycling-in-th...

You know how they say the "cloud" is just some other guy's computer? Recycling can often be some other guy's landfill.

Post reply on HN