Live data from Hacker News

91% of plastic isn't recycled (2018)

nationalgeographic.com

171–180 of 253 posts

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

#171

Since no one comments on the precise content of the article, I'll do it. First of all, it's mostly based on a paper "published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances". Unfortunately, there is no link to the article. The exact title is not even given. The date is unclear since the magazine published this in 2017 and updated some (undetermined) content in 2018. Most links are dead (home page of the lea…

>What surprised me was that the USA were so bad at recycling

No, you can thank the coca cola corporation for that. They have lobbied millions, along with the groceries associations to prevent things like bottle deposits to make recycling more common. Google it, plenty of information out there on the topic.

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

#172
post #145
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…

Were asbestos manufacturers externalizing the cost of asbestos? Are car, plane and ship manufacturers externalizing the cost of CO2? Are cigarette manufacturers externalizing the cost of cigarette butts? The difference between your examples and examples like plastic and the ones above is that yours are a one time cost with little to no negative externalities - hell most of them have positive externalities. I would pa…

> Were asbestos manufacturers externalizing the cost of asbestos? Are car, plane and ship manufacturers externalizing the cost of CO2? Are cigarette manufacturers externalizing the cost of cigarette butts?

In the examples given I don't disagree there was externalites being produced, I only disagree with the characterization that it was caused by the manufacturers[1]. Taking some examples from wikipedia[2]:

* In the case of Water pollution, I would say the entity causing the externality is the chemical plant doing the polluting, not the chemical plant for the precursor chemicals

* In the case of spam, I would say the spammers are causing the externality, not the authors of SMTP clients

* In the case of noise pollution, I would say the construction workers are causing the externality, not the makers of the jackhammers

>The difference between your examples and examples like plastic and the ones above is that yours are a one time cost with little to no negative externalities - hell most of them have positive externalities.

And what about the road network that auto manufacturers depend upon? Sure, we still might need one even without cars, but would need orders of magnitude less (in terms of area). We, the tax payers and residents are paying for the road network in the form of dollars need to maintain it, and the various quality of life damages that arise from it (noise pollution, air pollution, unwalkable cities, etc.).

[1] literally the first sentence of my initial comment: "why is it being characterized as an cost externalization by the petrochemical/packaging industries, rather than the consumers"

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative

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

#173
post #129
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. You could very easily end up incentivizing worse behavior by misjudging what the externalities actually are and their impact.

Do you remember how telephone fraud with blue boxes was prosecuted? The stolen time was judged at full sale value of the minutes. But this doesn't make any sense, as if the call could not be placed for free it would not have happened, and if no one else was in line to place a call there was not lost revenue.

It seems like people are trying to do this with e.g. unrecycled plastics. Recycling is expensive likely because it is not economically productive, not because people are freeloading. The bar for showing otherwise should be very high.

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

#174
post #42

I still don't get how bottled water became a thing. It wasn't a thing when I was a kid, and somehow the industry convinced us to buy huge quantities of an inferior product for more money, and it pollutes the environment to boot. Insane. The least you can do is use a refillable container. 10+ years ago Google switched from bottle water to giving everyone a container. And that was a great move. Yet people complained, a…

It's really very simple to understand, even if you think it's wrong. Soda, juice, etc. were sold in bottles which normalized it. Then people wanted to be healthier and so putting water in a bottle at events/meetings felt like providing a healthy choice to people, directly next to the unhealthy choices. Plus the water in small bottles could be kept cold in ice more easily. Also sparkling water already needed to be in…

> The industry didn't even have to convince anyone. It's genuinely consumer-led.

And yet they spent millions doing just that when research showed that people had no interest in buying it:

https://priceonomics.com/the-ad-campaign-that-convinced-amer...

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

#175
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I invite you to spend some time in a pediatric oncology unit, look at the mind-boggling variety of single-use plastics consumed over the course of the day, and research their manufacturers and origins. The results will be more illuminating than some dramatic hypothetical.

And? They would be using something else as packaging if not for plastics. People are resourceful like that.

Yeah, perhaps they can use catgut or something as a replacement for central lines. Waxed paper is well known to have the same antimicrobial attributes as hydrophobic plastics. All but for the greed of Exxon...

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

#176

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…

I’m not against these ideas but you do have to zoom out a bit to fully realize the impact of each alternative. It’s not as simple as replacing a “bad” one with a “good” one, because there are side effects. (I haven’t added up the total impacts of every option either; this is just something to consider.) For example, glass is much heavier than the plastic used for bottles. If you have trucks/etc. hauling millions of b…

I'm not sure the choice is between shipping glass or plastic bottles long distances, but rather having the bottling plants closer or further from the consumption

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

#177
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Using plastics for items which inherently are only used for a few minutes or an hour" Of course it makes sense. Plastic is cheap, light, watertight, strong, and mallable. It's kind of a miracle material, except that it's too stable. If we had a version that decomposed in a year, it would be awesome.

Compostable "plastics", e.g. PLA, which sometimes is corn-based, exist; in California I've seen compostable disposable silverware, as well as compostable decorative planters (I own two, holding up good after three years, which makes me wonder how compostable they really are). But compostable "plastics" do exist, at least in some markets.

Surely the companies that print the symbol and "Please recycle!" on non-recyclable plastic wouldn't label non-compostable silverware as compostable...

I've successfully run "compostable" plastic through the dishwasher several times and haven't seen any sign of decay. The county I live in offers composting service and begs people to please not put "compostable" plastic in it.

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

#178
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…

> why should they be on the hook after it leaves their hands? Consumers are using the said products Consumers aren't typically buying plastic packaging. They're buying whatever the plastic packaging contains. When regular people buy plastic packaging and throw it away, then yes they are culpable (as in plastic bags and wrap for food storage, which I'll admit that I do use on occasion). The rest of the time, it's not…

That's not correct.

I'd much rather buy a plastic bottle of water than a heavy glass one.

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

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why should they be on the hook after it leaves their hands? Consumers are using the said products Consumers aren't typically buying plastic packaging. They're buying whatever the plastic packaging contains. When regular people buy plastic packaging and throw it away, then yes they are culpable (as in plastic bags and wrap for food storage, which I'll admit that I do use on occasion). The rest of the time, it's not…

That's not correct. I'd much rather buy a plastic bottle of water than a heavy glass one.

Water is/should be damn near free in any wealthy nation.

There shouldn’t even be a market for single-use water (not on the scale it exists in the USA anyway).

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

#180
My idea is that retailers should have to pay for the collection and recycling of any waste created by the products they sell. Thus creating an insensitive to retailers to stock products with cheap collection and easy recyclability.
Post reply on HN