11–20 of 48 posts
It seems to me like it would be better in the long run to invest money in developing better water treatment plants rather than getting on the ban-wagon. It seems logical that we could skim these out as they are as the article attests "boyant".
Extending that, could you somehow mine the sea (and great lakes) for the existing beads, and recycle them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extending that, could you somehow mine the sea (and great lakes) for the existing beads, and recycle them?
My fear there would just be they are similar in size and buoyancy to fish eggs and we might cause more harm than good trying to remove them.
It seems to me like it would be better in the long run to invest money in developing better water treatment plants rather than getting on the ban-wagon. It seems logical that we could skim these out as they are as the article attests "boyant".
Or, is it because you have experience with bans?
It seems to me like it would be better in the long run to invest money in developing better water treatment plants rather than getting on the ban-wagon. It seems logical that we could skim these out as they are as the article attests "boyant".
>A number of personal care product manufacturers have promised to cut microbeads from their products in the coming years, but dates vary. Unilever is aiming for 2015, Colgate-Palmolive in 2014, Procter & Gamble vowed to be free by 2017, while Johnson & Johnson and L'Oréal haven't given a date. Do we need a law for this? So far, all action has been spurred by consumer and environmental groups. Sure, it may not happen…
I think a good case can be made that a major purpose of law should be to codify the unwritten rules that people already follow, to ensure that everyone understands them and to make it easier to resolve disputes.
Looking at it from another direction, making a law like this can make it easier for everybody involved even if they're already voluntarily following it. I like to make the analogy to safety regulations in car racing. There's an inherent conflict between safety and speed (if nothing else, safety equipment adds weight) which puts drivers at risk and sets up hard choices for people who have to weigh their desire to win against their desire to die in bed. Regulating a certain level safety equipment settles the question and provides a fair playing field for competition without having to feel like a chump for trying to do the right thing.
[deleted]
These sorts of meta comments are very rarely more informative than name calling.
[deleted]
Are there non-plastic alternatives on the books? I'm all for protecting nature, but these microbeads are useful as an abrasive element (meaning more thorough cleaning). Maybe sterilized sand?