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

How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 324 posts

Re: How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

#201

Post by pfdietz »

function_seven wrote: post #116
bit_logic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking about this more, wasn't there a time, maybe late 90s early 2000s when the message was that plastic is more environmental than paper? Something like at the supermarket checkout you should pick plastic over paper bags to save rain forest trees? Is my memory wrong or was this a widespread message at the time?

I definitely remember this, in the 90s. And it was around the same time that fast food restaurants (well, McDonald's at least) switched from styrofoam burger clamshells to the paper type. That was driven by environmentalists who didn't like landfills accumulating. There was also some ozone layer concerns I think? So paper was the better choice for the burger, yet plastic was the better choice for your groceries. I al…

Styrofoam clamshell packaging used to use CFCs as the blowing agent, I think, but that hasn't been true for decades now.

Re: How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

#202

Post by jokethrowaway »

MattGaiser wrote: post #80
Aunche wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it was all just shipped to China and then dumped into the oceans. I've heard this a lot of times, but I've never seen any source that claimed the recycled material sent to China gets dumped in the ocean. As I recall, they had paid a small amount of money for it, so it doesn't make sense why they would just throw it away. I agree that landfills are underrated. It's much more effective to build landfills in poor…

Yes. They are paying for the material as well as the shipping costs of the material. China is a major source of ocean plastic, but I doubt it is because of widespread dumping of imported plastic into the ocean.

Estimates varies between 2/3 and 90% of all plastic dumping in the Ocean coming from Asian countries.

We really don't have much hope in regulating that.

Re: How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

#203

Post by natmaka »

corty wrote: post #166
saagarjha wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does France do so much better?

Nuclear power plants, the only large-scale green energy source in existence.

Nope. This is only true for gridpower "production", which is only a small part of the total energy production (about 25%), and there are other (non energy-related) sources CO2 emissions.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24374697

Re: How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

#204

Post by nemo44x »

pfdietz wrote: post #200
nemo44x wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I remember that too. I worked in a grocery store in the 90’s and we were told to default to plastic for the simple reason that it was less expensive. Managers hated nothing more than the customer who requested “paper, double bagged”. I think our cost was about 3 cents per paper bag if I recall the training video correctly. Because of generally low margins it really eats into profits.

In New York, plastic grocery bags have been outlawed. You can get paper bags, but the stores charge 5 cents per. Reusable bags are now the standard, but that requires some longer term use to pay off.

Where I live they are mainly banned as well and if you don’t bring your own bags then you have to pay a small tax for paper bags. I’m mainly ok with this since we drive to the store and can plan ahead. It’s a bit annoying when you go somewhere on the way home though and don’t have them with you. If the money was being used to actually fund proper recycling I wouldn’t care but it’s probably being used to pay off interest on government bonds.

Re: How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

#205

Post by pfdietz »

nemo44x wrote: post #204
pfdietz wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In New York, plastic grocery bags have been outlawed. You can get paper bags, but the stores charge 5 cents per. Reusable bags are now the standard, but that requires some longer term use to pay off.

Where I live they are mainly banned as well and if you don’t bring your own bags then you have to pay a small tax for paper bags. I’m mainly ok with this since we drive to the store and can plan ahead. It’s a bit annoying when you go somewhere on the way home though and don’t have them with you. If the money was being used to actually fund proper recycling I wouldn’t care but it’s probably being used to pay off inter…

Pay a tax, or actually pay for the bag? The bag is not free. If previously they were being provided free, the cost of those bags was being folded into the cost of all the goods in the store.

Re: How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

#206

Post by bladegash »

ShroudedNight wrote: post #133
toast0 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall the message in the catchy jingle as "recycle, reduce, reuse" Realistically, it probably makes sense to reuse plastic waste as fuel, if it's not economical to recycle it. But burning plastic is frowned upon.

> I recall the message in the catchy jingle as "recycle, reduce, reuse" If it's the one I remember, resolving the words of the next line was surprisingly ambiguous, with the two popular options being "...and close the loop" or "...and don't pollute"

This used to be a TV commercial during the 90s/early 00s (I think?). The jingle was definitely "Recycle, Reduce, Reuse...and close the loooooop", the loop being the little recycle triangle logo thing.

Re: How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

#207

Post by slfnflctd »

maxerickson wrote: post #86
yborg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't actually all that new, 25 years ago when I worked at a large Motorola facility, I was always amused when I worked late, which was often, of having the janitorial staff empty my wastebasket into the large bin they pushed around, and then dump the contents of the paper recycling basket into the same bin. It hasn't been economical to recycle paper waste streams in the US maybe ever.

Did you actually do the legwork to connect the actions of the janitor to company policy and the economics of recycling in the area? Like, I would guess the janitor was just being lazy, and their actions provide little to no information about either the actual policy at the company or economics of recycling where it was located. The substantial amount of recycled fiber in many products suggests that it isn't particula…

I worked as a janitor for a while in the midwest.

Lots of office workers had paper-only bins under their desks. Except, there was no place for janitors to put that paper, anywhere in or around the building. Just one big garbage dumpster. As someone else pointed out, we were also under massive time pressure.

Even if we had wanted to recycle the paper, there wasn't a way to do so unless we set up our whole own system, packed it into our personal vehicles every night and drove it to a recycling center miles away (all unpaid). Anyone who broached the subject was mocked.

Re: How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

#208

Post by inglor_cz »

rvense wrote: post #159
gedy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was in my circles, I remember some passionate eco types arguing I should use plastic bags because they were recyclable, and paper bags "killed trees".

I know paper right now doesn't have a great environmental footprint, but paper does seem like a pretty good way to trick capitalism into planting lots of trees.

Traditional forestry in Europe was keen on preserving total forest area for future harvest. And after the general shift from burning wood to burning coal, forests actually expanded.

In my country (Czechia) the contemporary forest cover is about twice as much as in the 18th century and several per cent bigger than in 1950.

The problem is species composition. Those forests are mostly monocultural and prone to devastating disease / pest outbreaks.

Re: How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

#209

Post by ip26 »

yostrovs wrote: post #181
ip26 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recall that up until extremely recently- only a few decades ago- the nation was rapidly exhausting its timber supplies. It was not managed as a renewable resource.

That must have been around 1910, according to page 7 of this document: https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/Forest...

I don't think that chart is describing actual canopy coverage or timber supply.

Since 1630, about 256 million acres of forest land have been converted to other uses—mainly agricultural. Nearly two-thirds of the net conversion to other uses...

It's a land area/land use statement. Clearcut scars in Forest Service land are, more than likely, still considered forest land.

The general fight I remember from the 80's-90's timeframe was over clearcutting old growth, mainly in the Pacific Northwest.

Re: How Big Oil Misled the Public into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

#210

Post by WealthVsSurvive »

lrem wrote: post #149
tedk-42 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They produce a lot of toxic gases as the plastics often contain a variety of elements which when burned formed nasty compounds

Filtering that out is a solved engineering problem and you still remain energy positive.

Clean coal, clean diesel, now clean incinerated plastic: I don't doubt that it's manageable or maybe even fully solved, I just don't have much faith in it being employed. The track record of such things is not great.
Post reply on HN