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

Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

motherjones.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 167 posts

Re: Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

#71

Post by gruez »

pedalpete wrote: post #31
karaterobot wrote: post #9

If there are restrictions, I hope they target major microplastic sources like tires and textiles, rather than easily scapegoated but very minor sources, like plastic bags and drinking straws. Based on precedent, I am not holding my breath, but I hope so.

Have you got a source for this concern? Tires are rubber, not plastic as far as I know, and though many textiles are polyester, and fleece is mostly recycled plastics (if I recall) where is the mass use of plastic in the textile industry?

>The estimated per capita emission ranges from 0.23 to 4.7 kg/year, with a global average of 0.81 kg/year. The emissions from car tires (100%) are substantially higher than those of other sources of microplastics, e.g., airplane tires (2%), artificial turf (12–50%), brake wear (8%), and road markings (5%). Emissions and pathways depend on local factors like road type or sewage systems. The relative contribution of tire wear and tear to the total global amount of plastics ending up in our oceans is estimated to be 5–10%. In air, 3–7% of the particulate matter (PM2.5) is estimated to consist of tire wear and tear, indicating that it may contribute to the global health burden of air pollution which has been projected by the World Health Organization (WHO) at 3 million deaths in 2012. Pollution from tire wear and tear also enters the food chain, but further research is needed to assess human health risks.[52]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics

Re: Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

#72

Post by hateful »

_qwfv wrote: post #6

Great. Regulation and reduction of plastic production is long overdue. There are some places where it makes sense to use plastic, but we're far, far overproducing the stuff because it's convenient. It's fantastically difficult to recycle in practice, burning it produces toxic smoke and carbon emissions, and putting it into the waste stream results in a bunch of it getting dropped on the sides of roadways.

The fact that there isn't a standard form factor for phones is a big part of the problem IMO.

Re: Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

#73

Post by caenorst »

slumpt_ wrote: post #50
gtirloni wrote: post #43

I don't understand why a bunch of comments here are showing as downvoted. Is this a controversial topic by any means? Honest question.

HN can be a bit of a hive for libertarian-minded engineers. Regulation = bad, to hell with the nuance, etc.

I think it's more about anonymous down voting to be very enticing for people who "hate" certain ideologies. Which can go either side, regulation, unionization, I've seen both side comments been downvoted. But on both case, yup, to hell with the nuance.

Re: Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

#74

Post by mediaman »

lstamour wrote: post #49
belinder wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully reduction of plastic production does not lead to reduction in plastic recycling.

As TFA says: > Plastic recycling was invented by the plastics industry in the 1970s to assuage environmental concerns without substantially reducing plastic consumption, according to Max Liboiron, an expert on plastic waste and a professor at Memorial University. > It has never worked. Despite decades of effort, only about nine percent of Canada’s plastic waste is currently recycled, according to the 2019 ECCC-commis…

It is true that most plastic is not recycled. It is not true that recycling does not work.

California has 87% of its plastic beverage bottles recycled.

British Columbia implemented an extended consumer responsibility policy that allows the mixed-stream plastic to get recycled through an automated sortation, shredding and sortation system. Their recovery rate of plastic beverage containers was 73.9% in 2017.

Paper produces vastly more carbon than plastic for most disposable items. The existential risk to humans is climate change, more than litter.

We need to control litter and excess plastic by increasing recycle rates. The unwillingness to adopt better recycling infrastructure is due to unwillingness to adopt taxes to fund the conversion (the cost of converting mixed streams is greater than the market price of the output commodity), not because it is technologically infeasible.

The constant theme of recycling that works is government policy that increases the cost of plastic packaging, and uses those funds to stabilize markets or invest in the expensive equipment that it takes to process the material. But it's worth it to do that compared to the wasteful, CO2 blasting approach of "just switch to paper."

Re: Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

#75

Post by harles »

belinder wrote: post #56
lstamour wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As TFA says: > Plastic recycling was invented by the plastics industry in the 1970s to assuage environmental concerns without substantially reducing plastic consumption, according to Max Liboiron, an expert on plastic waste and a professor at Memorial University. > It has never worked. Despite decades of effort, only about nine percent of Canada’s plastic waste is currently recycled, according to the 2019 ECCC-commis…

Right. My point is if we stop producing plastic we are still going to have a lot of plastic waste. Perhaps we could invest instead in actually making recycling work for the waste we already have

I think the point is that plastic recycling has never worked and there’s no pathway to making it work in general - regardless of investment.

Re: Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

#77

Post by caenorst »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #68
caenorst wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this comment downvoted? It seems to be nuanced, or are there some studies showing that this is absurd? I'm genuinly curious

Because of the "dihydrogen monoxide" snark.

Oh that was trolling, didn't pay attention about this part...

Re: Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

#78

Post by mediaman »

aussieguy1234 wrote: post #14

Many people might think something as massive as the ocean is basically unlimited and that there's no way us humans could screw it up. Not true. Take a sample of seawater from almost anywhere right now and you'll find microplastics. Something like 80% of the world's fish stocks are also gone from overfishing.

About half of the plastic in oceans is from plastic netting used fishing. And that netting causes the vast majority of ecological damage by entangling marine animals or dragging along ocean beds.

The real problem is excessive fishing and plastic waste from fishing, far more than using plastic for a cup or shopping bag.

Re: Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

#79

Post by [deleted] »

standardUser wrote: post #24
aussieguy1234 wrote: post #14

Many people might think something as massive as the ocean is basically unlimited and that there's no way us humans could screw it up. Not true. Take a sample of seawater from almost anywhere right now and you'll find microplastics. Something like 80% of the world's fish stocks are also gone from overfishing.

I can't understand this perspective at all, but it seems to have been a key philosophy guiding human development for a very long time. Was it just a belief based on convenience?

[deleted]

Re: Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

#80

Post by version_five »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #63
908B64B197 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so our PM can demonstrate to everyone how progressive he is. Maybe he should focus on providing vaccines instead (Canada's vaccination rate sits at barely 4% while the US is at 38%) [0] and stop pushing pipelines to export some of the most environmentally destructive oil on the planet [1]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccina... [1] https://news.yahoo.com/trudeau-stresses-disappointment-…

The Canadian vaccination rate is not 4%. It's as of today in Ontario at 60% of adults single dosed (49% of the population, and 58% of those 12+). The Canadian strategy is to get herd immunity on single doses before moving onto second doses. And judging from what I've seen happen in other countries, and from the emerging data about single-dose effectiveness, it's turning out to be the best strategy.

If Canada (Ontario in particular) has such a clever strategy, why are we living under a stay at home order where police have been deployed to prevent us from doing anything but grocery shop? I dont see how anyone living in Ontario could have anything good to say about what I would argue is our governments complete failure to serve its citizens in any way, whether protecting vulnerable people form covid, or even affording basic freedoms ot its citizens. It's amazing to me that in the face of an utter failure by our government, people can pretend that we're doing well.
Post reply on HN