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

‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 136 posts

Re: ‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

#81

Post by lotsofpulp »

goodpoint wrote: post #79
imtringued wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Especially when you can point to others that are not making them. Each country is only responsible for x% of global emissions. The rest of the world is responsible for 100%-x%. As 100%-x% > 50% each country has to do nothing as the rest of the world is always the worse polluter. What is this type of fallacy called? I see it all the time.

Sounds like prisoner dilemma but it's quite incorrect to say that this is a problem. Human societies have been signing agreement and treaties to access shared resources like bodies of water and grazing land for thousands of years. There are millions of international laws around trade, transportation, safety, aeronautics down to the smallest details. Regulating emissions is so unpopular because it goes against financi…

> Regulating emissions is so unpopular because it goes against financial interests of large companies.

You do not think the general public would be pissed off if they could no longer expect to live in detached single family homes on quarter acre lots and drive large personal vehicles?

It is enormously politically unpopular to let gas prices go up, and I do not see how one can blame large companies for that.

Re: ‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

#82

Post by pomian »

xvilka wrote: post #44
bserge wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At first I thought they taught spiders to eat plants. Afaik, the vast majority are carnivore (by need not by choice).

There is exactly one "vegan" spider species[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagheera_kiplingi

That, is one weird spider! Thanks for that link. I'm surprised the spider is found in Mexico. It's description sounds like something that should live in Australia.

Re: ‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

#83

Post by jandrese »

eyivghh wrote: post #55
Synaesthesia wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plastics/oil industry mislead the public and government about how recyclable plastic is (it's not) to prevent legislation from passing which would reduce unnecessary plastics. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

Plastic is recyclable though. 3D printing guys do it all the time when they spin their own fiber out of left over junk. And “made out of recyclable plastic” is a thing, and it works. What isnt recyclable are mixed plastics, ie consumer plastic. But industrial users (ie folks who have large quantities of the same thing so sorting is cheap) can and do recycle plastic.

Most plastic can be recycled, but it costs more to do so and you get a worse end product than virgin plastic so it is generally not done.

This is why many municipalities maintain their recycling program despite the fact that most of the material ends up in the landfill. The hope is that in the future either virgin plastic will become so expensive that recycling makes sense, or someone will figure out a better way to recycle plastic and make it economically viable. They want to keep people in the habit of recycling.

Re: ‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

#84

Post by mediaman »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #15
pizza234 wrote: post #2

Something I don't fully understand is why single-use plastics are still in use. Every once in a while, a replacement is advertised, but still not used. The reasons I can think of are: 1. cost - this could be an very simple reason; 2. conflictual requirement - the supposition that chemical indestructibility is what makes plastic at the same time necessary but problematic. Is there any other factor/complexity I'm missi…

The plastics/oil industry mislead the public and government about how recyclable plastic is (it's not) to prevent legislation from passing which would reduce unnecessary plastics. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

Plastic is recyclable.

However, the cost of recycling it is generally more than the reclaimed value of the material, especially for mixed recyclables.

So, we have to do one of two things: either subsidize the recycling of plastic (e.g.: tax plastic packaging, send tax money to subsidize conversion), or switch back to segregated bins (downside: consumers put less material in).

Many people have been spreading misinformation that plastic "isn't recyclable." This is not true. In California, 87% of beverage containers are recycled (thanks, bottle bill!).

British Columbia enacted an "Extended Producer Responsibility" (EPR) bill that taxes plastic packaging and uses the funds to centralize and subsidize conversion of material. This resulted in the most sophisticated sortation and recycling plant in North America, located in Delta, BC, where they use laser spectrum analysis to sort plastic, shred and grind it, use high speed cameras and air puffs to sort by color, and then convert it back to usable resin.

This resulted in a 56% recovery rate of all rigid plastics sold in BC. I would argue that 56% needs to improve - it would be good to get over 80% - but plastic has massive CO2 advantages over other materials, such as aluminum or glass, that are incredibly energy intensive, and anything with a 56% recycle rate blatantly disproves the idea that recycling is a myth.

However, without proper public-private partnerships and good regulation, it's very hard to get high recycle rates, and that plagues much of America and other provinces of Canada, where people then throw up their hands and claim it's impossible.

Re: ‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

#85

Post by goodpoint »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #81
goodpoint wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like prisoner dilemma but it's quite incorrect to say that this is a problem. Human societies have been signing agreement and treaties to access shared resources like bodies of water and grazing land for thousands of years. There are millions of international laws around trade, transportation, safety, aeronautics down to the smallest details. Regulating emissions is so unpopular because it goes against financi…

> Regulating emissions is so unpopular because it goes against financial interests of large companies. You do not think the general public would be pissed off if they could no longer expect to live in detached single family homes on quarter acre lots and drive large personal vehicles? It is enormously politically unpopular to let gas prices go up, and I do not see how one can blame large companies for that.

> You do not think the general public would be pissed off

This is a strawman and a false dichotomy often pushed by the industry:

1) choose between modern lifestyle and its ecosocial impact or go back to 1900. Other options cannot be discussed

2) make a mess (e.g. microplastics) and then blame/fine consumers for despite being overwhelmingly responsible for the decisions around industrial processes

e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

[as a side note, most people I know live in apartments, by choice. A lot of them have no car.]

Re: ‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

#86

Post by lotsofpulp »

goodpoint wrote: post #85
lotsofpulp wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulating emissions is so unpopular because it goes against financial interests of large companies. You do not think the general public would be pissed off if they could no longer expect to live in detached single family homes on quarter acre lots and drive large personal vehicles? It is enormously politically unpopular to let gas prices go up, and I do not see how one can blame large companies for that.

> You do not think the general public would be pissed off This is a strawman and a false dichotomy often pushed by the industry: 1) choose between modern lifestyle and its ecosocial impact or go back to 1900. Other options cannot be discussed 2) make a mess (e.g. microplastics) and then blame/fine consumers for despite being overwhelmingly responsible for the decisions around industrial processes e.g. https://www.the…

I did not come to my conclusion due to “the industry”. I came to it from observing how people behave and what their expectations are. When people’s expectations are not met, it causes unhappiness.

I do not know any people with kids that would choose to live in apartments, or without cars. I would be surprised if there is anything more than a tiny minority (in the US) with kids that does not have a goal of living in a spacious home with backyards and garages in a nice school district.

These expectations are at odds with reducing carbon emissions. Companies being responsible for emissions is just a fiction of accounting. At the end of the day, I believe that a large portion of voters in USA would retaliate against a group of politicians that would make their lives more expensive under the guise of helping future generations and require them to give up large amounts of their quality of life.

However, it is also true that large companies get to disproportionately dump whatever feeble attempts at reducing consumption that do get enacted into consumers, such as water restrictions that affect individuals, but exempt the largest water consumers.

I guess my overall point is we need sufficient people to lower their quality of life expectations, and then that will propel the political will to make the necessary changes to force reductions in consumption.

Re: ‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

#87

Post by abakker »

mediaman wrote: post #84
Synaesthesia wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plastics/oil industry mislead the public and government about how recyclable plastic is (it's not) to prevent legislation from passing which would reduce unnecessary plastics. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

Plastic is recyclable. However, the cost of recycling it is generally more than the reclaimed value of the material, especially for mixed recyclables. So, we have to do one of two things: either subsidize the recycling of plastic (e.g.: tax plastic packaging, send tax money to subsidize conversion), or switch back to segregated bins (downside: consumers put less material in). Many people have been spreading misinform…

has anyone considered legislating a reduction in the types of plastic that can be used for packaging that would result in an easier time sorting? I.e. all bottles must be made of same thing?

Re: ‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

#88

Post by dehrmann »

frumper wrote: post #74
lotsofpulp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conceptually, taxing it is very easy. Increasing taxes on fossil fuels will flow down to all fossil fuel derivatives, including plastic. Politically impossible, though.

Just some napkin math, in the US we make 100 billion plastic bags a year out of 12 million barrels of oil. That breaks down to about 200 bags/gallon or .7 cents worth of oil per bag at current oil rates of $57/barrel. If you taxed oil at 10 times the value of the oil, a bag would increase to 7 cents. I'm still not blinking much at that price, it's a rounding error to me and now I have $35/gallon gasoline. It sounds l…

It hasn't helped that people have lumped issues with plastic together with climate change just because they both involve oil. Plastics use relatively little oil compared to transportation, and unless they're burned the carbon isn't released.

Re: ‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

#89

Post by tharkun__ »

jamil7 wrote: post #22
mytailorisrich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something I don't fully understand is why single-use plastics are still in use. Because it's not so simple to replace them in the supply chain, taking everything into account. I am also not convinced that there really are better alternatives in term of pollution in all cases. I think analysing the pros and cons fully in the complete chain (e.g. from mining to disposal of waste) is also complex. For instance: Is a t…

> For instance: Is a thin and light plastic used once and incinerated in a state of the art facility (that might produce heat/electricity in the process) necessarily worse than re-useable glass that is much heavier, may require more energy to produce, and require energy and resources (including water) to re-use? I would also like to know the answer to this. In Germany certain glass and plastic bottles that work with…

I don't remember exactly but I think it was a Quarks&Co waay back that compared glass bottles in the Pfandsystem with plastic ones and plastic ones that don't get reused IIRC. But don't quote me on that, try to find the episode :)

What I do remember is that it's not actually as clear cut as one might think. They also accounted for the fact that glass is much heavier and thus you need to use more gasoline to ship it around (from the bottle producer to the bottling plant, to the stores, to you, you bring it back to the store which ships it back to the bottling plant to wash and refill and so on. And then you can not reuse it indefinitely either. A hard plastic reusable coke bottle is much lighter and can be reused a lot of times in the same manner. I remember seeing a lot of them where you could tell from all the scratches and such. Especially on the bottom.

Related but not plastics: another probably Quarks&Co episode compared apples from Australia shipped to Germany vs. local apples. According to their calculations it was actually better for the enviro ment to ship fresh apples from Australia to Germany than to store local German apples and sell those at some point. Some point because of the amount of resources needed to store local apples in order for them to stay fresh that long. So at some point during spring/summer it starts being better to ship them from Australia.

Re: ‘Vegan spider silk’ provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics

#90

Post by lukeschlather »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #18

The unnecessary inclusion of 'spider' in the article makes the claim 'vegan' suspect. It's plant-based silk. There are many creatures that spin silk, no need to mention "spider-like" specifically.

Vegan silk would not be a remotely novel invention (in fact the first synthetic silk was invented in 1904.) "Spider silk" denotes that this silk has superior strength compared to existing synthetic silks. Not sure what you find suspect here.
Post reply on HN