Live data from Hacker News

Canada declares plastics toxic, paving the way for restrictions

motherjones.com

91–100 of 167 posts

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

#91
There is a lot of misleading and false statements in this article.

They claim plastic recycling doesn't work. It's true that most plastic isn't recycled, but that's because of lackluster government involvement, not some technological barrier.

British Columbia has the most sophisticated recycling equipment in North America. Two plants there first use lasers to identify different types of plastic (PP, HDPE, PET, etc) in the incoming stream and then use air blasts to categorize it.

These streams are then separated by color. The material then goes to a plastics reclamation facility where the material is shredded, washed, dried, melted and forced through a filter, and turned to pellet.

The result is that 74% of plastic beverage containers in BC are recycled. Why isn't this done elsewhere? It's because BC has a tax on plastic packaging, and this tax money is then used to subsidize the loss from converting recyclables into new plastic pellet (the cost is higher than the revenue). And other governments don't want to do it, partly due to lobbying from plastics packaging manufacturers.

Plastic recycling does work when society wants it to. But instead we turn to paper. Paper produces double the CO2 emissions of plastic, and it requires vastly more energy: a European study showed that switching to paper in Europe would consume 57% more energy and 61% more greenhouse gases from packaging than are produced today. In a world where human existence is threatened most likely from runaway climate change, this seems like a bad idea.

And while we're so focused on transitioning plastic packaging to paper, we ignore the real problem with plastic in the oceans: plastic netting dumped from illegal fishing. Plastic netting wraps around animals and drowns or suffocates them. It can also drag along a seabed, killing the seabed life.

But this is considered a difficult problem to solve (international waters, policing is difficult, etc) so we ignore it.

The idea policy would be:

1. Tax plastic packaging. Use the tax money to pay for recycling that works, which has been proven to work.

2. Develop international treaties and enforcement mechanisms to prevent illegal fishing and find ways to reduce fish consumption.

3. Implement carbon taxes that reflect the cost to human survival imposed by any kind of packaging, or other activity, in accordance with the degree of GHG emission.

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

#92
post #36

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.

It's worse than that. It's showing up in rain and snow, and our water supply because most filtration systems don't catch micro/nanoplastics. It's in our bodies. I think we will eventually find it's also largely responsible for the tremendous drop off in birth rates and reproductive health that the world has been experiencing the last 10+ years and possibly other neurological and "brain" issues that have increased in…

Sorry but I can't abide the scientific ignorance being displayed all over this conversation.

(1) The first article you cite "Microplastic particles now discoverable in human organs" only announces that some scientists made a technique to discover such particles. The only ones they found were ones they inserted on purpose to verify their technique. That headline leads people strongly to incorrect conclusions like you have made. That's one of the main techniques of fake news.

(2) Fertility rate has nothing to do with how many people can't get pregnant who are trying. It's just a variation on birth rate.

(3) Mother Jones - here cited many times as factual - shows a picture of a bird with a plastic mesh around it. That is not what "toxic" is. Maybe powerful lobbyists got Canadian legislators to pretend that plastic straws are "toxic", but again that flies in the face of scientific fact.

Plastic is an amazingly inert substance that is unlikely to cause harm outside of physical constriction. In honor of this thread, I'm going to go eat a Lego. You can rest assured that I'll be back tomorrow to collect my downvotes.

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

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 affor…

I see you have an axe to grind, but those are two separate issues. And two different levels of government. The federal gov't does not issue stay at home orders. FWIW I think this provincial gov't is mind bogglingly incompetent, and also a bit malevolent.

> FWIW I think this provincial gov't is mind bogglingly incompetent, and also a bit malevolent.

Sounds like we're on the same page then :) I'm confused about the rest of your comment - healthcare, and whatever emergency powers they have unconstitutionally used to try and get us to stay home, are the responsibilities of the provinces. Does the federal government have a role in this at all? Are they somehow setting the overall vaccination policy?

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

#94

It's such a pleasant surprise to me how effectively and quickly people have become concerned about this issue. The recent WWF report came out less than 2 years ago [1]. Microplastics were obviously known for a long time, but that's when conversations about microplastics re-ignited. And now we can see an entire country declaring plastics toxic and restricting them. If you'd asked me an hour ago, I'd have predicted it'…

> how effectively and quickly people have become concerned about this issue. I don't really know how to take this. Surely you're joking? People have been banging on about plastics for at least the past 20 years while I've been paying attention, so probably longer. So some report came out two years ago, that was long overdue .

A long overdue report came out that prompted a long overdue state level response, in less than 2 years

A perspective.

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

#95
I believe plastic may be human civilizations "Great Filter" - I'm only half-joking. In less than a century, we managed to put plastic everywhere on the planet, and microplastics everywhere inside our food sources and our bodies, including in placenta(!). Our reach exceeds our grasp, we do not yet know what dangers microplastics pose, and we do not have the technology to remediate it. Our reach exceeds our grasp.

I do hope plastics end up more or less benign, but there is a very real possibility that humanities gravestone will read "Here lies human beings. They managed to make their way into low orbit and their only moon, but were felled by their discovery of synthetic polymers"

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

#96

There is a lot of misleading and false statements in this article. They claim plastic recycling doesn't work. It's true that most plastic isn't recycled, but that's because of lackluster government involvement, not some technological barrier. British Columbia has the most sophisticated recycling equipment in North America. Two plants there first use lasers to identify different types of plastic (PP, HDPE, PET, etc) i…

74% is still a far cry from a solved problem - what do they do with the quarter that can't be recycled? Aluminium is actually 100% recyclable with some countries approaching 98%.

Plastic has symbols that tell you what kind of plastic a given piece of packaging is made of, and the consumers need to figure out which kind are recyclable in their particular state or local area. Then some plastics are thermosetting and therefore unrecyclable - they have to be broken down through pyrolysis or similar.

So while it's true that plastic recycling is possible, you have to:

1) sort out the random mish-mash that is the recycling system which vary by local area and are incomprehensible to consumers for the purposes of sorting.

2) Increase that 74% number to something in high-90's. Probably forbid unrecyclable plastics for single-use consumer goods and packaging, and somehow constrain the wild variety of plastics that enter the waste stream to a few known varieties that can be sorted

3) forbid items that shed microplastics like there is no tomorrow. This would include clothing made out of nylon? This seems very unpopular.

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

#97

There is a lot of misleading and false statements in this article. They claim plastic recycling doesn't work. It's true that most plastic isn't recycled, but that's because of lackluster government involvement, not some technological barrier. British Columbia has the most sophisticated recycling equipment in North America. Two plants there first use lasers to identify different types of plastic (PP, HDPE, PET, etc) i…

"There is a lot of misleading and false statements in this article"?

> The result is that 74% of plastic beverage containers in Canada are recycled

"Canadians dispose of about 3.3M tonnes of plastic each year [...] almost 50% of which is packaging. Well over 75% currently goes to landfills, a small proportion is incinerated and about 1% ends up directly in the environment. Only 9% — or 305,000 tonnes — is recycled, the 2019 study found." [1]

Seems rather misleading to focus on one region's moderate success with beverage containers when there have been such massive failures with larger issues, no? It's not like the problem was even unforeseeable [2].

[1] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/03/09/canada-drowning-...

[2] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

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

#98

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?

They were originally natural rubber, but it's expensive and less resilient than synthetic variety, and not avaliable in quantities that would be needed for all the cars in the world.

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

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you have an axe to grind, but those are two separate issues. And two different levels of government. The federal gov't does not issue stay at home orders. FWIW I think this provincial gov't is mind bogglingly incompetent, and also a bit malevolent.

> FWIW I think this provincial gov't is mind bogglingly incompetent, and also a bit malevolent. Sounds like we're on the same page then :) I'm confused about the rest of your comment - healthcare, and whatever emergency powers they have unconstitutionally used to try and get us to stay home, are the responsibilities of the provinces. Does the federal government have a role in this at all? Are they somehow setting the…

I think the federal government is responsible for acquisition and logistical delivery to provinces, but not the administration of vaccines.
Post reply on HN