5 ms·
This is beside the parent commenter's point. They are specifically trying to avoid throwing anything away, because they feel uncomfortable with the amount of a
by cardamomo 10y ago
This is beside the parent commenter's point. They are specifically trying to avoid throwing anything away, because they feel uncomfortable with the amount of additional waste these services generate.
- Baeocystin 10y agoMy point is that doing so is counterproductive. Energy/carbon costs should be the driver when choosing appropriate consumer behavior, and recycling does a surprisingly poor job of keeping overall energy costs low.
- throwaway9475 10y agoIt's true. Most of our climate issues don't come from teeny tiny packets of soy sauce. Consumer recycling might make people feel warm and fuzzy, but remember that a few years ago BP spilled 780,000 cubic meters (780 cubic kilometers) into the Gulf of Mexico.
- eatplayrove 10y agoThat's not how units go however. 780,000 cubic meters is 0.00078 cubic km.
- throwaway9475 10y agoWell-played! I was testing you! Not really; I made a mistake. Still, though, I'm not doubting that packaging in aggregate isn't a problem, but as far as anyone individually is concerned, a few bits of plastic are the least of the planet's concerns.
- liuhenry 10y agoI think the idea was to avoid generating the single-serve packaging waste in the first place (i.e., buying longer-term ingredients in bulk, going to the grocery store). Of course there's still bag and packaging waste at the grocery store and the energy costs of individual transportation to the store, keeping the lights on, etc.