6 ms·

While CO₂ emission is important, this is not primary reason for banning plastic bags. It's plastic in various states of (un)decomposition all over the ecosystem

While CO₂ emission is important, this is not primary reason for banning plastic bags. It's plastic in various states of (un)decomposition all over the ecosystem. A cucumber is 100% biodegradable with no solid residue. The plastic that wraps it will take a long time to decompose and is likely to be found clogging up some piece of nature—whether in the soil, affecting plants or obstructing some body function of an animal.

riantogo 8y ago
Based on jdietrich's input, it is then a waste processing problem and not a plastic problem. Tackling the symptom in this case seems net more harmful.
- dd36 8y ago
  By his logic, we should plastic wrap every vegetable and fruit. That is nonsensical. Humans don't dispose of things properly. That's a fact. Creating more plastic waste will create more plastic pollution. It's far easier to not create the waste in the first place. And there are ways to reduce CO2 that don't involve creating exponentially more plastic waste. Again, producers don't plastic wrap cucumbers to save CO2. The entire premise is ridiculous. Charge producers for the waste their products create. That will incentivize less waste. Charge them for the CO2 they emit. That will incentivize a reduction in CO2. You can accomplish both with market signals.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    >By his logic, we should plastic wrap every vegetable and fruit. That is nonsensical. Not at all. Cucumbers have a relatively short shelf-life due to a high water content and a permeable skin, so wrapping them makes economic and environmental sense. Apples and citrus fruits don't need plastic packaging, but their shelf life is considerably enhanced by the application of a protective wax coating. Some products like loose salad leaves need modified atmosphere packaging to achieve a satisfactory shelf life, while delicate soft fruits require a protective packaging system that could involve a variety of wood- or plastic-based products. I'm indifferent to points of principle, I care about choosing the most sustainable tool for any given task. The critical environmental issue in our fruit and vegetable supply is the needlessly high use of air freight to maintain supplies of out-of-season produce. A single package of asparagus or green beans might produce emissions of >10kg CO2e, simply because of their transport mode. If you want to reduce the sustainability of your produce consumption, that one issue overwhelms pretty much everything else. >It's far easier to not create the waste in the first place. And there are ways to reduce CO2 that don't involve creating exponentially more plastic waste. You're trading one kind of waste for another. Plastic packaging is wasteful in one sense because it is disposable, but it reduces a potentially far greater waste by protecting products during transportation and storage. Plastic isn't always the most sustainable packaging material, but it often is. That decision needs to be made based on hard facts, not the presumption that plastic is evil. >Charge producers for the waste their products create. That will incentivize less waste. Charge them for the CO2 they emit. That will incentivize a reduction in CO2. I'm fully in favour of both, as long as those charges represent the actual economic impacts of mitigating those issues.
    - Retric 8y ago
      It's still a false dilemma, we are not limited to plastic coatings for Cucumbers.
    - cptskippy 8y ago
      The problem with your reasoning is that it's based on your cultural and community experience and not that of the typical Indian. You're considering the impact of that law on your lifestyle and assuming it will impact all others in the same way. How many people in India are buying their vegetables in plastic wrap from the big box grocery store? According to unicef, 50% of the population in India defecate in the open. It wasn't until 2014 that a municipal in Delhi passed a law penalizing people for public littering and defecation. There are no national laws. It will require a cultural revolution to combat littering in India. In the mean time banning the most harmful forms of litter will help to combat the growing problem.
      - thecrazyone 8y ago
        I'm an Indian and your statements are ignorant and myopic. Let me explain. Littering is in every country not just India. Certain countries deal with it in a better way. Banning something doesn't evaporate it's demand. Like, people litter because there are not dustbins (at least not often enough) on the street in India. Open defecation is unrelated to this issue. Main reason open defecation happens is because there is no continuous supply of water (by the Govt) or proper sewage system (responsibility of the govt). We need to stop blaming ourselves and think what is the root cause of the problem - Government. PS: I've thought my stance through about this, please think through this and see whether or not Govt is to blame for this. Govt is not you and I. All govts these days are Govts of the people by the bureaucracy for the bureaucracy.
        cptskippy 8y ago
        > Littering is in every country not just India. Certain countries deal with it in a better way. Most deal with it by passing laws a municipal levels of government making it illegal in conjunction with providing refuse bins. Only one municipality in India has done this. > Open defecation is unrelated to this issue. It's actually very much related, you state that people litter due to lack of refuse bins and openly defecate because of the lack of toilets. The reason I mention it is that while India does not have national laws around littering, they do have them for open defecation. Since the Swachh Bharat mission was launched in 2014 there have been significant reductions in the % of the population that openly defecate yet even in homes with access to toilets they aren't seeing 100% usage. In homes with government provided toilets they've seen upwards of 40% of people still choosing to openly defecate and of those a large percentage say they prefer the openness of defecating outdoors. It is most definitely a behavioral and cultural issue. Littering out of convenience is cultural/behavioral and not due to any failing of the government. If it were purely down to a lack of refuse receptacles then how do you explain the state of most venues after an event? I've never been to a movie theater, music venue, or athletics stadium that did not have copious refuse bins to collect trash and yet people still litter. To further drive home the fact that is indeed culture look no further than the Japanese who have cleanliness so culturally ingrained that they stick around after World Cup matches to help clean the stadium.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    At least some cultures are amenable to training not to litter everywhere. In the US there was a big campaign in the 1970's and 80's to reduce litter on roadsides and other places. $1000 fines and a general positive attitude to group action has reduced litter in most places in the US that a yearly or less pickup schedule can keep even urban highways pretty clean. Monthly street sweeping elsewhere does the job. I don't see (much) plastic litter in the landscape in the US. In other countries, maybe other methods are needed.
  - antpls 8y ago
    > Humans don't dispose of things properly. That's a fact. Creating more plastic waste will create more plastic pollution. Are you implying we should create less humans in a first place? > It's far easier to not create the waste in the first place. And there are ways to reduce CO2 that don't involve creating exponentially more plastic waste. If it is easy, then why aren't you a billionaire already? More seriously, the solution is probably a combination of awareness about over consumption (reducing the production of waste), and investments into better waste management for the concerned countries.
jdietrich 8y ago
Plastic packaging doesn't spontaneously release itself into the ecosystem, it's put there by someone irresponsibly managing waste. Norway and the Netherlands are both trialling waste-to-energy incineration with carbon capture. Failing that, there's nothing particularly wrong with well-managed landfill. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610216000084 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187661021... http://www.vivis.de/phocadownload/Download/2017_eaa/2017_EaA_133-144_Stuen.pdf http://www.vivis.de/phocadownload/Download/2017_eaa/2017_EaA...
- dd36 8y ago
  You're confusing waste that is properly disposed of with waste that is not. The problem is waste that is improperly disposed of and neither of those are solutions to that problem.
  - lurquer 8y ago
    That's correct. Indians litter. It's a cultural thing, I guess. Filthiest place on earth. (Don't downvoted me unless you have been to India.) It's sad that the solution is to ban plastic bags and the like... I'm not against the solution. But, the problem is Indians who think nothing of tossing trash out into the street and would be genuinely confused if you suggested they clean up after themselves.
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      I’m not sure I buy the “it’s cultural” argument. I’ve been to India and to plenty of other places, and there is a littering problem everywhere. It seems to be worse wherever there are lots of people and mediocre rule of law. I don’t think any one culture instinctively litters more than any other.
      - thecrazyone 8y ago
        TIL littering is a common thing in multiple countries (not sarcastic)
slavik81 8y ago
Certain kinds of waste are more likely to end up being improperly disposed of. When was the last time you saw a cucumber wrapper or steak package blowing in the wind? I bet you see a lot more coffee cups and plastic bottles. When people unwrap groceries, they do so in their home, and it tends to get disposed of properly. It's stuff people use on the go that most frequently becomes litter.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > tends to get disposed of properly What exactly is the 'proper' disposal of plastic? Burying it? Burning it for energy? Recycling a tiny fraction of it and burying/burning the rest?
  - slavik81 8y ago
    It depends on the specifics, but I think you covered the main options. Any of them would prevent the harm to wildlife caused by litter.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      Burning plastics and burying them causes harm to wildlife, if not immediate then in the long term.

riantogo 8y ago

Based on jdietrich's input, it is then a waste processing problem and not a plastic problem. Tackling the symptom in this case seems net more harmful.

dd36 8y ago
By his logic, we should plastic wrap every vegetable and fruit. That is nonsensical. Humans don't dispose of things properly. That's a fact. Creating more plastic waste will create more plastic pollution. It's far easier to not create the waste in the first place. And there are ways to reduce CO2 that don't involve creating exponentially more plastic waste. Again, producers don't plastic wrap cucumbers to save CO2. The entire premise is ridiculous. Charge producers for the waste their products create. That will incentivize less waste. Charge them for the CO2 they emit. That will incentivize a reduction in CO2. You can accomplish both with market signals.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  >By his logic, we should plastic wrap every vegetable and fruit. That is nonsensical. Not at all. Cucumbers have a relatively short shelf-life due to a high water content and a permeable skin, so wrapping them makes economic and environmental sense. Apples and citrus fruits don't need plastic packaging, but their shelf life is considerably enhanced by the application of a protective wax coating. Some products like loose salad leaves need modified atmosphere packaging to achieve a satisfactory shelf life, while delicate soft fruits require a protective packaging system that could involve a variety of wood- or plastic-based products. I'm indifferent to points of principle, I care about choosing the most sustainable tool for any given task. The critical environmental issue in our fruit and vegetable supply is the needlessly high use of air freight to maintain supplies of out-of-season produce. A single package of asparagus or green beans might produce emissions of >10kg CO2e, simply because of their transport mode. If you want to reduce the sustainability of your produce consumption, that one issue overwhelms pretty much everything else. >It's far easier to not create the waste in the first place. And there are ways to reduce CO2 that don't involve creating exponentially more plastic waste. You're trading one kind of waste for another. Plastic packaging is wasteful in one sense because it is disposable, but it reduces a potentially far greater waste by protecting products during transportation and storage. Plastic isn't always the most sustainable packaging material, but it often is. That decision needs to be made based on hard facts, not the presumption that plastic is evil. >Charge producers for the waste their products create. That will incentivize less waste. Charge them for the CO2 they emit. That will incentivize a reduction in CO2. I'm fully in favour of both, as long as those charges represent the actual economic impacts of mitigating those issues.
  - Retric 8y ago
    It's still a false dilemma, we are not limited to plastic coatings for Cucumbers.
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    The problem with your reasoning is that it's based on your cultural and community experience and not that of the typical Indian. You're considering the impact of that law on your lifestyle and assuming it will impact all others in the same way. How many people in India are buying their vegetables in plastic wrap from the big box grocery store? According to unicef, 50% of the population in India defecate in the open. It wasn't until 2014 that a municipal in Delhi passed a law penalizing people for public littering and defecation. There are no national laws. It will require a cultural revolution to combat littering in India. In the mean time banning the most harmful forms of litter will help to combat the growing problem.
    - thecrazyone 8y ago
      I'm an Indian and your statements are ignorant and myopic. Let me explain. Littering is in every country not just India. Certain countries deal with it in a better way. Banning something doesn't evaporate it's demand. Like, people litter because there are not dustbins (at least not often enough) on the street in India. Open defecation is unrelated to this issue. Main reason open defecation happens is because there is no continuous supply of water (by the Govt) or proper sewage system (responsibility of the govt). We need to stop blaming ourselves and think what is the root cause of the problem - Government. PS: I've thought my stance through about this, please think through this and see whether or not Govt is to blame for this. Govt is not you and I. All govts these days are Govts of the people by the bureaucracy for the bureaucracy.
      - cptskippy 8y ago
        > Littering is in every country not just India. Certain countries deal with it in a better way. Most deal with it by passing laws a municipal levels of government making it illegal in conjunction with providing refuse bins. Only one municipality in India has done this. > Open defecation is unrelated to this issue. It's actually very much related, you state that people litter due to lack of refuse bins and openly defecate because of the lack of toilets. The reason I mention it is that while India does not have national laws around littering, they do have them for open defecation. Since the Swachh Bharat mission was launched in 2014 there have been significant reductions in the % of the population that openly defecate yet even in homes with access to toilets they aren't seeing 100% usage. In homes with government provided toilets they've seen upwards of 40% of people still choosing to openly defecate and of those a large percentage say they prefer the openness of defecating outdoors. It is most definitely a behavioral and cultural issue. Littering out of convenience is cultural/behavioral and not due to any failing of the government. If it were purely down to a lack of refuse receptacles then how do you explain the state of most venues after an event? I've never been to a movie theater, music venue, or athletics stadium that did not have copious refuse bins to collect trash and yet people still litter. To further drive home the fact that is indeed culture look no further than the Japanese who have cleanliness so culturally ingrained that they stick around after World Cup matches to help clean the stadium.
- njarboe 8y ago
  At least some cultures are amenable to training not to litter everywhere. In the US there was a big campaign in the 1970's and 80's to reduce litter on roadsides and other places. $1000 fines and a general positive attitude to group action has reduced litter in most places in the US that a yearly or less pickup schedule can keep even urban highways pretty clean. Monthly street sweeping elsewhere does the job. I don't see (much) plastic litter in the landscape in the US. In other countries, maybe other methods are needed.
- antpls 8y ago
  > Humans don't dispose of things properly. That's a fact. Creating more plastic waste will create more plastic pollution. Are you implying we should create less humans in a first place? > It's far easier to not create the waste in the first place. And there are ways to reduce CO2 that don't involve creating exponentially more plastic waste. If it is easy, then why aren't you a billionaire already? More seriously, the solution is probably a combination of awareness about over consumption (reducing the production of waste), and investments into better waste management for the concerned countries.

jdietrich 8y ago

Plastic packaging doesn't spontaneously release itself into the ecosystem, it's put there by someone irresponsibly managing waste. Norway and the Netherlands are both trialling waste-to-energy incineration with carbon capture. Failing that, there's nothing particularly wrong with well-managed landfill. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610216000084 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187661021... http://www.vivis.de/phocadownload/Download/2017_eaa/2017_EaA_133-144_Stuen.pdf http://www.vivis.de/phocadownload/Download/2017_eaa/2017_EaA...

dd36 8y ago
You're confusing waste that is properly disposed of with waste that is not. The problem is waste that is improperly disposed of and neither of those are solutions to that problem.
- lurquer 8y ago
  That's correct. Indians litter. It's a cultural thing, I guess. Filthiest place on earth. (Don't downvoted me unless you have been to India.) It's sad that the solution is to ban plastic bags and the like... I'm not against the solution. But, the problem is Indians who think nothing of tossing trash out into the street and would be genuinely confused if you suggested they clean up after themselves.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    I’m not sure I buy the “it’s cultural” argument. I’ve been to India and to plenty of other places, and there is a littering problem everywhere. It seems to be worse wherever there are lots of people and mediocre rule of law. I don’t think any one culture instinctively litters more than any other.
    - thecrazyone 8y ago
      TIL littering is a common thing in multiple countries (not sarcastic)

slavik81 8y ago

Certain kinds of waste are more likely to end up being improperly disposed of. When was the last time you saw a cucumber wrapper or steak package blowing in the wind? I bet you see a lot more coffee cups and plastic bottles. When people unwrap groceries, they do so in their home, and it tends to get disposed of properly. It's stuff people use on the go that most frequently becomes litter.

craftyguy 8y ago
> tends to get disposed of properly What exactly is the 'proper' disposal of plastic? Burying it? Burning it for energy? Recycling a tiny fraction of it and burying/burning the rest?
- slavik81 8y ago
  It depends on the specifics, but I think you covered the main options. Any of them would prevent the harm to wildlife caused by litter.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Burning plastics and burying them causes harm to wildlife, if not immediate then in the long term.