5 ms·
There's this same argument with recycling, reuse, etc. I.E how many times do I have to use my cloth bag before the resources it took is less than that of a norm
by NotQuantum 8y ago
There's this same argument with recycling, reuse, etc. I.E how many times do I have to use my cloth bag before the resources it took is less than that of a normal paper bag. Recycling is the same way, IIRC, aluminum is the only thing that's cheaper to recycle, energy wise.
I really wish more studies would look into the Energy per Ton for creating our consumer products.
- dcbadacd 8y agoThat's one thing to consider, but it's ignoring a major aspect - biodegradability. Yes, a plastic bag is in some ways more efficient per ton than a cloth bag but doesn't decompose safely and fast, cloth usually does.
- marcosdumay 8y agoWhat's worse, adding some inert foreign molecules to the environment, or adding some CO2, excess nitrates, and excess phosphorous, taking down a bit of native vegetation, and revolving some more soil? I really don't know the answer, but I bet everybody on the anti-plastic crusade doesn't know either. I would really like if somebody cared to do some unbiased studies on this (not the ones full of flaws reinforcing the author desired answer - whatever that it).
- code_duck 8y agoYou mean, is natural gas extraction and processing more harmful than agriculture and recycling?
- PeterisP 8y agoIt seems plausible that a cloth bag requires a comparable amount of petrochemicals to make than a plastic bag, agriculture is quite fuel intensive and uses a bunch of other nasty chemicals in large amounts, while a few grams of plastic require just a few grams of oil - for me it's hard to tell whether growing sufficient cotton for a single bag (which is quite a bunch of cotton plants) can be done with a few grams of fuel.
- code_duck 8y agoThankfully, this is studied by experts for their entire lives and we don’t have to learn the answers by speculating on Hacker News. I’ll note that what you’re comparing petroleum based manufacturing to is the most pointlessly intensively harmful and wasteful form of agriculture – growing conventional cotton.
- marcosdumay 8y agoEven without considering the amount of mining required by agriculture, the answer is still non-obvious.
- code_duck 8y agoI agree.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- schiffern 8y ago>inert foreign molecules Problem is they're often not inert. The polymers may be, but the bisphenol plasticizers, UV stabilizers, dyes, brominated fire retardants, mold release agents, etc may not be, and they leach out over time.
- marcosdumay 8y agoDo they become reactive inside of living beings? Or just outside due to UV catalyzed hydrolyze?
- schiffern 8y agoThe molecules I'm speaking of are already reactive. Again it's not just the bulk polymer, there are a bunch of "special ingredients" added to most plastics, plus contaminants introduced during recycling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Plastics_additives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Plastics_additives
- dcbadacd 8y agoHow do we know that microplastics and other particulate in say human bodies or foods are somehow "inert"?
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoOn the bright side, because it doesn't easily biodegrade, it is a form of carbon capture. If you ignore all of its other bad effects.
- WalterSear 8y agoTaking oil out of the ground and burning part of it to create plastic out of the other part, and then throwing it away or incinerating it, isn't carbon capture :)