7 ms·

Humans have made 8.3bn tons of plastic since 1950

101 points by prakashk 7y ago

ianai 7y ago
This underscores the sadness in burning oil. Plastics allow us to do and make so many useful things. We should be stockpiling oil for this sort of use and only burning it when no other option exists.
- mc32 7y ago
  We can make plastics from other raw materials, plants included. Interestingly, bioplastics can be mfg with CO2.
  - ianai 7y ago
    Very cool! Just another reason I love plants.
    - rpiguy 7y ago
      Plants require water. Yes we can solve the plastic problem by growing more plants, but then we will have a water problem as plants, heavy industry, chemical production, recycling (which uses a lot of water), power production (most use steam), live stock, and human water consumption all compete. I mean I guess we could melt the ice caps for more water...
      - soulofmischief 7y ago
        What an incredible false dichotomy. Which do you want, less fossil fuels, or melting the ice caps? Oh wait! I forgot that burning fossil fuels is already melting the ice caps.
        ryanmercer 7y ago
        >What an incredible false dichotomy. I think their point is more "We're already running out of water, aquifer depletion is a thing on multiple continents and there are now cities that have officially run out of fresh water. Adding even more farming, which requires water input above and beyond natural rainfall, is just going to worsen another dire issue".
        smileysteve 7y ago
        > adding even more farming, which requires water input above and beyond natural rainfall Hemp (referenced in a sibling thread) is known as weed because it is drought tolerant and often requires less water than non invasive species. Kudzu and Bamboo are also invasive species that are drought tolerant when compared to most and even natural land uses. You're missing the mass amounts of water to extract plastic from oil.
        ryanmercer 7y ago
        >You're missing the mass amounts of water to extract plastic from oil. The water that effectively stays in a closed system and can likely be treated on-site for nearly immediate reuse? The water that doesn't largely evaporate (70 percent of the annual precipitation returns to the atmosphere by evaporation, I assume water from irrigation is still several tens of percent) and cause soil erosion? It takes 180 L of water to produce 1 kg of plastic and 302-492 L for 1kg of hemp based on a quick Google query.
        soulofmischief 7y ago
        ExxonMobil sits at the epicenter of one of the top 3 purest water tables in the nation, squat on the Mississippi River in Baton Rouge. [0] The insane amount of water they use for oil refinement is causing the entire surrounding area to leech hard water. What was once the softest table in the region is now becoming infested with salt water. I have seen the water table schematics, I used to live a couple of miles from the plant and I can tell you that even in the last decade it's gotten noticeably worse. This is objectively worse than the alternative, using hemp for biodiesel and bioplastics which requires far less water and doesn't ruin the environment. [0] https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_cadd93c6-5e3d-11e7-b179-8391aaa68204.html https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_cadd93c...
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      “Well, what would you say if there was such a plant that could substitute for all wood pulp paper, all fossil fuels, would make most of our fibers naturally, make everything from dynamite to plastic, grows in all 50 states and that one acre of it would replace 4.1 acres of trees, and that if you used about 6% of the U.S. land to raise it as an energy crop, even on our marginal lands, this plant would produce all 75 quadrillion billion BTUs needed to run America each year? Would that help save the planet?” ... “Yeah? What is it?” “Hemp.” ... “Well, Mr. Herer, did you know that hemp is also marijuana?” “Yes, of course I know, I’ve been writing about it for about 40 hours a week for the past 17 years.” “Well, you know marijuana’s illegal, don’t you? You can’t use it.” “Not even to save the world?” “No. It’s illegal”, he sternly informed me. “You cannot use something illegal.” https://jackherer.com/emperor-3/chapter-2/ https://jackherer.com/emperor-3/chapter-2/
      - ianai 7y ago
        In the US, all I can say is write your senators, house representative, and donate to campaigns with sensible policies. It does seem closer to reality now than ever before now.
- LastZactionHero 7y ago
  I'm not a plastics guy (so correct me if I'm wrong) but my impression is that it's not either-or. Some parts of the crude oil is better for fuels, some for plastics. It's so cheap because it's a byproduct of the refining we were going to do anyway. I've been told that the plastic companies would prefer to burn it for energy for disposal, the idea being that it was destined to be energy, and that path had a short detour as a cup. Not saying its a great plan, but it's a plan that let's them sell more plastic.
- emptysands 7y ago
  Google Green PE.
ginko 7y ago
If my calculations are correct and assuming an average plastic density of 1.15g/cm³[1] that's 7.2 billion cubic meters of plastic. If you pressed all of that into a solid cube it'd be 1.9km along each side. More than twice as tall as Burj Khalifa. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/595434/plastic-materials-density/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/595434/plastic-materials...
- dmurray 7y ago
  That just...doesn't seem like that much? There are individual disused mines where more earth than that has been removed. Put all that plastic back into one of those mines, and solve 70 years worth of your landfill problem.
  - spodek 7y ago
    The problem isn't the volume. It's the distribution. Some of it is in your bloodstream. And your children's, messing with your and their endocrine systems, among other problems. Some of it is in the bellies animals around the world. How do you plan to get it? We can't beat the laws of thermodynamics. The stuff is out there and dispersing more.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      You had me until thermodynamics. We're obviously not getting every substance in our bloodstream like we are with plastics so I don't think thermodynamics is the issue here.
      - FlyingAvatar 7y ago
        I think he was referring specifically to entropy in his reference to thermodynamics. Once we extract the source materials from the earth, turn them into plastics and distribute them, there is no cheap way to undo it.
        mehrdadn 7y ago
spodek 7y ago
Missing from most environmental conversation is how much you can improve your life avoiding polluting things. What you replace packaged food, flying, and such with is fresh fruits and vegetables and local community. You learn that while one flight will bring you closer to a distant loved one, flying in general is what led to your "community" living where you can't see each other. When I point out that you, the reader, can make a difference, this community usually responds that you can't, that only government action will make a difference or something like that. That's where government action comes from. Besides, if it improves your life, you personally benefit from reducing your consumption anyway. The article's most important point I saw was that recycling hasn't shown to reduce production of virgin material. Without reducing production, reusing and recycling only shuffle plastic around. Burning it creates dioxin and other pollution. My podcast episode 183 describes how reusing and recycling are only tactical. Reduction is strategic http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume-6 http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume.... However snarky and cynical people here can be -- I'm sure they consider themselves practical and realist -- if avoiding buying plastic will improve your life and reduce demand, why not do it anyway. Besides it will lead others to change and can lead to politicians realizing voters want regulation. Legislators and heads of companies are people too and will change when people around them do, which is you and me.
- nawtacawp 7y ago
  Western society may be a large consumer, but you are educating the wrong crowd if you want to make a difference. Higher income countries tend to do a much better job of recycling. This illustrates the problem: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/inadequately-managed-plastic https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/inadequately-managed-plas...
  - projektfu 7y ago
    Two thoughts. The GP was talking about reducing not only because it’s better for the environment but because it’ll make you better off. Recycling was downplayed in the comment. The comment was not addressed to westerners specifically. I’d be willing to bet a lot of the travel that is increasingly occurring is happening in the developing world as people leave their communities to find work.
rpiguy 7y ago
Human beings are astounding! Assuming the Earth is about 5.972 sextillion (1,000 trillion) metric tons, we've converted .000000000000134 of the Earth into plastic. No other species could have accomplished this. A testament to our ingenuity.
- 1PlayerOne 7y ago
  And foolishness, if we become extinct as a result of our own ingenuity.
- defterGoose 7y ago
  This is a, uhhh, strange opinion to say the least. We've also doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere since the last ice age. Big numbers! Progress! Our destiny is assured! Success is inevitable!
mrfusion 7y ago
Why is this necessarily bad?
- titzer 7y ago
  Because a large portion of it ends up as both macro and microplastics in the environment, which has a severely negative effect on ecosystems.
foobar_ 7y ago
The problem with capitalism is waste management and producing good and services in excess.

101 points by prakashk 7y ago

This underscores the sadness in burning oil. Plastics allow us to do and make so many useful things. We should be stockpiling oil for this sort of use and only burning it when no other option exists.

mc32 7y ago
We can make plastics from other raw materials, plants included. Interestingly, bioplastics can be mfg with CO2.
- ianai 7y ago
  Very cool! Just another reason I love plants.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    Plants require water. Yes we can solve the plastic problem by growing more plants, but then we will have a water problem as plants, heavy industry, chemical production, recycling (which uses a lot of water), power production (most use steam), live stock, and human water consumption all compete. I mean I guess we could melt the ice caps for more water...
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      What an incredible false dichotomy. Which do you want, less fossil fuels, or melting the ice caps? Oh wait! I forgot that burning fossil fuels is already melting the ice caps.
      - ryanmercer 7y ago
        >What an incredible false dichotomy. I think their point is more "We're already running out of water, aquifer depletion is a thing on multiple continents and there are now cities that have officially run out of fresh water. Adding even more farming, which requires water input above and beyond natural rainfall, is just going to worsen another dire issue".
        smileysteve 7y ago
        > adding even more farming, which requires water input above and beyond natural rainfall Hemp (referenced in a sibling thread) is known as weed because it is drought tolerant and often requires less water than non invasive species. Kudzu and Bamboo are also invasive species that are drought tolerant when compared to most and even natural land uses. You're missing the mass amounts of water to extract plastic from oil.
        ryanmercer 7y ago
        >You're missing the mass amounts of water to extract plastic from oil. The water that effectively stays in a closed system and can likely be treated on-site for nearly immediate reuse? The water that doesn't largely evaporate (70 percent of the annual precipitation returns to the atmosphere by evaporation, I assume water from irrigation is still several tens of percent) and cause soil erosion? It takes 180 L of water to produce 1 kg of plastic and 302-492 L for 1kg of hemp based on a quick Google query.
        soulofmischief 7y ago
        ExxonMobil sits at the epicenter of one of the top 3 purest water tables in the nation, squat on the Mississippi River in Baton Rouge. [0] The insane amount of water they use for oil refinement is causing the entire surrounding area to leech hard water. What was once the softest table in the region is now becoming infested with salt water. I have seen the water table schematics, I used to live a couple of miles from the plant and I can tell you that even in the last decade it's gotten noticeably worse. This is objectively worse than the alternative, using hemp for biodiesel and bioplastics which requires far less water and doesn't ruin the environment. [0] https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_cadd93c6-5e3d-11e7-b179-8391aaa68204.html https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_cadd93c...
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    “Well, what would you say if there was such a plant that could substitute for all wood pulp paper, all fossil fuels, would make most of our fibers naturally, make everything from dynamite to plastic, grows in all 50 states and that one acre of it would replace 4.1 acres of trees, and that if you used about 6% of the U.S. land to raise it as an energy crop, even on our marginal lands, this plant would produce all 75 quadrillion billion BTUs needed to run America each year? Would that help save the planet?” ... “Yeah? What is it?” “Hemp.” ... “Well, Mr. Herer, did you know that hemp is also marijuana?” “Yes, of course I know, I’ve been writing about it for about 40 hours a week for the past 17 years.” “Well, you know marijuana’s illegal, don’t you? You can’t use it.” “Not even to save the world?” “No. It’s illegal”, he sternly informed me. “You cannot use something illegal.” https://jackherer.com/emperor-3/chapter-2/ https://jackherer.com/emperor-3/chapter-2/
    - ianai 7y ago
      In the US, all I can say is write your senators, house representative, and donate to campaigns with sensible policies. It does seem closer to reality now than ever before now.
LastZactionHero 7y ago
I'm not a plastics guy (so correct me if I'm wrong) but my impression is that it's not either-or. Some parts of the crude oil is better for fuels, some for plastics. It's so cheap because it's a byproduct of the refining we were going to do anyway. I've been told that the plastic companies would prefer to burn it for energy for disposal, the idea being that it was destined to be energy, and that path had a short detour as a cup. Not saying its a great plan, but it's a plan that let's them sell more plastic.
emptysands 7y ago
Google Green PE.

ginko 7y ago

If my calculations are correct and assuming an average plastic density of 1.15g/cm³[1] that's 7.2 billion cubic meters of plastic. If you pressed all of that into a solid cube it'd be 1.9km along each side. More than twice as tall as Burj Khalifa. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/595434/plastic-materials-density/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/595434/plastic-materials...

dmurray 7y ago
That just...doesn't seem like that much? There are individual disused mines where more earth than that has been removed. Put all that plastic back into one of those mines, and solve 70 years worth of your landfill problem.
- spodek 7y ago
  The problem isn't the volume. It's the distribution. Some of it is in your bloodstream. And your children's, messing with your and their endocrine systems, among other problems. Some of it is in the bellies animals around the world. How do you plan to get it? We can't beat the laws of thermodynamics. The stuff is out there and dispersing more.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    You had me until thermodynamics. We're obviously not getting every substance in our bloodstream like we are with plastics so I don't think thermodynamics is the issue here.
    - FlyingAvatar 7y ago
      I think he was referring specifically to entropy in his reference to thermodynamics. Once we extract the source materials from the earth, turn them into plastics and distribute them, there is no cheap way to undo it.
      - mehrdadn 7y ago

spodek 7y ago

Missing from most environmental conversation is how much you can improve your life avoiding polluting things. What you replace packaged food, flying, and such with is fresh fruits and vegetables and local community. You learn that while one flight will bring you closer to a distant loved one, flying in general is what led to your "community" living where you can't see each other. When I point out that you, the reader, can make a difference, this community usually responds that you can't, that only government action will make a difference or something like that. That's where government action comes from. Besides, if it improves your life, you personally benefit from reducing your consumption anyway. The article's most important point I saw was that recycling hasn't shown to reduce production of virgin material. Without reducing production, reusing and recycling only shuffle plastic around. Burning it creates dioxin and other pollution. My podcast episode 183 describes how reusing and recycling are only tactical. Reduction is strategic http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume-6 http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume.... However snarky and cynical people here can be -- I'm sure they consider themselves practical and realist -- if avoiding buying plastic will improve your life and reduce demand, why not do it anyway. Besides it will lead others to change and can lead to politicians realizing voters want regulation. Legislators and heads of companies are people too and will change when people around them do, which is you and me.

nawtacawp 7y ago
Western society may be a large consumer, but you are educating the wrong crowd if you want to make a difference. Higher income countries tend to do a much better job of recycling. This illustrates the problem: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/inadequately-managed-plastic https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/inadequately-managed-plas...
- projektfu 7y ago
  Two thoughts. The GP was talking about reducing not only because it’s better for the environment but because it’ll make you better off. Recycling was downplayed in the comment. The comment was not addressed to westerners specifically. I’d be willing to bet a lot of the travel that is increasingly occurring is happening in the developing world as people leave their communities to find work.

rpiguy 7y ago

Human beings are astounding! Assuming the Earth is about 5.972 sextillion (1,000 trillion) metric tons, we've converted .000000000000134 of the Earth into plastic. No other species could have accomplished this. A testament to our ingenuity.

1PlayerOne 7y ago
And foolishness, if we become extinct as a result of our own ingenuity.
defterGoose 7y ago
This is a, uhhh, strange opinion to say the least. We've also doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere since the last ice age. Big numbers! Progress! Our destiny is assured! Success is inevitable!

mrfusion 7y ago

Why is this necessarily bad?

titzer 7y ago
Because a large portion of it ends up as both macro and microplastics in the environment, which has a severely negative effect on ecosystems.

foobar_ 7y ago

The problem with capitalism is waste management and producing good and services in excess.