3 ms·

This article doesn’t really cover the main questions about recycling plastic, like does it have any negative impact on the environment when you throw away plast

• ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  I've noticed this weird pattern where articles that try to put you off recycling often don't actually support that thesis. I guess it's admirable that they usually stick close enough to the truth that it's obvious they're trying to spin things, but what leads someone with sufficient integrity to do that to write it in the first place? Is it some kind of game to convince people to do silly stuff while literally telling them that it's a bad idea? E.g > But for some kinds of plastic in some places recycling is indeed the better option, even if the net gain isn’t that huge. With a link to this: https://ourworldindata.org/faq-on-plastics#recycling-landfill-or-incineration-which-should-we-choose https://ourworldindata.org/faq-on-plastics#recycling-landfil... Which says: > Recycling had the lowest global warming potential and energy use across nearly all of the studies. From an environmental perspective, recycling is usually the best option It lists 37 comparisons and landfill beats recycling in 2 of them (they also tied in one), with recycling nearly always beating both landfill and incineration, and landfill often being the worst of the three. I've read other meta studies that agree with this, it's the real consensus view. But, I don't understand why they would link to this source and still overall try to imply the the opposite argument is true, it makes no sense to me? Why not just not link to it if they don't want to accept the findings? Why not link direct to the two studies that claims recycling doesn't beat landfill? If you're going to argue something not supported by science then don't link to the science. This seems basic but it's a definite pattern. And I guess that recursively applies to you, why would you link to an article that debunks the very point you're trying to make?
  • skybrian 7y ago
    I'm not sure "debunks" is the word here, because reading that meta-analysis doesn't get me very far. There's not much to it other than a simple table and it's hard to interpret. What is "global warming potential" and "total energy use"? In the studies that say recycling is better, on what grounds do they conclude that, and are the conditions they're assuming realistic? The next step would be reading the individual studies and figuring out how they work, which is more than I'm going to do for a casual Internet conversation. The links and references would be a good starting point for someone willing to do the work, though. And to answer your question, sharing links is generally pretty useful for people who want to dig deeper, and we should do more of it.