4 ms·

> The only containers which are infinitely recyclable are aluminum and coloured glass (nearly), but that takes energy. I've heard people say that the environme

by rlpb 6y ago

> The only containers which are infinitely recyclable are aluminum and coloured glass (nearly), but that takes energy. I've heard people say that the environmental cost of producing the clean water necessary to wash bottles for reuse is also harmful. I'd really like to see a side-by-side comparison of the environmental cost of the different available "obvious" options. > We need to just force manufacturers to bear the costs of recycling their products 100%: everybody would switch to reusable and this current clam shell packaging disaster would come to a close. I entirely agree. I think manufacturers who produce in bulk products intended for consumers should be required to pay for regular environmental assessments, and then pay the total cost for responsible disposal or recycling of their entire product - including the packaging as well as the item itself when it reaches the end of its useful life. Then environmental harm would be priced into every consumer product.

tylerhou 6y ago
> I've heard people say that the environmental cost of producing the clean water necessary to wash bottles for reuse is also harmful. If this is true, wouldn't it be more environmentally friendly to use disposable plates, bowls, and utensils? That doesn't seem right.
- Someone 6y ago
  It sometimes is, at least for packaging. Glass containers may be reusable, but they’re heavier, often a lot heavier (even after decades of technological progress), than plastic containers, and transporting them to consumers and back costs energy and produces waste, too. Also, some plastic packaging decreases food waste. That plastic cucumber packaging, for example, may seem wasteful, but makes them last three times as long and, because of that, decreases the fraction that gets thrown away (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/a-lesson-in-packaging-myths-is-shrink-wrap-on-a-cucumber-really-mindless-waste-8340812.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/feat...) Now, individual stickers on bananas and kiwis, those should, IMO, be banned, but what do I know? Maybe they’re an essential part of tracking where fruit comes from (doesn’t look like it from my view, though)
Ensorceled 6y ago
Energy is only an issue because we burn fossil fuels to generate energy, move bottles, etc. Clean energy is already our most important goal from a "survival of the species" point of view.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  If energy use doesn't matter then neither does the whole recycling thing. If energy efficiency doesn't matter then we could simply build machines that comb through the environment to collect garbage, sort it, and make it reusable. But that would be insanely wasteful from an energy perspective. It's easier to preempt those challenges.
mellavora 6y ago
Part of me finds this really appealing. it only requires getting everyone on the planet to accept that things cost 10x what they do now. which is a hard pill to swallow when you are living paycheck to paycheck, which is most of the world's population.
- bserge 6y ago
  A lot of countries seem to have had a system for reusing old glassware. And stuff they were used for like milk, beer, carbonated water weren't 10x more expensive. Nowadays it's recycled if you're lucky, or it ends up in a landfill.
- rlpb 6y ago
  It could be done gradually. The first step is to introduce the assessment and remittance infrastructure. Governments could then choose to start with a 95% discount on the fee for example, and ramp it up over time. It could also choose to reduce the fee or entirely exempt certain products. You could see these as "environmental subsidies" on things that we consider important. The important thing is that costing in the environmental economic externality[1] would become the norm, rather than the exception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
refurb 6y ago
Indeed, you need to look at total impact, not just the impact of switching a raw material. A college prof did an analysis of plastic versus biodegradable “plastic”. The biodegradable plastic took far more energy and released much more CO2 than just regular plastic.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Releasing more CO2 alone is no surprise since by definition if it isn't burnt the non-biodegradable technically sequesters it - but that has other environmental issues not covered by the metric. One hypothetical that highlights issues with non-nuanced single issue environmentalism: producing non-biodegradable plastic that doesn't release more carbon filling and dumping it in the ocean to produce carbon credits.

by rlpb 6y ago

tylerhou 6y ago

> I've heard people say that the environmental cost of producing the clean water necessary to wash bottles for reuse is also harmful. If this is true, wouldn't it be more environmentally friendly to use disposable plates, bowls, and utensils? That doesn't seem right.

Someone 6y ago
It sometimes is, at least for packaging. Glass containers may be reusable, but they’re heavier, often a lot heavier (even after decades of technological progress), than plastic containers, and transporting them to consumers and back costs energy and produces waste, too. Also, some plastic packaging decreases food waste. That plastic cucumber packaging, for example, may seem wasteful, but makes them last three times as long and, because of that, decreases the fraction that gets thrown away (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/a-lesson-in-packaging-myths-is-shrink-wrap-on-a-cucumber-really-mindless-waste-8340812.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/feat...) Now, individual stickers on bananas and kiwis, those should, IMO, be banned, but what do I know? Maybe they’re an essential part of tracking where fruit comes from (doesn’t look like it from my view, though)

Ensorceled 6y ago

Energy is only an issue because we burn fossil fuels to generate energy, move bottles, etc. Clean energy is already our most important goal from a "survival of the species" point of view.

Mirioron 6y ago
If energy use doesn't matter then neither does the whole recycling thing. If energy efficiency doesn't matter then we could simply build machines that comb through the environment to collect garbage, sort it, and make it reusable. But that would be insanely wasteful from an energy perspective. It's easier to preempt those challenges.

mellavora 6y ago

Part of me finds this really appealing. it only requires getting everyone on the planet to accept that things cost 10x what they do now. which is a hard pill to swallow when you are living paycheck to paycheck, which is most of the world's population.

bserge 6y ago
A lot of countries seem to have had a system for reusing old glassware. And stuff they were used for like milk, beer, carbonated water weren't 10x more expensive. Nowadays it's recycled if you're lucky, or it ends up in a landfill.
rlpb 6y ago
It could be done gradually. The first step is to introduce the assessment and remittance infrastructure. Governments could then choose to start with a 95% discount on the fee for example, and ramp it up over time. It could also choose to reduce the fee or entirely exempt certain products. You could see these as "environmental subsidies" on things that we consider important. The important thing is that costing in the environmental economic externality[1] would become the norm, rather than the exception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

refurb 6y ago

Indeed, you need to look at total impact, not just the impact of switching a raw material. A college prof did an analysis of plastic versus biodegradable “plastic”. The biodegradable plastic took far more energy and released much more CO2 than just regular plastic.

Nasrudith 6y ago
Releasing more CO2 alone is no surprise since by definition if it isn't burnt the non-biodegradable technically sequesters it - but that has other environmental issues not covered by the metric. One hypothetical that highlights issues with non-nuanced single issue environmentalism: producing non-biodegradable plastic that doesn't release more carbon filling and dumping it in the ocean to produce carbon credits.