> i’m curious why you don’t think it’s a reasonable value to also reduce plastics? If they’re not actually the problem, then why reduce them? Lots of things wo

> i’m curious why you don’t think it’s a reasonable value to also reduce plastics? If they’re not actually the problem, then why reduce them? Lots of things would be bad if sufficient quantities got into the environment, but we manage them well to avoid that, so don't consider them problems. But say they are somewhat of a problem, we have to ask how much, and how this compares to alternatives. People talk of things like glass. But they tend to just imply that glass is better. Is it? For example, I think it requires much more energy to produce (and possibly to recycle). It’s heavier, so that means more energy used to transport it. I don’t know myself what the exact tradefoffs are. Again, I’d like to see rigorous arguments/evidence.