6 ms·

There are real reasons to not want microplastics in your local environment, but I think your dismissiveness of spreading a problem out over 1,000 years is unwar

by smeyer 6y ago

There are real reasons to not want microplastics in your local environment, but I think your dismissiveness of spreading a problem out over 1,000 years is unwarranted. There is a huge difference between a problem that has to be solved in a year and a problem that has to be solved in 100 or 1,000 years, because time is an incredibly valuable asset. Delaying some of the carbon we put in the atmosphere for hundreds of years is massively useful, because it buys us time to try stave off and ameliorate some of the effects of climate change.

arcticbull 6y ago
Fair but you can also simply bury the compressed bricks yeah? Recycling plastic has always been a ploy by the oil industry to increase consumption and make people feel good about the product. Burying the compressed bricks is actually a great way to handle sequestration. [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
- unloco 6y ago
  well, that pretty much describes a landfill. I've always wondered if they couldn't compress it, like those bricks but cubes, then use those cubes mixed with base fill dirt for building bridges and such. Like the massive earthworks they build around highways and such.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  This isn't a ploy, it's a feel good puff piece about someone finding a use for the wasted they're swimming in. A plastic paver walk way is nicer than a muddy path littered with plastic refuse.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I didn't suggest this was a ploy, I'm confident that the person in question has only the best intentions. I don't think it's unfair to step back and ask what the right approach is, intentions aren't always enough. For instance, the issue with flammability/melting and also microplastics contamination is real and worth asking. I wonder if using these bricks as building foundations or something might not be a good way of solving both problems at once. However, that's an idea that would only arise if we ask pressing questions in the first place.
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      It's not the ideal building material and it's a plentiful resource that would otherwise end up ideally in a landfill but likely along the side of the road. From their perspective it is a good use of something that might otherwise be litter.
vlovich123 6y ago
Sure, the climate change problem is eased. Microplastics in the environment though are a totally different problem & having it slowly accumulate over thousands of years is actually worse because it's a tragedy of the commons scenario. Cleaning this up in 100 years is going to be far more expensive than forcing companies to deal with the trash properly now. Moreover, it's not the companies that end up paying for such a problem but the rest of us because they've externalized the problem (see all the superfund sites in the USA that are chronically underfunded).
- Retric 6y ago
  Individual micro plastics don’t last that long. The vast surface area to volume ratio speeds up how quickly even durable plastics break down.
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    Well, unless you start inhaling the plastic dust from plastic road. I am pretty sure that, even if not "forever chemical", the plastic dust will outlive your lungs.
- Bakary 6y ago
  In 100 years this will be the least of our problem. Either because it will be trivial to solve by then, or because we will be extinct or perhaps involuntarily returned to a pre-industrial life.
  - guywhocodes 6y ago
    Why would we be extinct? This ridiculous eschatology doesn't belong here.
    - Bakary 6y ago
      It's not at all ridiculous if you pay closer attention to various historical events. Maybe the biggest shock in this regard would be the Cuban Missile Crisis. We generally remember just a tense moment followed by the installation of red phones, but a even cursory look at the detailed timeline of events and the sheer number of near misses and gross errors is enough to make the hairs stand up on your neck and question your inductive reasoning. Now with the unknown prospect of increased weapons development over a century, it gets even less ridiculous. Imagine the international quagmire where something worse than nukes exists, but with a much easier manufacturing process. In any case, my exact argument isn't that extinction is the most likely scenario. Just that the least likely is one where we are just chugging along with the same overall technological capabilities. Worrying about what will happen to micro-plastics in a hundred years is like a New Yorker worrying about the growing quantity of horse manure in the city circa 1894.

by smeyer 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago

Fair but you can also simply bury the compressed bricks yeah? Recycling plastic has always been a ploy by the oil industry to increase consumption and make people feel good about the product. Burying the compressed bricks is actually a great way to handle sequestration. [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

unloco 6y ago
well, that pretty much describes a landfill. I've always wondered if they couldn't compress it, like those bricks but cubes, then use those cubes mixed with base fill dirt for building bridges and such. Like the massive earthworks they build around highways and such.
cptskippy 6y ago
This isn't a ploy, it's a feel good puff piece about someone finding a use for the wasted they're swimming in. A plastic paver walk way is nicer than a muddy path littered with plastic refuse.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I didn't suggest this was a ploy, I'm confident that the person in question has only the best intentions. I don't think it's unfair to step back and ask what the right approach is, intentions aren't always enough. For instance, the issue with flammability/melting and also microplastics contamination is real and worth asking. I wonder if using these bricks as building foundations or something might not be a good way of solving both problems at once. However, that's an idea that would only arise if we ask pressing questions in the first place.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    It's not the ideal building material and it's a plentiful resource that would otherwise end up ideally in a landfill but likely along the side of the road. From their perspective it is a good use of something that might otherwise be litter.

vlovich123 6y ago

Sure, the climate change problem is eased. Microplastics in the environment though are a totally different problem & having it slowly accumulate over thousands of years is actually worse because it's a tragedy of the commons scenario. Cleaning this up in 100 years is going to be far more expensive than forcing companies to deal with the trash properly now. Moreover, it's not the companies that end up paying for such a problem but the rest of us because they've externalized the problem (see all the superfund sites in the USA that are chronically underfunded).

Retric 6y ago
Individual micro plastics don’t last that long. The vast surface area to volume ratio speeds up how quickly even durable plastics break down.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  Well, unless you start inhaling the plastic dust from plastic road. I am pretty sure that, even if not "forever chemical", the plastic dust will outlive your lungs.
Bakary 6y ago
In 100 years this will be the least of our problem. Either because it will be trivial to solve by then, or because we will be extinct or perhaps involuntarily returned to a pre-industrial life.
- guywhocodes 6y ago
  Why would we be extinct? This ridiculous eschatology doesn't belong here.
  - Bakary 6y ago
    It's not at all ridiculous if you pay closer attention to various historical events. Maybe the biggest shock in this regard would be the Cuban Missile Crisis. We generally remember just a tense moment followed by the installation of red phones, but a even cursory look at the detailed timeline of events and the sheer number of near misses and gross errors is enough to make the hairs stand up on your neck and question your inductive reasoning. Now with the unknown prospect of increased weapons development over a century, it gets even less ridiculous. Imagine the international quagmire where something worse than nukes exists, but with a much easier manufacturing process. In any case, my exact argument isn't that extinction is the most likely scenario. Just that the least likely is one where we are just chugging along with the same overall technological capabilities. Worrying about what will happen to micro-plastics in a hundred years is like a New Yorker worrying about the growing quantity of horse manure in the city circa 1894.