"Biodegradable plastics" aren't much better than "recyclable plastics," in terms of actual impact. They live in one of two categories, with almost nothing in t

"Biodegradable plastics" aren't much better than "recyclable plastics," in terms of actual impact. They live in one of two categories, with almost nothing in the "actually useful" region: - "Super, super happy to biodegrade." In fact, they're doing it before you even get it! The plastics aren't really ever nice to use, because they're chemically coming apart in the store. They're UV sensitive, time sensitive, oxygen sensitive, and are generally about as useful as a DivX DVD. By the time you use it, they're a weird, slightly greasy, weirdly weak mess. They don't work. But, hey, they're biofriendly! Or, not, depending on what, exactly, they degrade into. - "Biodegradable." Given certain conditions. 10x solar UV for 100 years. High temperatures, sustained for periods long beyond what any compost pile can do. Requires certain phases of the moon, sustained for a year without interruption. They're "Biodegradable" on paper, but in reality you can't tell the difference between them and something that isn't. In a typical landfill condition, they last roughly forever. Remember, in a landfill, newspaper is not biodegradable. You can layers of a landfill by the newspapers and magazines you dig up, fully readable. It's a totally sealed, anaerobic environment. Very few "bio" things work in that space. If you require "plastics that are full biodegradable, without nano or toxic byproducts or leftovers," you've effectively banned plastics. Which I'm entirely fine with.