6 ms·

Does anyone know what it would look like for the US to stop using single use plastics? Always thought it would be a cool thing for us to try, but can’t quite f

by cgb223 5y ago

Does anyone know what it would look like for the US to stop using single use plastics? Always thought it would be a cool thing for us to try, but can’t quite figure out how practical that really is

stormbrew 5y ago
In practice we don't really have replacements for a lot of things "single use plastic" is used for. Sterilized medical equipment, storage and distribution of prepared food products for people with disabilities, and probably a myriad of other minor uses that don't get a lot of attention just don't have practical alternatives without making life untenable for a lot of people. So I don't think there's a world in which we just stop using them cold turkey. At least not a compassionate one. A lot of research and effort needs to go into finding alternatives for these things, but the structure of our society doesn't really incentivize that.
- kozikow 5y ago
  So just add a significant tax for plastic usage, reflecting an actual damage to environment? All use cases where it's still necessary will still be able to do so, while price-cutters will switch to alternatives.
- Swizec 5y ago
  That argument feels a little disingenuous. Like when people drive a big truck every day because once per summer they haul a boat. We can eliminate or at least improve a lot of single use plastics outside medicine and people with special needs. At my local farmer’s market, for example, all prepared food from food trucks and stands comes in unlined cardboard containers. When you’re done, you throw it in compost because cardboard is compostable. Works great and disadvantages nobody. You still get plastic cutlery but it says to be made of compostable plastic. I don’t know how well compostable plastic works but I sure hope it does.
  - handrous 5y ago
    > That argument feels a little disingenuous. Like when people drive a big truck every day because once per summer they haul a boat. Eh, they also choose big trucks so they'll win in a crash. Remember, safety ratings/requirements for cars are based on collisions with similar cars. If you're in a Fit or Golf or Mini and the other guy's in an F-150 or Tahoe, you're in big trouble. The solution's probably some form of graduated weight-based tax. Makes sense both on a safety-externalities basis and on a damage-to-the-road basis (which doesn't scale linearly with weight, so the first ton is way less damaging than the second ton, and so on).
    - Swizec 5y ago
      > Eh, they also choose big trucks so they'll win in a crash Eh this is where it gets really complicated. I used to be a car crash enthusiast as a kid (crash science, not crashing myself). The main thing I learned is that big cars are ridiculously unsafe. Especially american big cars. Long stopping distance, lots of inertia, bad on the moose test, ridiculous amounts of energy to dissipate/absorb in a crash. Terrible. Give me a Fiat 500 any day. Anyway, the best thing you can do for crash survivability is to ensure you’re never driving a car that’s more than 5 years old. The engineering advances fast and a modern small car colliding with a 10 year old big car will absolutely destroy the big car. Use it as a crumple zone.
      - handrous 5y ago
        Oh, agreed on small cars being much more nimble and so maybe more safe in practice. I am 100% sure that a lot of SUV and truck buyers are doing so because they perceive them as "winners" in crashes, though. Some also, and relatedly, like the better visibility (but what's that doing to everyone else's visibility? Oh well, who cares). Source: they'll just tell you, it's not a secret. (yes, of course, some people actually use trucks enough for real truck-things that it makes some sense for them to own one, I'm not denying that such folks exist, and there are even quite a few of them—there are also plenty of Suburban Commandos, though, and lots of them are women who, again, will tell you that one reason they want a giant car is for perceived safety, so not just your usual "compensating for something" sorts)
- titzer 5y ago
  > Sterilized medical equipment, storage and distribution of prepared food products for people with disabilities, and probably a myriad of other minor uses You're right, there's not single-use material that compares. However, there are plenty of reusable sterilizable materials, like steel, aluminum, rubber, and glass. We just need to stop being so ready to throw things in the trash and actually think about the backend logistics of bringing containers back and reusing them. This isn't a materials problem. It's a efficiency/cost problem. Just look at the Pfand system for glass bottles in Germany. 2 basic beer bottles, different labels. Reused dozens of times. Deposit system.
  - stormbrew 5y ago
    I think this makes some sense for food storage at least, esp. wrt aluminum and glass (though it creates a burden on people who often can't physically afford it). It gets a lot harder for medical stuff where individual things need to be in sterile packaging until point of use. We're not gonna be individually packaging needles in glass for diabetics to use, for eg. The logistics of that are staggering, and the cost would be very high, yet the economies of scale are not there for it.
handrous 5y ago
Everything would get a little more expensive, basically. It's used because it saves money, same as everything else. Similar to cheap but non-repairable or non-reusable stuff in general. How do we get rid of it? The answers amount to making stuff more expensive, or making labor cheaper, or some combination of the two.

by cgb223 5y ago

Does anyone know what it would look like for the US to stop using single use plastics? Always thought it would be a cool thing for us to try, but can’t quite figure out how practical that really is

stormbrew 5y ago

In practice we don't really have replacements for a lot of things "single use plastic" is used for. Sterilized medical equipment, storage and distribution of prepared food products for people with disabilities, and probably a myriad of other minor uses that don't get a lot of attention just don't have practical alternatives without making life untenable for a lot of people. So I don't think there's a world in which we just stop using them cold turkey. At least not a compassionate one. A lot of research and effort needs to go into finding alternatives for these things, but the structure of our society doesn't really incentivize that.

kozikow 5y ago
So just add a significant tax for plastic usage, reflecting an actual damage to environment? All use cases where it's still necessary will still be able to do so, while price-cutters will switch to alternatives.
Swizec 5y ago
That argument feels a little disingenuous. Like when people drive a big truck every day because once per summer they haul a boat. We can eliminate or at least improve a lot of single use plastics outside medicine and people with special needs. At my local farmer’s market, for example, all prepared food from food trucks and stands comes in unlined cardboard containers. When you’re done, you throw it in compost because cardboard is compostable. Works great and disadvantages nobody. You still get plastic cutlery but it says to be made of compostable plastic. I don’t know how well compostable plastic works but I sure hope it does.
- handrous 5y ago
  > That argument feels a little disingenuous. Like when people drive a big truck every day because once per summer they haul a boat. Eh, they also choose big trucks so they'll win in a crash. Remember, safety ratings/requirements for cars are based on collisions with similar cars. If you're in a Fit or Golf or Mini and the other guy's in an F-150 or Tahoe, you're in big trouble. The solution's probably some form of graduated weight-based tax. Makes sense both on a safety-externalities basis and on a damage-to-the-road basis (which doesn't scale linearly with weight, so the first ton is way less damaging than the second ton, and so on).
  - Swizec 5y ago
    > Eh, they also choose big trucks so they'll win in a crash Eh this is where it gets really complicated. I used to be a car crash enthusiast as a kid (crash science, not crashing myself). The main thing I learned is that big cars are ridiculously unsafe. Especially american big cars. Long stopping distance, lots of inertia, bad on the moose test, ridiculous amounts of energy to dissipate/absorb in a crash. Terrible. Give me a Fiat 500 any day. Anyway, the best thing you can do for crash survivability is to ensure you’re never driving a car that’s more than 5 years old. The engineering advances fast and a modern small car colliding with a 10 year old big car will absolutely destroy the big car. Use it as a crumple zone.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Oh, agreed on small cars being much more nimble and so maybe more safe in practice. I am 100% sure that a lot of SUV and truck buyers are doing so because they perceive them as "winners" in crashes, though. Some also, and relatedly, like the better visibility (but what's that doing to everyone else's visibility? Oh well, who cares). Source: they'll just tell you, it's not a secret. (yes, of course, some people actually use trucks enough for real truck-things that it makes some sense for them to own one, I'm not denying that such folks exist, and there are even quite a few of them—there are also plenty of Suburban Commandos, though, and lots of them are women who, again, will tell you that one reason they want a giant car is for perceived safety, so not just your usual "compensating for something" sorts)
titzer 5y ago
> Sterilized medical equipment, storage and distribution of prepared food products for people with disabilities, and probably a myriad of other minor uses You're right, there's not single-use material that compares. However, there are plenty of reusable sterilizable materials, like steel, aluminum, rubber, and glass. We just need to stop being so ready to throw things in the trash and actually think about the backend logistics of bringing containers back and reusing them. This isn't a materials problem. It's a efficiency/cost problem. Just look at the Pfand system for glass bottles in Germany. 2 basic beer bottles, different labels. Reused dozens of times. Deposit system.
- stormbrew 5y ago
  I think this makes some sense for food storage at least, esp. wrt aluminum and glass (though it creates a burden on people who often can't physically afford it). It gets a lot harder for medical stuff where individual things need to be in sterile packaging until point of use. We're not gonna be individually packaging needles in glass for diabetics to use, for eg. The logistics of that are staggering, and the cost would be very high, yet the economies of scale are not there for it.

handrous 5y ago

Everything would get a little more expensive, basically. It's used because it saves money, same as everything else. Similar to cheap but non-repairable or non-reusable stuff in general. How do we get rid of it? The answers amount to making stuff more expensive, or making labor cheaper, or some combination of the two.