5 ms·

2. The alternative could be not using oil at all here. I don’t remember our ancestors needing plastic packaging to eat fruit. Plastic packaging doesn’t always

by ahevia 5y ago

2. The alternative could be not using oil at all here. I don’t remember our ancestors needing plastic packaging to eat fruit. Plastic packaging doesn’t always get buried either. Landfills aren’t exactly a solution because of toxins they leech into the surrounding soil. It could end up in bodies of water. It could end up burned in an incinerator which releases the CO2 + volatile organic compounds stored inside it (and volatile organic compounds are quite bad for human health)

fouric 5y ago
Clean incinerators have been around for at least a decade[1] - potentially longer, as the Japanese have been separating out their burnable garbage from non-burnable for years. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.htm...
- ahevia 5y ago
  Hadn’t heard of this. Very cool! Thanks for sharing
  - fouric 5y ago
    You're welcome! And, to be clear, I share many of the concerns that you pointed out in your comment - plastic going into landfills and older, unclean incinerators is a problem, and it can be really hard (if not impossible) to tell its final destination. I just wanted to clarify that (the right) incinerators are a solution for disposal - but it'd be better to not use plastic in the first place (or, at least, not in disposable packaging - long-lived goods like phone cases and Legos are slightly better than one-time-use things like plastic bottles for sodas).
- stronglikedan 5y ago
  A city near me does this, instead of recycling. Although, they still provide recycling bins, and still ask residents to separate their trash. I presume it's because it makes it easier for them to separate the burnable trash from the "wet" trash.
- sysadmindotfail 5y ago
  I think indeed this is the likely future for the US. There's much stored energy potential in our waste that it seems like an eventuality.
gruez 5y ago
>Landfills aren’t exactly a solution because of toxins they leech into the surrounding soil. 1. how much "toxins" are we talking about here? You'd think that if they were toxic enough to cause problems with the surrounding soil when buried along with tons of other stuff, that they'll make the food they're in direct contact with absolutely inedible. 2. Landfills are lined to prevent this specific issue.
- ahevia 5y ago
  1. Toxins over large timescales.(also I’m assuming they aren’t the only thing in the landfill) Most modern plastics won’t leech toxins onto your food in the short time it takes from field to fridge. However microplastics are a concern and they do end up on fruit and vegetables that are in plastic packaging. The amount of course varies.(factors such as type of plastic, temperature, friction, shipping method all impact this) The study of microplastics on human health is quite young but initial results don’t paint a pretty picture. 2. Good point! Errors in foundations or any permeable gaps can still cause leachate to escape. There is also the concern of gases escaping during the lifetime of landfills as well. You also have an issue of land usage. We have a limited amount of land and that amount is expected to decrease as sea levels rise. I think landfills don’t provide much bang for buck in terms of land value as opposed farms, parks, (I’ve heard of landfills being turned into parks but we still have the concerns of low to moderate containments in the surrounding soil) nuclear/solar/wind farms (although luckily you can still use landfills for these since contact with the public would be minimal), and wildlife habitats. Any ban on plastics, even if it reduces the waste going to landfills by a tiny or fractional amount. Sounds like a win to me
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Toxins over large timescales.(also I’m assuming they aren’t the only thing in the landfill) Most modern plastics won’t leech toxins onto your food in the short time it takes from field to fridge. What about the plastic wrapped foods that last for years? Are those just low in toxin and the plastic clamshell packaging for fruits/vegetables loaded with toxins? >Errors in foundations or any permeable gaps can still cause leachate to escape. There is also the concern of gases escaping during the lifetime of landfills as well. Without getting more specific about what what "toxins" consistns of, it's hard to know assess the actual risk of them. eg. for BPA wikipedia says: >Despite a rapid soil and water half-life of 4.5 days, and an air half-life of less than one day, BPA's ubiquity makes it an important pollutant. It's probably fine even if it leeches out into a landfill, and there's some cracks? By the time it leaks out it would have degraded already. >We have a limited amount of land and that amount is expected to decrease as sea levels rise. America is definitely not running out of landfill space anytime soon. For asia/europe incineration is an alternative >I think landfills don’t provide much bang for buck in terms of land value as opposed farms That sounds like a non-issue given that we have a functioning market for land?
radu_floricica 5y ago
It's food packaging. If we have to worry about food packaging leaking toxins, I think we have a much bigger problem than landfills.
- kixiQu 5y ago
  We do https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP6335 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP6335
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  And yet here we are. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/09/toxic-forever-chemicals-plastic-food-containers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/09/toxic-fo...
- ahevia 5y ago
  We do. Human consumption of microplastics :)
  - konfusinomicon 5y ago
    it's only a matter of time until evolution kicks in and gives us the capability to digest them
    - ahevia 5y ago
      I cannot tell this if this is sarcasm or a misunderstanding of evolution, but I’m imaging a dystopian future where humans genetically modify themselves to consume plastic but are no longer able to eat the foods we eat today. Now that’s a good novel
bennysomething 5y ago
I don't know about you but I don't fancy the all potato diet of my Irish ancestors. Packaging does have benefits: prolongs shelf life thus reducing waste.
abandonliberty 5y ago
Everything here is a game of trade-offs, and we often get misled by instinctive/faulty reasoning. Nuclear energy produces some of the most dangerous, long-lasting byproducts imaginable, but appropriately handled it's preferable to almost every traditional form of energy production. While reducing our meat intake is vogue, the impact it will have on climate change is depressingly incremental. Dishonest ideological documentaries like Cow/Sea-spiracy frustrate scientists dedicating their lives to fix these problems. 92% of the carbon impact reduction of going vegan can be achieved by switching from beef to pork/chicken/fish, before considering that plants are grown in animal waste and vast parts of manufacturing rely on animal products. http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/ http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nem... We need to examine our assumptions here. Are we short on land? Can we build adequate containment facilities? Is the carbon impact of properly transporting/containing these long-lasting products greater or lower than fast-decomposing paper products that can immediately release carbon into the environment? Unfortunately there are huge financial/personal interests here and it's hard to get past the misinformation. Recycling was one of the biggest lies sold by corporate interests. It's rarely a moral or environmental good, in spite of all the propaganda for it. (Aluminium and paper are exceptions). The answer depends on having the right facilities to handle the waste products, whether hydrocarbon or paper-based.

by ahevia 5y ago

fouric 5y ago

Clean incinerators have been around for at least a decade[1] - potentially longer, as the Japanese have been separating out their burnable garbage from non-burnable for years. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.htm...

ahevia 5y ago
Hadn’t heard of this. Very cool! Thanks for sharing
- fouric 5y ago
  You're welcome! And, to be clear, I share many of the concerns that you pointed out in your comment - plastic going into landfills and older, unclean incinerators is a problem, and it can be really hard (if not impossible) to tell its final destination. I just wanted to clarify that (the right) incinerators are a solution for disposal - but it'd be better to not use plastic in the first place (or, at least, not in disposable packaging - long-lived goods like phone cases and Legos are slightly better than one-time-use things like plastic bottles for sodas).
stronglikedan 5y ago
A city near me does this, instead of recycling. Although, they still provide recycling bins, and still ask residents to separate their trash. I presume it's because it makes it easier for them to separate the burnable trash from the "wet" trash.
sysadmindotfail 5y ago
I think indeed this is the likely future for the US. There's much stored energy potential in our waste that it seems like an eventuality.

gruez 5y ago

>Landfills aren’t exactly a solution because of toxins they leech into the surrounding soil. 1. how much "toxins" are we talking about here? You'd think that if they were toxic enough to cause problems with the surrounding soil when buried along with tons of other stuff, that they'll make the food they're in direct contact with absolutely inedible. 2. Landfills are lined to prevent this specific issue.

ahevia 5y ago
1. Toxins over large timescales.(also I’m assuming they aren’t the only thing in the landfill) Most modern plastics won’t leech toxins onto your food in the short time it takes from field to fridge. However microplastics are a concern and they do end up on fruit and vegetables that are in plastic packaging. The amount of course varies.(factors such as type of plastic, temperature, friction, shipping method all impact this) The study of microplastics on human health is quite young but initial results don’t paint a pretty picture. 2. Good point! Errors in foundations or any permeable gaps can still cause leachate to escape. There is also the concern of gases escaping during the lifetime of landfills as well. You also have an issue of land usage. We have a limited amount of land and that amount is expected to decrease as sea levels rise. I think landfills don’t provide much bang for buck in terms of land value as opposed farms, parks, (I’ve heard of landfills being turned into parks but we still have the concerns of low to moderate containments in the surrounding soil) nuclear/solar/wind farms (although luckily you can still use landfills for these since contact with the public would be minimal), and wildlife habitats. Any ban on plastics, even if it reduces the waste going to landfills by a tiny or fractional amount. Sounds like a win to me
- gruez 5y ago
  >Toxins over large timescales.(also I’m assuming they aren’t the only thing in the landfill) Most modern plastics won’t leech toxins onto your food in the short time it takes from field to fridge. What about the plastic wrapped foods that last for years? Are those just low in toxin and the plastic clamshell packaging for fruits/vegetables loaded with toxins? >Errors in foundations or any permeable gaps can still cause leachate to escape. There is also the concern of gases escaping during the lifetime of landfills as well. Without getting more specific about what what "toxins" consistns of, it's hard to know assess the actual risk of them. eg. for BPA wikipedia says: >Despite a rapid soil and water half-life of 4.5 days, and an air half-life of less than one day, BPA's ubiquity makes it an important pollutant. It's probably fine even if it leeches out into a landfill, and there's some cracks? By the time it leaks out it would have degraded already. >We have a limited amount of land and that amount is expected to decrease as sea levels rise. America is definitely not running out of landfill space anytime soon. For asia/europe incineration is an alternative >I think landfills don’t provide much bang for buck in terms of land value as opposed farms That sounds like a non-issue given that we have a functioning market for land?

radu_floricica 5y ago

It's food packaging. If we have to worry about food packaging leaking toxins, I think we have a much bigger problem than landfills.

kixiQu 5y ago
We do https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP6335 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP6335
JKCalhoun 5y ago
And yet here we are. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/09/toxic-forever-chemicals-plastic-food-containers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/09/toxic-fo...
ahevia 5y ago
We do. Human consumption of microplastics :)
- konfusinomicon 5y ago
  it's only a matter of time until evolution kicks in and gives us the capability to digest them
  - ahevia 5y ago
    I cannot tell this if this is sarcasm or a misunderstanding of evolution, but I’m imaging a dystopian future where humans genetically modify themselves to consume plastic but are no longer able to eat the foods we eat today. Now that’s a good novel

bennysomething 5y ago

I don't know about you but I don't fancy the all potato diet of my Irish ancestors. Packaging does have benefits: prolongs shelf life thus reducing waste.

abandonliberty 5y ago

Everything here is a game of trade-offs, and we often get misled by instinctive/faulty reasoning. Nuclear energy produces some of the most dangerous, long-lasting byproducts imaginable, but appropriately handled it's preferable to almost every traditional form of energy production. While reducing our meat intake is vogue, the impact it will have on climate change is depressingly incremental. Dishonest ideological documentaries like Cow/Sea-spiracy frustrate scientists dedicating their lives to fix these problems. 92% of the carbon impact reduction of going vegan can be achieved by switching from beef to pork/chicken/fish, before considering that plants are grown in animal waste and vast parts of manufacturing rely on animal products. http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nemecek-2018-reducing-foods-environmental-impacts/ http://environmath.org/2018/06/17/paper-of-the-day-poore-nem... We need to examine our assumptions here. Are we short on land? Can we build adequate containment facilities? Is the carbon impact of properly transporting/containing these long-lasting products greater or lower than fast-decomposing paper products that can immediately release carbon into the environment? Unfortunately there are huge financial/personal interests here and it's hard to get past the misinformation. Recycling was one of the biggest lies sold by corporate interests. It's rarely a moral or environmental good, in spite of all the propaganda for it. (Aluminium and paper are exceptions). The answer depends on having the right facilities to handle the waste products, whether hydrocarbon or paper-based.