3 ms·

Does anyone else find this bit just comical: > The measure is opposed by the plastics industry. Tim Shestek, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, a

by c54 5y ago

Does anyone else find this bit just comical: > The measure is opposed by the plastics industry. Tim Shestek, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, a trade association that includes large companies such as Dow, DuPont, 3M and ExxonMobil Chemical, called the measure “a massive taxpayer-funded giveaway of billions of dollars to fund a variety of special interest pet projects.” > He said it threatens small businesses like restaurants and that the plastics industry is committed to reducing plastic waste. Oh, good, the plastics industry is coming to help reduce how much plastic they sell. It's transparent to the point of being satirical! It's also just funny to me that the slightest price signal ($0.01 per piece of packaging) is deemed completely untenable, and further a 'giveaway' of funds. Give me a break! The market works on price signals. We are allowed to create signals to indicate our preferences (less trash everywhere please) in order to have the computer (the market) solve for a more optimal solution. Collective action (eg legislation like the one mentioned) is the way to do this!

refurb 5y ago
Oh you know the only approved replacement for plastic will be some eco-plastic that the rep sponsoring the bill just so happens to have already invested in and actually takes more energy to produce than plastic.
- c54 5y ago
  This is valid and interesting, in fact there are two almost separate problems we have from an environemntal/sustainability point of view: How much energy does a thing cost, and how much waste does it produce. These aren't the same! For instance, a plastic grocery bag costs minimal energy but produces infinite-lifespan waste, while a reusable cloth bag costs like 10,000x energy to produce (between farming cotton, spinning it, weaving it, etc), but if left outside would only last for several years (ie a 1/10,000 lifespan). We have to consider both these tradeoffs! Bioplastic probably is somewhere closer to a happy middle: costs 2x the energy of a tradplastic but lasts 1/10,000 shorter. Admittedly I've made up all these numbers but: all compromises aren't equal, we can do better than we do now, the multipliers matter
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > in fact there are two almost separate problems we have from an environemntal/sustainability point of view Indeed they are, and I'd argue that in current situation, we can and should ignore one of them. Climate change is an immediate existential threat to human civilization. Long-living, mostly inert waste is an inconvenience. As long as we're still sourcing majority of our energy from fossil fuels, more energy use = more carbon footprint = worsening the crisis. The issue of plastic waste is irrelevant relative to that - we can clean the house up after it is no longer on fire.
- hexa22 5y ago
  My state of South Australia banned a lot of plastic last year. I don’t think even “ecoplastics” like PLA are allowed. It’s all cardboard, paper, bamboo, light wood or other odd things like sugar cane pulp. The vast majority of the containers work just as well as the plastic ones did.

by c54 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

Oh you know the only approved replacement for plastic will be some eco-plastic that the rep sponsoring the bill just so happens to have already invested in and actually takes more energy to produce than plastic.

c54 5y ago
This is valid and interesting, in fact there are two almost separate problems we have from an environemntal/sustainability point of view: How much energy does a thing cost, and how much waste does it produce. These aren't the same! For instance, a plastic grocery bag costs minimal energy but produces infinite-lifespan waste, while a reusable cloth bag costs like 10,000x energy to produce (between farming cotton, spinning it, weaving it, etc), but if left outside would only last for several years (ie a 1/10,000 lifespan). We have to consider both these tradeoffs! Bioplastic probably is somewhere closer to a happy middle: costs 2x the energy of a tradplastic but lasts 1/10,000 shorter. Admittedly I've made up all these numbers but: all compromises aren't equal, we can do better than we do now, the multipliers matter
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > in fact there are two almost separate problems we have from an environemntal/sustainability point of view Indeed they are, and I'd argue that in current situation, we can and should ignore one of them. Climate change is an immediate existential threat to human civilization. Long-living, mostly inert waste is an inconvenience. As long as we're still sourcing majority of our energy from fossil fuels, more energy use = more carbon footprint = worsening the crisis. The issue of plastic waste is irrelevant relative to that - we can clean the house up after it is no longer on fire.
hexa22 5y ago
My state of South Australia banned a lot of plastic last year. I don’t think even “ecoplastics” like PLA are allowed. It’s all cardboard, paper, bamboo, light wood or other odd things like sugar cane pulp. The vast majority of the containers work just as well as the plastic ones did.