6 ms·

I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1270819/ocean-plastic-pollution-worldwide-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statist

I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1270819/ocean-plastic-pollution-worldwide-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1270819/ocean-plastic-po... The U.S. isn't even in the top 10 producers of plastic waste in oceans (it's something like >30th on the list). It's effectively 80+% from Asian countries. https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution

oh_sigh 5y ago
> Taking a leadership role in preventing plastic pollution would position the U.S. to shape and influence global plastic production, design, and innovation — and possibly create new economic opportunities, the report says.
- lettergram 5y ago
  The U.S. dictating to the poor backwards nations of the asian pacific will go over well. More likely, a company setup by the family member of several U.S. politicians will receive funds from the U.S. government to aid in "transitioning" these economies to a post-plastics world. None of which will be effective and largely be like the Clinton Foundation in Haiti. The reality is that reducing crude oil to gasoline production will remove the ability to produce plastics. As plastics become more expensive, different materials will be utilized.
  - BostonEnginerd 5y ago
    I believe that the feedstock for most plastics is natural gas.
    - jcampbell1 5y ago
      This is correct, the two biggest plastics are polyethylene and polypropylene, which natural gas is the feedstock.
  - 8note 5y ago
    America is the main military and economic power in the Asian Pacific. Currently the US has the power to dictate such terms, but the countries probably can't actually fulfill them
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sjtindell 5y ago
As I understand the United States and others just ship all their plastic to Asia where it is dumped in the ocean so they can claim they are green for whatever consumer advocate.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  My county landfill gets paid for the plastic that trucks come and take away (or they put it in the landfill). Who is supposedly paying to come pick it up, put it on a boat, and so on, instead of just putting it into the landfill?
  - ploxiln 5y ago
    You! via taxes to local, state, and federal governments, who pay for "recycling" (illusion) programs that citizens demand.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      No, I don't want that glib answer, I want an explanation about the flow of funds. Like is there a federal program handing out money to the companies buying the recycling? Was there a secret government program sending money to Chinese recyclers? And for instance, metal, cardboard and paper recycling actually work well. How come the may-may about plastic recycling being fake rolled those in?
      - ploxiln 5y ago
        > Those city departments responsible for trash pickup now incur significant costs, over and above what they would have to pay in the absence of recycling. These costs include the personnel and equipment for separate additional refuse collection (or payment to a contractor to provide the service), as well as the cost of paying firms to accept recyclables, now that they no longer can be profitably resold. > Some recyclables — notably, aluminum cans — continue to have a relatively high market value. But they are mixed with other materials that have little value and therefore require expensive sorting. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/recycling-cost-benefit-analysis https://www.manhattan-institute.org/recycling-cost-benefit-a... So, cities pay for recycling to be collected, and then after that pay some company to take it off their hands. They used to not pay much for the latter, sometimes even zero, if enough aluminum could be recovered. But now, they pay for it to be taken too. These companies that take the recycling, try to make some profit from the money they are paid, and the materials. They also have to look like they are actually recycling. So they used to just spend some of the money (which they are paid by the city, and some from the pure aluminum they can separate) to ship the worthless stuff to China for "recycling" ... and what's left over is profit. EDIT: better specific data: > Boston then pays a private firm, Casella Waste Systems, to sort and sell the materials when there is a buyer, or otherwise dispose of them. > The price that the city must pay Casella to accept these recyclables has been rising, partly because some 25% of the materials are contaminated. A five-year “residential recycling processing contract” that expired in 2019 called on the city to pay $70 per ton for that service;[18] a new contract signed in 2019 increased that fee to a minimum of $125 per ton and a maximum of $160 per ton—depending on market conditions.
yodsanklai 5y ago
> The U.S. isn't even in the top 10 producers of plastic waste in oceans Does it make it ok for them to throw plastic in oceans?
- mc32 5y ago
  Go for the low hanging fruit first, then, when you’re done there, go for the slim Pickins. Bang for the buck.
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  I didn't read anywhere in OPs comment that it was ok to litter in the US because India produces 50x more waste. Given we have limited time and resources I believe he is implying that it's easier to reduce Indian waste by 1% than reduce American waste by 50%. So we should probably focus on former.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
How about showing some leadership from the “leader of the free world”?
spats1990 5y ago
>The U.S. isn't even in the top 10 producers of plastic waste in oceans (it's something like >30th on the list). Coca-Cola and Pepsi are consistently the biggest offenders in plastic waste. The United States should be the shining global role model we are so often told it is, and legislate to force better corporate behaviour around these issues. At this point the consumer-blaming logic regarding single use plastic bottles is like "Well, we just make cigarettes, we can't help it if people smoke them and get sick." Not good enough.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  Why? Why should the US shoulder the load that will disproportionately affect the finances of the lower and middle class and make essentially no environmental impact?
  - spats1990 5y ago
    Two specious arguments. 1. A 30c-$1 increase in the price of Coke relative to its current baseline will not break the bank. 2. Tens/hundreds of millions of slowly degrading plastic bottles in the ocean certainly do have an environmental impact.

oh_sigh 5y ago

> Taking a leadership role in preventing plastic pollution would position the U.S. to shape and influence global plastic production, design, and innovation — and possibly create new economic opportunities, the report says.

lettergram 5y ago
The U.S. dictating to the poor backwards nations of the asian pacific will go over well. More likely, a company setup by the family member of several U.S. politicians will receive funds from the U.S. government to aid in "transitioning" these economies to a post-plastics world. None of which will be effective and largely be like the Clinton Foundation in Haiti. The reality is that reducing crude oil to gasoline production will remove the ability to produce plastics. As plastics become more expensive, different materials will be utilized.
- BostonEnginerd 5y ago
  I believe that the feedstock for most plastics is natural gas.
  - jcampbell1 5y ago
    This is correct, the two biggest plastics are polyethylene and polypropylene, which natural gas is the feedstock.
- 8note 5y ago
  America is the main military and economic power in the Asian Pacific. Currently the US has the power to dictate such terms, but the countries probably can't actually fulfill them

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sjtindell 5y ago

As I understand the United States and others just ship all their plastic to Asia where it is dumped in the ocean so they can claim they are green for whatever consumer advocate.

maxerickson 5y ago
My county landfill gets paid for the plastic that trucks come and take away (or they put it in the landfill). Who is supposedly paying to come pick it up, put it on a boat, and so on, instead of just putting it into the landfill?
- ploxiln 5y ago
  You! via taxes to local, state, and federal governments, who pay for "recycling" (illusion) programs that citizens demand.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    No, I don't want that glib answer, I want an explanation about the flow of funds. Like is there a federal program handing out money to the companies buying the recycling? Was there a secret government program sending money to Chinese recyclers? And for instance, metal, cardboard and paper recycling actually work well. How come the may-may about plastic recycling being fake rolled those in?
    - ploxiln 5y ago
      > Those city departments responsible for trash pickup now incur significant costs, over and above what they would have to pay in the absence of recycling. These costs include the personnel and equipment for separate additional refuse collection (or payment to a contractor to provide the service), as well as the cost of paying firms to accept recyclables, now that they no longer can be profitably resold. > Some recyclables — notably, aluminum cans — continue to have a relatively high market value. But they are mixed with other materials that have little value and therefore require expensive sorting. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/recycling-cost-benefit-analysis https://www.manhattan-institute.org/recycling-cost-benefit-a... So, cities pay for recycling to be collected, and then after that pay some company to take it off their hands. They used to not pay much for the latter, sometimes even zero, if enough aluminum could be recovered. But now, they pay for it to be taken too. These companies that take the recycling, try to make some profit from the money they are paid, and the materials. They also have to look like they are actually recycling. So they used to just spend some of the money (which they are paid by the city, and some from the pure aluminum they can separate) to ship the worthless stuff to China for "recycling" ... and what's left over is profit. EDIT: better specific data: > Boston then pays a private firm, Casella Waste Systems, to sort and sell the materials when there is a buyer, or otherwise dispose of them. > The price that the city must pay Casella to accept these recyclables has been rising, partly because some 25% of the materials are contaminated. A five-year “residential recycling processing contract” that expired in 2019 called on the city to pay $70 per ton for that service;[18] a new contract signed in 2019 increased that fee to a minimum of $125 per ton and a maximum of $160 per ton—depending on market conditions.

yodsanklai 5y ago

> The U.S. isn't even in the top 10 producers of plastic waste in oceans Does it make it ok for them to throw plastic in oceans?

mc32 5y ago
Go for the low hanging fruit first, then, when you’re done there, go for the slim Pickins. Bang for the buck.
JamesBarney 5y ago
I didn't read anywhere in OPs comment that it was ok to litter in the US because India produces 50x more waste. Given we have limited time and resources I believe he is implying that it's easier to reduce Indian waste by 1% than reduce American waste by 50%. So we should probably focus on former.

spaetzleesser 5y ago

How about showing some leadership from the “leader of the free world”?

spats1990 5y ago

>The U.S. isn't even in the top 10 producers of plastic waste in oceans (it's something like >30th on the list). Coca-Cola and Pepsi are consistently the biggest offenders in plastic waste. The United States should be the shining global role model we are so often told it is, and legislate to force better corporate behaviour around these issues. At this point the consumer-blaming logic regarding single use plastic bottles is like "Well, we just make cigarettes, we can't help it if people smoke them and get sick." Not good enough.

wonderwonder 5y ago
Why? Why should the US shoulder the load that will disproportionately affect the finances of the lower and middle class and make essentially no environmental impact?
- spats1990 5y ago
  Two specious arguments. 1. A 30c-$1 increase in the price of Coke relative to its current baseline will not break the bank. 2. Tens/hundreds of millions of slowly degrading plastic bottles in the ocean certainly do have an environmental impact.