4 ms·

Plastic is incredible. It's one of the most amazing things humans have ever created. But we're due for a serious re-evaluation of where it is appropriate to us

Plastic is incredible. It's one of the most amazing things humans have ever created. But we're due for a serious re-evaluation of where it is appropriate to use it. Single-use plastics have to be banned globally, outside of critical uses like medical. I know, good luck with this one. Plastic fabrics need to be severely curtailed, as this study shows.

0xbadcafebee 4y ago
If synthetic fabrics go, hooooo boy... talk about an industrial shakeup. Polyester accounts for ~50% of global fabric production. Non-plastic synthetic fibers made from wood pulp are pretty bad for the environment (you basically use harsh chemicals to liquefy wood and turn that into new fibers). The only thing "performance-wise" that comes close is wool, which is also not very sustainable, and difficult to care for. This seems like it'll become the next "anti-smoking" battle.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > wool, which is also not very sustainable This is a matter do be checked with some detail, since some position against wool have become vocal: wool is, as expected, biodegradable (though it may be subject to chemical treatments that ruin this property); wool is recyclable, both as fabric and as industrial-use material (e.g. as an insulant); as a material for clothing, the excellent properties relative to the other options include durability (which of course - though nowadays the full importance of durability seems to be a neglected idea - reduces environmental impact); processes for the production of wool may entail some impact, independent from the material but related to the sheep. One summary: https://thinkofthepandas.com/2022/01/13/is-wool-eco-friendly-its-complicated/ https://thinkofthepandas.com/2022/01/13/is-wool-eco-friendly...
  - getcrunk 4y ago
    Let's not forget cotton
  - foerbert 4y ago
    > processes for the production of wool may entail some impact, independent from the material but related to the sheep. I suspect this is the massively buried lead here - one so huge and so buried that I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt. The lifecycle of wool itself is probably not at all the major concern. It will not take just a few more sheep to replace the entirety of the global use of polyester and other synthetics. Livestock are notoriously land-intensive, and the reason behind much of the ongoing ecological devastation of places like the Amazon rainforest. Trying to pass those concerns off as minor considerations after the biodegradability and recyclability of wool is just... incredible.
    - meristohm 4y ago
      The 8-billion-pound elephant in the room is the number of people that need clothing. Wool, and eating meat, can be sustainable if demand is below an environmental-degradation threshhold. We're living "high on the bog" of the riches that petroleum provides, and weaning is painful (but worth it, if enough of us care about the life-stories of our great-great-etc-grandchildren).
    - smileysteve 4y ago
      > Livestock are notoriously land-intensive Yes, but in most cases, the wool today is considered waste; the primary market value of sheep is between mowing fields naturally and the meat. Which is why the industry has died as it has.
    - ericd 4y ago
      You can’t have everything. You can pump oil and make plastic, but that’s got obvious problems. Cotton is extremely water intensive (and land). Grazing sheep are land intensive. Which one you think is best depends on what vector of ecological destruction you care most about. Maybe oil just let us get to more people than the Earth actually has carrying capacity for.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > Trying to pass those concerns off as minor considerations after the biodegradability and recyclability of wool is just... incredible. You wrote «is»: did you mean «would be»? Who is «trying to pass those concerns off as minor considerations»? There have been in some areas bureaucratic issues with wool, as if it were "warning-label class material": this has / has had people check a few facts. Edit: which by the way means, some wool may have been treated in a way that raised concern in public health monitoring entities. Think of the Amazon, but do not forget those thing that are there touching your skin. You could want to look into it. Anyway: when the issue is with production, maybe there are ways to partially fix it. Were the material toxic, you'd have in a way a bigger problem. And anyway, surely the vast majority of us HN members reasons through quantities and vets the given puzzle pieces to at least some extent: as ericd noted, Cost/Risks/Benefit analysis are duly as what you have are options, with different tradeoffs and complications, and having further promising ones is certainly beneficial.
- Terry_Roll 4y ago
  Well we do have a decent source for fibres in the form of Hemp. The Hemp fibre is longer and stronger than a cotton fibre, but the political favours pulled by the US Cotton growers association in the past has indirectly helped to bring man made fibres like these into play as a cheap alternative source for clothing and covers. This issue, isnt restricted to clothing made of man made fibres, it will affect the leisure industry because tents & gazebo's are made of nylon and their exposure to the elements degrades them quickly. Footwear, trainers, sneakers watch how the likes of Nike handle this both for consumers and their employees. Man made fibre's are everywhere and are the next Asbestos scandal, so watch how big business handles this one. The science will be restricted, there might be some private studies commissioned by some big names and the findings kept quiet. I've seen stock market listed supermarkets commission studies, results come back and it all gets hushed up! A lot of Global businesses should best be viewed as a threat to your health! Your politicians wont do anything about it either, they dont represent you they represent their unlined pockets!
  - bradknowles 4y ago
    If you want asbestos, you should try talc. Lots of nice asbestos there.
    - Terry_Roll 4y ago
      Johnson and Johnson know about this in the Baby Talc products.
- Litost 4y ago
  There was a recent segment in a Radio 4 broadcast about wool being burnt in the UK because it wasn't worth selling: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00106k3 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00106k3 Judging by this article this is because of the rise of mass-produced synthetic fibres and a collapse in the hospitality market due to covid: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-58162610 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-581... So much for science and the precautionary principle, economics and the power of the free market, politicians and regulation :(.

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

If synthetic fabrics go, hooooo boy... talk about an industrial shakeup. Polyester accounts for ~50% of global fabric production. Non-plastic synthetic fibers made from wood pulp are pretty bad for the environment (you basically use harsh chemicals to liquefy wood and turn that into new fibers). The only thing "performance-wise" that comes close is wool, which is also not very sustainable, and difficult to care for. This seems like it'll become the next "anti-smoking" battle.

mdp2021 4y ago
> wool, which is also not very sustainable This is a matter do be checked with some detail, since some position against wool have become vocal: wool is, as expected, biodegradable (though it may be subject to chemical treatments that ruin this property); wool is recyclable, both as fabric and as industrial-use material (e.g. as an insulant); as a material for clothing, the excellent properties relative to the other options include durability (which of course - though nowadays the full importance of durability seems to be a neglected idea - reduces environmental impact); processes for the production of wool may entail some impact, independent from the material but related to the sheep. One summary: https://thinkofthepandas.com/2022/01/13/is-wool-eco-friendly-its-complicated/ https://thinkofthepandas.com/2022/01/13/is-wool-eco-friendly...
- getcrunk 4y ago
  Let's not forget cotton
- foerbert 4y ago
  > processes for the production of wool may entail some impact, independent from the material but related to the sheep. I suspect this is the massively buried lead here - one so huge and so buried that I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt. The lifecycle of wool itself is probably not at all the major concern. It will not take just a few more sheep to replace the entirety of the global use of polyester and other synthetics. Livestock are notoriously land-intensive, and the reason behind much of the ongoing ecological devastation of places like the Amazon rainforest. Trying to pass those concerns off as minor considerations after the biodegradability and recyclability of wool is just... incredible.
  - meristohm 4y ago
    The 8-billion-pound elephant in the room is the number of people that need clothing. Wool, and eating meat, can be sustainable if demand is below an environmental-degradation threshhold. We're living "high on the bog" of the riches that petroleum provides, and weaning is painful (but worth it, if enough of us care about the life-stories of our great-great-etc-grandchildren).
  - smileysteve 4y ago
    > Livestock are notoriously land-intensive Yes, but in most cases, the wool today is considered waste; the primary market value of sheep is between mowing fields naturally and the meat. Which is why the industry has died as it has.
  - ericd 4y ago
    You can’t have everything. You can pump oil and make plastic, but that’s got obvious problems. Cotton is extremely water intensive (and land). Grazing sheep are land intensive. Which one you think is best depends on what vector of ecological destruction you care most about. Maybe oil just let us get to more people than the Earth actually has carrying capacity for.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > Trying to pass those concerns off as minor considerations after the biodegradability and recyclability of wool is just... incredible. You wrote «is»: did you mean «would be»? Who is «trying to pass those concerns off as minor considerations»? There have been in some areas bureaucratic issues with wool, as if it were "warning-label class material": this has / has had people check a few facts. Edit: which by the way means, some wool may have been treated in a way that raised concern in public health monitoring entities. Think of the Amazon, but do not forget those thing that are there touching your skin. You could want to look into it. Anyway: when the issue is with production, maybe there are ways to partially fix it. Were the material toxic, you'd have in a way a bigger problem. And anyway, surely the vast majority of us HN members reasons through quantities and vets the given puzzle pieces to at least some extent: as ericd noted, Cost/Risks/Benefit analysis are duly as what you have are options, with different tradeoffs and complications, and having further promising ones is certainly beneficial.
Terry_Roll 4y ago
Well we do have a decent source for fibres in the form of Hemp. The Hemp fibre is longer and stronger than a cotton fibre, but the political favours pulled by the US Cotton growers association in the past has indirectly helped to bring man made fibres like these into play as a cheap alternative source for clothing and covers. This issue, isnt restricted to clothing made of man made fibres, it will affect the leisure industry because tents & gazebo's are made of nylon and their exposure to the elements degrades them quickly. Footwear, trainers, sneakers watch how the likes of Nike handle this both for consumers and their employees. Man made fibre's are everywhere and are the next Asbestos scandal, so watch how big business handles this one. The science will be restricted, there might be some private studies commissioned by some big names and the findings kept quiet. I've seen stock market listed supermarkets commission studies, results come back and it all gets hushed up! A lot of Global businesses should best be viewed as a threat to your health! Your politicians wont do anything about it either, they dont represent you they represent their unlined pockets!
- bradknowles 4y ago
  If you want asbestos, you should try talc. Lots of nice asbestos there.
  - Terry_Roll 4y ago
    Johnson and Johnson know about this in the Baby Talc products.
Litost 4y ago
There was a recent segment in a Radio 4 broadcast about wool being burnt in the UK because it wasn't worth selling: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00106k3 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00106k3 Judging by this article this is because of the rise of mass-produced synthetic fibres and a collapse in the hospitality market due to covid: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-58162610 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-581... So much for science and the precautionary principle, economics and the power of the free market, politicians and regulation :(.