9 ms·

Why are plastics 3-7 allowed if they are unable to be recycled? Also it seems to me that a tax on plastic might incentivise glass and metal usage. Plastic is o

by kinnth 4y ago

Why are plastics 3-7 allowed if they are unable to be recycled? Also it seems to me that a tax on plastic might incentivise glass and metal usage. Plastic is only used for convenience and cheapness, let's make it less convenient and cheap than glass and metal.

e_i_pi_2 4y ago
I agree with this as a general solution - if it's easier/cheaper to do the bad thing, then we use law/taxes to change the incentives. Here's a couple counterarguments I hear a lot: 1) "Personal responsibility - if people choose to do the wrong thing that's on them". I think we've seen that choices are influenced by the environment and not largely within the control of any random individual. People are rational actors relative to their situation but that can often mean choices that aren't rational in a larger context. 2) "Too expensive - some people need the cheaper to produce products". I think this is where markets are useful, we should be able to switch up the landscape and have the gaps filled. I think the big risk here is not having appropriate social safety nets in place to cover people while there are still gaps. 3) "Laws should be about what's 'right', not a way to control people". This seems like ultimately the same thing, someone decides what's 'right' and then makes it a law so other people will do it. We generally agree murder is wrong but it get's a lot more hazy with stuff like taxes and clear that it's a way to incentivize behavior.
- vanderZwan 4y ago
  > "Personal responsibility - if people choose to do the wrong thing that's on them" Another counter-argument by example: if people choose to smoke and I sit in their second-hand smoke I suffer the consequences of their actions. Similarly, plastic waste is not a problem that stops at the individual. The whole "personal responsibily" argument has always been a lame excuse by companies to offload responsibility to the customer.
- bandie91 4y ago
  it annoys me a lot: media appeals to personal responsibility a lot; people in my area disregards those who ostendebly cares for sustainability, saying they're weird as not following the herd, and "one single man can not switch the tide" attitude. which if you respond to like "why don't you do it too?" - they reply "others would reckon me weird"; so not "because that certain behaviur does not make sense". These people calims a heigher power, ie. government, should step in and regulate. The same people who gets utterly rebelious if they face a slightest little new regulation in any area.
DavidPeiffer 4y ago
> Plastic is only used for convenience and cheapness, let's make it less convenient and cheap than glass and metal. Plastic is cheap and convenient, but its material properties are also advantageous. It's lightweight, allowing more actual product to be transported on trucks. If it breaks, it doesn't make a dangerous mess the way glass does. We should absolutely work to reduce, reuse, and recycle, in that order of priority, but we need to recognize that other costs exist too, such as more product being damaged and more higher transportation costs (monetary and pollution wise). All that said, I agree companies respond to incentives, and given sufficient costs, they would lean towards more recyclable products.
- wkearney99 4y ago
  It doesn't make as immediately a dangerous mess, that's true. Long term though, it's markedly worse.
- tomp 4y ago
  > We should absolutely work to reduce, reuse, and recycle, No, we shouldn't. We should primarily work on scaling up our energy production. I was long in favour of nuclear, although apparently there's some exciting development in deep geothermal as well. (inspired by https://elidourado.com/blog/geothermal/ https://elidourado.com/blog/geothermal/ ) We shouldn't even try recycling the plastic, but simply burry it. Oil from the ground, plastic back into the ground. With enough energy and a viable waste management process in place, we don't need to bother with reducing, reusing or recycling, but can simply enjoy our lives to the fullest.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    How about we at least “work to reduce, reuse, and recycle” _until_ we have energy scaled up sufficiently to do what you describe?
  - thecrash 4y ago
    The invention of breakthrough energy sources are not being blocked by efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. They're being blocked by difficult thermodynamics, engineering, and materials problems. I'm hopeful, but as far as we know it could take many hundreds of years to solve these problems - they might even be practically unsolvable. So it makes sense to also hedge our bets by making the systems we currently depend on more sustainable, rather than just assume we will transcend them on-schedule.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
> a tax on plastic How it making it a profit centre for the government gonna fix anything?
- diab0lic 4y ago
  It makes it more expensive for those using it, thus making alternatives more appealing.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    What alternatives?
blockwriter 4y ago
Are glass and metal actually superior? Is more carbon produced transporting heavier glass and metal? Tax everything that is inconvenient, and I’m not sure if anything is affordable.
- gs17 4y ago
  They're much more easily recyclable, at least. The continued existence of aluminium cans for drinks makes me feel the weight can't be that big a dealbreaker, too. I'd imagine a lot of plastic in things like packaging simply wouldn't be there anymore at all (e.g. getting rid of clamshells for paper-based shells), or would be significantly reduced.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >They're much more easily recyclable, at least. Yeah but if they end up using more energy, which one should we go with?
    - warkdarrior 4y ago
      The only environmentally friendly way is for each person to travel to the place of manufacture on foot, pick up the items they want, without any packaging, and then walk back to their homes. Nothing else is acceptable!
  - blockwriter 4y ago
    I will say that I would be in favor of a blanket ban on clothes made with synthetic fibers. An exception could be made for winter jackets, wetsuits, and the like, but I welcome sartorial tyranny.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    Aluminum is worth recycling, but post-consumer paper and card is a nightmare to recycle because of all the contaminants. Food scraps. Staples and other bits of metal. Plastic tapes. Labels. China clay coatings for the printed surfaces. (Looking at you, Apple.) Best to just burn it in high-temperature furnaces as bio-energy.
seydor 4y ago
Plastic is a great material superior to glass & metal (for a world where every product is shipped to destination). Its mass production and lack of reuse is the problem
gruez 4y ago
>Why are plastics 3-7 allowed if they are unable to be recycled? Why shouldn't they be allowed? There are many non-plastic things that can't be recycled either. Why should plastic be singled out? As long as the proper disposal costs are being paid (ie. burial at an EPA regulated landfill), I don't see any problems.
dboreham 4y ago
Because the entire purpose of the numbered markings is to allow more plastic to be sold. It's a psyop designed to prevent outrage at the waste and pollution from single-use containers from reducing sales. Any actual recycling done is incidental to the primary goal.
- robocat 4y ago
  Rubbish. You think that having no numbering is better? The numbered markings are necessary to enable recycling. The real problem is that trashing waste is often the least worst solution for our environment. Expensive “green” packaging and recycling, are too often actually worse for the environment. Feel good movements that kill the planet quicker. Often sold to us via industry propaganda but we childishly are willing recipients for mistruth: we collectively want an anodyne panacea where we can continue to consume without consequences, a convenient lie, a palatable excuse. To fix the actual problem requires giving up our nice things, giving up on our wants, reducing our spending, or reducing population. We cannot accept those requirements, so we all merrily go along with greenwashing denialism. The two best indicators for your environmental impact are: (1) your income, and (2) your country. I’m guessing you are a well off US citizen: you are the problem. Not some evil corporation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
karaterobot 4y ago
> Why are plastics 3-7 allowed if they are unable to be recycled? I know you read the article, but there is a paragraph where they note that types 3-7 can be recycled, but that facilities to do so are not available to a substantial majority of people. That might be why they have the recycling symbol on them. They also note, somewhat oddly, that the product of this recycling is not used for anything. Odd, because it seems like being used to create other materials is really the most important aspect of being recyclable. Maybe they should have lead with that?

by kinnth 4y ago

e_i_pi_2 4y ago

I agree with this as a general solution - if it's easier/cheaper to do the bad thing, then we use law/taxes to change the incentives. Here's a couple counterarguments I hear a lot: 1) "Personal responsibility - if people choose to do the wrong thing that's on them". I think we've seen that choices are influenced by the environment and not largely within the control of any random individual. People are rational actors relative to their situation but that can often mean choices that aren't rational in a larger context. 2) "Too expensive - some people need the cheaper to produce products". I think this is where markets are useful, we should be able to switch up the landscape and have the gaps filled. I think the big risk here is not having appropriate social safety nets in place to cover people while there are still gaps. 3) "Laws should be about what's 'right', not a way to control people". This seems like ultimately the same thing, someone decides what's 'right' and then makes it a law so other people will do it. We generally agree murder is wrong but it get's a lot more hazy with stuff like taxes and clear that it's a way to incentivize behavior.

vanderZwan 4y ago
> "Personal responsibility - if people choose to do the wrong thing that's on them" Another counter-argument by example: if people choose to smoke and I sit in their second-hand smoke I suffer the consequences of their actions. Similarly, plastic waste is not a problem that stops at the individual. The whole "personal responsibily" argument has always been a lame excuse by companies to offload responsibility to the customer.
bandie91 4y ago
it annoys me a lot: media appeals to personal responsibility a lot; people in my area disregards those who ostendebly cares for sustainability, saying they're weird as not following the herd, and "one single man can not switch the tide" attitude. which if you respond to like "why don't you do it too?" - they reply "others would reckon me weird"; so not "because that certain behaviur does not make sense". These people calims a heigher power, ie. government, should step in and regulate. The same people who gets utterly rebelious if they face a slightest little new regulation in any area.

DavidPeiffer 4y ago

> Plastic is only used for convenience and cheapness, let's make it less convenient and cheap than glass and metal. Plastic is cheap and convenient, but its material properties are also advantageous. It's lightweight, allowing more actual product to be transported on trucks. If it breaks, it doesn't make a dangerous mess the way glass does. We should absolutely work to reduce, reuse, and recycle, in that order of priority, but we need to recognize that other costs exist too, such as more product being damaged and more higher transportation costs (monetary and pollution wise). All that said, I agree companies respond to incentives, and given sufficient costs, they would lean towards more recyclable products.

wkearney99 4y ago
It doesn't make as immediately a dangerous mess, that's true. Long term though, it's markedly worse.
tomp 4y ago
> We should absolutely work to reduce, reuse, and recycle, No, we shouldn't. We should primarily work on scaling up our energy production. I was long in favour of nuclear, although apparently there's some exciting development in deep geothermal as well. (inspired by https://elidourado.com/blog/geothermal/ https://elidourado.com/blog/geothermal/ ) We shouldn't even try recycling the plastic, but simply burry it. Oil from the ground, plastic back into the ground. With enough energy and a viable waste management process in place, we don't need to bother with reducing, reusing or recycling, but can simply enjoy our lives to the fullest.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  How about we at least “work to reduce, reuse, and recycle” _until_ we have energy scaled up sufficiently to do what you describe?
- thecrash 4y ago
  The invention of breakthrough energy sources are not being blocked by efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. They're being blocked by difficult thermodynamics, engineering, and materials problems. I'm hopeful, but as far as we know it could take many hundreds of years to solve these problems - they might even be practically unsolvable. So it makes sense to also hedge our bets by making the systems we currently depend on more sustainable, rather than just assume we will transcend them on-schedule.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

> a tax on plastic How it making it a profit centre for the government gonna fix anything?

diab0lic 4y ago
It makes it more expensive for those using it, thus making alternatives more appealing.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  What alternatives?

blockwriter 4y ago

Are glass and metal actually superior? Is more carbon produced transporting heavier glass and metal? Tax everything that is inconvenient, and I’m not sure if anything is affordable.

gs17 4y ago
They're much more easily recyclable, at least. The continued existence of aluminium cans for drinks makes me feel the weight can't be that big a dealbreaker, too. I'd imagine a lot of plastic in things like packaging simply wouldn't be there anymore at all (e.g. getting rid of clamshells for paper-based shells), or would be significantly reduced.
- gruez 4y ago
  >They're much more easily recyclable, at least. Yeah but if they end up using more energy, which one should we go with?
  - warkdarrior 4y ago
    The only environmentally friendly way is for each person to travel to the place of manufacture on foot, pick up the items they want, without any packaging, and then walk back to their homes. Nothing else is acceptable!
- blockwriter 4y ago
  I will say that I would be in favor of a blanket ban on clothes made with synthetic fibers. An exception could be made for winter jackets, wetsuits, and the like, but I welcome sartorial tyranny.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  Aluminum is worth recycling, but post-consumer paper and card is a nightmare to recycle because of all the contaminants. Food scraps. Staples and other bits of metal. Plastic tapes. Labels. China clay coatings for the printed surfaces. (Looking at you, Apple.) Best to just burn it in high-temperature furnaces as bio-energy.

seydor 4y ago

Plastic is a great material superior to glass & metal (for a world where every product is shipped to destination). Its mass production and lack of reuse is the problem

gruez 4y ago

>Why are plastics 3-7 allowed if they are unable to be recycled? Why shouldn't they be allowed? There are many non-plastic things that can't be recycled either. Why should plastic be singled out? As long as the proper disposal costs are being paid (ie. burial at an EPA regulated landfill), I don't see any problems.

dboreham 4y ago

Because the entire purpose of the numbered markings is to allow more plastic to be sold. It's a psyop designed to prevent outrage at the waste and pollution from single-use containers from reducing sales. Any actual recycling done is incidental to the primary goal.

robocat 4y ago
Rubbish. You think that having no numbering is better? The numbered markings are necessary to enable recycling. The real problem is that trashing waste is often the least worst solution for our environment. Expensive “green” packaging and recycling, are too often actually worse for the environment. Feel good movements that kill the planet quicker. Often sold to us via industry propaganda but we childishly are willing recipients for mistruth: we collectively want an anodyne panacea where we can continue to consume without consequences, a convenient lie, a palatable excuse. To fix the actual problem requires giving up our nice things, giving up on our wants, reducing our spending, or reducing population. We cannot accept those requirements, so we all merrily go along with greenwashing denialism. The two best indicators for your environmental impact are: (1) your income, and (2) your country. I’m guessing you are a well off US citizen: you are the problem. Not some evil corporation.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

karaterobot 4y ago

> Why are plastics 3-7 allowed if they are unable to be recycled? I know you read the article, but there is a paragraph where they note that types 3-7 can be recycled, but that facilities to do so are not available to a substantial majority of people. That might be why they have the recycling symbol on them. They also note, somewhat oddly, that the product of this recycling is not used for anything. Odd, because it seems like being used to create other materials is really the most important aspect of being recyclable. Maybe they should have lead with that?