4 ms·

Strong arguments, ideally legislation would ensure plastics break down and if not, some sort of breakdown cost incorporated into the goods. But that stifles in

Strong arguments, ideally legislation would ensure plastics break down and if not, some sort of breakdown cost incorporated into the goods. But that stifles industry and innovation. Maybe we can have incentives for packaging that breaks down, I believe the technology exists at this point in time.

zizee 3y ago
> But that stifles industry and innovation Subsidies are what stifles innovation. I _think_ you are not being sarcastic, but apologies if I am misunderstanding. Allowing industry to externalize costs does not promote innovation. It does the opposite, as offloading those costs to others is effectively subsidizing the behaviour.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cushpush 3y ago
  Yes on the sarcasm, you bring up a great point. True "innovation" would take into account the optimal outcome, but sometimes that has to be legislated in. As in many industries where regulation improves outcomes for society.
berjin 3y ago
Incentives are good but you still have to watch out for greenwashing lies. If you take a look at carbon credits for instance there is an incentive to plant trees but what happens in reality is quite different; the industry is full of frauds such as not planting out forests that are on someones books. Sure you can use cardboard for a a lot of things but liquids and pressurized goods like soda are difficult. I don't think there is a way to have a biodegradable coke bottle. We need go to standard sizes of glass or s/s packaging. It will require infrastructure and it will cost some money which of course the companies won't like.
mdp2021 3y ago
> break down If there exists a use of "«break down»" intended to mean "biodegrade", the term remains too close to "crumble". You would not eat a bottle, but having tiny chunks of plastic around makes "you eat 5 grams of plastic - one credit card - per <period>" fully credible (i.e. you want it to stay big to stay out of the body - you want materials not to shed themselves around). Crumbling plastic just creates microplastic. Which is relevant, because some actors seem to have confused the goals - transforming vs pulverizing. (See e.g. https://theconversation.com/were-all-ingesting-microplastics-at-home-and-these-might-be-toxic-for-our-health-here-are-some-tips-to-reduce-your-risk-159537 https://theconversation.com/were-all-ingesting-microplastics... ; https://theconversation.com/youre-eating-microplastics-in-ways-you-dont-even-realise-97649 https://theconversation.com/youre-eating-microplastics-in-wa... )
- cushpush 3y ago
  Break down means "to biodegrade" in American English, among other meanings
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    In the case of plastic, you have a chemical issue. The linguistic issue - the ambiguity and the "poor choice", that plastic will more easily "break down" in chunks, not in de-structured carbon etc. -, can point to that. We are already seeing some material variations that are strongly ineffective for their intended purpose, and that will contribute more to the diffusion of microplastic instead of (re-)cycling.

zizee 3y ago

> But that stifles industry and innovation Subsidies are what stifles innovation. I _think_ you are not being sarcastic, but apologies if I am misunderstanding. Allowing industry to externalize costs does not promote innovation. It does the opposite, as offloading those costs to others is effectively subsidizing the behaviour.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cushpush 3y ago
Yes on the sarcasm, you bring up a great point. True "innovation" would take into account the optimal outcome, but sometimes that has to be legislated in. As in many industries where regulation improves outcomes for society.

berjin 3y ago

Incentives are good but you still have to watch out for greenwashing lies. If you take a look at carbon credits for instance there is an incentive to plant trees but what happens in reality is quite different; the industry is full of frauds such as not planting out forests that are on someones books. Sure you can use cardboard for a a lot of things but liquids and pressurized goods like soda are difficult. I don't think there is a way to have a biodegradable coke bottle. We need go to standard sizes of glass or s/s packaging. It will require infrastructure and it will cost some money which of course the companies won't like.

mdp2021 3y ago

> break down If there exists a use of "«break down»" intended to mean "biodegrade", the term remains too close to "crumble". You would not eat a bottle, but having tiny chunks of plastic around makes "you eat 5 grams of plastic - one credit card - per <period>" fully credible (i.e. you want it to stay big to stay out of the body - you want materials not to shed themselves around). Crumbling plastic just creates microplastic. Which is relevant, because some actors seem to have confused the goals - transforming vs pulverizing. (See e.g. https://theconversation.com/were-all-ingesting-microplastics-at-home-and-these-might-be-toxic-for-our-health-here-are-some-tips-to-reduce-your-risk-159537 https://theconversation.com/were-all-ingesting-microplastics... ; https://theconversation.com/youre-eating-microplastics-in-ways-you-dont-even-realise-97649 https://theconversation.com/youre-eating-microplastics-in-wa... )

cushpush 3y ago
Break down means "to biodegrade" in American English, among other meanings
- mdp2021 3y ago
  In the case of plastic, you have a chemical issue. The linguistic issue - the ambiguity and the "poor choice", that plastic will more easily "break down" in chunks, not in de-structured carbon etc. -, can point to that. We are already seeing some material variations that are strongly ineffective for their intended purpose, and that will contribute more to the diffusion of microplastic instead of (re-)cycling.