4 ms·

Sorry people, but you can't stop it: 1. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/04/11/how-much-plastic-do-you-eat-it-could-be-as-much-as-a-credit-card-a-week https

by EGreg 3y ago

Sorry people, but you can't stop it: 1. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/04/11/how-much-plastic-do-you-eat-it-could-be-as-much-as-a-credit-card-a-week https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/04/11/how-much-plastic-d... 2. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/microplastics-found-in-human-blood-for-first-time https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/micropla... 3. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/15/winds-can-carry-microplastics-anywhere-and-everywhere https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/15/winds-ca... Because humanity and capitalism's incentives are just wrong. Bottling companies like Coca Cola and Snapple have long switched to plastic bottles, and externalized the cost to the environment. My recommendation would be to tax negative externalities and redistribute all of it as a UBI to the people of the country. Simple and effective, but apparently the governments have been moving way too slowly. What's worse is that the governments perpetuate a lie to the public, making them think they can individually make a difference. In the case of plastic the lie was "recycling", when in fact the plastics were simply shipped to China, who dumped them in landfills and rivers. But the government tells the individual that they can't have a plastic straw or bag. It's all there to distract the individuals from banding together and demanding the costs be imposed on the corporations which put out metric tons every day. I write more about this phenomenon here: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=362 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=362 And it's not just the bottling companies. It's all the packaging. It's the clothes using synthetic fabrics like polyester, which generate microplastics flushed in every wash. And so on. Convenience is when you'd rather have a one-time-use spoon shipped from China, than wash and re-use a spoon. Your ancestors re-filled containers. If we made it more costly for these companies, they'd long ago have researched biodegradable alternatives.

deelowe 3y ago
One of my favorite quotes is: "A problem is a challenge with a least one workable solution. A dilemma is challenge with multiple choices, all equally bad." If we eliminated all PFAS chemicals today, society would collapse. What's the point of eliminating PFAS chemicals to improve life expectancy if the very act of doing so would cause a famine?
- nahstra 3y ago
  What products use PFAS whose absence would cause society to collapse? If you look at the major sources of PFAS by 3M, it's not like these were essential products. Here's a random list from wisconsin.gov: Cleaning products. Water-resistant fabrics, such as rain jackets, umbrellas and tents. Grease-resistant paper. Nonstick cookware. Personal care products, like shampoo, dental floss, nail polish, and eye makeup. Stain-resistant coatings used on carpets, upholstery, and other fabrics.
  - deelowe 3y ago
    Anything containing "rubber."
    - EGreg 3y ago
      Doesn't rubber come from rubber trees? What does that have to do with PFAS? Teflon is not rubber, as far as I know PTFE are petro- flourochemicals
      - kortex 3y ago
        Very little "rubber" is actual natural latex rubber. Balloons, certain hose, and some gloves are natural latex, as are about 40% of the material in tires. The rest is synthetic elastomer. EPDM and Buna-N/nitrile are probably the most common. Teflon is not rubber, but viton is fluorinated elastomer, and it's used everywhere as well.
  - DubiousPusher 3y ago
    I think the biggest material impact for any curb on plastics would largely be felt in medicine. Disposability is huge in preventing infection. Also, many medical implants rely on the combination of elasticity and strength found in plastics.
    - barbazoo 3y ago
      Maybe focus on all the non-essential shit people buy every day then first.
veemjeem 3y ago
I've read that the majority of microplastics come from tire wear (national geographic quoted 28% of the total), and because there's no good alternative to wheel tires, it's unlikely we'll see a decrease of pollution here. So even if we found an alternative to bottles, plastic bags, clothing, etc, it still won't make a dent in pollution unless we convince the world to use a form of public transit that doesn't make use of plastic tires. We could reduce human consumption of the particles if we only consumed lab-grown meat & hydroponically grown vegetables where the water is ultra-filtered before use.
- digging 3y ago
  > because there's no good alternative to wheel tires, it's unlikely we'll see a decrease of pollution here Well, we could stop pretending that God gave cars dominion over the earth and build livable cities.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - digging 3y ago
      > Suburbs don’t exist because of some big oil and auto company conspiracy. They exist because they give people an option they find more appealing vs urban areas. No, modern car-dependent suburbs actually do exist because of oil and auto conspiracies. There exist options between high density and car-dependency. Surburbs can be walkable, and cities can have walkable low-density areas.
    - mike50 3y ago
      Your typical modern American suburb is homes that would be three family homes 60 years ago on land that would fit three of those homes let alone a normal size house. All of this is subsidized by tax write-offs and gasoline that is 50% discounted relative to the rest of the developed world. Not much freedom of movement when everything even a neighbor is a 15 minute drive away either due to sprawl or trafic.
willcipriano 3y ago
> My recommendation would be to tax negative externalities and redistribute all of it as a UBI to the people of the country. Simple and effective Wouldn't you want to resolve the externalities with those funds instead of spending it, likely increasing consumer consumption and making the problem worse? > If we made it more costly for these companies Why wouldn't the costs flow to consumers? Firms recently seem to be able to set prices at what the market will bear.
- EGreg 3y ago
  Because we'd be indirectly subsidizing any competitor who puts out biodegradeable solutions, without directly picking winners and losers, just making it more costly to produce non-biodegradeable stuff. The alternatives can come out of the same department (e.g. of DuPont chemicals) and they wouldn't be hit with the same tax, so they'd be more competitive over time. The money is redistributed to the working class because otherwise you get this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    How do you accurately price externalities without resolving them? If you spend a billion a year cleaning up plastic it's pretty simple math to spread that out over the cost of plastic products. On the other hand if you don't actually do anything to resolve it you are just guessing on what that costs and could be way over or under. This seems like "I want UBI" with a flimsy environmental justification.
    - EGreg 3y ago
      You don’t need to accurately price them. You just gradually keep increasing the price year over year until the companies spin up R&D departments to switch to biodegradable sustainable alternatives, or their competitors do. You have to hit those corps in their pocketbook and affect their bottom line before they act. It’s the only thing they understand. As far as cleanup - forget it. We may be able to clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but we won’t be able to remove microplastics around the world. It is urgent we stop creating MORE though. That means also mandating drainage systems that filter and trap these particles before they escape. We already mandate that for many forms of grease!
conradev 3y ago
> But the government tells the individual that they can't have a plastic straw or bag Policies exist to improve the situation, they just need to be fought for (against the bottling companies): > According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), the average nationwide recycling rate for beverage containers is around 35%. By contrast, Oregon’s beverage container redemption rate is regularly in the 80-90% range https://obrc.com/results/how-bottle-bills-compare/ https://obrc.com/results/how-bottle-bills-compare/ Plastic in a landfill is actually fine, even if wasteful, as long as the landfill is properly built.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Plastic in landfill has the quality of being oil that won't be burned.

by EGreg 3y ago

deelowe 3y ago

One of my favorite quotes is: "A problem is a challenge with a least one workable solution. A dilemma is challenge with multiple choices, all equally bad." If we eliminated all PFAS chemicals today, society would collapse. What's the point of eliminating PFAS chemicals to improve life expectancy if the very act of doing so would cause a famine?

nahstra 3y ago
What products use PFAS whose absence would cause society to collapse? If you look at the major sources of PFAS by 3M, it's not like these were essential products. Here's a random list from wisconsin.gov: Cleaning products. Water-resistant fabrics, such as rain jackets, umbrellas and tents. Grease-resistant paper. Nonstick cookware. Personal care products, like shampoo, dental floss, nail polish, and eye makeup. Stain-resistant coatings used on carpets, upholstery, and other fabrics.
- deelowe 3y ago
  Anything containing "rubber."
  - EGreg 3y ago
    Doesn't rubber come from rubber trees? What does that have to do with PFAS? Teflon is not rubber, as far as I know PTFE are petro- flourochemicals
    - kortex 3y ago
      Very little "rubber" is actual natural latex rubber. Balloons, certain hose, and some gloves are natural latex, as are about 40% of the material in tires. The rest is synthetic elastomer. EPDM and Buna-N/nitrile are probably the most common. Teflon is not rubber, but viton is fluorinated elastomer, and it's used everywhere as well.
- DubiousPusher 3y ago
  I think the biggest material impact for any curb on plastics would largely be felt in medicine. Disposability is huge in preventing infection. Also, many medical implants rely on the combination of elasticity and strength found in plastics.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    Maybe focus on all the non-essential shit people buy every day then first.

veemjeem 3y ago

I've read that the majority of microplastics come from tire wear (national geographic quoted 28% of the total), and because there's no good alternative to wheel tires, it's unlikely we'll see a decrease of pollution here. So even if we found an alternative to bottles, plastic bags, clothing, etc, it still won't make a dent in pollution unless we convince the world to use a form of public transit that doesn't make use of plastic tires. We could reduce human consumption of the particles if we only consumed lab-grown meat & hydroponically grown vegetables where the water is ultra-filtered before use.

digging 3y ago
> because there's no good alternative to wheel tires, it's unlikely we'll see a decrease of pollution here Well, we could stop pretending that God gave cars dominion over the earth and build livable cities.
- bequanna 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - digging 3y ago
    > Suburbs don’t exist because of some big oil and auto company conspiracy. They exist because they give people an option they find more appealing vs urban areas. No, modern car-dependent suburbs actually do exist because of oil and auto conspiracies. There exist options between high density and car-dependency. Surburbs can be walkable, and cities can have walkable low-density areas.
  - mike50 3y ago
    Your typical modern American suburb is homes that would be three family homes 60 years ago on land that would fit three of those homes let alone a normal size house. All of this is subsidized by tax write-offs and gasoline that is 50% discounted relative to the rest of the developed world. Not much freedom of movement when everything even a neighbor is a 15 minute drive away either due to sprawl or trafic.

willcipriano 3y ago

> My recommendation would be to tax negative externalities and redistribute all of it as a UBI to the people of the country. Simple and effective Wouldn't you want to resolve the externalities with those funds instead of spending it, likely increasing consumer consumption and making the problem worse? > If we made it more costly for these companies Why wouldn't the costs flow to consumers? Firms recently seem to be able to set prices at what the market will bear.

EGreg 3y ago
Because we'd be indirectly subsidizing any competitor who puts out biodegradeable solutions, without directly picking winners and losers, just making it more costly to produce non-biodegradeable stuff. The alternatives can come out of the same department (e.g. of DuPont chemicals) and they wouldn't be hit with the same tax, so they'd be more competitive over time. The money is redistributed to the working class because otherwise you get this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
- willcipriano 3y ago
  How do you accurately price externalities without resolving them? If you spend a billion a year cleaning up plastic it's pretty simple math to spread that out over the cost of plastic products. On the other hand if you don't actually do anything to resolve it you are just guessing on what that costs and could be way over or under. This seems like "I want UBI" with a flimsy environmental justification.
  - EGreg 3y ago
    You don’t need to accurately price them. You just gradually keep increasing the price year over year until the companies spin up R&D departments to switch to biodegradable sustainable alternatives, or their competitors do. You have to hit those corps in their pocketbook and affect their bottom line before they act. It’s the only thing they understand. As far as cleanup - forget it. We may be able to clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but we won’t be able to remove microplastics around the world. It is urgent we stop creating MORE though. That means also mandating drainage systems that filter and trap these particles before they escape. We already mandate that for many forms of grease!

conradev 3y ago

> But the government tells the individual that they can't have a plastic straw or bag Policies exist to improve the situation, they just need to be fought for (against the bottling companies): > According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), the average nationwide recycling rate for beverage containers is around 35%. By contrast, Oregon’s beverage container redemption rate is regularly in the 80-90% range https://obrc.com/results/how-bottle-bills-compare/ https://obrc.com/results/how-bottle-bills-compare/ Plastic in a landfill is actually fine, even if wasteful, as long as the landfill is properly built.

XorNot 3y ago
Plastic in landfill has the quality of being oil that won't be burned.