4 ms·

"Currently, recycling plastic is a bit of a lie -- very little of it is actually recycled." Depends where you live and what you consider recycling. If you mean

"Currently, recycling plastic is a bit of a lie -- very little of it is actually recycled." Depends where you live and what you consider recycling. If you mean, making new plastics out of the old, than the challenge is, that there are many, many different plastics you cannot just melt in and reuse if mixed together. A annoying, but working solution here in germany is a mandated bottle bill. Meaning you pay 25 cent extra per bottle, and get it back, if you return that bottle into a machine: but this results in actual reusable plastics as they are all of the same kind. And for the rest, the most pragmatic solution is burning it for energy. If you use filters, it is not so bad and it is recycling, but it is the same as burning fossil fuels, so not a good long term solution.

digging 3y ago
> And for the rest, the most pragmatic solution is burning it for energy. I really wish we'd do more of this. I know it's not ideal, but we in the US need to treat plastic like the trash that it (mostly) is. And trash is just fuel. Instead we have convenient single-stream recycling which means all our actual recyclables also end up in the trash and/or oceans.
- ZeWaka 3y ago
  We actually do a fair amount of this in the US. Marion County in Oregon burns 90% of their trash. It's much better than landfills, anyways.
  - gruez 3y ago
    How is burning better than landfilling it? If the landfill is lined the garbage isn't going anywhere, and leaving the plastic in the ground is much better than releasing its co2 into the atmosphere. Land use might be an issue in some places, but I doubt that's the case in Oregon.
    - parineum 3y ago
      > Land use might be an issue in some places It really isn't the land that's the problem, there is absolutely plenty of land to support the entire earth's population of trash in landfills. Just like with food, the problem is moving it to the places you want it to be.
gruez 3y ago
>And for the rest, the most pragmatic solution is burning it for energy. No, burying is better because it sequesters the carbon rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  If it means not burning coal, oil or gas instead and there are good filters, I think burning plastic makes sense. But if you can actually get all the needed energy from non fossil sources, then yes, burying makes more sense. But I think only some rare places on earth are that far.

digging 3y ago

> And for the rest, the most pragmatic solution is burning it for energy. I really wish we'd do more of this. I know it's not ideal, but we in the US need to treat plastic like the trash that it (mostly) is. And trash is just fuel. Instead we have convenient single-stream recycling which means all our actual recyclables also end up in the trash and/or oceans.

ZeWaka 3y ago
We actually do a fair amount of this in the US. Marion County in Oregon burns 90% of their trash. It's much better than landfills, anyways.
- gruez 3y ago
  How is burning better than landfilling it? If the landfill is lined the garbage isn't going anywhere, and leaving the plastic in the ground is much better than releasing its co2 into the atmosphere. Land use might be an issue in some places, but I doubt that's the case in Oregon.
  - parineum 3y ago
    > Land use might be an issue in some places It really isn't the land that's the problem, there is absolutely plenty of land to support the entire earth's population of trash in landfills. Just like with food, the problem is moving it to the places you want it to be.

gruez 3y ago

>And for the rest, the most pragmatic solution is burning it for energy. No, burying is better because it sequesters the carbon rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.

hutzlibu 3y ago
If it means not burning coal, oil or gas instead and there are good filters, I think burning plastic makes sense. But if you can actually get all the needed energy from non fossil sources, then yes, burying makes more sense. But I think only some rare places on earth are that far.