10 ms·
Research shows plant-based polymers can disappear within seven months
- userbinator 3y ago...enabling more planned obsolescence than ever thought possible. Why make things last when you can have them "naturally" self-destruct and force you to buy again, under the guise of greenwashing?
- jvanderbot 3y agoThe use of degradable polymers is for things that are single use. Plastic bags, straws, etc. nobody is trying to replace your iPad with a compostable version that disolves in humidity. It's cynical bordering on humor to look at the accumulation of forever trash in our oceans and blood and say "well at least we can build something that may last with all this poison". Nobody does that anyway.
- userbinator 3y agoPlastic bags, straws, etc Those are the least likely to degrade into microplastics anyway, unlike clothing fibers and the like, and that is already assuming you believe that microplastics have any actual effects. nobody is trying to replace your iPad with a compostable version that disolves in humidity. The article talks about phone cases and clothing.
- techdmn 3y agoThe phone cases made by RhinoShield are the aftermarket kind that fit over the phone, not the integrated case.
- bee_rider 3y agoMicroplastics are accumulating at pretty high levels all over the food chain, right? The burden of proof should be on the folks who want to run the “let’s all eat this new thing in great quantities” experiment.
- jeltz 3y agoNo the burden of proof is on people who claim this will reduce the release of microplastics. Most plastic pollution comes from a few countries in Asia and from fishing. https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics What we need to do is assist these few countries with better waste management, that is what by far would have the biggest impact. Not saying we shouldn't do other things too like trying to find new materials for fishing nets or reducing fishing but plastic bags in the west is not a significant source.
- Zach_the_Lizard 3y agoThe story of humanity can be summed up as: "what if we changed our environment without understanding it?" with both wonderful and wretched consequences. The same fires that poison the air we breathe also power life saving medical equipment so that we can keep breathing. Micro plastics, endocrine disrupters and more have been unleashed. I am sure their effects will prove to be less than positive on both humans and wildlife. But in trying to snuff out the next great environmental crisis, will we account for the benefits we've derived from the use of these materials when we do our cost-benefit analysis? The effects on innovation? Did curiosity kill the cat, but save cats?
- bee_rider 3y agoWe have think of it differently now, stuff like lead and asbestos were bad, but localized mostly. We’re running the microplastic experiment on everybody simultaneously.
- woodruffw 3y agoThis comment contradicts itself: if microplastics in clothing are a serious issue, then we should be looking seriously at clothes that degrade without producing microplastics. (All clothing degrades; presumably you don’t object to wool or accuse wool sweaters of planned obsolescence.)
- jeltz 3y agoOr we can just burn the clothes. Almost no clothing in Europe, biodegradable or not, ends up in the ocean.
- woodruffw 3y agoMy understanding is that much of the West’s second-hand and overstock clothes ends up in countries like Ghana, where it does end up in waterways[1]. This has presumably increased over time due to fast fashion, which is a large market in Europe (like in the US). [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jun/05/yvette-yaa-konadu-tetteh-how-ghana-became-fast-fashions-dumping-ground https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jun/05/y...
- graemep 3y agoFast fashion is horrible. That article really shows on aspect of it. It has turned a large chunk of a recycling process into dumping.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- logtempo 3y agoYou really need to cite a source on this subject, measuring the industrial waste is very difficult and any articles state that "we found this but anyway, it's difficult to track efficiently the industry wastes".
- piaglfgp 3y agoMicroplastics are emitted from clothing and flushed into the waste water system, and from there to oceans, every time you do laundry. This is considered to be the main source of microplastic pollution, including in the EU unless they managed something revolutionary that I'm not aware of. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43023-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43023-x
- Filligree 3y agoIt's also commonly used in 3D printing, i.e. PLA. PLA is stable enough in normal circumstances -- you need specific equipment to make it degrade -- but once broken down to microplastics it doesn't last long. Otherwise it's nearly an ideal plastic for printing; brittle, but strong and incredibly easy to print. With some additives you can get rid of the brittleness, though I'm not sure how those would degrade. I see no reason you couldn't make plastic straws from PLA. Clothing might not last as long, but plastic clothing never lasts that long in any case; I prefer cotton.
- delecti 3y agoA lot of commercially available "biodegradable"/"compostable" plastic is already made out of PLA.
- BurningFrog 3y agoAmerican plastic trash does not end up in the ocean.
- Projectiboga 3y agoHave you spent time in any major American coastal city or one with an ocean bound river. There is so much plastic litter. I'm in Manhattan and I see plastic litter every day. If even some of it doesn't get swept up it's a short trip to the East River, a tidal estuary of the Atlantic Ocean. This isn't a theory these things are gathering into the oceans and in our bodies.
- BurningFrog 3y agoI'm sure Manhattan has more trash than either of us would wish. But I think looking around Times Square is not the best way to study this scientifically. The studies that have been done in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch shows that it's majority from China, with Indonesia a strong seconds. US contributes < 1%. This would be a more convincing post if I could point to sources. I don't have time to dig those up, so this data is from my memory. Take it for what it is...
- graemep 3y ago> nobody is trying to replace your iPad with a compostable version that disolves in humidity. Ssh - you will give the electronics industry ideas :)
- bordercases 3y agoThe arguments against planned obsolescence are partially environmental. If planned obsolescence isn't going away, at least this aspect is improved. Consider medical disposables, or one-time packaging that still requires medium term storage survivability.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mechanicalpulse 3y agoI'll take environmentally responsible planned obsolescence over the current situation. Nothing lasts. Durable plastic and metal goods become damaged or worn. What then? When repair, reuse, or recycling is not socioeconomically attractive, having some sort of naturally sustainable cycle would be nice, wouldn't it? Even if I have to buy a new phone case every seven months, if it's part of a sustainable cycle that becomes quite economical due to the massive scale -- wouldn't that be better than maintaining the current production of long-lived plastics? This strikes me as an example of capitalism learning something from biology.
- CamperBob2 3y agoMeanwhile, a lot of people end up buying cars sooner than they would have had to otherwise, because someone thought it was a good, environmentally-sound idea to make electrical wiring out of tasty, tasty soybeans. That's capitalism taking a lesson from nature.
- kmeisthax 3y agoThe problem with "environmentally responsible" planned obsolescence is that it's never environmentally responsible to throw out what would otherwise be a functional device but for the fact that it was made to break down on a specific timetable. The three Rs are "reduce, reuse, recycle", not "recycle, recycle, recycle". Making the product degrade prematurely means you can't reuse, and by proxy, having to buy a new one means you're not reducing. Degradable devices sounds like the sort of thing intended to assuage the consciences of very rich people who buy the newest iPhone every year.
- thrawn0r 3y agoit doesnt seem like `the market` will fix this abhorrent use of plastic for packaging and other fast moving consumer goods. This is where states have to interfere and ban plastic usage. How can it be allowed to package 80g of food (like ham, cheese etc.) that has a shelf-life of max. 14 days in 10g+ of plastic that will be around for hundreds of years? If you go to any super market there is no consumer choice but to buy most of your food wrapped in plastic, amounting to kilos of plastic per family and month :(
- BenFranklin100 3y agoThis seems like an appropriate place for the government to step in and price negative externalities in the form of taxes. Taxes are effective as bans but they better handle edge cases where plastic may still be required for whatever reason.
- sph 3y agoWhere do you account for lobbying from the oil industry and corruption?
- sph 3y agoIn a perfect world where governments are competent, I would love a law stating that packaging must not last more than 10x times the shelf life of the product itself. Ham expires after 3 days? Put it in packaging that lasts no more than 30 days when left outside.
- peteradio 3y agoSomething that only lasts 30 days is going to partially start breaking down on day 1, I don't think people want that touching their meat.
- logtempo 3y agoAdjust the variable in consequence, we're talking about a fictional material. You're using a strawman there, just to be in contradiction.
- burrish 3y agoAlways good news to hear alternative being made possible, but it doesn't matter if none of the big industries are willing to make the change. Always this need to wait 5 years or so until European Union decide to fine them if they don't get their shit together.
- oliv__ 3y ago[flagged]
- burkaman 3y agoThere is also an upcoming UN plastic treaty that could potentially exert some influence here.
- bamboozled 3y agoThis actual sounds positive. The UN isn’t a silver bullet of course but we can’t keep polluting at this scale.
- whimsicalism 3y agoin terms of microplastics in our bodies, is there actually any evidence these are harmful? i know intuitively they would be, but i haven’t actually found good evidence when i’ve gone searching
- prmph 3y agoThere was a recent study [1] that found they could dramatically raise the risk of adverse cardiovascular events [1]. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/06/microscopic-plastics-could-raise-risk-of-stroke-and-heart-attack-study-says https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/06/microsco...
- CamperBob2 3y agoSounds like something that ought to be backed up by statistics... say, a rise in otherwise-unexplained cardiovascular events that coincides with microplastic production. Haven't seen any such studies, but I'm sure they're out there if you look hard enough.
- MalphasWats 3y ago> These effects consist of oxidative stress, DNA damage, organ dysfunction, metabolic disorder, immune response, neurotoxicity, as well as reproductive and developmental toxicity. In addition, the epidemiological evidence suggests that a variety of chronic diseases may be related to microplastics exposure. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/envhealth.3c00052 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/envhealth.3c00052
- tiagod 3y agoI can think of a few confounding factors for that...
- prmph 3y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/06/microscopic-plastics-could-raise-risk-of-stroke-and-heart-attack-study-says https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/06/microsco...
- culi 3y agoJust so anyone doesn't get the wrong idea, this is about a specific algae-based polymer being developed by UCSD. > Microplastics can take anywhere from 100 to 1,000 years to break down and, in the meantime, our planet and bodies are becoming more polluted with these materials every day In general "biodegradable plastics" currently on the market should still be heavily scrutinized. So far it mostly has just meant it gets to the microplastics stage faster than other plastics. Not only does this have negative health consequences for us and fish, but it also makes it much more difficult to ever recycle and re-use these plastics https://www.biopak.com/au/resources/biodegradable-plastic-problems https://www.biopak.com/au/resources/biodegradable-plastic-pr... Still, it's exciting to see progress on the possibility of an actually sustainable version of biodegradable plastic. Hopefully it can scale and doesn't lead to other micro pollutants
- colechristensen 3y ago>Not only does this have negative health consequences for us and fish, but it also makes it much more difficult to ever recycle and re-use these plastics Are there any actual concerns with pure PLA?
- WhatIsDukkha 3y ago"Environments without the necessary conditions will see very slow decomposition akin to that of non-bioplastics, not fully decomposing for hundreds or thousands of years.[59]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid#Degradation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid#Degradation No mention of its actual life cycle as it turns into a microplastic ie so it should be presumed dangerous in the same ways.
- K0balt 3y agoAs a microplastic absorbed by organisms, it is quickly absorbed. But idk of what absorption means to the absorbing organism, hopefully we have some data on that. Absorbed might not be the same as harmlessly absorbed and metabolized.
- 3y ago
- Havoc 3y agoI suspect the sweet spot actually lies a bit higher than 7 months. You don't want stuff disintegrating while in use. ...call it 5 or 10 years. But anything that gets us away from the functionally "forever" of current plastics would be a win
- jtsiskin 3y ago7 months in industrial compost, not 7 months in use! Hopefully under 'normal conditions' it does already last 5 or 10 years...
- pinkmuffinere 3y agoAs far as I can tell, the company with the IP is making individual consumer products, like shoes and surfboard parts [1]. I wish I could buy the material, to make my own biodegradable parts. It would also be nice to see packaging materials in their lineup [1] https://www.algenesismaterials.com/algenesis-products https://www.algenesismaterials.com/algenesis-products
- H8crilA 3y agoI think that we've know that for a very, very long time: cellulose, i.e. wood or paper, is an example.
- arrowleaf 3y agoThis is a good chance to ask something I've wondered for a while, why isn't cellophane more commonly used as an alternative to plastic film? Is it coatings on cellophane that make it just as bad as plastic? Or does the environmental impact of producing cellophane outweigh the fact that it's biodegradable?
- culopatin 3y agoCan you save me the rabbit hole time dump and tell me what makes cellophane so much better or potentially not viable in your opinion?
- limitedfrom 3y agoCellophane isn't all better. It is biodegradable, but traditionally at least, carbon disulfide used in making of it is some nasty stuff[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_disulfide#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_disulfide#Health_effect...
- 1letterunixname 3y agoOh boy, not this trope again. The so-called "biodegradable" plastics that weren't (Fuck the plastics industry and their greenwashing). I'm suspicious every time this is raised because mostly the starch-based single use items have been shown to degrade in a reasonable timeframe.