5 ms·

Basically yes. Petroleum burned produces CO2. Petroleum plasticized does not. The more market share that plastic packaging eats up, the lower emissions are.

beeeeerp 3y ago
I’d call that being more neutral than a sink unless I’m misunderstanding you. I consider paper a sink, because trees are actively sequestering atmospheric CO2.
- staplers 3y ago
  Standing trees will aways be more of a carbon sink than dead flat trees.
  - datascienced 3y ago
    A tree captures CO2 so, of course, but tangental.
  - tiagod 3y ago
    Older trees fix less carbon than newer trees. Paper products are essentially made of carbon extracted from the air, and you just plant new trees in the farm afterwards. Plastic, on the other hand, is taking carbon that's already sequestered deep underground and pulling it to the surface, with an obvious net positive carbon footprint. All that said, as far as I remember, trees are not and can not be a very major form of carbon capturing due to the available area in the globe and the amount of excess carbon we need to get rid of.
    - staplers 3y ago
      trees are not and can not be a very major form of carbon capturing My god. I may have to leave this website for good. Just cut down all the forests they said! It'll be better for the environment!
      - tiagod 3y ago
        You're twisting my words. Trees can't be the solution to our carbon problem, because they have no way to compete with humanity burning millions of years of carbon storage as fuel. That doesn't mean trees aren't extremely important in countless different ways. Which also doesn't mean that we shouldn't use wood as a material, if it's produced with principles.
        staplers 3y ago
        if it's produced with principles. Timber industries have shown for centuries they aren't concerned with carbon capture of forests and actively try to monoculture "regenerating" forests with herbicides which drastically reduces carbon capture. This documentary gives a good idea into my reasoning on why believing timber propaganda that "trees are better when cut down and regrowing" is false: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDgzOcsNm9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDgzOcsNm9g
    - staplers 3y ago
      The amount of utter dismissal of forest ecology and timber industry propaganda is sickening.
      - tiagod 3y ago
        Care to elaborate?
  - beeeeerp 3y ago
    The original comment was about plastic. Paper or wood are used as alternatives in many applications.
stevage 3y ago
Well it's certainly an unusual take
- scotty79 3y ago
  Times are unusual. Plastic is to humanity what coal was to carboniferous plants.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  It's not a take, it's strictly true. Plastic pollution is bad, but it's different (and orders of magnitude more manageable) than the pollution that is causing climate change.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
    > orders of magnitude more manageable Nope, not true. Easy to say you can regulate the heck out of enforcing it, but if it was easy it would have been done long ago. Besides there not being a feasible and cost-effective way to track all the plastic in circulation, trust people would be quick to protest about government overreach on their right to pollute
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      It's more manageable because the impact on the climate is very small. Oil that is burned is far more harmful to the climate than oil that is turned to plastic.
  - arrowsmith 3y ago
    Plastic pollution is the pollution that is causing climate change. The process of producing plastic emits huge amounts of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that's nearly 300x more potent than CO2. "Greenhouse gas emissions from the plastic lifecycle threaten the ability of the global community to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C. By 2050, the greenhouse gas emissions from plastic could reach over 56 gigatons—10-13 percent of the entire remaining carbon budget. " - https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Plastic-and-Climate-Executive-Summary-2019.pdf https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Plastic-and-...
datascienced 3y ago
An Iran Israel war would have the same effect.
wasmitnetzen 3y ago
No, the more plastic we produce, the more oil we'll dig up. In addition to the part we burn.
dgroshev 3y ago
Only if plastic packaging ends up in a landfill, if we burn it we still release the carbon into the atmosphere. "Bioplastics" (ie made from atmospheric carbon captured by plants) are a better example, and if we landfill those they're a true carbon sink.
dotancohen 3y ago
But what happens to that carbon when the plastic decomposes, biodegrades, burns, is digested, or meets any other end? That once-below-ground carbon is now in the atmosphere, whether it takes a year or a decade to break down.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  If the plastic is properly desposed of, this doesn't happen. When it gets into rivers and oceans is when this happens.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    Even Orient disposed of plastic decomposes and biodegrades, and is often burned. And recycling most common types of plastics actually releases more CO2 than creating new plastic products. There is no panacea one the carbon has been pumped out of the ground.
arrowsmith 3y ago
Not true. Plastic has a huge carbon footprint because huge amounts of greenhouse gases, in particular nitrous oxide, are emitted by the process of manufacturing it. (Source: Saul Griffith's excellent book Electrify, which cites this report: https://www.ciel.org/plasticandclimate/ https://www.ciel.org/plasticandclimate/)

beeeeerp 3y ago

I’d call that being more neutral than a sink unless I’m misunderstanding you. I consider paper a sink, because trees are actively sequestering atmospheric CO2.

staplers 3y ago
Standing trees will aways be more of a carbon sink than dead flat trees.
- datascienced 3y ago
  A tree captures CO2 so, of course, but tangental.
- tiagod 3y ago
  Older trees fix less carbon than newer trees. Paper products are essentially made of carbon extracted from the air, and you just plant new trees in the farm afterwards. Plastic, on the other hand, is taking carbon that's already sequestered deep underground and pulling it to the surface, with an obvious net positive carbon footprint. All that said, as far as I remember, trees are not and can not be a very major form of carbon capturing due to the available area in the globe and the amount of excess carbon we need to get rid of.
  - staplers 3y ago
    trees are not and can not be a very major form of carbon capturing My god. I may have to leave this website for good. Just cut down all the forests they said! It'll be better for the environment!
    - tiagod 3y ago
      You're twisting my words. Trees can't be the solution to our carbon problem, because they have no way to compete with humanity burning millions of years of carbon storage as fuel. That doesn't mean trees aren't extremely important in countless different ways. Which also doesn't mean that we shouldn't use wood as a material, if it's produced with principles.
      - staplers 3y ago
        if it's produced with principles. Timber industries have shown for centuries they aren't concerned with carbon capture of forests and actively try to monoculture "regenerating" forests with herbicides which drastically reduces carbon capture. This documentary gives a good idea into my reasoning on why believing timber propaganda that "trees are better when cut down and regrowing" is false: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDgzOcsNm9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDgzOcsNm9g
  - staplers 3y ago
    The amount of utter dismissal of forest ecology and timber industry propaganda is sickening.
    - tiagod 3y ago
      Care to elaborate?
- beeeeerp 3y ago
  The original comment was about plastic. Paper or wood are used as alternatives in many applications.

stevage 3y ago

Well it's certainly an unusual take

scotty79 3y ago
Times are unusual. Plastic is to humanity what coal was to carboniferous plants.
Workaccount2 3y ago
It's not a take, it's strictly true. Plastic pollution is bad, but it's different (and orders of magnitude more manageable) than the pollution that is causing climate change.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
  > orders of magnitude more manageable Nope, not true. Easy to say you can regulate the heck out of enforcing it, but if it was easy it would have been done long ago. Besides there not being a feasible and cost-effective way to track all the plastic in circulation, trust people would be quick to protest about government overreach on their right to pollute
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    It's more manageable because the impact on the climate is very small. Oil that is burned is far more harmful to the climate than oil that is turned to plastic.
- arrowsmith 3y ago
  Plastic pollution is the pollution that is causing climate change. The process of producing plastic emits huge amounts of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that's nearly 300x more potent than CO2. "Greenhouse gas emissions from the plastic lifecycle threaten the ability of the global community to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C. By 2050, the greenhouse gas emissions from plastic could reach over 56 gigatons—10-13 percent of the entire remaining carbon budget. " - https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Plastic-and-Climate-Executive-Summary-2019.pdf https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Plastic-and-...

datascienced 3y ago

An Iran Israel war would have the same effect.

wasmitnetzen 3y ago

No, the more plastic we produce, the more oil we'll dig up. In addition to the part we burn.

dgroshev 3y ago

Only if plastic packaging ends up in a landfill, if we burn it we still release the carbon into the atmosphere. "Bioplastics" (ie made from atmospheric carbon captured by plants) are a better example, and if we landfill those they're a true carbon sink.

dotancohen 3y ago

But what happens to that carbon when the plastic decomposes, biodegrades, burns, is digested, or meets any other end? That once-below-ground carbon is now in the atmosphere, whether it takes a year or a decade to break down.

missedthecue 3y ago
If the plastic is properly desposed of, this doesn't happen. When it gets into rivers and oceans is when this happens.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Even Orient disposed of plastic decomposes and biodegrades, and is often burned. And recycling most common types of plastics actually releases more CO2 than creating new plastic products. There is no panacea one the carbon has been pumped out of the ground.

arrowsmith 3y ago

Not true. Plastic has a huge carbon footprint because huge amounts of greenhouse gases, in particular nitrous oxide, are emitted by the process of manufacturing it. (Source: Saul Griffith's excellent book Electrify, which cites this report: https://www.ciel.org/plasticandclimate/ https://www.ciel.org/plasticandclimate/)