7 ms·

Would it be correct to say that the lowest hanging fruit for reducing production of plastic without outsize negative impact would probably be in stymying the va

Would it be correct to say that the lowest hanging fruit for reducing production of plastic without outsize negative impact would probably be in stymying the vast quantities of synthetic textiles being sold, particularly to richer countries? Those materials dominate fast fashion and are one of the most common types of fabric across a broad range of products ranging from clothing to automobile seat covers to pet beds.

juujian 2y ago
The easiest way would be to curtail the supply of oil, which is the raw input of all plastics and there is more of it being extracted than ever before. As long as there is a glut of cheap oil on the market, companies will find a way to make a profit while outcompeting companies that use natural products like cotton. The major ways we use oil all harm the planet in some ways.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ars 2y ago
  Cotton uses an order of magnitude more oil than "plastic" clothing.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    Also almost all cotton clothing today is "permanent press" which means the fibers are coated in plastic.
    - notnullorvoid 2y ago
      Here's an idea, maybe we stop doing that.
    - alanbernstein 2y ago
      Are you claiming that "100% cotton" clothing labels can be inaccurate? Do you have a source for this?
      - giantg2 2y ago
        Wouldn't surprise me. The premium "not from concentrate" orange juices contain additives not required to be listed on the packaging. Great value "natural flavor" chocolate syrup contains vanilin (artificial vanilla). So I guess the natural part only applies to the chocolate and not other flavors used. Many "100% alpaca" socks contain other fibers too (elastics, etc). The list goes on... Edit: why disagree? You can even see stuff like "100% cotton with Scotchgard" or the sublimation process used on clothes. Want to share any evidence to the contrary or tell me why it's wrong?
      - starspangled 2y ago
        You can see they are inaccurate because cotton doesn't grow in many different colors. The bulk fabric may be 100% cotton, but the dyes implanted into the substrate are not counted.
    - robocat 2y ago
      > fibers are coated in plastic No: Cotton is chemically treated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrinkle-resistant_fabric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrinkle-resistant_fabric Perhaps you are thinking of "However, almost all the wrinkle resistant garments are made with poly/cotton blends fabrics."
      - giantg2 2y ago
        They could be thinking of the stain resistant treatments which are a ureathane (plastic) coating.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I don't think that is true, but am open to learning otherwise. A quick review of Wikipedia indicates dimethylol ethylene urea (DMEU) is used to crosslink the cellulose polymers itself. Cotton is already a polymer (albeit a bio-degradable one). DMEU is not a polymer/plastic in its own right. As far as I was able to see, permanent press is biodegradable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylol_ethylene_urea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylol_ethylene_urea
      - giantg2 2y ago
        The sublimation process on cotton clothes uses synthetics as the bonding base. It could be a polyester resin or a vinyl. The shirt itself will still be listed as 100% cotton.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        DMEU is a synthectic bonding resin. but im not sure that by itself is in any way a problem. Are you talking about pattens that are sublimated onto cotton shirts?
        giantg2 2y ago
        Yes
  - juujian 2y ago
    Doesn't really change the point about cutting off supply.
- stoperaticless 2y ago
  Planet and nature will be just fine. Number of species bounce back after extinction events. As long as there is at least one ameba, life will find a way. Humans on the other hand might have tougher time during each next century.
  - dTal 2y ago
    This is not a useful take and does not contribute to the discussion. Nature being reduced to "one amoeba" is not "just fine" according to any human value system. I don't understand this need to say "akshually the planet will be fine" just because someone used the phrase "harm the planet". I would add that it is also not true that life will bounce back; Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the vast majority of which time it was inhabited by no more than microbes; and we have 1 billion years left before the sun boils the oceans. Humans are the first technological civilization the Earth has seen, and will likely be the last - there isn't time for another go-around. Addendum: I googled "akshually the planet will be fine" and the top result was this[0] HN thread. Even has the "one amoeba" line. Is anyone working on some sort of platform that can crosslink parallel discussions so we don't have to have the same discussions over and over ad nauseam forever? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36714256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36714256
yareal 2y ago
Packaging produces about 140 million tons annually. Textiles produce about 40 million tons. Construction produces about 75 million tons, and transportation about 60 million tons. Textiles are non negligible, but packaging is almost certainly a better target for inexpensive impact. Tons of stuff doesn't need plastic wrapping.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  Yeah, "frustration free packaging" could save the Earth. Often it is such a terrible experience cutting into plastic clamshells.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    I've felt like I haven't seen a proper plastic clamshell in years
    - rascul 2y ago
      Plenty of them in the grocery stores around here.
    - maeil 2y ago
      Shaving blades, which millions are sold of per year, Ive never seen without what amounts to a plastic clamshell.
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        I only see the paper backed ones with the small plastic panel never the full monty with the two plastic sides anymore. Maybe its taxed more or something in this part of the world.
        maeil 2y ago
        I do live in one of the (if not the biggest) excessive packaging capitals of the world, so it might be that. Happy to hear they've moved away from it elsewhere.
travisb 2y ago
There is no low hanging fruit when it comes to reducing plastic production or consumption. Plastic is just too awesome -- which is why we use it instead of whatever we used before plastics. I'm not aware of any major use of plastic where going backwards in time is on-net more environmentally friendly. Most reports discussing plastic replacements make unreasonable reuse and durability assumptions. Often they ignore or downplay consequences of switching like increased transportation pollution or pollution from assumed recycling.
- digging 2y ago
  > I'm not aware of any major use of plastic where going backwards in time is on-net more environmentally friendly. Literally all of them. They reduce plastic pollution to 0. CO2 pollution is not the driving factor behind plastic reduction.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    Only focusing on plastic bring us to a Goodhart's law situation where we get worse overall effect in exchange of a hollow "0 plastic" marketing claim. That's one situation where I think "doing something" for the sake of it is the worse option.
    - digging 2y ago
      > the worse option Only with the following assumptions: - "0 plastic" is a hollow marketing claim and not a real thing (what do you even mean by that?) - the overall effect on Earth's biosphere is worse with no plastic than with plastic Neither of those is obvious so it's counterproductive (and suspicious) to be pro-plastic here.
      - makeitdouble 2y ago
        It's not (and is never) a question of being pro-plastic, or pro-paper, or pro any material really. You can't reduce the discussion about how to balance our civilization and the rest of the planet to a "plastic or not" question. Plastic use is a tradeoff, removing plastic has side effects that need to be addressed. "0 plastic" is a marketing claim because it doesn't guarantee it puts us actually in a better place. To take a simple example: let's say tomorrow we replace all the plastic in cars with metal. Would the manufacturing required to get that metal in place, and the additional energy needed as the cars get significantly heavier counter balance the amount of plastic that won't be released in nature ? I'd wager that no, that would be a stupid idea, even if it reduces plastic. And there's an infinite number of other stupid ideas to reduce plastic. That's why "0 plastic" is meaningless, what matters is if there's an actual improvement, including keeping using plastic where we don't have better alternatives.

juujian 2y ago

The easiest way would be to curtail the supply of oil, which is the raw input of all plastics and there is more of it being extracted than ever before. As long as there is a glut of cheap oil on the market, companies will find a way to make a profit while outcompeting companies that use natural products like cotton. The major ways we use oil all harm the planet in some ways.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ars 2y ago
Cotton uses an order of magnitude more oil than "plastic" clothing.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  Also almost all cotton clothing today is "permanent press" which means the fibers are coated in plastic.
  - notnullorvoid 2y ago
    Here's an idea, maybe we stop doing that.
  - alanbernstein 2y ago
    Are you claiming that "100% cotton" clothing labels can be inaccurate? Do you have a source for this?
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Wouldn't surprise me. The premium "not from concentrate" orange juices contain additives not required to be listed on the packaging. Great value "natural flavor" chocolate syrup contains vanilin (artificial vanilla). So I guess the natural part only applies to the chocolate and not other flavors used. Many "100% alpaca" socks contain other fibers too (elastics, etc). The list goes on... Edit: why disagree? You can even see stuff like "100% cotton with Scotchgard" or the sublimation process used on clothes. Want to share any evidence to the contrary or tell me why it's wrong?
    - starspangled 2y ago
      You can see they are inaccurate because cotton doesn't grow in many different colors. The bulk fabric may be 100% cotton, but the dyes implanted into the substrate are not counted.
  - robocat 2y ago
    > fibers are coated in plastic No: Cotton is chemically treated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrinkle-resistant_fabric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrinkle-resistant_fabric Perhaps you are thinking of "However, almost all the wrinkle resistant garments are made with poly/cotton blends fabrics."
    - giantg2 2y ago
      They could be thinking of the stain resistant treatments which are a ureathane (plastic) coating.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I don't think that is true, but am open to learning otherwise. A quick review of Wikipedia indicates dimethylol ethylene urea (DMEU) is used to crosslink the cellulose polymers itself. Cotton is already a polymer (albeit a bio-degradable one). DMEU is not a polymer/plastic in its own right. As far as I was able to see, permanent press is biodegradable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylol_ethylene_urea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylol_ethylene_urea
    - giantg2 2y ago
      The sublimation process on cotton clothes uses synthetics as the bonding base. It could be a polyester resin or a vinyl. The shirt itself will still be listed as 100% cotton.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        DMEU is a synthectic bonding resin. but im not sure that by itself is in any way a problem. Are you talking about pattens that are sublimated onto cotton shirts?
        giantg2 2y ago
        Yes
- juujian 2y ago
  Doesn't really change the point about cutting off supply.
stoperaticless 2y ago
Planet and nature will be just fine. Number of species bounce back after extinction events. As long as there is at least one ameba, life will find a way. Humans on the other hand might have tougher time during each next century.
- dTal 2y ago
  This is not a useful take and does not contribute to the discussion. Nature being reduced to "one amoeba" is not "just fine" according to any human value system. I don't understand this need to say "akshually the planet will be fine" just because someone used the phrase "harm the planet". I would add that it is also not true that life will bounce back; Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the vast majority of which time it was inhabited by no more than microbes; and we have 1 billion years left before the sun boils the oceans. Humans are the first technological civilization the Earth has seen, and will likely be the last - there isn't time for another go-around. Addendum: I googled "akshually the planet will be fine" and the top result was this[0] HN thread. Even has the "one amoeba" line. Is anyone working on some sort of platform that can crosslink parallel discussions so we don't have to have the same discussions over and over ad nauseam forever? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36714256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36714256

yareal 2y ago

Packaging produces about 140 million tons annually. Textiles produce about 40 million tons. Construction produces about 75 million tons, and transportation about 60 million tons. Textiles are non negligible, but packaging is almost certainly a better target for inexpensive impact. Tons of stuff doesn't need plastic wrapping.

PaulHoule 2y ago
Yeah, "frustration free packaging" could save the Earth. Often it is such a terrible experience cutting into plastic clamshells.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  I've felt like I haven't seen a proper plastic clamshell in years
  - rascul 2y ago
    Plenty of them in the grocery stores around here.
  - maeil 2y ago
    Shaving blades, which millions are sold of per year, Ive never seen without what amounts to a plastic clamshell.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      I only see the paper backed ones with the small plastic panel never the full monty with the two plastic sides anymore. Maybe its taxed more or something in this part of the world.
      - maeil 2y ago
        I do live in one of the (if not the biggest) excessive packaging capitals of the world, so it might be that. Happy to hear they've moved away from it elsewhere.

travisb 2y ago

There is no low hanging fruit when it comes to reducing plastic production or consumption. Plastic is just too awesome -- which is why we use it instead of whatever we used before plastics. I'm not aware of any major use of plastic where going backwards in time is on-net more environmentally friendly. Most reports discussing plastic replacements make unreasonable reuse and durability assumptions. Often they ignore or downplay consequences of switching like increased transportation pollution or pollution from assumed recycling.

digging 2y ago
> I'm not aware of any major use of plastic where going backwards in time is on-net more environmentally friendly. Literally all of them. They reduce plastic pollution to 0. CO2 pollution is not the driving factor behind plastic reduction.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  Only focusing on plastic bring us to a Goodhart's law situation where we get worse overall effect in exchange of a hollow "0 plastic" marketing claim. That's one situation where I think "doing something" for the sake of it is the worse option.
  - digging 2y ago
    > the worse option Only with the following assumptions: - "0 plastic" is a hollow marketing claim and not a real thing (what do you even mean by that?) - the overall effect on Earth's biosphere is worse with no plastic than with plastic Neither of those is obvious so it's counterproductive (and suspicious) to be pro-plastic here.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      It's not (and is never) a question of being pro-plastic, or pro-paper, or pro any material really. You can't reduce the discussion about how to balance our civilization and the rest of the planet to a "plastic or not" question. Plastic use is a tradeoff, removing plastic has side effects that need to be addressed. "0 plastic" is a marketing claim because it doesn't guarantee it puts us actually in a better place. To take a simple example: let's say tomorrow we replace all the plastic in cars with metal. Would the manufacturing required to get that metal in place, and the additional energy needed as the cars get significantly heavier counter balance the amount of plastic that won't be released in nature ? I'd wager that no, that would be a stupid idea, even if it reduces plastic. And there's an infinite number of other stupid ideas to reduce plastic. That's why "0 plastic" is meaningless, what matters is if there's an actual improvement, including keeping using plastic where we don't have better alternatives.