7 ms·

But those more durable goods have a cost in hydrocarbons as well, don’t they? Lot of energy input in a hunk of steel. Are we really saving any fossil fuel conve

But those more durable goods have a cost in hydrocarbons as well, don’t they? Lot of energy input in a hunk of steel. Are we really saving any fossil fuel conversion by swapping over? Has anyone measured?

yareal 2y ago
Yes. This analysis has been done. And yes, it depends on your source of energy. But in general energy is getting cleaner, and eventually could be 100% oil free. Most plastics rely on oil, so there's a crossover threshold for most at some point.
michael9423 2y ago
Actually plastics is the most ecological and economic way to package things. Nothing comes close. Because people throw things away all the time, and producing things out of cotton, wood, glass etc. takes way more energy. The price of something usually reflects the energy needed to produce it. But it does not take account the externalized cost on the society and environment. On the other hand, there are areas where other materials like cotton are only a bit more expensive but do not have such a negative effect on the environment. In those areas, like textiles, a ban on synthetic material is probably a good thing. The problem with the environmental impact of plastics is not the production, it's where it ends up. So the question is how to incentivize keeping a closed system where plastics ends up being burned. Minimizing the use of plastics requires a complete change of how the economy works. It would require a society of citizens, not consumers who throw away things that are still fine and there are certain areas where plastics can not be replaced by other stuff. Forcing a cap on plastic production means hurting the emerging markets most but also the wealth in western countries.
- warcher 2y ago
  “Where it ends up” is not a problem in the developed world. Everybody complains about it but there are zero problems with our landfills. All the environmental degradation is in the developing world, where they… do not value the environment in the same way. We didn’t either when we were developing. It took a while. But western advanced economies dispose of their trash well. It’s not even close to the top of our list in terms of what we could do for the environment. Seems to capture our collective imagination tremendously though. Maybe because of guilt for consumer culture, maybe because making a meaningful impact would hurt too much.
  - michael9423 2y ago
    There's lots of plastics pollution in the west - including from tires, from people throwing stuff away, and from microplastics in the water. It's just not visible immediately. But you can actually easily collect hundreds of kilograms of plastics next to a 1-2km long part of a road on the countryside.
    - warcher 2y ago
      Tires are a fair point, but kind of a goal post shift isn’t it? The problem with tires is not disposed tires, it’s tire wear. If there’s a plan for remediating tire shavings over the course of tires wearing down in any of these threads I must have missed it. Please correct me? As far as the rest it’s just not true. Landfills in the west are fine. Nothing is perfect but they’re not impactful at all ecologically. (Developing world not so. Lack of robust waste management contributes massively in the developing world.)
      - michael9423 2y ago
        I don't want to move any goalposts, I completely agree with your previous posts. In some European countries like Germany and Switzerland, waste collection has been almost perfected, there's not much to complain. But we still have pollution related to plastic production. It's the west who's shipping the plastic waste to Asia where it ends up destroying the environment and the health of people.
        warcher 2y ago
        I’m specifically saying, in the US, we don’t do anything special with our trash. Mostly no recycling of anything but metal. We put it more or less securely in the ground and bury it. That’s all. And that is fine. We would have to fix a whole RAFT of serious serious problems before landfills are anybody’s radar. We will never see it our lifetime and I hazard that we may never see the day. Other countries have tighter land requirements and they might be more forward thinking, but the idea that plastic packaging is impacting the environment is just not supported by data. As long as you’re not throwing it in the river, plastics waste just doesn’t matter much.
lm28469 2y ago
Carbon is only a tiny part of the problem... plastics are nasty in all kind of ways, both to you and the environment. Steel and glass won't give you cancer, wool won't destroy your hormonal system, &c.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
The math really depends on if you insist on buying new everytime, or realize a stainless steel skillet you can find in the thrift store in your neighborhood can last another 3000 years.

yareal 2y ago

Yes. This analysis has been done. And yes, it depends on your source of energy. But in general energy is getting cleaner, and eventually could be 100% oil free. Most plastics rely on oil, so there's a crossover threshold for most at some point.

michael9423 2y ago

Actually plastics is the most ecological and economic way to package things. Nothing comes close. Because people throw things away all the time, and producing things out of cotton, wood, glass etc. takes way more energy. The price of something usually reflects the energy needed to produce it. But it does not take account the externalized cost on the society and environment. On the other hand, there are areas where other materials like cotton are only a bit more expensive but do not have such a negative effect on the environment. In those areas, like textiles, a ban on synthetic material is probably a good thing. The problem with the environmental impact of plastics is not the production, it's where it ends up. So the question is how to incentivize keeping a closed system where plastics ends up being burned. Minimizing the use of plastics requires a complete change of how the economy works. It would require a society of citizens, not consumers who throw away things that are still fine and there are certain areas where plastics can not be replaced by other stuff. Forcing a cap on plastic production means hurting the emerging markets most but also the wealth in western countries.

warcher 2y ago
“Where it ends up” is not a problem in the developed world. Everybody complains about it but there are zero problems with our landfills. All the environmental degradation is in the developing world, where they… do not value the environment in the same way. We didn’t either when we were developing. It took a while. But western advanced economies dispose of their trash well. It’s not even close to the top of our list in terms of what we could do for the environment. Seems to capture our collective imagination tremendously though. Maybe because of guilt for consumer culture, maybe because making a meaningful impact would hurt too much.
- michael9423 2y ago
  There's lots of plastics pollution in the west - including from tires, from people throwing stuff away, and from microplastics in the water. It's just not visible immediately. But you can actually easily collect hundreds of kilograms of plastics next to a 1-2km long part of a road on the countryside.
  - warcher 2y ago
    Tires are a fair point, but kind of a goal post shift isn’t it? The problem with tires is not disposed tires, it’s tire wear. If there’s a plan for remediating tire shavings over the course of tires wearing down in any of these threads I must have missed it. Please correct me? As far as the rest it’s just not true. Landfills in the west are fine. Nothing is perfect but they’re not impactful at all ecologically. (Developing world not so. Lack of robust waste management contributes massively in the developing world.)
    - michael9423 2y ago
      I don't want to move any goalposts, I completely agree with your previous posts. In some European countries like Germany and Switzerland, waste collection has been almost perfected, there's not much to complain. But we still have pollution related to plastic production. It's the west who's shipping the plastic waste to Asia where it ends up destroying the environment and the health of people.
      - warcher 2y ago
        I’m specifically saying, in the US, we don’t do anything special with our trash. Mostly no recycling of anything but metal. We put it more or less securely in the ground and bury it. That’s all. And that is fine. We would have to fix a whole RAFT of serious serious problems before landfills are anybody’s radar. We will never see it our lifetime and I hazard that we may never see the day. Other countries have tighter land requirements and they might be more forward thinking, but the idea that plastic packaging is impacting the environment is just not supported by data. As long as you’re not throwing it in the river, plastics waste just doesn’t matter much.

lm28469 2y ago

Carbon is only a tiny part of the problem... plastics are nasty in all kind of ways, both to you and the environment. Steel and glass won't give you cancer, wool won't destroy your hormonal system, &c.

kjkjadksj 2y ago

The math really depends on if you insist on buying new everytime, or realize a stainless steel skillet you can find in the thrift store in your neighborhood can last another 3000 years.