2 ms·

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 civi

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.

digging 2y ago
> "0 plastic" is a marketing claim because it doesn't guarantee it puts us actually in a better place. It's only a marketing claim if it's used in marketing. It can also be a statement of fact... Plastic pollution and CO2 pollution are separate phenomena and we could theoretically achieve 0 plastic and that could be a genuine victory for the problem of plastic pollution. Anyway I realize my initial statement came off strong. I want to be clear I'm not saying zero-plastic is the goal we should actually be pursuing. But "Net environmental effect" is so complicated as to maybe not even be measurable. Are we talking about extinction rate? Biodiversity? Cancer rate of wild animals? Ecosystem collapse? Additionally - as many ways as there are to evaluate our effects on the biosphere, there are ways to address the problems. Plastic reduction doesn't have to mean 1:1 replacement; that would be shortsighted. Holistic societal changes are necessary, and I think we're actually both agreeing on that. E.g. don't replace plastic car parts with metal - get more cars off the road.

digging 2y ago

> "0 plastic" is a marketing claim because it doesn't guarantee it puts us actually in a better place. It's only a marketing claim if it's used in marketing. It can also be a statement of fact... Plastic pollution and CO2 pollution are separate phenomena and we could theoretically achieve 0 plastic and that could be a genuine victory for the problem of plastic pollution. Anyway I realize my initial statement came off strong. I want to be clear I'm not saying zero-plastic is the goal we should actually be pursuing. But "Net environmental effect" is so complicated as to maybe not even be measurable. Are we talking about extinction rate? Biodiversity? Cancer rate of wild animals? Ecosystem collapse? Additionally - as many ways as there are to evaluate our effects on the biosphere, there are ways to address the problems. Plastic reduction doesn't have to mean 1:1 replacement; that would be shortsighted. Holistic societal changes are necessary, and I think we're actually both agreeing on that. E.g. don't replace plastic car parts with metal - get more cars off the road.