5 ms·

Let's start to talk instead how to need less plastic. The most commonly discharged plastic is for packaging. Let's start observing the activity, usage who consu

by kkfx 2y ago

Let's start to talk instead how to need less plastic. The most commonly discharged plastic is for packaging. Let's start observing the activity, usage who consume the most quantity of plastic: ready made food, small pack of anything. It's then about time to stop vending machines of micro-dose ultra-transformed "food", individually package fruits and vegges not to preserve them but to sell them at a higher price, the proliferation of sugar+gas added water to sell more since many in the western world have access to public clean water at home and so on. Let's star selling the as prepared leaves in a significant quantity instead of pre-dosed individually envelop mini-bags, mini-bags of sugar and so on. This will IMMENSELY reduce the quantity of disposable plastic we drop every day. We can't get rid of anything of course, but we can get rid of many. Even for milk we can start to redistribute it in the classic way instead of in the modern long-range shipping who need plastic to preserve it. If you follow this idea you'll realize a thing: we need to delete modern dense cities. They are the biggest consumer of such packaging because the fast life in tight space demand them. I'm really serious. Try imaging you as a remote worker or an in person worker in a remote spread are how and what kind of food you buy there. You are at home, no need for packed single-dose bags of sugar, you have you own favorite tea in pots, you have plenty of space to stockpile food and buying in big quantity allow to save some time and money, also you might have time to cook at home and so on. Oh, yes, it's just a slice of the total plastic we use, but it's a very big one, used for things we can avoid. Surely we have also much plastic for dress, and that's again can be reduced if we live spread because there is far less "need" to dress ourselves in gazillion of different outfit to go downtown, but we can't avoid that completely, let's start what we can start.

CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
So to save a little bit of plastic you'd spend much more energy on everything else? Why not just use glass for milk and paper for tea?
- kkfx 2y ago
  Energy I can make (and I make) locally, for instance from p.v. instead of spending in plastic that demand energy anyway. There is a common misconception about modern cities than "far past one". Nowadays we do not simply live in dense area walking around with stairs having next to no equipment at home like in the aforementioned past where people live tight but also simply, working in most cases "from home" meaning they just go downstairs and they are in their shops. Modern cities demand a gazillion of things, just a building for: - clean water - hot water - sewers - fire safety - elevators - seismic safety - HVAC - .... Demand MUCH more energy than modern wood based single-family homes (if well built ad without exaggeration of course) both to be build, operated, maintained and evolved. We are not anymore in the era of rock+wood homes passing from a generation to another for centuries with little to no changes. With "new deal" tech we simply can't live in cities. Just take a look at a mean apartment in your country, in Italy a mean apartment need 20-30kW thermal power to heat in the winter simply because even if it's less and less cold most of them was built in an era where no one care about insulation. Modern homes with 1kW electrical can heat and cool themselves in the mean for the same country. In single family homes there is typically room to recharge from p.v. cars if you WFH or working in a spread area to recharge them from p.v. at work, the same model. In cities it's simply not possible. How much energy this alone means? Now try seeing "future personal air mobility" sold as urban https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... but definitively NOT urban, cities can't simply adapt, you need to rebuild them to adapt more than few evolutionary steps. In a spread (not too much of course) area you have plenty of space to adapt and buildings are small, they can be made in recyclable materials for most of their structure and the same is valid for local infra. Cities demand big harbors, airports, highways who consume enormous resources and can't change much, a spread are use maybe even LESS resources and being spread can slowly adapt. Try just seen the nightmare of Jakarta and their "solution" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-01/indonesia-sets-2024-deadline-to-move-its-new-capital-to-borneo https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-01/indonesia... can you measure how big waste of resources such move represent?
  - CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
    >Modern homes with 1kW electrical can heat and cool themselves in the mean for the same country. In single family homes there is typically room to recharge from p.v. cars if you WFH or working in a spread area to recharge them from p.v. at work, the same model. In a dense city most people don't even have a car. I live in an apartment building from the 50's. With just 2 walls of our building retrofitted with insulation I now barely need any heating in winter, try that with a single family home. >Cities demand big harbors, airports, highways You still need them with spread, only more roads to spread everything around.
    - kkfx 2y ago
      > In a dense city most people don't even have a car. Yes, but the city need a far more expensive metro network, surface buses and so on, witch in term of raw materials demand much more than cars and in term of energy demand the same or even more because metros have also stations and even with metros and buses we still need cars and van for a variety of activities, vehicles used for work (like a small Transit for a plumber or an electrician) but also usable for private stuff. The TCO is still not in favor of such model, despite many (from the interested ruling class) claim the inverse... > I live in an apartment building from the 50's. With just 2 walls of our building retrofitted with insulation I now barely need any heating in winter, try that with a single family home. This means that you live in a nice climate, where summers are not too hot and winters are mild. Such areas exists and are typically densely populated also because of the climate but they are a very little part of the inhabited earth, or you are in a less nice climate but being "in the middle" you get "free heat" from some apartments underneath and "insulation" from apartments over yours. Again that's true for some, but in TCO terms it's still not favorable for the humanity at a whole, only for some humans. If you are in mild climate a single family home would barely need heat as well, not if you get free heat from neighbors of course BUT a new single family home in the same climate can thanks to insulation and mere design (compact form, large windows on the southern side, roof/other element shielding the Sun in summer while allowing it pass in the winter etc) and while you might profit from your neighbors they still have to heat/cool anyway, it's good for you but it does not reduce the overall consumption. Just for a personal counter argument: I was living in an apartment from the '60s in a mild climate, it's heated with 24kW methane. I live now in a home twice the size/a bit more than twice the heated volume, in a much colder place and I heat with 1KW most of the time, climbing to 3-4kW few late night and early morning between January and February, the maximum absorption recorded for heating was at the end of January 2017 a single night with a minima of -24.8℃ (-12.64℉) with 6.3kW. In raw material terms electricity here means nuclear (I have p.v. with small storage, but not to heat the home at night) and the grid, gas means a much more raw material and energy hungry distribution network. So again building new home demand energy, but in their useful life we amortize it and we evolve. Remain in old buildings demand still more, many times more in many cases, just to keep them operational and we do not evolve. Can we change them now? A 40 apartment building build today respect of one 40 apartments from the '50s cost at least twice... You need to relocate 40 families for an year instead of putting a small container-home in the garden for two-thee month...
GuB-42 2y ago
> we need to delete modern dense cities... This is more of an argument for remote work than an argument against dense cities. Living in a "remote spread" is not great otherwise: long distance travel, limited public transport because it is not worth it due to the low population, cars are pretty much the only option. You don't have more time, again because of long travel time because of long distances. You can stockpile, but you have to take conservation into account, and plastic packaging is, maybe unfortunately, a great solution for conservation. Dense cities are quite efficient, and not particularly reliant on small plastic packaging. Many cities have markets at walkable distances that sell products in bulk. And from my experience in living in tight spaces, I think it is actually a good thing against plastic use. For the simple reason that you have less space for plastic. You have to think twice before buying something, because where you are going to put it is always something to consider, and packaging takes space too. A tea ball and tea in bulk takes less space than individual tea bags for the same amount of tea for instance.
- kkfx 2y ago
  These are common points used by those who profit from dense cities, and are mostly false while sound logic. > long distance travel Travel for what? Take a look at some EU Rivieras, there is little "commuting" since a slice of people work (or could work) from remote, others work locally/nearby, people normally do not travel back and forth countless of time like in a dense city. I state that for personal experience having left a dense EU city for the Alps, yes, I do travel, but not more than the number of km/miles I've traveling in the city. Simply because many "regular trip" are far less needed here. For instance I do not buy grocery every days but every 15 days or so. Also I have room for p.v. to recharge my car, so I consume even less from the grid, travels are cheaper both in pure monetary terms than in pollution terms. > limited public transport Witch again it's a GOOD thing despite common (interested) narrative. Collective transport was effective back then when it was just to bring workers back and forth to the factory from their homes, so every working day only with nearly always at nearly complete capacity. It was then extended in an era where cars was very expensive and only very few can own one NOT BECAUSE it was efficient for that but to allow people who can't afford a car to travel anyway at a price they can pay, and it was heavily subsidized because of that. Then it became a business munging money both from their customer and the public, wasting enormous resources to allow the city to exists but being horribly inefficient. We need to move 24h a day, anyone with their own schedules, as a result collective transports can't completely satisfy the demand, so we have a mix of personal and collective transport means both typically under-utilized wasting even more resources. Try to really think as an alien observing curious aliens from the orbit, you'll see how many resources a modern city eat just to exists, how many to get regularly updated and regularly at certain point in time get rebuild because at a certain point in time you can't evolve without big rebuilds. You need ENTIRE COUNTRIES just to build few cities. Modi in India think they can build 100 smart cities on the entire country resources. In central Asia most State can only have ONE city and so on, we do not see that because cities for us was ancient ad slowly changed, but an external observer see it very well, cities are a sink hole of resources for giving an utter life to most people. Their purpose in the modern era with modern logistic and IT? Just the service economy or keeping people owning less and less till nothing, salves of the services operated by few, modern Fordlandia equally distopic and equally untenable, a more broad description: https://kfx.fr/articles/2024-04-26-onnewdealexp-contrapolis/ https://kfx.fr/articles/2024-04-26-onnewdealexp-contrapolis/ > You don't have more time, again because of long travel time because of long distances. Oh I have it. Because in a reasonably spread (meaning not too little dense nor too much) living the 15' city is already there, but not on feet, instead by cars. Most people living spread can do nearly anything in 15' car trips. And they are in nature, so they can have plenty of natural activities instead of consuming paid services for anything because in a modern city anything is a service on sail... > You can stockpile, but you have to take conservation into account, and plastic packaging is, maybe unfortunately, a great solution for conservation. That's right, but at what rates? For instance I buy some times per year significant batch of pig meat, I grind and salt and flavor it at home making my own sausages and freeze them in dedicate plastic, but not single-use, containers. I buy olive and sunflower oil but not in small bottles, instead in metallic containers around 10l some, 5l others. They got recycled as well. I tend to buy wine in demijohns from "nearby" producer one or two time per year, and bottle it at home, again it's glass and cork recyclable and normally reused. So yes, there is still plastic, but far less and generally not single use. > Dense cities are quite efficient Is efficient for you living in tall buildings than moving to others tall buildings typically with immense machines named metros, using such buildings for less than 12h/24? I call it ALL but inefficient... > and not particularly reliant on small plastic packaging So you do not eat ready made food, typically sold in some single use packaging while working downtown? Just for instance. You do not frequently buy grocery with plenty of plastic bags, mostly too thin to reuse? > Many cities have markets at walkable distances that sell products in bulk. You can also buy in bulk from a supermarket, but you need space to stockpile and in apartments, specially in modern ones, there is not much space. Not talking about the fact that's impossible have p.v. and heat pumps for anyone anyway... So essentially the full-electric new deal is nearly impossible in cities. > You have to think twice before buying something If I see my grocery records I've bought MUCH more back then in a dense city than now on mountains, really. Simply because I buy frequently ready made stuff than dropping their relative packages to the bin. Try a simple experiment: hold somewhere your packaging for a month (if you have enough space), you'll might be shocked by their volume. Just for tea bags: I like green or white tea and I tend to buy metallic 1kg pot, they last for long. Yes, I need a bit more to clean anything but WFH it's not much an issue, in the end my waste is ZERO. Simply because having nature around I made compost, so the used tea leaves got dropped in nature, where they do not pollute. While with bags they need to be dropped to the bin, creating a certain amount of waste per day. Really, try experimenting collecting the waste you can without odors etc for a month or at least a week, then try measure it and project the same for 1000 of you per year try playing about changing habit in this model. Cities of the past, where people just live in "wall homes, little equipment" and tend to work "just downstairs" do not exists anymore, there are the theoretical "strong towns" who are not there and they are not compatible with today economy anyway. Modern buildings just for piped water, electricity, sewers, elevators, fire safety, seismic safety, HVAC consume MUCH MORE raw resources than small homes and makes people consume more. They are really only needed for financial capitalism, against nature and humanity.
vwcx 2y ago
Perhaps. But go work at a grocery store or warehouse and you will observe the vast amount of plastic film used (and discarded). "Shrink wrap" covers palletized boxes and is used as a method to group cargo. Once you realize how much a single grocery store throws away in the course of unloading a truck and stocking the shelves overnight, you won't be pointing at a vending machine with a wrapped fruit as the most effective mitigation. Not to say personal consumer habit shifts won't be important, of course.
- kkfx 2y ago
  No doubt. But can we remove such packaging? I'm not in that business so I do not really know, but I suppose not. While we can remove the ready made food. It's not differently than cars: can we have BEVs? Yes. Can we have BEV-trucks, well, there are some, but honestly they are not realistic, so what? It's better taking the cars, since so far we can for them, trying something else for the trucks or simply giving up? For something we can change, and it's a good thing to do, for something else there is no option. Even BEVs are sold as "green", well, they pollute much anyway, but instead of polluting the atmosphere we all breathe in, they pollute around mining sites, witch tend to exists where little to no humans live a life. It's not good anyway the pollution, but it's a choice: damaging certain area or the whole planet. For nuclear it's the same, a nuclear accident it's a disaster but normal operations are "clean", yes we have waste witch are an issue but in the end we put them in deserts and they can pollute at maximum there except in case of extreme climate disasters where we have anyway little chance to survive.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  There's companies that will pay you for that kind of palette wrap and recycle it. Apparently 21% is already recycled in the US, 30% in the EU. It can also be made from recycled plastic.

by kkfx 2y ago

CorrectHorseBat 2y ago

So to save a little bit of plastic you'd spend much more energy on everything else? Why not just use glass for milk and paper for tea?

kkfx 2y ago
Energy I can make (and I make) locally, for instance from p.v. instead of spending in plastic that demand energy anyway. There is a common misconception about modern cities than "far past one". Nowadays we do not simply live in dense area walking around with stairs having next to no equipment at home like in the aforementioned past where people live tight but also simply, working in most cases "from home" meaning they just go downstairs and they are in their shops. Modern cities demand a gazillion of things, just a building for: - clean water - hot water - sewers - fire safety - elevators - seismic safety - HVAC - .... Demand MUCH more energy than modern wood based single-family homes (if well built ad without exaggeration of course) both to be build, operated, maintained and evolved. We are not anymore in the era of rock+wood homes passing from a generation to another for centuries with little to no changes. With "new deal" tech we simply can't live in cities. Just take a look at a mean apartment in your country, in Italy a mean apartment need 20-30kW thermal power to heat in the winter simply because even if it's less and less cold most of them was built in an era where no one care about insulation. Modern homes with 1kW electrical can heat and cool themselves in the mean for the same country. In single family homes there is typically room to recharge from p.v. cars if you WFH or working in a spread area to recharge them from p.v. at work, the same model. In cities it's simply not possible. How much energy this alone means? Now try seeing "future personal air mobility" sold as urban https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... but definitively NOT urban, cities can't simply adapt, you need to rebuild them to adapt more than few evolutionary steps. In a spread (not too much of course) area you have plenty of space to adapt and buildings are small, they can be made in recyclable materials for most of their structure and the same is valid for local infra. Cities demand big harbors, airports, highways who consume enormous resources and can't change much, a spread are use maybe even LESS resources and being spread can slowly adapt. Try just seen the nightmare of Jakarta and their "solution" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-01/indonesia-sets-2024-deadline-to-move-its-new-capital-to-borneo https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-01/indonesia... can you measure how big waste of resources such move represent?
- CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
  >Modern homes with 1kW electrical can heat and cool themselves in the mean for the same country. In single family homes there is typically room to recharge from p.v. cars if you WFH or working in a spread area to recharge them from p.v. at work, the same model. In a dense city most people don't even have a car. I live in an apartment building from the 50's. With just 2 walls of our building retrofitted with insulation I now barely need any heating in winter, try that with a single family home. >Cities demand big harbors, airports, highways You still need them with spread, only more roads to spread everything around.
  - kkfx 2y ago
    > In a dense city most people don't even have a car. Yes, but the city need a far more expensive metro network, surface buses and so on, witch in term of raw materials demand much more than cars and in term of energy demand the same or even more because metros have also stations and even with metros and buses we still need cars and van for a variety of activities, vehicles used for work (like a small Transit for a plumber or an electrician) but also usable for private stuff. The TCO is still not in favor of such model, despite many (from the interested ruling class) claim the inverse... > I live in an apartment building from the 50's. With just 2 walls of our building retrofitted with insulation I now barely need any heating in winter, try that with a single family home. This means that you live in a nice climate, where summers are not too hot and winters are mild. Such areas exists and are typically densely populated also because of the climate but they are a very little part of the inhabited earth, or you are in a less nice climate but being "in the middle" you get "free heat" from some apartments underneath and "insulation" from apartments over yours. Again that's true for some, but in TCO terms it's still not favorable for the humanity at a whole, only for some humans. If you are in mild climate a single family home would barely need heat as well, not if you get free heat from neighbors of course BUT a new single family home in the same climate can thanks to insulation and mere design (compact form, large windows on the southern side, roof/other element shielding the Sun in summer while allowing it pass in the winter etc) and while you might profit from your neighbors they still have to heat/cool anyway, it's good for you but it does not reduce the overall consumption. Just for a personal counter argument: I was living in an apartment from the '60s in a mild climate, it's heated with 24kW methane. I live now in a home twice the size/a bit more than twice the heated volume, in a much colder place and I heat with 1KW most of the time, climbing to 3-4kW few late night and early morning between January and February, the maximum absorption recorded for heating was at the end of January 2017 a single night with a minima of -24.8℃ (-12.64℉) with 6.3kW. In raw material terms electricity here means nuclear (I have p.v. with small storage, but not to heat the home at night) and the grid, gas means a much more raw material and energy hungry distribution network. So again building new home demand energy, but in their useful life we amortize it and we evolve. Remain in old buildings demand still more, many times more in many cases, just to keep them operational and we do not evolve. Can we change them now? A 40 apartment building build today respect of one 40 apartments from the '50s cost at least twice... You need to relocate 40 families for an year instead of putting a small container-home in the garden for two-thee month...

GuB-42 2y ago

> we need to delete modern dense cities... This is more of an argument for remote work than an argument against dense cities. Living in a "remote spread" is not great otherwise: long distance travel, limited public transport because it is not worth it due to the low population, cars are pretty much the only option. You don't have more time, again because of long travel time because of long distances. You can stockpile, but you have to take conservation into account, and plastic packaging is, maybe unfortunately, a great solution for conservation. Dense cities are quite efficient, and not particularly reliant on small plastic packaging. Many cities have markets at walkable distances that sell products in bulk. And from my experience in living in tight spaces, I think it is actually a good thing against plastic use. For the simple reason that you have less space for plastic. You have to think twice before buying something, because where you are going to put it is always something to consider, and packaging takes space too. A tea ball and tea in bulk takes less space than individual tea bags for the same amount of tea for instance.

kkfx 2y ago
These are common points used by those who profit from dense cities, and are mostly false while sound logic. > long distance travel Travel for what? Take a look at some EU Rivieras, there is little "commuting" since a slice of people work (or could work) from remote, others work locally/nearby, people normally do not travel back and forth countless of time like in a dense city. I state that for personal experience having left a dense EU city for the Alps, yes, I do travel, but not more than the number of km/miles I've traveling in the city. Simply because many "regular trip" are far less needed here. For instance I do not buy grocery every days but every 15 days or so. Also I have room for p.v. to recharge my car, so I consume even less from the grid, travels are cheaper both in pure monetary terms than in pollution terms. > limited public transport Witch again it's a GOOD thing despite common (interested) narrative. Collective transport was effective back then when it was just to bring workers back and forth to the factory from their homes, so every working day only with nearly always at nearly complete capacity. It was then extended in an era where cars was very expensive and only very few can own one NOT BECAUSE it was efficient for that but to allow people who can't afford a car to travel anyway at a price they can pay, and it was heavily subsidized because of that. Then it became a business munging money both from their customer and the public, wasting enormous resources to allow the city to exists but being horribly inefficient. We need to move 24h a day, anyone with their own schedules, as a result collective transports can't completely satisfy the demand, so we have a mix of personal and collective transport means both typically under-utilized wasting even more resources. Try to really think as an alien observing curious aliens from the orbit, you'll see how many resources a modern city eat just to exists, how many to get regularly updated and regularly at certain point in time get rebuild because at a certain point in time you can't evolve without big rebuilds. You need ENTIRE COUNTRIES just to build few cities. Modi in India think they can build 100 smart cities on the entire country resources. In central Asia most State can only have ONE city and so on, we do not see that because cities for us was ancient ad slowly changed, but an external observer see it very well, cities are a sink hole of resources for giving an utter life to most people. Their purpose in the modern era with modern logistic and IT? Just the service economy or keeping people owning less and less till nothing, salves of the services operated by few, modern Fordlandia equally distopic and equally untenable, a more broad description: https://kfx.fr/articles/2024-04-26-onnewdealexp-contrapolis/ https://kfx.fr/articles/2024-04-26-onnewdealexp-contrapolis/ > You don't have more time, again because of long travel time because of long distances. Oh I have it. Because in a reasonably spread (meaning not too little dense nor too much) living the 15' city is already there, but not on feet, instead by cars. Most people living spread can do nearly anything in 15' car trips. And they are in nature, so they can have plenty of natural activities instead of consuming paid services for anything because in a modern city anything is a service on sail... > You can stockpile, but you have to take conservation into account, and plastic packaging is, maybe unfortunately, a great solution for conservation. That's right, but at what rates? For instance I buy some times per year significant batch of pig meat, I grind and salt and flavor it at home making my own sausages and freeze them in dedicate plastic, but not single-use, containers. I buy olive and sunflower oil but not in small bottles, instead in metallic containers around 10l some, 5l others. They got recycled as well. I tend to buy wine in demijohns from "nearby" producer one or two time per year, and bottle it at home, again it's glass and cork recyclable and normally reused. So yes, there is still plastic, but far less and generally not single use. > Dense cities are quite efficient Is efficient for you living in tall buildings than moving to others tall buildings typically with immense machines named metros, using such buildings for less than 12h/24? I call it ALL but inefficient... > and not particularly reliant on small plastic packaging So you do not eat ready made food, typically sold in some single use packaging while working downtown? Just for instance. You do not frequently buy grocery with plenty of plastic bags, mostly too thin to reuse? > Many cities have markets at walkable distances that sell products in bulk. You can also buy in bulk from a supermarket, but you need space to stockpile and in apartments, specially in modern ones, there is not much space. Not talking about the fact that's impossible have p.v. and heat pumps for anyone anyway... So essentially the full-electric new deal is nearly impossible in cities. > You have to think twice before buying something If I see my grocery records I've bought MUCH more back then in a dense city than now on mountains, really. Simply because I buy frequently ready made stuff than dropping their relative packages to the bin. Try a simple experiment: hold somewhere your packaging for a month (if you have enough space), you'll might be shocked by their volume. Just for tea bags: I like green or white tea and I tend to buy metallic 1kg pot, they last for long. Yes, I need a bit more to clean anything but WFH it's not much an issue, in the end my waste is ZERO. Simply because having nature around I made compost, so the used tea leaves got dropped in nature, where they do not pollute. While with bags they need to be dropped to the bin, creating a certain amount of waste per day. Really, try experimenting collecting the waste you can without odors etc for a month or at least a week, then try measure it and project the same for 1000 of you per year try playing about changing habit in this model. Cities of the past, where people just live in "wall homes, little equipment" and tend to work "just downstairs" do not exists anymore, there are the theoretical "strong towns" who are not there and they are not compatible with today economy anyway. Modern buildings just for piped water, electricity, sewers, elevators, fire safety, seismic safety, HVAC consume MUCH MORE raw resources than small homes and makes people consume more. They are really only needed for financial capitalism, against nature and humanity.

vwcx 2y ago

Perhaps. But go work at a grocery store or warehouse and you will observe the vast amount of plastic film used (and discarded). "Shrink wrap" covers palletized boxes and is used as a method to group cargo. Once you realize how much a single grocery store throws away in the course of unloading a truck and stocking the shelves overnight, you won't be pointing at a vending machine with a wrapped fruit as the most effective mitigation. Not to say personal consumer habit shifts won't be important, of course.

kkfx 2y ago
No doubt. But can we remove such packaging? I'm not in that business so I do not really know, but I suppose not. While we can remove the ready made food. It's not differently than cars: can we have BEVs? Yes. Can we have BEV-trucks, well, there are some, but honestly they are not realistic, so what? It's better taking the cars, since so far we can for them, trying something else for the trucks or simply giving up? For something we can change, and it's a good thing to do, for something else there is no option. Even BEVs are sold as "green", well, they pollute much anyway, but instead of polluting the atmosphere we all breathe in, they pollute around mining sites, witch tend to exists where little to no humans live a life. It's not good anyway the pollution, but it's a choice: damaging certain area or the whole planet. For nuclear it's the same, a nuclear accident it's a disaster but normal operations are "clean", yes we have waste witch are an issue but in the end we put them in deserts and they can pollute at maximum there except in case of extreme climate disasters where we have anyway little chance to survive.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
There's companies that will pay you for that kind of palette wrap and recycle it. Apparently 21% is already recycled in the US, 30% in the EU. It can also be made from recycled plastic.