2 ms·
I don't find this compelling at all. There's no substance here. Summary to save you the time: there's a stockpile of plastic for an under-construction plastic
by mulmen 2y ago
I don't find this compelling at all. There's no substance here. Summary to save you the time: there's a stockpile of plastic for an under-construction plastic processing facility that needs a large stock of plastic to be economical.
Unanswered questions:
1) Is the project on schedule?
2) Is this stockpile unexpected or unmanageable?
3) Is there actually any risk that storage space runs out before the plant becomes operational?
The only remotely substantive part of the article has nothing to do with Airtags and is a shallow, uncited critique of an Exxon technology. It isn't clear if the upcoming Cyclix facility even plans to use this Exxon technology.
> One more issue that many environmental advocates raise is that the advanced recycling technology that Exxon claims to have made for recycling all kinds of plastic isn’t exactly effective.
Who are these environmental advocates you cite? What were their actual words? What does "exactly effective" mean here?
> They would also likely demand a lot of fossil fuels to superheat the recyclables, which adds more greenhouse gas emissions.
Likely? According to who? Based on what information? Texas has abundant renewable energy, where's the evidence that this requires fossil fuels?
This is a trash piece that does not pass the sniff test. It is just shallow, lazy sensationalism that plays to anti-sustainability cynicism. Don't waste your click.
- freitzkriesler2 2y ago[dead]
- tadfisher 2y agoI'm firmly in the "we need to do everything we can to reduce global warming to below 2 degrees C and potentially cause a mass extinction event" camp, and I get extremely irritated when folks fail to understand that demand is for energy, our energy distribution is interconnected via a grid, and those points make energy a fungible commodity. Better than powering recycling plants, though, is to stop producing and consuming single-use plastics. A great way to do this is to stop subsidizing recycling programs and bake the energy cost into the product that must eventually be recycled.
- arresin 2y agoMultiuse plastic releases much more phthalates and is very expensive. It’s both a pipe dream and a bad idea. The only solution is landfill. Or… we can trust Exxon (ffs) to build a recycling plant of the future that somehow is green also.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Reason077 2y agoThere are many long-life, reusable materials besides plastics.
- chrisMyzel 2y ago> The only solution is landfill. Why would it? The only thing needed to get rid of plastic is destroying it's key advantage over other materials (price) either by force or will. I am very convinced that science will bring us a better material e.g. by looking at nature if we are "forced" to do so, this can be through market force, e.g. oil becoming just too expensive. I'm thinking long term here. Landfill is the only solution that is guaranteed to fail. We're living on a quasi-infinite planet with a population that is to this date increasing. It will be easier to get new resources onto the planet than it is to get them away from the planet and stuff piling up indefinitely is clearly infeasable.
- Thorrez 2y ago>population that is to this date increasing Yes, but it will peak then fall[1]. The number of babies born per year has already peaked and is falling[2]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/un-population-2024-revision https://ourworldindata.org/un-population-2024-revision [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-births-per-year https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-births-per-year
- chrisMyzel 2y agoit's entirely possible humanity will not stay in that regime forever and grow exponentially again