7 ms·

What's clear to me, at least, is that a few cents doesn't represent the actual cost. It's a shortcoming of our economics that we consider such a great and long

What's clear to me, at least, is that a few cents doesn't represent the actual cost. It's a shortcoming of our economics that we consider such a great and long lasting material so disposable.

grufkork 1y ago
I like to put it as all the damage we're causing is just taking out a huge loan, and either we repay it on our own terms or mother nature is going to debt collect for us...
ozim 1y ago
I think few cents do represent it. Production alone per piece is more like really small fraction of a cent.
- pineaux 1y ago
  Came here to say this. The production of a plastic bag costs somewhere in the range of 0.05 cents to produce. If you would factor in the impact on the environment it would probably cost a few cents. Which, given the insane amount of plastic bags that are consumed each day. Would be significant.
  - Ray20 1y ago
    I think still less than a cent. I mean you just put plastic bag in a garbage pile, and that's it. Near-zero utilization costs with near-zero impact on the environment.
    - jplrssn 1y ago
      If it were that easy there wouldn't be a garbage patch the size of Texas floating in the Pacific.
      - algorias 1y ago
        This is a problem with the (lack of) environmental laws in many countries. All things considered, landfills are really cheap.
      - Ray20 1y ago
        Putting your trash in a local garbage dump is EASIER and CHEAPER than putting it in the garbage patch in the Pacific, so stop doing that right now.
        zulu-inuoe 1y ago
        Incorrect. If I throw my plastic bags out on the road it's much easier. It'll find its way to the Pacific eventually
      - tsimionescu 1y ago
        That consists to a great extent of maritime generated garbage - plastic fishing nets and plastic thrown off of vessels, and of course lots of "recycled" plastic that was being shipped to China and ended up dumped in the middle of the ocean.
lmpdev 1y ago
This is probably the most important comment ITT The tricky part is how do we even begin to model that with a somewhat comprehensible parameter? Without near perfect traceability across all nations in the world, we can only use sledgehammer methods like a “plastic tax” - which you’ll find very difficult to pass outside of more developed jurisdictions like the EU
- AnIrishDuck 1y ago
  The economic term for this is "externality" [1]. A pigovian tax is one solution, though it suffers from issues like the one you describe. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
yread 1y ago
Collecting, sorting and burning is not that expensive
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  Burning is much worse than burying plastic - as it releases much of its mass as CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, and likely other pollutants as well.
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
    For CO2 purposes it's no different than burning oil. You can burn trash to generate electricity too. At 5 grams per bag it's also hard to get any real volume of the emissions. One of my pet theories is that we vastly overestimate the environmentally impact of things we personally touch. People lose sleep over their single use Starbucks cups, while things many orders of magnitude worse happen out of sight.
    - ddoeth 1y ago
      In 2021 there were 51 Million tons of plastic waste produced in the US [0], which is about 150kg per person. Burning that is creating between 264 and 750kg of CO2 per person and year, definitely not insignificant. I'm not saying that big corporations are not responsible for a huge chunk of the emissions, but getting away from using so much plastic is not hurting. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1339439/plastic-waste-management-by-method-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1339439/plastic-waste-ma...
      - Tronno 1y ago
        How can burning 150 kg of mass create 750 kg of mass?
        bornfreddy 1y ago
        Burning takes oxygen from the air so it makes sense that the released mass would be higher. Every 12g of C is tied to 32g of O to get CO2. However I would expect the number to be around 500kg (quick calculation) max.
BurningFrog 1y ago
We produce uncountable billions of plastic bags. What specifically is the huge cost?
- ben_w 1y ago
  Environmental. Those billions of not degrading bags end up in places that harm the ecosystem.
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
    I think they overwhelmingly end up in landfills, where they have no material effect on any ecosystem. I'm no chemist, but they don't really react chemically with anything in nature, as I understand it. I know it feels dirty and unnatural that they just lie there, but in practical terms I don't think they do any substantial harm.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      Most plastic breaks down into microscopic pieces, which get everywhere including in the human brain in alarming amounts. They get into the human body through food and water. You haven't seen any reports about this? "Microplastics" does not ring any bells? >[plastic bags] don't really react chemically with anything in nature Almost no one denies that "forever chemicals" are toxic to humans even in tiny concentrations even though they are very much chemically inert. By "forever chemicals" I refer to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (used in the production of Teflon, Gore-Tex, etc) or more precisely the chemically-stable compounds into which they break down. Just like forever chemicals, microplastics bioaccumulate.
      - card_zero 1y ago
        By what mechanism are PFAs harmful to health? Is it because they are not, in fact, chemically inert? Or else how.
        1y ago

What's clear to me, at least, is that a few cents doesn't represent the actual cost. It's a shortcoming of our economics that we consider such a great and long lasting material so disposable.

grufkork 1y ago

I like to put it as all the damage we're causing is just taking out a huge loan, and either we repay it on our own terms or mother nature is going to debt collect for us...

ozim 1y ago

I think few cents do represent it. Production alone per piece is more like really small fraction of a cent.

pineaux 1y ago
Came here to say this. The production of a plastic bag costs somewhere in the range of 0.05 cents to produce. If you would factor in the impact on the environment it would probably cost a few cents. Which, given the insane amount of plastic bags that are consumed each day. Would be significant.
- Ray20 1y ago
  I think still less than a cent. I mean you just put plastic bag in a garbage pile, and that's it. Near-zero utilization costs with near-zero impact on the environment.
  - jplrssn 1y ago
    If it were that easy there wouldn't be a garbage patch the size of Texas floating in the Pacific.
    - algorias 1y ago
      This is a problem with the (lack of) environmental laws in many countries. All things considered, landfills are really cheap.
    - Ray20 1y ago
      Putting your trash in a local garbage dump is EASIER and CHEAPER than putting it in the garbage patch in the Pacific, so stop doing that right now.
      - zulu-inuoe 1y ago
        Incorrect. If I throw my plastic bags out on the road it's much easier. It'll find its way to the Pacific eventually
    - tsimionescu 1y ago
      That consists to a great extent of maritime generated garbage - plastic fishing nets and plastic thrown off of vessels, and of course lots of "recycled" plastic that was being shipped to China and ended up dumped in the middle of the ocean.

lmpdev 1y ago

This is probably the most important comment ITT The tricky part is how do we even begin to model that with a somewhat comprehensible parameter? Without near perfect traceability across all nations in the world, we can only use sledgehammer methods like a “plastic tax” - which you’ll find very difficult to pass outside of more developed jurisdictions like the EU

AnIrishDuck 1y ago
The economic term for this is "externality" [1]. A pigovian tax is one solution, though it suffers from issues like the one you describe. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

yread 1y ago

Collecting, sorting and burning is not that expensive

tsimionescu 1y ago
Burning is much worse than burying plastic - as it releases much of its mass as CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, and likely other pollutants as well.
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  For CO2 purposes it's no different than burning oil. You can burn trash to generate electricity too. At 5 grams per bag it's also hard to get any real volume of the emissions. One of my pet theories is that we vastly overestimate the environmentally impact of things we personally touch. People lose sleep over their single use Starbucks cups, while things many orders of magnitude worse happen out of sight.
  - ddoeth 1y ago
    In 2021 there were 51 Million tons of plastic waste produced in the US [0], which is about 150kg per person. Burning that is creating between 264 and 750kg of CO2 per person and year, definitely not insignificant. I'm not saying that big corporations are not responsible for a huge chunk of the emissions, but getting away from using so much plastic is not hurting. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1339439/plastic-waste-management-by-method-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1339439/plastic-waste-ma...
    - Tronno 1y ago
      How can burning 150 kg of mass create 750 kg of mass?
      - bornfreddy 1y ago
        Burning takes oxygen from the air so it makes sense that the released mass would be higher. Every 12g of C is tied to 32g of O to get CO2. However I would expect the number to be around 500kg (quick calculation) max.

BurningFrog 1y ago

We produce uncountable billions of plastic bags. What specifically is the huge cost?

ben_w 1y ago
Environmental. Those billions of not degrading bags end up in places that harm the ecosystem.
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  I think they overwhelmingly end up in landfills, where they have no material effect on any ecosystem. I'm no chemist, but they don't really react chemically with anything in nature, as I understand it. I know it feels dirty and unnatural that they just lie there, but in practical terms I don't think they do any substantial harm.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Most plastic breaks down into microscopic pieces, which get everywhere including in the human brain in alarming amounts. They get into the human body through food and water. You haven't seen any reports about this? "Microplastics" does not ring any bells? >[plastic bags] don't really react chemically with anything in nature Almost no one denies that "forever chemicals" are toxic to humans even in tiny concentrations even though they are very much chemically inert. By "forever chemicals" I refer to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (used in the production of Teflon, Gore-Tex, etc) or more precisely the chemically-stable compounds into which they break down. Just like forever chemicals, microplastics bioaccumulate.
    - card_zero 1y ago
      By what mechanism are PFAs harmful to health? Is it because they are not, in fact, chemically inert? Or else how.
      - 1y ago