The reflexive answer from environmentalists is “Make less plastic!” That sounds reasonable, but on closer inspection, it lacks widespread feasibility. Vital industries like healthcare and agriculture would grind to a halt without the benefit of single-use plastics, not to mention the ubiquity of reusable plastics in just about every aspect of modern life. Realistically, with the dream of recycling our way out of this problem rapidly fading, the less-than-perfect yet practical solution of waste-to-energy—that is, burning plastic garbage as fuel—needs to be reevaluated.
I think this is overly dismissive of 'reduce'. It ignores 'reuse' and rejects 'recycle' It is true that plastics are uniquely suited to some roles in Ag. and Med. as a vapor barrier guarantee of purity and uncontamination, but there may be alternates, which significantly reduce plastics burdens such as use of kraft paper and wax (yes, I know. this is a less than perfect replacement, but not all "sterile" things actually need to be sterile. They sometimes need to be "clean")
So I would argue that yes, burning and pyrolisis may be the best path out, but 'reduce' is not infeasible, even if at scale in Ag. and Med. it's hard.
The role of pyrolisis in general should be better known. Char, carbon, and liquid byproducts are useful. Since the liquid product isn't that far off the feedstock in petrochemicals and ultimately drugs and related, it's a bit of a virtuous circle.
Most wax paper and kraft paper is made using PFAS, and has for a very long time, as ‘forever wax’ is the most durable, tasteless, and chemically inert.
Most plastic is not safe to reuse for the same uses, as the plastic is a little porous and is nearly impossible to properly clean to a sanitary level once exposed to certain types of chemicals or other contaminants. And it is exceptionally difficult and expensive to effectively test for them.
Think of the stains Tupperware would get if you left something with tomato sauce in it too long.
Now think of the equivalent of ‘community Tupperware’ - except someone stored pesticide in one of them before turning it in.
I am going to revise my joy of waxed paper. I thought it was carnuba and soy. However PFOA free paper is a thing now, I have hope for the future.
For plastics, reuse has limits, sure. My dad's tool room was packed full of pipe tobacco tins, for screws, bolts, thread-cutting die. I think when we banned smoking we did two harms: we allowed people to grow old and become a burden on the state instead of dying young, and we stopped providing almost limitless tins for things to be put in.
Glass is god level re-use. Second time round is a bare minimum for many economies use of glass, but the steps down the chain from clear through coloured to aggregates for construction are still an amazing chain. Hopefully with improved renewable energy the whole heat-cost to re-form glass (and aluminium and steel) can be worked through.
Glass is often dirt cheap to make, and recycling it usually only makes sense if you can match colors and compositions - as if you can’t, the coefficients of expansion will be different and colors weird, making it difficult to make sellable or high quality product with it.
Reusing containers commercially is also usually impossible with the way the consumer market is now structured, as there isn’t any single dominant player, standardized container, etc. in any one market.
At the consumer level though, it’s usually a lot easier - pasta jars are free to reuse for whatever, etc.
This was commercial milk delivery across a country, several millions of people.
"Proper rinsing" is not adequate for commercial operations. High temperature (near boiling) water at fairly high pressure, tens of thousands of bottles in a batch. Metal baskets, mechanical conveyors. I'll let you imagine the failure modes.
I lol'ed at the thought of milk bottles being rinsed by hand in a commercial operation. How much do you want your milk to cost?
Turned upside down on a conveyor, and having the insides and outsides blasted by high pressure caustic solution is rinsing properly. And exactly what I was referring to.
Glass shards aren’t going to be able to stay inside or on any bottle subjected to that.
But if a neighbor shattered at some point when later filled, it could happen I guess.
Though that would apply to anything bottled in glass, new or old glass yeah?
Ah man, not too long along all the contrarians were talking about how good single-use plastic bags were for the environment vs other alternatives because of that one study.
> 'reduce' is not infeasible, even if at scale in Ag. and Med. it's hard.
The collective action problem is mind-boggling. Get all countries to change their import laws and manufacturing, use, and disposal laws simultaneously. Anyone who goes first will simply destroy their industries.
The way out is to do what we did before plastic. Better and more sustainable materials like wood, unbleached paper, ceramic, and metal, reuse, and stop using plastic shit everywhere by default because we're poisoning ourselves and killing the planet right now. Plastics should be taxed heavily.
We mostly stopped using those "better" materials because people were poisoned because of their use. Lots more were poisoned or maimed in their production. And they were more expensive and more difficult to use and failure rates were much higher. And they were more prone to infestation by pests and molds.
Plastics are so much safer and cheaper and more reliable and easier to use that it's unreal.
Sources on the safety claims? Plastics were more flexible (in terms of usage), cheaper, and reduced use of paper and wood which, at the time, was a major concern as companies were clear cutting forests. Today, forestries follow sustainable practices. And while plastics are convenient (and in some cases a major benefit), there are plenty of areas where paper and other plant based products would still be just fine and worth it to reduce the harm that we now know plastics cause.
The reflexive answer from environmentalists is “Make less plastic!” That sounds reasonable, but on closer inspection, it lacks widespread feasibility. Vital industries like healthcare and agriculture would grind to a halt without the benefit of single-use plastics, not to mention the ubiquity of reusable plastics in just about every aspect of modern life. Realistically, with the dream of recycling our way out of this problem rapidly fading, the less-than-perfect yet practical solution of waste-to-energy—that is, burning plastic garbage as fuel—needs to be reevaluated.
I think this is overly dismissive of 'reduce'. It ignores 'reuse' and rejects 'recycle' It is true that plastics are uniquely suited to some roles in Ag. and Med. as a vapor barrier guarantee of purity and uncontamination, but there may be alternates, which significantly reduce plastics burdens such as use of kraft paper and wax (yes, I know. this is a less than perfect replacement, but not all "sterile" things actually need to be sterile. They sometimes need to be "clean")
So I would argue that yes, burning and pyrolisis may be the best path out, but 'reduce' is not infeasible, even if at scale in Ag. and Med. it's hard.
The role of pyrolisis in general should be better known. Char, carbon, and liquid byproducts are useful. Since the liquid product isn't that far off the feedstock in petrochemicals and ultimately drugs and related, it's a bit of a virtuous circle.