this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
350 points (99.7% liked)

News

23367 readers
2877 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Is there anything more pathetic than a used plastic bag?

They rip and tear. They float away in the slightest breeze. Left in the wild, their mangled remains entangle birds and choke sea turtles that mistake them for edible jellyfish. It takes 1,000 years for the bags to disintegrate, shedding hormone-disrupting chemicals as they do. And that outcome is all but inevitable, because no system exists to routinely recycle them. It’s no wonder some states have banned them and stores give discounts to customers with reusable bags.

But the plastics industry is working to make the public feel OK about using them again.

Companies whose futures depend on plastic production, including oil and gas giant ExxonMobil, are trying to persuade the federal government to allow them to put the label “recyclable” on bags and other plastic items virtually guaranteed to end up in landfills and incinerators.

...

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 57 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Household plastic is essentially non-recyclable. No way is plastic waste ever sufficiently sorted by the type of plastic, or cleaned sufficiently from food rests etc. The focus should be on Reduce, Reuse, and properly dispose. That most likely means burning it. Great? No way. Better than in nature? Hell yeah. Better than shipping it to Asia for pretend recycle? Definitely.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 40 points 3 months ago (4 children)

The crazy thing is the reduce is so easy. Im just old enough to remember soda being in aluminum cans and glass bottles and nothing else. It worked fine. There are some things were plastic has a significant benefit like medical but man. We don't need to use plastic for pop. Getting meat from the butcher with butcher paper was pretty good to.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

ah but you see, it's like 5¢ cheaper per bottle to put it in plastic now, so think of the corporate profits that would be lost if they switched back!

Sure they'll kill an ecosystem, but think of the shareholder value they'll generate while it happens!

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It is annoying as the glass bottle deposit thing was actually the cheapest option. It had a higher up front cost but once you returned the bottles it was cheaper. On top of that the taste is just better from glass as most beer drinkers know. Speaking of which beers should all use a standard bottle that does the same deposit/return thing.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I’m fine with transition away from glass. There’s always some asshole who likes to break them and leave the shards for the rest of us to step on. Nature is so much more enjoyable without broken glass

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 3 months ago

I get you as I used to walk in a park and used the poopl grabber to grab refuse. Which I could not seperate given my setup so begrudgingly had to go all in garbage. All the same plastic is killing us as a species. Its pain in the but to destroying the world and I hate things that are a pain but I sorta like nature to be present to enjoy.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

hey wanted to mention to you may not have realized how that system worked. Its much like oberwiess if you ever used them. Essentially you pay a depost that is like 50% of the cost of the item which means at the register 33% of what you pay will be the deposit. You then get it back when you return the intact, unbroken, empties. The glass is not recycled, instead the recepticals go back and are washed in machines that pretty much sterilize them with the heat they use (if you ever worked in a dishroom with a giant dishasher and seen what happens when the sides are detached when it was just running you would know how crazy hot it is). Anyway anyone who breaks containers running under that system is throwing away a considerable chunk of change.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I guess I’m starting from the point that no one around here re-uses glass anymore. It’s all single use.

Given that glass bottles are disposable and there is always some jackass breaking them for giggles and leaving the shards, I’d rather get entirely away. From it. Aluminum is very recyclable and doesn’t cut your feet

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The deposit system is way better environmentally though. Washing and reusing is a pittance compared to any type of recycling. I guarantee you would not see as much breaking of them. Oberweiss last I knew the deposit was two bucks but that was before the recent inflation.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I’m sure that’s part of it. Here, glass bottles have the same 5¢ deposit as any other beverage bottle. It should be much higher.

This is also an interesting situation, where many people believe we should stop the bottle deposits and returns, since we now have single stream recycling for everything. It’s a great theory, but I do remember how much the bottle deposit helped clean up the environment, and we need more of that. It’s not just the recycling but changing peoples behavior, or in the worst case scenario gicving people in less fortunate circumstances an incentive to clean up after the assholes. We should do more of this.

Of course there was also that Seinfeld episode attempting to game the system by driving bottle to Michigan and profit from the greater 10¢ deposit. It’s a good point that someone will always try to game the system, so it really needs to be a national thing in the US instead of the state-based patchwork it is now ….. or the benefit of those reusable bottles was that companies would only take back their own

Oberweis does not cover my area although I imagine there’s similar that does.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

yeah. five or ten cents aint gonna cut it and it does need to be nationally. its pretty easy to make sure all us products have a unique identifier so you can't bring in from mexico or canada or such. I think of aldi and how you never have a loose cart and they never pay anyone to clean up the lot and they don't have to use up parking space for convenient cart returns. Then if some lady is to concerned about her safety (yeah this is a reference) someone will still return it. I keep on thinking they will somehow need to go above a quarter but so far a quarter works for that.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

A quarter sounds good, or at least is a good place to start

I have to admit I no longer return cans and bottles, despite that they’re more likely to get recycled when you return thenm. However I’ve been trying to cut back on things like soda anyway, and I’m not going out of my way for a dime to a quarter per week. They go in with the rest of the recycling. We did have a guy coming through collecting cans and bottles from recycling bins so I tried saving mine off to the side so he wouldn’t have to dig for them, but he hasn’t been around in a long time

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 3 months ago

yeah even without the deposit like we have here aluminum brings in enough for folks to collecte. I used to seperate it into a grocery bag and hang it on the fence for first come first serve with the alley pickers.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have been using solid bodysoap and shampoo now for some years and it has likley saved a solid amount of plastic waste and is super easy.

[–] rami@ani.social 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Girl here, I've never tried a bar soap that didn't absolutely ruin my skin. open to suggestions but not feeling all that optimistic.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 3 months ago

after reduce is reuse. Try to buy refills. Its still plastic but if you buy larger contaniers the surface area over volume is smaller so less plastic then hope the next step recycle for your community is actually doing it or better if you can find another use for the empty larger containers but that does get difficult over time.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 1 points 3 months ago

I have to admit thag I just never had problems, so I just use what ever I can get. I use vegan soaps, if that helps, but I can't compare them to non vegan ones.

I don't know where you are located, but here we have dedicated body and shampoo soap bars. They are quite a bit nicer to akin than using normal soap. That's all the advice I have to offer unfortunately :)

[–] brlemworld@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Goat soap is wonderful 🐐 my skin is soft.

[–] WhollyGuacamole@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Have you tried Cerave's bar soap?

[–] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Vacuum sealing meat kind of requires plastic though. And that's by far the best way to keep the meat good / fresh especially for freezing.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

They said reduce though, not eliminate. I don't know that we will eliminate petroleum-based plastic until we find a viable, economical alternative, but we can sure use less of it. There's really no reason for all the plastic soda bottles apart from companies saving money.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 10 points 3 months ago

I mean it might be good if we went back to an idea of buying what you need for the day or week and not so much for the month or year. At least in general. I mean its not like folks did not eat meat before plastic and without slaughtering it in their apartment.

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Do you remember when Quaker Oatmeal containers were all paper/cardboard? You could pull a paper tab, and it made a little paper lid for the cylinder.

About 10-15 years ago, they replaced that with a plastic pull tab that is glued on to the paper tube.

The paper has to be cheaper than the 2-part plastic, right?

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 3 months ago

Yeah im not sure if its cheaper. plastic is crazy cheap and paper by and large comes from trees which is its own problem. still I would prefer paper/cardboard. and yeah I remember how it used to be and it did work fine

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Yep. What isn’t recycled should be burned for power plant fuel. It’s made from fossil fuels anyway. It doesn’t belong in a landfill.

We really need to tax single use plastic for the REDUCE part. It would make a huge dent.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Hmm. The waste-to-energy facility in my town makes a whole lot more sense. Neat

[–] Digital_man@lemmy.one 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Recycling the original greenwashing

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Plastic recycling, definitely. Aluminum/aluminum recycling is very effective. Approximately 75% of aluminum that has ever been mined and processed is still in use, and it can be re-used and recycled a functionally infinite number of times. But you're totally right about greenwashing in plastics. Even the easiest plastics to "recycle" (like PET or PETE) can only be reprocessed once or twice before the polymers break down too much for re-use.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The famous ad with the Native American crying about litter? It was literally funded by the single use plastic industry to shift the blame from them producing trash to people not throwing things away. Also, the guy was Italian.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And yet, it works in that sense. Whatever we’ve done with recycling, bottle deposits, and shaming people has made a real improvement in litter.

Now we just need to finish getting rid of glass bottles and cigarettes. And we have a win, at least in the context of litter

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Litter wasn’t the problem. It was producing a persistent single use product that has to go somewhere. A landfill is only mildly better than on the side of the road.

Glass bottles, which are far more reusable and recyclable, would be better, not worse.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Because by it's very nature, recycling always costs more than first-round-use products. It takes more energy and more time to recycle goods into something else.

Further, it's a misnomer, because many, many, many, many plastics flat out cannot be recycled into anything else no matter how much we wish it so.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not always. Aluminum takes a lot of energy to extract from bauxite, but not nearly as much to recycle.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

I was surprised to learn this when driving by an aluminum refinery adjacent to a hydroelectric dam in Washington State.

It uses so much power that it’s more efficient to move the ore to where the electricity is.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Which I why it goes REDUCE, REUSE, recycle.

[–] umbraroze@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Life would be so much more awesome if the rest of the civilised world adopted bottle/can deposit systems. Plastic bottles can be washed and reused. Aluminum cans? Melt 'em, reforge 'em, badassery continues.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm nervous about reused plastic disintegrating now. Aluminum, glass or wax paper is all we really need. Remember wax paper milk cartons? There are also aluminum "bottle" in the same shape as plastic ones, so preexisting vending machines can take them fine.

[–] umbraroze@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, and I'm also very hopeful about the bio-plastics developments. Right now, a lot of carton cup/food packaging folks are developing bio-degradable/compostable food containers that try to replace petro-polymers. That'd solve a huge swath of plastic recycling problems.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Problem with the bio-plastics are that they're still plastics. The micro plastic issue is because they degrade over time. The particles flake off of plastic goods over time. Plastic designed to do that might not solve anything unless they do it quick enough that there's a very small amount of time they're in the environment before degrading to their elemental components.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago

Aluminum is really a perfect packaging material. Relatively cheap, easy to form through a number of methods, durable, and the recycling tech is damn near perfect. Something like 70% of all the aluminum humans have ever made is still in circulation because of that recycling. Glass comes in a close second. Neither are quite as easy or cheap as plastic though. And thus in pursuit of the almighty dollar, we poison the planet even further.