We need to look at things in a moderate and reasonable way instead of going from an extreme to the opposite extreme. It used to be that plastic was fantastic. Now we arguably use too much of it so some people go to the other extreme of wanting to get rid of it altogether.
The reality is that plastics are great materials that are very useful, the flip side being that they need to be properly disposed of.
Yes, they are probably over-used in some cases, e.g. packaging, but that does not mean we should treat plastics "like asbestos".
For example, you mention glass bottles: They require a lot of energy to be manufactured, they are heavy (more energy needed to transport them), they require energy, water, and chemicals to be washed. Is that necessarily more environmentally friendly that plastic efficiently recycled?
You also mention wax paper, which (as far as I know) is not very recyclable because it's waxed. Probably better to use cardboard or a type of plastic that recycles well (and is actually recycled!)
A potential "solution" is to price in the externality and tax the use of plastic in manufacturing. Then the market can decide whether it's "worth" using plastic for disposable water bottles or food wrapping.
We could, but then we should also tax everything else (e.g. glass bottles) based on objective criteria as there is no reason to single out plastic.
Perhaps these criteria could be based on the ease and cost of recycling, with a huge penalty if not recyclable and a bonus if biodegradable/compostable.
The money will be squander by the government and all that will happen is the poor people will get poorer. It's so easy to be like oh just tax it, and forget the guy who's scraping by can't afford another 10-25 cents more per thing they buy at dollar general because adding a tax to it tried to justify the plastic.
I refuse to buy into the idea that ecological destruction is benelovent because we couldn't otherwise support such a drastic level of poverty and inequality.
The same argument could be made for rainforest deforestation, saying it's a good thing because it's feeding the poor!
Nonsense, tax the externality and then give back and support the worst affected through taxation or aid if needed. Inequality is at a record high, perhaps it wouldn't be so high if we made everything more expensive and then taxed the rich to pay for it.
In the UK there have been effects, but it's too early to tell the full picture. Many drinks cut down their sugar content to avoid the tax and full-sugar drinks are often excluded from 'meal deals' (or the levy is explicity added, e.g. McDonalds' meals) so I would expect that people have be switching to diet versions in those cases. The Uk is pretty small so things can be changed at a whole country level more easily.
>another 10-25 cents more per thing they buy at dollar general because adding a tax to it tried to justify the plastic
In fairness, there is absolutely no way Dollar General is going to continue to source your product if it starts costing an extra 10-25 cents more per unit. You'd get cancelled quicker than your average Netflix Original.
If you think the Walmart process is bad behind the scenes, you definitely don't want to see how the Dollar General sausage is made. I'm pretty sure you could count on a switch to aluminum and paper containers in Dollar General fairly quickly.
They'd probably even market it as, "Eco Friendly".
If you want to buy a drink, bring a reusable bottle to the shop and fill it up from a dispensery or use glass bottles.
The culture simply needs to change - its a habitual problem, not a technical one. We have the technology.
I think Germany has their Pfand (plastic/glass deposit) system working really really well, although admittingly the plastic gets incinerated.
I don't know why more countries don't adopt these methods or similar.
Homeless people pick them up, and get 25c for it, then the bottles are washed and reused. Fantastic.
We should invest in optimising these ideas so they become more ubiquitous and cheaper than plastic.
From Germany here: I disagree! The 'Single use plastic bottle deposit' you probably refer to doesn't really have the effect it was supposed to have.
There are three types of bottle deposits: glass bottles 8c 29.2% market share (ms) (probably almost entirely beer), reusable plastic bottles 25c 13.6% ms, single use plastic bottles 52.2% ms and aluminum cans 25c 3.2% ms (2016, numbers are up now). [0]
The single use plastic bottle deposit was introduced as a measure to REDUCE market share and support use of glass, but instead people got used to paying more for their water bottles and returning them or "donating" them to poor retired or just plain poor people and might even feel good about themselfes which is not a great incentive. Reusable plastic bottles got more and more replaced by single use and glass bottles water vanished almost entirely. Every grocery store in Germany had to install huge sorting-and-compressing machines for all the different bottle deposits. For some years (long before plastics deposit I believe) a deposit for aluminum soda cans worked quite well but I get the impression products are increasing (I guess bcs people got used to pay the extra 25c.).
This all boils down to one solution in my opinion: Regulation.
The 'free' market is not willing and/or able to factor in environmental variables but is forced to ramp down prices no matter what to nuture their shareholders and growth.
There is literally no need to buy bottled water. There is probably not a single town in Germany where you are not able to drink tap water. So yes, a change in mentality would be necessary. But banning single use plastic bottles (as a start) instead of "taxing them properly" wouldn't change our lifestyle one bit.
This troubles me because I am pretty certain we all have to change our lifestyles drastically if we want to somehow limit the environmental impact.
Which means in practise it's not recyclable at all. I don't count something as such if the cycle isn't fully closed. Aluminium is, glass is, plastic is not.
Explicit recycling is not necessarily the best option depending on the resources (e.g. energy) needed.
Burning plastics is an option especially if plant-based (to be carbon neutral) but it then raises the issue of land use.
Biodegradability/compostability is another option with new types of plastics and/or GMO bacteria.
The point is to look at the full picture instead of claiming that all plastics should be get rid of without considering if the alternatives are any better.
The full picture looks pretty grim. I think y’all miss out on the bigger picture cus y’all hit these ideological blinders, very peculiar to HN.
For example, the article is very explicit about why recycling is not working - it has to do with economics - and y’all talking nonsense about GMO bacteria and energy use.
The reality is that plastics are great materials that are very useful, the flip side being that they need to be properly disposed of.
Yes, they are probably over-used in some cases, e.g. packaging, but that does not mean we should treat plastics "like asbestos".
For example, you mention glass bottles: They require a lot of energy to be manufactured, they are heavy (more energy needed to transport them), they require energy, water, and chemicals to be washed. Is that necessarily more environmentally friendly that plastic efficiently recycled?
You also mention wax paper, which (as far as I know) is not very recyclable because it's waxed. Probably better to use cardboard or a type of plastic that recycles well (and is actually recycled!)