We do things that creates enough problem that then cause other problems. But instead of solving the root problems we solve further up the stack and in that process waste further resources. And as a byproduct create more problems.
Examples: instead of banning plastics, instead of throwing it in the water, instead of recycling we go about fixing the micro plastic that keep leeching in the water.
Even if we stopped the production completely right now, that doesn't remove what's already in the water. The root problem in this case is: it's already out there.
Plastics do decompose slowly, but they certainly do decompose -- especially under sunlight. If they didn't decompose we would have a lot more plastic in the environment than we do now.
I didn't mean they stuck around forever, but that they stuck around for much longer and much more "painfully" than we anticipated. The entire microplastics phase was probably not really anticipated when they introduced "biodegradable" plastic bags, which eventually just broke down to tiny plastic that gets on everything around it.
But this isn't an individual human decision, this is a system that makes it all happen this way.
We're fixated on growth: when growing more plastic industry seems passe, we leave it on a current level (or just have a greenwashing campaign) and grow another industry to clean up the plastics.
We could dial down the plastic usage and implement some cleaner solutions but that would need some difficult decisions (am I going to have similar profit margins when changing from plastic to paper? what are initial costs?) and perhaps an inconvenience to the consumer (e.g. make bottled water very expensive, bring your own container and refill it using public water faucets).
I hope this will happen sooner than later with as many industries as possible.
I don't think people understand just how much stuff in our daily lives is petrochemicals.
Further, I don't think the quite grasp the scale difference between what we used to have made out of alternatives and what we now make out of plastics.
It's not a question of switching to glass, wood and metal, there simply isn't enough of those resources in the world to support however many billion were up to now.
banning plastic is moronic. they didn't come about because people wanted to pollute the world, it solved real issues while creating unpleasant externalities and this is a great research to mitigate the pollution.
name me a country that didn't increase in plastic usage AFTER banning plastic
While I agree with that, microplastics aren't really because of plastic bottles.
"Most of the microplastic pollution in the world doesn’t come from discarded bottles. It comes from textiles, tyres and city dust. These three sources account for over 80% of all microplastic pollution in the environment and the seas."[1]
Also the world is running out of the sand that's good for making glass (also concrete)[2], so that's not a great solution either.
We should probably just stop using both of them entirely for canned drinks. But that's a tall ask, I know (and I also struggle with).
Yes but glass is heavy and it pollutes through externalities (transport + melting). I like aluminium better but the liners contain BPA or replacements, so glass is still the most sensible option.
During communism there was a lot of glass recycling being done in my country. Glasses and jars were standardised, meaning there were few modles in circulation and one could clean off the labels and take them to a recycling centre and collect a few pennies for evey item.
> Prof. Lee Ju-hyuck's research team in joint research with Dr. Cho Han-cheol's team at the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology developed the world's first eco-friendly power generation device that removes fine particles in the water.
If I read this text correctly it doesn't cost extra energy but filters as a byproduct of energy generation, and other wording implies it avoids issues of microclogging and requiring replacement (otherwise that wouldn't have been mentioned as a downside of filters). I suppose that does make it a lot eco-friendlier than alternatives.
The part where it only removes 24% of all microparticles means it's not going to be a complete solution however. OTOH that's 24% fewer particles to clog up later filters
Activated carbon is typically used to catalyze organic compounds. There are better filters for physically trapping particles - like RO membranes. All filters have a cost.
It looks like they're trying to do a better job using electrophoresis, which is great!
Depends on how you handle the water. You can evaporate it for example and try to extract the plastics. Or maybe treat it chemically (which might cheaper if the microplastic concentration is higher in water used in cleaning the filter)
Good to know! I didn't even realize the problem until one day I saw an infographic stating "average human consumes a credit card worth of plastic every week". And after some research that turned out to be, to an extent, true.
We do things that creates enough problem that then cause other problems. But instead of solving the root problems we solve further up the stack and in that process waste further resources. And as a byproduct create more problems.
Examples: instead of banning plastics, instead of throwing it in the water, instead of recycling we go about fixing the micro plastic that keep leeching in the water.