
TIL humans have consumed 9.2b tons of plastic. 6b will never meet recycling bin - cryptofits
https://www.lemonade.com/blog/the-plastic-problem/
======
lacker
This article doesn’t really cover the main questions about recycling plastic,
like does it have any negative impact on the environment when you throw away
plastic.

The case for “no”: [https://medium.com/@robertwiblin/what-you-think-about-
landfi...](https://medium.com/@robertwiblin/what-you-think-about-landfill-and-
recycling-is-probably-totally-wrong-3a6cf57049ce)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I've noticed this weird pattern where articles that try to put you off
recycling often don't actually support that thesis. I guess it's admirable
that they usually stick close enough to the truth that it's obvious they're
trying to spin things, but what leads someone with sufficient integrity to do
that to write it in the first place?

Is it some kind of game to convince people to do silly stuff while literally
telling them that it's a bad idea?

E.g

> But for some kinds of plastic in some places recycling is indeed the better
> option, even if the net gain isn’t that huge.

With a link to this:

[https://ourworldindata.org/faq-on-plastics#recycling-
landfil...](https://ourworldindata.org/faq-on-plastics#recycling-landfill-or-
incineration-which-should-we-choose)

Which says:

> Recycling had the lowest global warming potential and energy use across
> nearly all of the studies. From an environmental perspective, recycling is
> usually the best option

It lists 37 comparisons and landfill beats recycling in 2 of them (they also
tied in one), with recycling nearly always beating both landfill and
incineration, and landfill often being the worst of the three. I've read other
meta studies that agree with this, it's the real consensus view.

But, I don't understand why they would link to this source and still overall
try to imply the the opposite argument is true, it makes no sense to me? Why
not just not link to it if they don't want to accept the findings? Why not
link direct to the two studies that claims recycling doesn't beat landfill? If
you're going to argue something not supported by science then don't link to
the science. This seems basic but it's a definite pattern.

And I guess that recursively applies to you, why would you link to an article
that debunks the very point you're trying to make?

~~~
skybrian
I'm not sure "debunks" is the word here, because reading that meta-analysis
doesn't get me very far.

There's not much to it other than a simple table and it's hard to interpret.
What is "global warming potential" and "total energy use"? In the studies that
say recycling is better, on what grounds do they conclude that, and are the
conditions they're assuming realistic?

The next step would be reading the individual studies and figuring out how
they work, which is more than I'm going to do for a casual Internet
conversation. The links and references would be a good starting point for
someone willing to do the work, though.

And to answer your question, sharing links is generally pretty useful for
people who want to dig deeper, and we should do more of it.

------
JMTQp8lwXL
On a first take, I assumed the title was referring to microplastics (e.g., the
literal consumption of plastic), but then I realized we probably have no idea
how much microplastic is inside humans (and all other animals), and what the
long-term consequences will be.

I'm fine with the idea of plastic, but single-use plastic has got to go. We
shouldn't accept the disposal of plastic into our waterways and food chain
without scientific researching proving that microplastics are safe-- though
it's doubtful they are. Why do we invent new physical things without first
considering the consequence of the lifecycle of the product? If plastic was
invented today, no regulatory body would allow us to use it as we do.

------
skybrian
The article assumes there is a problem without talking about landfills or
incineration.

If you want to make sure plastic never gets into the ocean, disposing of it
properly should do it. If it doesn't, something is wrong with how garbage
disposal is done and that needs to be fixed.

~~~
charliesome
How do you dispose of plastic properly? Even landfill doesn't cut it - the
stuff just breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces. These microplastics
then enter the groundwater, and from there find their way into almost every
part of our environment.

~~~
foxyv
This is true, landfills aren't perfect. However it's better than our current
"Recycling" which just ships the plastic off to 3rd world countries to be
burned or buried.

To be honest, I think micro-plastics are the among least hazardous things that
can leak from a landfill. Also a landfill is usually local as possible and
doesn't require much energy.

The answer will always be "Use less of the junk." But I feel guilty putting
plastic in the recycling bin.

------
Merrill
Not mentioned is the use of plastic by health care. In a hospital, each
patient generates a large stream of plastic for disposal.

~~~
maxharris
This is a great example of an important and valid use for plastic! For the
number of lives this saves - and _one_ is enough - this is an achievement to
be proud of.

With promising new startups such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems (this is the
talk to start with:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4)),
I'm not going to worry about the garbage problem. My bet is that we'll see
proof of fusion's viability within the next decade. In the era that follows,
people will be literally mining landfills for raw materials to separate into
perfect piles of feedstock. A 1e8 C plasma will strip the electrons off of any
atoms you place inside it, and you can magnetically separate the charged
nuclei.

And if I'm wrong about any of that, a few more decades of landfill use isn't
going to change anything anyway.
[http://jmc.stanford.edu/commentary/progress/index.html](http://jmc.stanford.edu/commentary/progress/index.html)

~~~
foxyv
The answer has always been a source of cheap, clean, abundant, and safe
energy. But I'm not very optimistic about seeing it in my lifetime aside from
maybe next generation fission plants. It WILL happen, just not anytime soon.
We may see a fusion plant going positive soon, but probably not for a price we
can afford commercially.

