Skip Navigation
62 comments
  • the people who try to force the burden of a species worth of impact onto individuals are always just running cover for corporations n conglomerates; give them time to build society's tolerance for bleakness and whatever industrial-scale crime they're doing and internalise guilt for it before coming back to win the pr war and make money in some other slightly less evil way

  • Recycling started off as the third R and last resort, the first two were Reduce and Reuse. Those were not compatible with an economy based on consumerism and growth, so Recycling became the focus, creating an industry to pick through the few things that could be recycled and trashing the rest, and encouraging the public to buy more because it's not a problem as long as you participate.

    And if you don't participate, all the problems are your fault. Not the companies making the stuff, they're just doing what you want.

  • I really agree with your point. However:

    First of all, it's reduce, reuse, recycle.

    Nobody implied that recycling would solve everything. (at least i didn't, i don't know about what other people said)

    Secondly, plastics is actually less of a problem than people think. Plastics is essentially non-toxic, or has a similar toxicity than wood, grass, and other carbohydrates. So essentially non-toxic. The fact that there is traces of it in your blood is not surprising, because our detection systems these days are very sensitive and can detect even the tiniest amounts.

    The additives are the problem, and they should either be forbidden or strictly regulated.


    The point that "chemical recycling is infeasible" is wrong. It used to be financially infeasible because the energy required to recycle was many times more expensive than just buying crude oil and making new plastics. Nowadays, however, that might change, depending on how cheap solar energy turns out to become over the next 10 years.


    Furthermore, i guess Aluminum and glass are actually often worse for the environment, because while they could be recycled close to 100% when properly collected, such a good collection system is totally unreasonable and off the bat IMO. Consider: if there's one stupid guy who throws a lead acid battery into the recycle container, all of you now have lead poisoning for the rest of your lifes. It's a medical hazard.


    Additionally, the problem with plastic waste in the environment is a problem of insufficient regulation, not with the plastics itself. Plastics can be burned very close to 100%, so it leaves no traces. Different than say nuclear which leaves back toxic waste. Additionally, burning plastics releases close to 100% of the energy stored in it, so it could be used as a fuel. In the future, optimized plastics power stations might burn plastics in the winter to generate energy to compensate for lower solar energy. That's why i'm actually in favor of collecting all plastics in gigantic landfills, because it might become a very valuable resource later on.

    • Burning plastic has similar issues to fossil fuels, with all the waste ending up in our lungs.

      Nuclear waste can be rendered inert in glassified casks, while having a much higher power density and reliability.

  • corporations only fuel what the consumer wants most.

    its humanities own greed ideologically refusing 20cents more for another packaging. best thing is how family and friends belittle you for investing 10% more into other products like that

    idc we are past 1,5° anyway, theres no hope really (sorry for looking so negative, im trying to be rational tho)

62 comments