850
submitted 2 days ago by Pro@programming.dev to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jhonmu648@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 10 hours ago

Honestly, the whole concept of "recycling" plastic feels more like a PR strategy than an environmental solution. If it were genuinely effective, we’d see investment, innovation, and accountability—like we do with metals. Instead, we’re handed the guilt while corporations keep pumping out garbage.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Much like the concept of a carbon footprint, it exists solely to make consumers think they can make an individual difference so they won't push for regulations

[-] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

Yeah I especially love that one everytime I fly. I get to choose the environmentally friendly option with lower carbon footprint for more money. Who the fuck they think they are kidding? We are all in the same plane burning fuel at 10000 m.

[-] AntelopeRoom@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago

Its basically impossible to avoid too. Anything you buy comes packaged in plastic for the most part.

[-] max_dryzen@mander.xyz 7 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Interesting to compare aluminium recycling with plastic recycling

When the true aim is to recycle material, industry comes to the party and you get a refund scheme, even purpose built deposit facilities that can be set up locally

When the aim is to misdirect public attention toward a non solution you get government mandated plastics recycling bins and penalties for "contamination" plus never ending messaging (gotta keep the lie alive with constant repetition lmaooo). Coercion is just a lowkey admission that the material isn't worth recycling

The real question isn't how to get the plastics industry to change, it's how to make the ruse no longer a tenable position for governments

[-] RumorsOfLove@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 19 hours ago

Dont forget the goal of disrupting actual leftist movements into confusion

[-] Aeri@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago

Honestly if it was up to me I'd just ban plastic flat out unless you got some kind of "this is actually really important and NEEDS to be made of plastic" cert

[-] Echolynx@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago

There are tons of single-use plastic medical supplies - syringes, wrappers, etc.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago

Would you say that those things are actually really important and NEED to be made of plastic? I wonder if Aeri would account for that possibility

[-] Tja@programming.dev 14 points 1 day ago

Treating waste water? Water treatment plants cost so much that they will never compete with dumping raw sewage into the river!

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 68 points 1 day ago

Being an old man this really gets me. I love the internet and the way computers today but there is a whole lot that worked fine before plastics were so common. Almost nothing in the grocery store had plastic and everything was pretty much as convenient as nowadays. Sure you had to pay a deposit on the glass bottles but you got it back when you returned them.

[-] derpgon@programming.dev 10 points 1 day ago

If I had to choose glass or plastic, I am always choosing glass. Glass is such a good material. It is infinitely recyclable, the bottles can be reused for several years, and if they are buried they don't release microplastics.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 23 hours ago

I jump for situations where the glass is taken back for wash and reuse. Its the most sensible thing. I swear I had heard about restaurants doing this with containers but I never actually encountered one. So they had perm togo containers they took back and washed.

[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

It depends on which aspects of the environmental impact you're looking at, as melting glass to recycle it can be much more damaging than landfilling several plastic bottles if the glass furnace is heated by fossil fuels. If glass bottles are washed and reused, they're much better than plastic, but that's rarely what happens.

[-] EvilCartyen@feddit.dk 15 points 1 day ago

That's still the way it works in Denmark, but with plastic bottles too. Something like 98% of all bottles are recycled.

[-] syklemil@discuss.tchncs.de 92 points 2 days ago

The price stuff can change through taxation that makes new plastic more expensive than recycled plastic.

As we all know, taxation is super popular and has never been controversial, ever.

At the very least flaskepant has worked great for like a century here in Norway. Always kind of surprising when other countries don't have it.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 18 hours ago

The US still has subsidies going to petrochemical companies, despite being insanely profitable. Basically, just extracting the country's wealth in addition to natural resources. Ending those or forcing them to be spent on recycling would help here immensely.

[-] bingrazer@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago

Most plastic can’t be recycled into something usable. Plastic degrades quite a bit with each recycling, leaving a bunch of microplastics behind (same thing with “biodegradable” plastic). It would be better to tax it enough (or ban it) to make it not used in certain applications.

[-] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 23 points 2 days ago

Should've made the producers responsible for collecting and processing all plastics they produce. It that makes certain products economically non viable, than that's on them to innovate better processes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] psivchaz@reddthat.com 13 points 1 day ago

Have we considered calling it a tariff instead of a tax? Tariffs on all new plastic. It might work.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago

And this is how capitalism eats itself. Nothing can be done without a market incentive, including not suffocating our planet to death.

[-] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

Not to absolve capitalism, but it's pretty easy to add market incentives to at least slightly address climate change. The concept of "externalities" has been around for a while, where something has a net social impact outside of its sale. It's normally solved with taxes and levies.

The real issue seems to be nobody havong the appetite to even attempt the most basic solutions to the problem, mainly thanks to lobbying.

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

“Slightly” addressing climate change doesn’t cut it. That’s like slightly addressing a raging fire. Incrementalism is climate denial.

[-] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 1 points 19 hours ago

I definitely get your point. I think it was pretty lousy wording from me to start with, and I should have said that those are pretty big levers to impact climate change rather than underplaying them as "slightly adressing".

I don't think any country has done enough, but countries that have put measures in place climate change are miles ahead of those that haven't. Compare New Zealand, or Sweden, to the USA.

To be clear as well, I'm not advocating incrementalism, I'm advocating that we do everything to adress climate change, and we're specifically talking about just one thing. Saying we shouldn't bother using the levers we have because they don't solve the whole problem is like saying you're not going to call the fire brigade because they won't get there in time to save the whole house.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

I wonder how much the oil industry subsidies are responsible for making recycled plastic more expensive than the new one...

[-] gi1242@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago

there have been several articles exposing plastic recycling as green washing. unfortunately they never make it to mainstream media

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plastic-is-practically-impossible-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse

i saw a chart somewhere showing less than 1% of plastic in use today is recycled but I can't find it now

[-] Kirk@startrek.website 17 points 1 day ago

Sad that NPR is not considered "mainstream" these days. Maybe Joe Rogan will post something to Facebook about it?

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

NPR is definitely mainstream

I think the word you're looking for is "corporate" or "for-profit". Thats what they're not.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)

The good news is that global warming (I prefer to call it Anthropogenic Runaway Global Heating because of the acronym) is going to completely fuck us all anyway, to the extent that plastic in the environment isn't going to matter by comparison. At least oil turned into plastic and buried isn't oil turned into CO2.

[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 day ago

The two problems have a decent amount of overlap though. For example, I recently learned that car tyres are a huge contributor to microplastic pollution. This means that improving public transport infrastructure will reduce CO2 emissions and microplastic pollution.

[-] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago

But we still have microplastics in our brains, which does warrant some concern I think.

[-] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Thats just the microplastics talking, go back to sleep.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 21 points 1 day ago

How to get politicians to change views:

Plastic causes ed and shrinkage

[-] KingPorkChop@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

They'll blame woman for being too slutty and fucking everyone BUT THEM.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 49 points 2 days ago

Really annoyed to have believed in plastic recycling even into my thirties. Being an idiot is such a burden sometimes.

[-] metaStatic@kbin.earth 22 points 2 days ago

Ignorance is only bliss if you never find out. Rookie mistake.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 41 points 2 days ago

Right now it looks like paper and metal recycling is still good as far as I can read in two minutes. If someone has a correction let me know.

[-] Anahkiasen 20 points 2 days ago

Yeah same and I hate when people just say well might as "well not recycle at all then" :/ that kind of defeatism doesn't help either

[-] max_dryzen@mander.xyz 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

That is the point at which you remind them they are focusing on the worst R and remind them of the other two which are much more ppwerful

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago
[-] notabot@lemm.ee 16 points 2 days ago

The biggest issue seems to be around a lake of thinking. Recycling used plastics into more plastic is certainly energetically infeasible, and letting plastics escape to contaminate the environment is also unacceptable. However plastic can be recycled, or perhaps reused, into other things, notably as a partial replacement for aggregate in concrete. This process is low energy, doesn't require sorting the plastic, and actually enhances the thermal and noise insulation properties of the concrete, whilst also reducing it's overall weight. There are undoubtedly other things a stable, non-biodegradable, waterproof and hardwearing substance could be used for given some though.

[-] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The more I see plastic being integrated into construction, the more I worry we're just postponing the inevitable. Concrete, stone and steel and basically reusable or recyclable and low impact on the environment when dumped. Plastic on the other hand slowly degrades into microplastics and seeps into waterways. Sometimes we forget that buildings don't last forever.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] underscores@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 days ago

Recycling rates are low, but I wouldn't quite call it a myth. There's a lot of materials that get lumped together as 'plastic', that each have to be handled differently.

Some are relatively non-toxic and easily recycled. More can be, but aren't profitable without incentives. Some are very toxic, and recycling those are difficult. Then there's a lot of rarer types that make it hard to collect and sort. There's also mixed materials, where it's hard to separate the plastic to recycle.

Generally everyone should be minimizing plastics, but check how they're handled locally so you know what's recylable.

[-] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 2 days ago

It seems there's been a flip. The myth is now that plastic is not recycled and it's all been a lie which is the actual lie.

The information around what types of plastics are easily recycled has never been a secret.

There is this weird mindset where people, often children are given a simplified explanation of things and then feel they were lied to when they find out their is nuance.

The entire world of information works this way. If the nuance was included from the start no one would learn anything because they would be bogged down in details. Every topic is a Wikipedia like rabbit hole with no bottom. It's what we have specialization in society.

The issues with plastic are not in its recycling. It's that is breaks down into what are essentially forever chemicals. This is the dilemma.

Producing less plastic because it's not recyclable is bad messaging.

Producing less plastic because it creates a substance that will last for eons is the problem. We've known about this property for decades but the repercussions of it have become more pronounced.

We need to stop making more plastic and work out how to chemically dissessemble the plastics already created without creating a worse output.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
850 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6490 readers
405 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS