- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
Plastic producers have known for more than 30 years that recycling is not an economically or technically feasible plastic waste management solution. That has not stopped them from promoting it, according to a new report.
“The companies lied,” said Richard Wiles, president of fossil-fuel accountability advocacy group the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), which published the report. “It’s time to hold them accountable for the damage they’ve caused.”
If reduce makes harder to reuse, repair or recycle, then reduce could be a false economy.
Reduction in this case is bolstering reuse, repair, and recycling. By having a lower consumption rate overall, you will, automatically, have fewer resources that need to be reused, repaired, or recycled.
I’m good with that. Done properly, the less usage should translate to lower prices. Though part of the price right here is not currently on the spreadsheet. The environmental cost of end of life is not part of the upfront cost, right now anyway…
Sounds like we should just tow life outside of the environment. Worked for that boat.
No economy involved. Reducing means reducing the amount of plastic in circulation (theoretically).
That I’m fine with. I’d like to go back to glass, wood and metal.
Hemp based materials is goat because glass and metal will be more expensive to ship.
Bottle/can locally. What would concern me about hemp is land use.
Yes, but hemp needs far fewer chemicals and it is biodegradable. Plus it needs far less land to produce fiber.
Less land to produce fiber compared to what? If it’s vertically farmed, I’d be happy with it. Though I’d move as much farming as I can to vertical farming to free up land for nature.
4x as much fiber per acre
Again, compared to what?
Metal-plastic is good friction pair
True, but it doesn’t count as reduce then.