On plastics, Canada needs to listen to the science

[TylerM4]

I recently read an article about the use of recycled plastic to help build roads.

It was quite interesting and would certainly help with the waste.

So here's the problem with plastics: While they're easily recyclable - it's cheaper to make new than recycle. There's no end to what can or can't be done with most recycled plastics, but capitalism will always choose maximum profit until forced otherwise.

[Bsuds]

So here's the problem with plastics: While they're easily recyclable - it's cheaper to make new than recycle. There's no end to what can or can't be done with most recycled plastics, but capitalism will always choose maximum profit until forced otherwise.

I added a link to the article. You might find it interesting as there are benefits to using in roadways other than just recycling.

[Ka-El]

There's no end to what can or can't be done with most recycled plastics, but capitalism will always choose maximum profit until forced otherwise.

I think this could be why the article is asking if Canada is listening to the science. As both you and Bsuds have just
stated, there are likely countless uses for recycled plastic if we made the decision to employ them. We simply cannot
leave every economic/environmental/social decision to be made by some invisible hand in a free market

[hobbyguy]

There is no absolute.

The key is to avoid unnecessary plastics and reduce waste through a combination of efforts. Recycling is still horribly off the mark - only about 10-15% is actually recycled. Things like single use bags can be reduced significantly - as can many single use applications.

Packaging is another horrible waste of plastics as it is not applied rationally. Many products that are individually packaged don't need to be. I have grown to hate the hard plastic packaging that is ubiquitous.

[Catsumi]

Housing being built with plastic blocks. 2 min video. This might be good for public restrooms too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaxrixBFAic

Byfusion seems to be a leader in this technology

https://www.byfusion.com/

[cyruslosco66]

p

Well you sure fell for the marketing.

nope , i just quickly googled an example .

[GordonH]

I wonder how many hectares of hemp is needed for 1 keyboard.

I just see it.... food or a keyboard. lol

[Staredintoabyss]

Political parties and so called "leaders" don't follow science they engage in performative virtue gestures because that is what gets them elected.

Being anti-plastic was never about the science anymore than any number of other things in our current political and cultural landscape has been about what it is claimed to be about.

If we want better we need to stop being so easily emotionally manipulated and start calming down and engaging in real dialogue.

[cyruslosco66]

I wonder how many hectares of hemp is needed for 1 keyboard.

I just see it.... food or a keyboard. lol

how come your not asking that in the site c thread ? how much land is oil sand mining taking up in sq miles ? you can eat hemp plastic and you can eat hemp itself. how much ten 30 wt can you drink ?

[Sparki55]

I wonder how many hectares of hemp is needed for 1 keyboard.

I just see it.... food or a keyboard. lol

how come your not asking that in the site c thread ? how much land is oil sand mining taking up in sq miles ? you can eat hemp plastic and you can eat hemp itself. how much ten 30 wt can you drink ?

Because site C will provide lots of power in one centralized location.

What if instead of site c we dammed every single small creek in BC? That's what it's like to use hemp for plastic lol.

[TylerM4]

I think this could be why the article is asking if Canada is listening to the science. As both you and Bsuds have just
stated, there are likely countless uses for recycled plastic if we made the decision to employ them. We simply cannot
leave every economic/environmental/social decision to be made by some invisible hand in a free market

OK. I'd say that this isn't a problem with "not listening to science" tho, this is a socio-economic issue. We've been recycling plastics for decades, I think the ability to recycle is widely known already. Most plastic products come with a "recyclable" symbol right on them.

We as a society need to make a decision:
- Force plastic recycling in some way with understanding that this WILL drive up the cost of consumer goods.
- Decide to continue to turn a blind eye to the problem in favor of more consumerism and lower prices.

It's really no different than any other environmental discussion. "How much are we willing to pay/sacrifice to protect the environment?" "The science" doesn't really impact that discussion unless there's been some sort of recent scientific discovery that changes the nature of the discussion. That's not the case with plastics unfortunately.

[hobbyguy]

I think this could be why the article is asking if Canada is listening to the science. As both you and Bsuds have just
stated, there are likely countless uses for recycled plastic if we made the decision to employ them. We simply cannot
leave every economic/environmental/social decision to be made by some invisible hand in a free market

OK. I'd say that this isn't a problem with "not listening to science" tho, this is a socio-economic issue. We've been recycling plastics for decades, I think the ability to recycle is widely known already. Most plastic products come with a "recyclable" symbol right on them.

We as a society need to make a decision:
- Force plastic recycling in some way with understanding that this WILL drive up the cost of consumer goods.
- Decide to continue to turn a blind eye to the problem in favor of more consumerism and lower prices.

It's really no different than any other environmental discussion. "How much are we willing to pay/sacrifice to protect the environment?" "The science" doesn't really impact that discussion unless there's been some sort of recent scientific discovery that changes the nature of the discussion. That's not the case with plastics unfortunately.

In the end, it is a decision about short term versus long term.

If you check thrift stores, you will often find products that were made (some even in Canada) that are still fully functional after decades. Yes, those products were "more expensive", but not if one factors in longevity. Most of those products utilized much more metal in their construction while still having some plastic components where it made sense. In the long run, provided one doesn't fall into the trap of having to have "the latest and greatest", those higher quality products while costing more up front were actually lower cost.

There are many current consumer products that would benefit from fewer plastic parts to extend their lifespan.

The "enemy" of course, is "fashion". Somehow we, as a society, have lost the value of frugality. Many items in thrift stores are discarded because they are "out of style" or not "the latest and greatest" and not that old.

The other "enemy" in this planned obsolescence and lack of ability to repair. We have "energy star" standards, why not "longevity standards"? "Right to repair" legislation is a possibility as well. How many times have folks looked at fixing a minor issue with a fairly expensive product only to find that you can not buy parts?

So if we were to eliminate single use products as much as feasible, recycle more, and have "right to repair/longevity" standards - we could eliminate a significant portion of the problem without costing consumers more in the long run.

[TylerM4]

In the end, it is a decision about short term versus long term.

Yes, I mostly agree with you. This is taking the topic in a bit of a different direction - one of "don't throw so much away in the 1st place"

I think there's more to consider about that tho. Consider the following:
- Single use plastics are the #1 source of plastic waste today. Building a better quality plastic fork, beverage bottle, or take-out cup lid isn't going to reduce that plastic waste. If anything it'll increase it as more plastic is used to improve the quality.
- One of the big drivers behind poor quality is the public's desire to "have it all now". Many people would rather have 2 lower quality items today and nothing in a decade. Than to buy only one high quality now, and buy the 2nd a decade later - despite the fact that in the latter scenario you're better off in the long run. Often they don't even consider it when making a purchase. Many companies who used to build high quality products now sell garbage products - they couldn't compete despite having a better quality product.

[Staredintoabyss]

I think this could be why the article is asking if Canada is listening to the science. As both you and Bsuds have just
stated, there are likely countless uses for recycled plastic if we made the decision to employ them. We simply cannot
leave every economic/environmental/social decision to be made by some invisible hand in a free market

OK. I'd say that this isn't a problem with "not listening to science" tho, this is a socio-economic issue. We've been recycling plastics for decades, I think the ability to recycle is widely known already. Most plastic products come with a "recyclable" symbol right on them.

We as a society need to make a decision:
- Force plastic recycling in some way with understanding that this WILL drive up the cost of consumer goods.
- Decide to continue to turn a blind eye to the problem in favor of more consumerism and lower prices.

It's really no different than any other environmental discussion. "How much are we willing to pay/sacrifice to protect the environment?" "The science" doesn't really impact that discussion unless there's been some sort of recent scientific discovery that changes the nature of the discussion. That's not the case with plastics unfortunately.

Unfortunately we have been doing a lot of talking about recycling, a lot of advertising about it, but not much actual recycling or creation of any meaningful infrastructure to do so.

What we have been doing is sending all our plastic waste to poorer countries on empty cargo ships to have the sorting work done cheaply in Asia and a meaningful part of why this topic has come up again is that China no longer allows this practice.

Recycling has never really been taken all that seriously as a pursuit. It has been largely performative since the beginning.

I believe when the math was broken down Canada has only been recycling about 10% of what we could be, though I recommend you look it up for more detailed info.


Look at activism and what gets attention:

The young gentleman, Charles Moore, who invented a way to get plastic bottles out of the ocean is rarely recognized or spoken of despite being a true young environmental leader.

Greta who does little more than emote and agitate people while being flown and boated around by the rich gets unending recognition and attention despite doing essentially nothing material.

[GordonH]

I wonder how many hectares of hemp is needed for 1 keyboard.

I just see it.... food or a keyboard. lol

how come your not asking that in the site c thread ? how much land is oil sand mining taking up in sq miles ? you can eat hemp plastic and you can eat hemp itself. how much ten 30 wt can you drink ?

If you don’t know the answer just say so... removed