I worked in packaging for 20 years. A bottle CAN be recycled indefinitely… if it’s made from GLASS.
Source: I worked 8 years for a glass bottle manufacturer.
The real key is local bottling where local production isn't possible.
Ship vats of Coca-Cola syrup to the 200 largest cities (more or less) in North America and create local bottle circulation.
Spice it up with local bottle designs or recycling marks. Now you've got novelty sales, collector sales, eco-conscious sales, 'support local' sales...
I am so confused. Isn't that the coca cola model? Each area has some coca cola bottling franchise that services them, and they already have regional differences.
Too bad most of those bottles got replaced with plastic completely disregarding the impact of the environment they are causing. Not to mention that glass also comes from abundant resources like sand and we don't risk running out of it anytime soon, the same can't be said for oil.
Not to mention that glass also comes from abundant resources like sand and we don't risk running out of it anytime soon
Is now a bad time to point out that not only is sand not as an abundant resource as you think, but we're actually running short of it?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a39880899/earth-is-running-out-of-sand/
https://theweek.com/news/science-health/960931/why-is-the-world-running-out-of-sand
Isn't this specifically about sand for construction which needs to be coarse enough? For glass packaging you melt that stuff anyway, SiO₂ is SiO₂. Also I imagine the amount of sand needed for glass bottles would be way smaller than what construction industry uses, even less so if you recycle.
Those glass bottles used to cause an awful lot of horrific deaths and injuries during handling, so from a safety perspective, there is no desire at all to return to glass. Glass bottles are also much heavier than plastic, so have a commensurate environmental impact due to the increased consumption of fossil fuels for shipping as well. Fixing the problems with plastic was a big PR win and saved companies millions in law suits and shipping costs. They won't go back to glass. The answer is probably re-usable plastic containers purchased by the customer and refilled at stores for the same price (or more) than when sold in disposable plastic packaging. Another PR win in the offing, no doubt.
The sad thing is that we don't even need 99.9% of this plastic in the first place. People were making disposable packaging, clothing, building materials etc out of non-toxic and biodegradable materials for most of history and it was fine. I seriously detest plastic and wish it was banned/not made unless for exceptional uses e.g replacement heart valves.
It feels inevitable that our descendents will eventually say "holy shit, you stored your FOOD in it?!", after we discover we've been literally killing ourselves the whole time
This is our version of ancient Romans using lead based makeup
Or them using asbestos for napkins and tablecloths, or lead pipes, or mercury in household paint. The Romans loved to use toxic stuff.
Descendants? On this planet?
In this economy?
Really. For the vast majority of packaging, what the fuck was wrong with just using cardboard? Even if 99.99999999% of the stuff winds up in a landfill, at least cardboard is theoretically renewable and will biodegrade in less than a thousand lifetimes.
Cardboard and paper bags went out of style because of the "save the rainforest" narrative. Even though most paper products are made from trees specifically grown to be harvested for their wood.
That's why we started using plastic bags at grocery stores, remember?
That was what they told us. The reason they actually did it was because they were giving us the bags and they cost a nickel. where plastic bags cost them 5 for a penny.
I think about this sort of thing from time to time, and every time I come to the same conclusion that manufacturers of bulk goods need to take more responsibility for the entire life cycle of their products. They're getting a free ride with municipalities stuck footing the bill for recycling plastics, and have zero incentive to solve the problem.
Let's say the city sent all the recyclables to some regional warehousing facility where they would get sorted by barcode according to manufacturer. Then the companies would be charged for storage and would have strong incentive to come collect their property before it really starts to pile up.
Initially, they will no doubt gripe about it, but in the long term, it may be a win-win in that if say Coca-Cola realizes it can get all its bottles back, it could switch to a more reusable design that could reduce bottling costs?
And like, when I bring it up people call me crazy.
as with anything that challenges the crappy status quo.
so frustrating
Penn and Teller did an episode of Bullshit on this in 2004. They also concluded that paper and glass recycling were similarly worse that throwing it away. Glass because the energy required to grind, melt, and separate the raw material, and paper because the process uses toxic solvents and produces just as much waste as throwing it away.
Also don't be fooled by people claiming plastics can be burnt cleanly. That's another myth that plastic producers push to prevent people reducing their plastic use.
I worked for a glass bottle manufacturer and using cullet (broken glass) lowers the melting point and saves a significant percentage of costs to heat the furnace. Before the lightweight single use bottles became the standard in the 80-90’s, bottles were thicker and heavier, made to be returned, washed and reused.
Yep. I've told people about that Bullshit episode so many times. I've even shown it to people. They don't believe anyone would lie about it and since the episode is so old new tech has to have fixed the issue!
Maybe it's energy intensive, but energy can be clean, especially now that renewable energy is starting to become the cheapest form of energy. You could even make up for the variance by only processing when there is an energy surplus.
it's not really difficult to recycle plastics (depolymerisation) - but it's not cheap to do it at scale and there really isnt any way to profit from it, so it's just not done.
This isn't an excuse to not recycle. The problem is not the very idea of recycling, but that things aren't made with it in mind. Everything should be designed for reuse, repair and recycling.
Why couldn't we switch back to glass as our primary container material? Wasn't that always fully recyclable?
Apparently we're running out of sand. That's going to make the transition to glass harder. I'm not saying I don't agree because I would definitely prefer glass than plastic.
For people that don’t want to read/don’t already know
It’s the types of sand, desert sand is useless
Good luck shipping stuff in glass packaging. Very heavy, extremely fragile, big, expensive. Glass is only worth it on reusable stuff. We need to find a good material for "throwaway" stuff. Eco plastic made from stuff like bamboo are great starting points. They feel like plastic even mcdonalds is using this material for their throwaway spoons. And it can't be that expensive or they wouldnt be using it for free spoons
We have known that less than 2% of plastic has been recycled for years. This isn't new news.
TerraCycle dumping "recycling" items in poor countries with inadequate regulations/enforcement (article in French). Moreover, a insightful documentary available on CBC The Recycling Myth regarding all the recycling fraud many multinational companies engages in.
It is not surprising to see environmental fraud happening so overtly under our nose or in plain sight in front of our eyes when there is little to no repercussions for doing so (legal or otherwise). I would even go as far as to suggest it is currently financially extremely profitable for corporation (and people) to lie about all the greewashing they carry out.
Youtube: The Recycling Myth
Figure out which ones lied. Then figure out the estimated cost of actually recovering and recycling plastics that weren't recycled. Then take that number, add 20% for "processing fees" and charge it to the companies, split up by their market caps.
Those companies will then go bankrupt and with the money they tried to pay Uncle Sam, said Uncle can buyout the remainder of the companies that are actually doing something worthwhile and operate them as a public trust.
Haven't we always known this? I remember some CBC News station out trackers on recycling and they watched pretty well all of it wind up in land fills and China.
a lot of people still don't know this.
i live in a small country in Asia and they love garbage here. you get a plastic cup and a plastic bag that has another plastic bag with a plastic ring so you can put it on your bike, and then you throw it in the street when you're done. they have sex with garbage. they eat garbage and then they puke the garbage up and then they eat it again and then they fuck it. they put garbage directly into the sewer drains. it's not just something that dick head kids are doing, it's something that everyone is doing because it's normal. they have no idea.
Can't we just force heavy taxation for the amount of plastics in products? That would force producers to look at alternatives to plastic for packaging.
I am always in shock when I buy some product and it has layers and layers of thick plastic to give the impression of some premium product. And sometimes I don't even have an alternative product to buy to avoid it since I only have 2 supermarkets in my area.
While I'm happy this is always getting more attention so we can soon ban more unnecessary plastics such as bottles and jars, it also seems slightly convenient for corporations that worsening trade relations with China is correlating with the decline in plastics popularity.
Eh, I'm just overthinking it.
I don't think it's so much that anyone lied about anything, it's that people have ignored two really huge contributing factors to the entire recycling cycle. Remember the three R's?
Reduce consumption. Reuse things that aren't damaged. Recycle when it becomes unusable.
Plastic containers don't need to be melted down and remade into anything; they can be cleaned and reused. But we just throw them away, or send them to be recycled immediately, and still consume more; completely ignoring the first two R's.
All these containers could be, and maybe should be, going back to the manufacturer they came from to be washed and reused. And we consumers could try and consume less things that come in such packaging or containers since that's the only way they will make fewer things in them, though that's easier said than done.
Plastic, which is made from oil and gas, is notoriously difficult to recycle. Doing so requires meticulous sorting, since most of the thousands of chemically distinct varieties of plastic cannot be recycled together. That renders an already pricey process even more expensive. Another challenge: the material degrades each time it is reused, meaning it can generally only be reused once or twice.
The industry has known for decades about these existential challenges, but obscured that information in its marketing campaigns, the report shows.
Nope, they just lied. It wasn't just that people weren't re-using, people ARE reusing plastic products. But industry lied about the viability and cost to recycle the material.
At a 1956 industry conference, the Society of the Plastics Industry, a trade group, told producers to focus on “low cost, big volume” and “expendability” and to aim for materials to end up “in the garbage wagon”.
Then they pushed non-reusability.
An internal 1986 report from the trade association the Vinyl Institute noted that “recycling cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution [to plastics], as it merely prolongs the time until an item is disposed of”.
Despite this knowledge, the Society of the Plastics Industry established the Plastics Recycling Foundation in 1984, bringing together petrochemical companies and bottlers, and launched a campaign focused on the sector’s commitment to recycling.
They've always known recycling to be a short term solution but hid that to get around the inevitable legislation against plastics.
Yet another instance of companies pushing the responsibility and onus onto private citizens. We pay for all the recycling infrastructure via taxes and waste fees. Yet more money thrown down the memory hole of greenwashing.
John Oliver had a good bit on this too...
Obviously NSFW for anyone unfamiliar with John Oliver:
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Industry insiders over the past several decades have variously referred to plastic recycling as “uneconomical”, said it “cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution”, and said it “cannot go on indefinitely”, the revelations show.
The authors say the evidence demonstrates that oil and petrochemical companies, as well as their trade associations, may have broken laws designed to protect the public from misleading marketing and pollution.
An internal 1986 report from the trade association the Vinyl Institute noted that “recycling cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution [to plastics], as it merely prolongs the time until an item is disposed of”.
Two years ago, California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, publicly launched an investigation into fossil fuel and petrochemical producers “for their role in causing and exacerbating the global plastics pollution crisis”.
A toxic train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, last February also catalyzed a movement demanding a ban on vinyl chloride, a carcinogen used to make plastic.
In 2023, New York state also filed a lawsuit against PepsiCo, saying its single-use plastics violate public nuisance laws, and that the company misled consumers about the effectiveness of recycling.
The original article contains 1,225 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This is going straight to my MP (UK) today, with an angry letter! Please do the same, wherever you are, that's the only power we have but it's quite potent if enough of us raise the point.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/