As I understand it only 10% of plastic is recyclable and that which is recyclable can only be used twice, the recycle triangles with numbers in don't actually indicate recyclability but the triangles are used by the plastics industry to imply that it does. The plastic industry together with the oil industry are so powerful that over the years have persuaded U.S governments to draft laws preventing the banning of plastic production, which isn't as mad as it might seem because it was the Government of the U.S.A who during WW2 were the ones who encouraged the chemical industry to develop plastics in the first place. Most "recycled" plastic either ends up in landfill or incinerated or in the sea. This is where we are now.
Who was talking micro plastics when plastics in clothes made them cheaper?.... When there was a choice between fossil fuel and electric cars - why did the individual then go fossil? Could the individual predict massive pollution and global warming? .... It could well be that an ingredient in my toothpaste has a catastrophic effect in 20 years - how would I know? .... What if solar panels cause disposal issues in 15 years?
I'm picking out a few elements too. The individual might cry "but I didn't know", but the companies and the industry cannot. That is the scandal and the cause of fury. There has been hard science for 60+ years that this was in progress. Oil companies knew, their own scientists knew, but they paid - and are still paying - for lobbying to block legislation and press companies to bad mouth the science; Just as the tobacco industry still insist they cause no harm and still lobby for their own interests. The difference is, while tobacco kills and injures billions, it's not so much threatening other species and life on earth.
The oil companies ferciously lobby govts to invest in road infrastructure over rail or public transport and other such 'communist' solutions. If there's an element in your toothpaste (or face scrub) that will cause problems (like plastic abrasion spheres) then it's up to the company's own scientists to investigate public safety and for govt legislation and quality standards to ferociously hold them to it (as Wild Edges says). Do not for a moment imagine that someone like Unilever haven't explored minutely every possible legal outcome for a new products, down to possible class actions 80 years from now.
Before the Blue Planet programme, all the coffee companies sold plastic lined cups and it was very hard to buy reusable ones. You couldn't buy paper drinking straws. All 'disposable' cutlery was plastic and cotton buds were universally plastic as well. Shampoo not in a plastic bottle was the preserve of a very small number of committed yoghurt knitters. Now - and it changed within a couple of years - even the supermarkets sell reusable coffee cups and many people routinely use them.
The infuriating thing is that all the tech was available for decades. I was lobbying for use of extant biodegradable plastics in 1998. My family were using solid shampoo bars and Fairtrade in 1979 through Traidcraft and later Cosmetics-to-Go. This stuff, like bamboo toothbrushes and solid shampoo, is pitched as some kind of tech innovation, when it's the most basic form you can get. SMs trumpet about string net produce bags as if it's somehow more innovative than plastic. You could go into health shops with your own pot in the 1970s and get loose grains and pulses etc from dispensers. The trade is set on convincing you that yogurt is somehow a modern invention.
I've found this thread so very interesting. I've been quite eco-conscious since I was around 17/18 (I'm now 36), and am still finding ways to reduce my impact/waste. These are just a few things I do:
Food - Buy seasonal veg from local farm shop. Occasional meat (2 times a week) from butchers. Try to avoid buying anything from oversees or if I do, it's a treat. Household cleaning - refillable liquids, compostable sponges, natural only. Kitchen - no clingfilm, I reuse plastic containers, cover bowls with fabric lids, use beeswax strips, resuable sandwich bags etc. If I get leftovers from the mother-in-law, I wipe a reuse her tinfoil for months! Bodycare - shampoo and soap bars, metal razer with recyclable blades; skincare in glass or metal containers, resuable face pads. Clothing - buy 90% secondhand, keep until it falls apart. If I buy new then I try to choose brands with eco credentials or at least choose things that will last/ I'll wear a long time. Garden - no pesticides. I use very little bottle feed. Reuse pots, mix shop bought (peat free) compost with own blend. General shopping - gifts for family/friends I buy from local or small businesses.
These may be small things, but they're all easy for many of us. I never understand people who say 'Why do any of that when there's one fat American driving around in a Hummer and eating 50 burgers a week'. I think it's akin to saying 'Why be a non-racist person when so many other people are racist'. It's a matter of ethics and living a life I can feel proud of.
"If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need"
But don't you end up just getting the latest fad - that in 50 years time is seen as a problem? Did anyone know that plastic in clothes was an issue? How could an individual know? Stretchy comfortable jeans? Bamboo socks?
I mentioned toothpaste - simply because they put plastic beads even in that. And that is is the past few years. I didn't want it. I want toothpaste - yes. I want something to wear - yes.
I think what gets lost here is that it was never the common man who thought the world was flat. He didn't care . He just wanted to live past the winter and to have his crops grow. The brains argued over that, over the universe - and the same brains invented stuff to make life easier and better. The common man is still the same. He just wants to live and will buy whatever is recommended at that point in time.
'...The EU, meanwhile, requires manufacturers to collect and recycle used
solar panels and fund research on end-of-life solutions for the
technology they produce....'
Good eh? At last a group with sense.Are we still part of that?
Nanny Beach said that she's going solar and looking at batteries. Look at the numbers. We are a small country of 70 million people, 32 million cars, 30 million+ households. What if you now have that many batteries required to be recycled every n years? Does the recycling hold up when you get to scale? What about 1.2 billion? 5 billion? 7 billion?
I'm not arguing that it's not sensible to move, but I really think view longer than a Gov term in office is required. The world is vastly tooo small for single govs to plan this.
I still think all items should have their recycling costs included in their price and the recycling to be mandatory for the manufacturer. And the recycling to be done - not just shipped elsewhere in some form of carbon excahnge.
A lot of interesting points of view. One thing I personally feel that was learnt from lockdown is that a government can order a population to do something whether we agree or not. (First few months anyway!) So with that in mind any power in charge could ban any number of products that cause damage immediately. But they don't. Peat compost for example! Everybody just do the small things we can and try not to suffer from anxiety or stress that can arise from blaming oneself for living! Try to be happy please. 😊
To answer the original question - we've done the most meaningful thing possible. We decided not to have any children. I'm guessing I won't win any friends for pointing it out but, as unpalatable as it is, the unchecked growth of the human population far outweighs any other threat to the planet.
The problem with focussing solely on population is not so much that it is unpalatable, as that it is a partial solution too often presented as the prime solution, which can undermine other action...
Having said that, I do have great respect for the decision not to have a child in order to help save the planet. I recommend Kanalamani's book 'Other Than Mother' for a good exploration of this issue from an ecopsychological perspective...
government can order a population to do something whether we agree or not... So with that in mind any power in charge could ban any number of products that cause damage immediately.
Tight national and international regulation is undoubtedly where the power is. Unfortunately people start howling about the personal right to die and North Korea if asked even to wear a mask in public. Neo-con economics ferociously promotes the idea of personal sovereignty and individual consumerism over public good. "No such thing as society" etc.
Much like guns in the US, consumers here will shout
"you will have to take my skis from my cold, dead hands" (I'm quoting).
Isn't the problem then in the market? I'll harp on again - the market doesn't care. The market is about money, so as long as money is made, the market continues doing whatever it is the market is doing. What the market does may be good or bad.
The individual by-and-large just consumes. If tomorrow, all fresh veg came in paper bags lined with plastic, the consumer would buy them - as the assumption (in general) would be that it can't be sold if it's a problem. So to me (and I have a simplistic view) the problem has always been with manufacturer and business. Gov needs to put the onus back where it belongs. It's not all about the consumer recycling - it's about the manufacturer making sure their items are recyclable and recycled. You can't have recyclable items and then not recycle them. If the cost of product then increases, then that is the true cost of the product isn't it? A product has a life - like a human - and it has costs associated with it. To ignore the cost at point of 'death' is what is causing the issue.
New nuclear? Fine. What is the cost of disposing of the rods and de-commissioning the plant when it reaches EOL - that is part of the cost of the electricity generated. Ditto windfarms, solar - any energy source.
What's a guppy bag? (I googled it) And what micro particles does that give off and what damage do they do? What happens with polyamides - am I, as a consumer, supposed to know? Are polyamide particles better or worse than plastic - and who knows that? I don't. Do I have to put one over my head to stop breathing micro plastics given off by my clothes? What about cleaning my teeth or making my tea? Do I put my toothpaste and tea bag in a mini guppy bag? If I, as a consumer, accept polyamide - isn't that what's got us here and my point exactly? Why would a consumer know about polyamide - they consume.
If micro plastics are a problem - then it is NOT the consumer who needs to take action - it should be the manufacturer. Their products cause damage and should not be available - you cannot expect consumers to research what potential damage any new product MAY do. That is insane. The foresight has to be with the manufacturer - as by the time it is realised their products are a problem, the damage has been done.
I feel that there's been a massive spin here - that pollution is the consumers' fault. No. The consumer buys a product. The product is the problem. No consumer knows what product will surface tomorrow and what their potential pitfalls are. They don't research, they don't know the issues of recycling component x over component y. The manufacturer must do that.
You say about not using plastic cups for coffee - now - but for how long were plastic coffee cups in use - and how many million sit at the bottom of an ocean?
I can't repeat this often enough - the world has changed. The rate of development of new materials has gone through the roof. Up until 100+ years back the materials man had were largely natural. Govs have to control the market - not the other way round - as govs are supposed to care, but markets aren't. If no one looks at manufacture and controls what they can or can't do, today we worry about plastics, and tomorrow who knows what.
Posts
The infuriating thing is that all the tech was available for decades. I was lobbying for use of extant biodegradable plastics in 1998. My family were using solid shampoo bars and Fairtrade in 1979 through Traidcraft and later Cosmetics-to-Go. This stuff, like bamboo toothbrushes and solid shampoo, is pitched as some kind of tech innovation, when it's the most basic form you can get. SMs trumpet about string net produce bags as if it's somehow more innovative than plastic. You could go into health shops with your own pot in the 1970s and get loose grains and pulses etc from dispensers. The trade is set on convincing you that yogurt is somehow a modern invention.
Food - Buy seasonal veg from local farm shop. Occasional meat (2 times a week) from butchers. Try to avoid buying anything from oversees or if I do, it's a treat.
Household cleaning - refillable liquids, compostable sponges, natural only.
Kitchen - no clingfilm, I reuse plastic containers, cover bowls with fabric lids, use beeswax strips, resuable sandwich bags etc. If I get leftovers from the mother-in-law, I wipe a reuse her tinfoil for months!
Bodycare - shampoo and soap bars, metal razer with recyclable blades; skincare in glass or metal containers, resuable face pads.
Clothing - buy 90% secondhand, keep until it falls apart. If I buy new then I try to choose brands with eco credentials or at least choose things that will last/ I'll wear a long time.
Garden - no pesticides. I use very little bottle feed. Reuse pots, mix shop bought (peat free) compost with own blend.
General shopping - gifts for family/friends I buy from local or small businesses.
These may be small things, but they're all easy for many of us. I never understand people who say 'Why do any of that when there's one fat American driving around in a Hummer and eating 50 burgers a week'. I think it's akin to saying 'Why be a non-racist person when so many other people are racist'. It's a matter of ethics and living a life I can feel proud of.
I have a dream that my.. children.. one day.. will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character
Martin Luther KingI'm not arguing that it's not sensible to move, but I really think view longer than a Gov term in office is required. The world is vastly tooo small for single govs to plan this.
I still think all items should have their recycling costs included in their price and the recycling to be mandatory for the manufacturer. And the recycling to be done - not just shipped elsewhere in some form of carbon excahnge.
So with that in mind any power in charge could ban any number of products that cause damage immediately. But they don't. Peat compost for example!
Everybody just do the small things we can and try not to suffer from anxiety or stress that can arise from blaming oneself for living!
Try to be happy please. 😊