A Problem With Plastic

[ParkCungHee]

It also means that we should use everything in our power (diplomacy, economics) to convince/force THEM to change their behavior too. Bring some international pressure to bear, for pete's sake

Please, theres about a million more important things to bring pressure to bear on China then pollution.

 

[Adebisi]

So let's hear it. To start off, some questions -

- do you think the oceanic garbage patches are acceptable consequences of our industrial civilization?

- if not, what can/should we do about it?

I think your view on this issue is a gross oversimplification. "Industrial civilization" = evil and leads to plastic garbage zones. There is an excellent solution to the problem of plastic garbage, and it is called waste burning. Plastic and other organic waste is a very good fuel, it can replace fossile energy such as coal, and it minimizes methane emissions from landfills (methane, formed in decomposition, is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, formed in combustion). The problem is that greens dont favor this solution, since it is too good. It can justify our huge consumption. So it is really the greens that cause dumping of plastics, and not our "civilization". This is the situation in Europe, I dont know about the US.

Solution:

Stop using plastics for everything. Glass is far more renewable and so is paper and metal.

It would also cheapen the cost of oil since so much of it is used in plastics.

Plastic is good and environmentally friendly.

Plastic melts and is processed at 100 degrees C, requiring little energy. Steel is produced from ore in blast furnaces, at temperatures of about 1800 degrees. Carbon is used as a reducing agent and carbon dioxide is produced in huge quantities as a byproduct. Steel melts and is processed at 1000 degrees. Glass is produced with temperatures of about 3000 degrees. Metal and glass are also a lot heavier than plastics, which leads to more fuel used for transports. Paper is also light but requires about ten times more energy.

Plastic is not all evil. PVC which is mentioned here has the good property that it doesn't burn (halogens have higher electronegativity than oxygen). Polystyrene is not a common plastic, global production consists of a few relativly small facilities around the world. Polyethene is by far the most common plastic, and often has no filles or additives, just pure hydrocarbon chains.

I seriously doubt that most plastic which has been made troughout history would still be around. There is very little conclusive evidence about exactly how inert polymers such as polyethene are in the long run. There are also plenty of biodegradable plastics. Collecting and recycling of plastics is perhaps not so common place among ordinary people, but in the industry it is done all the time. Manufacturers collect their products when their life times run out. Waste burning is also becoming more and more common.

In short, we should increase the use of plastics, since it is good for the environment, and plastics, along with other organic waste, should be used for energy production.

 

[ainwood]

Please, theres about a million more important things to bring pressure to bear on China then pollution.

Buts its hardly a binary issue, is it?

 

[Pokurcz]

Plastic eating bacteria? I believe there is a kind of bacteria one can use on oil spills...

 

[MrCynical]

Solution:

Stop using plastics for everything. Glass is far more renewable and so is paper and metal.

It would also cheapen the cost of oil since so much of it is used in plastics.

Snag is that plastics have many properties which cannot be supplied by paper, glass or metal. Glass is already used where practical for the reason it's dirt cheap, but it is too brittle and too heavy to substitute for plastic in most cases. Even in packaging the extra weight would make the decision extremely dubious. Metals are obviously unsuitable as insulators or where exposure to water is likely, and again are heavier. They are also much more expensive. Paper, much as it biodegrades nicely, is completely unsuitable as a substitute in most cases due to very poor strength.

There is an excellent solution to the problem of plastic garbage, and it is called waste burning. Plastic and other organic waste is a very good fuel, it can replace fossile energy such as coal, and it minimizes methane emissions from landfills (methane, formed in decomposition, is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, formed in combustion). The problem is that greens dont favor this solution, since it is too good. It can justify our huge consumption. So it is really the greens that cause dumping of plastics, and not our "civilization". This is the situation in Europe, I dont know about the US.

True, some plastics might be suitable for incineration (i.e. the pure hydrocarbons), but many contain other elements which will result in toxic byproducts (e.g. burning PVC has been shown to release dioxins, and possibly PCB, neither of which are remotely desirable). Even polyethene won't go cleanly to CO2 and H2O. In any case, given the vast majority of plastics ultimately originate from oil, it would seem best to boost recycling rather than incineration.

PVC which is mentioned here has the good property that it doesn't burn (halogens have higher electronegativity than oxygen).

Rather a nitpick I know, but I can't make sense of this comment. Only fluorine has a higher electronegativity than oxygen, and that is not present in PVC. Why would a lack of burning be desirable in PVC? In any case, as I've said PVC will burn, albeit with rather noxious products.

 

[Stylesrj]

Glass bottles? Trust me, I don't like glass bottles. Because some of them are in soft drinks and they're put into fridges. Now because of this, condensation causes the edges to be moist. Now because there's less friction between your hand which is gripping it and the glass edges. The bottle is more likely to slip and smash on the ground. You have to pay for the ruined drink, you don't get your drink and you have to buy another bottle, using up twice the resources than it would be if the bottle was plastic.

If you drop a plastic bottle, it'll crash on the ground, roll around a bit, make the drink unfizzy, but at least you don't have to pay for ruining it and you can get another bottle and not have to pay twice the amount.

Anyone up for an invasion of a Middle-Eastern country to get their oil to stop them make plastic and putting them in dumps?

 

[Adebisi]

True, some plastics might be suitable for incineration (i.e. the pure hydrocarbons), but many contain other elements which will result in toxic byproducts (e.g. burning PVC has been shown to release dioxins, and possibly PCB, neither of which are remotely desirable).

Halogens in plastics is of course a problem from a combustion point of view. If it can be avoided, PVC should not end up in burners, because it forms organic halides.

However, dioxins can be filtered. Tons of PVC is constantly burned in European boilers but the amounts of dioxins emitted are still low. PVC is also a rare plastic, most plastics are purely organic or contain harmless inorganic fillers.

Even polyethene won't go cleanly to CO2 and H2O.

In a large scale waste burner it will. Plastics should of course not be burned at home.

In any case, given the vast majority of plastics ultimately originate from oil, it would seem best to boost recycling rather than incineration.

Recycling and reuse might in some cases bring a net increase of carbon dioxide, due to higher energy consumption. Recycling is also difficult as different plastics have to be separated from each other. Recycling of specific products, encouraged by the manufacturer, works best.

Rather a nitpick I know, but I can't make sense of this comment. Only fluorine has a higher electronegativity than oxygen, and that is not present in PVC. Why would a lack of burning be desirable in PVC? In any case, as I've said PVC will burn, albeit with rather noxious products.

You are correct, I was oversimplifing a bit. Halogenated plastics generally do not burn however. I think the main reason is that halogens, primarily bromide which is used in flame retardants, competes with oxygen in radical reactions that are vital to compustion. The halogen atom deactivates the organic radicals and combustion halts. Plastics that do not burn are of course good since they prevent fires (which are of course great environmental hazards). Since bromide in TVs was forbidden in Sweden, the number of house fires caused by TVs increased dramatically.

Again, PVC will of course burn in a large scale burner (see above).

 

[ParkCungHee]

Buts its hardly a binary issue, is it?

To some extent it is. If you put pressure on a broad front, on everything you want a country to correct, you get no results, because you're demanding a complete restructuring of their society in an image we want. If we put pressure on a country for change in their racial, political, economical, domestic, foreign and ecological policies, what policies aren't we dictating? What reasons have they to reform? If you place emphasis on correcting a single issue say, their racial policy, then you can achieve results.
We're seeing the results of Broad front pressure in Iran:
"Change everything and give up your ambitions and then we'll talk to you."
versus specific issue pressure in the DPRK
"We don't want to change you government or its policies, but we want you to stop enriching uranium"
Which one worked better.

 

[Lotus49]

I happen to be allergic (and only allergic) to eating anything that has a dorsal fin. Even though I can handle mussels, clams, crab, shrimp, lobster, etc. - I just tend to simplify by staying away from all seafood. This just happens to be advantageous to my health, in the modern era, for a multitude of reasons.

Thanks for giving me yet another one.

 

[Adebisi]

Fish is good for your health regardless of pollutants. Fish that is sold has limits on concentrations of for example mercury, so it is safe to eat. I eat fish at least three times a week. It gives you fatty acids that are important for your brain.