The truth about soft plastic recycling points at supermarkets(everydayplastic.org)
everydayplastic.org
The truth about soft plastic recycling points at supermarkets
https://www.everydayplastic.org/softplastic
170 comments
In a world of climate change, best bet is too keep the carbon out of the air. That's why the landfill is the best place for plastic, where it won't bother anyone and definitely won't contribute to increasing the global average temperature.
In fuel pellet form, isn’t it a more-or-less direct substitute for oil or coal that would have been burned anyway? So until the grid fully eliminates other petroleum products from the mix, isn’t this more or less a similar carbon cost, with the added benefit of less landfill impact?
What’s wrong with recycling the plastic into energy?
What’s wrong with recycling the plastic into energy?
How energy-positive is incinerating the plastic when it needs dedicated collection, sorting, processing into pellets, and specialized incineration to scrub waste gasses, compared to collecting natural gas and burning it?
The difference is what determines whether burying or burning the plastic is better from a C02 emission standpoint.
Also, if we don't have enough plastic to completely offset the need for natural gas energy production, then the biggest cost of natural gas- the drilling and transporting- isn't a part of the equation.
The difference is what determines whether burying or burning the plastic is better from a C02 emission standpoint.
Also, if we don't have enough plastic to completely offset the need for natural gas energy production, then the biggest cost of natural gas- the drilling and transporting- isn't a part of the equation.
Natural gas wells go dry eventually, and new sites need to be developed. Slowing down the consumption is still a win on reducing the environment disruption of both land filling, and running new facilities to get to new natural gas deposits.
For a CO2 emission stand point, there is still a lot of trucking of waste if it is getting land filled, plus land filling needs to burn a lot of diesel for creating and operating landfills. Burning plastic also likely more energy positive than going through the washing cycle to get food residue off containers to get them clean enough to use. You can just burn the food residue.
For a CO2 emission stand point, there is still a lot of trucking of waste if it is getting land filled, plus land filling needs to burn a lot of diesel for creating and operating landfills. Burning plastic also likely more energy positive than going through the washing cycle to get food residue off containers to get them clean enough to use. You can just burn the food residue.
On the other hand, dumping garbage isn't free, either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx_dZawN44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx_dZawN44
Most definitions of “recycle” are from the recycling of glass, aluminium, paper etc - they involve the material being reused in approximately the same form.
Being “burned” is how most English speakers would describe being “recycled into energy”
Being “burned” is how most English speakers would describe being “recycled into energy”
When people think of burning, they think of a trash / leaf pile in a yard, not an arc reactor or modern turbinrengine; but that doesn't mean we don't fly jet engines or run power plants
Burning is the how, but turning it into useful energy is the what. When I think of burning waste, I think of burn pits: making the stuff go away, but not making anything new with it. This seems different from that (and even a clean, high-temperature incinerator, one that fully combusts everything, is a different beast from a smoggy sooty open burn).
Of course glass, aluminum, and paper aren’t made of lightly-modified oil: they’re not all that useful as far as producing energy, nor can they substitute for new extraction of an energy resource.
I guess you could process paper into pulp pellets for fuel, and by instead turning paper into slightly-crappier paper you cut out a highly intensive transformation from timber to paper. But for plastics, isn’t the transformation from oil to plastic relatively minor?
Why is it especially virtuous for the end recycled product to be a structural product as opposed to a fuel product? Especially when it’s substituting for existing petroleum-based production, and unlikely ever to drive demand of its own? And why would burying it in the ground compare favorably to either?
Of course glass, aluminum, and paper aren’t made of lightly-modified oil: they’re not all that useful as far as producing energy, nor can they substitute for new extraction of an energy resource.
I guess you could process paper into pulp pellets for fuel, and by instead turning paper into slightly-crappier paper you cut out a highly intensive transformation from timber to paper. But for plastics, isn’t the transformation from oil to plastic relatively minor?
Why is it especially virtuous for the end recycled product to be a structural product as opposed to a fuel product? Especially when it’s substituting for existing petroleum-based production, and unlikely ever to drive demand of its own? And why would burying it in the ground compare favorably to either?
This seems like a plausible argument, but you can extend it to any source of fossil fuels. What's wrong with providing oil from my oil well, since it's a substitute for oil or coal from another provider that would have been burnt anyway?
At the margin, some of it must be competing with renewables. Additional supply of fossil fuels - cheap, or even negatively priced - must drive down the price of energy and make investment in renewables less attractive.
Incinerating plastics is only good if landfill is bad. Landfill really seems like it could be made cheap and safe: a landfill of a single cubic mile would last the US for 20 years.
At the margin, some of it must be competing with renewables. Additional supply of fossil fuels - cheap, or even negatively priced - must drive down the price of energy and make investment in renewables less attractive.
Incinerating plastics is only good if landfill is bad. Landfill really seems like it could be made cheap and safe: a landfill of a single cubic mile would last the US for 20 years.
>What’s wrong with recycling the plastic into energy?
Anything that vents ancient buried carbon into the atmosphere is wrong.
Anything that vents ancient buried carbon into the atmosphere is wrong.
[deleted]
This is more or less what SimCity tried to teach us all along, wasn’t it?
I generally agree - unless you have access to recycling that will actually reclaim the plastic to make other plastic things (like LDPE/HDPE tubs into plastic lumber, or better yet actually circular recycling like PETE clamshells chipped up to be made into more clamshells). That also keeps the carbon locked up, and doesn't require more oil to make virgin plastic for the same jobs.
What fraction of all total soft plastic is collected by supermarket take back schemes compared to road side curb collection (where only 10% of municipalities "support" its recycling)?
I have a strong prior that they can achieve such high numbers only because they only capture a small amount of the total amount of soft plastic waste. If they had to deal with it all there wouldn't be enough demand to burn or recycle and it would end up buried. This is somewhat supported by the fact that by official definitions supermarket take back schemes are not counted in official recyclability numbers:
> Soft plastic collected via supermarket collection points does not satisfy this definition [of working at scale] and therefore was not counted towards WRAP’s UK Plastics Pact recyclability target.
I have a strong prior that they can achieve such high numbers only because they only capture a small amount of the total amount of soft plastic waste. If they had to deal with it all there wouldn't be enough demand to burn or recycle and it would end up buried. This is somewhat supported by the fact that by official definitions supermarket take back schemes are not counted in official recyclability numbers:
> Soft plastic collected via supermarket collection points does not satisfy this definition [of working at scale] and therefore was not counted towards WRAP’s UK Plastics Pact recyclability target.
Supermarkets collect carrier bags and bread bags. Road side collection doesn't, at least not anywhere I've lived. I'd guess that close to 100% of the soft plastic collected is collected by supermarkets.
No, the other 30% was "down cycled". 0% were recycled into something that had as much value as the original material.
Yes, but it's not reasonable to expect these bags to be recycled in the same value level - the bags are dyed, contaminated with additives and other recyclables etc. Plus, if they are recycled into fabrics that prevent the use of virgin plastics of fabrics, it still has reduce eco footprint vs landfill or incineration.
All of which to say is "downcycled" is still better than nothing. Although, in a sense the real nothing - not having a wasted bag in the first place - would be the real solution.
All of which to say is "downcycled" is still better than nothing. Although, in a sense the real nothing - not having a wasted bag in the first place - would be the real solution.
I mean if you frame it like that sure. I'd frame it like: we extract dino juice that's hundred millions of years in the making, process the shit out of it to make an item that will be used once, and which we probably could get by without, then burn it
It's tree fern juice that exists today because fungi weren't around to turn it into CO2 back then.
I think the results of soft plastic recycling are highly dependant on the country doing it. In New Zealand, soft plastics are mostly recycled into fence posts, which last 50+ years and are every bit as good (or better) than treated timber [0].
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t reduce our soft plastic use, but - like all recycling - you need to do a bit of research and think about it, instead of adopting a “recycling is good”/“recycling is a myth” mentality.
0. https://www.futurepost.co.nz/
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t reduce our soft plastic use, but - like all recycling - you need to do a bit of research and think about it, instead of adopting a “recycling is good”/“recycling is a myth” mentality.
0. https://www.futurepost.co.nz/
Plastic recycling is a drop of water in an ocean of plastic.
> In New Zealand, soft plastics are mostly recycled into fence posts
The latest (2025-01) official report[^1] I could found states that the recycling of plastics in NZ is poorly known. On page 135, it mentions the report "OPMCSA plastics research (2019)" as the reference in the domain.
According to that 2019 study[^2], the plastics used each year weight more than 700k t. Much more, because this ignores packaged imports, construction and agriculture. 31% of plastics imported are LDPE (so around 170k t), which is mainly used for producing soft plastics.
Out of those 600+k t/year, 380k t go to landfill waste, and 45k t are collected for recycling. Assuming generously that 50% of those intended for recycling are actually recycled, I'd estimate that 1.7 to 3% of the yearly NZ plastics are recycled.
Here's a quote about soft plastics:
[^1]: https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/New-Zealand-...
[^2]: https://www.pmcsa.ac.nz/topics/rethinking-plastics/quantifyi...
> In New Zealand, soft plastics are mostly recycled into fence posts
The latest (2025-01) official report[^1] I could found states that the recycling of plastics in NZ is poorly known. On page 135, it mentions the report "OPMCSA plastics research (2019)" as the reference in the domain.
According to that 2019 study[^2], the plastics used each year weight more than 700k t. Much more, because this ignores packaged imports, construction and agriculture. 31% of plastics imported are LDPE (so around 170k t), which is mainly used for producing soft plastics.
Out of those 600+k t/year, 380k t go to landfill waste, and 45k t are collected for recycling. Assuming generously that 50% of those intended for recycling are actually recycled, I'd estimate that 1.7 to 3% of the yearly NZ plastics are recycled.
Here's a quote about soft plastics:
In 2017, 365 tonnes of soft plastics were recycled – but a lack of recycling market for these plastics meant that in the following year, plastic was stockpiled whilst new onshore markets were developed and a percentage of non-conforming plastic was landfilled.
[^1]: https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/New-Zealand-...
[^2]: https://www.pmcsa.ac.nz/topics/rethinking-plastics/quantifyi...
My wording was poor - I meant to write "most soft plastics that were recycled, were recycled into fence posts". Not that most soft plastic was recycled.
I'm not disagreeing with any of what you have posted.
For reference, the 52 posts that I have on my property are constructed from more milk bottles and soft plastic than I will ever consume in my lifetime. It's a drop in the bucket, but it's significant to me.
I'm not disagreeing with any of what you have posted.
For reference, the 52 posts that I have on my property are constructed from more milk bottles and soft plastic than I will ever consume in my lifetime. It's a drop in the bucket, but it's significant to me.
Making fenceposts out of a mystery plastic sludge isn’t recycling, it’s downcycling
The plastics used aren't a mystery - the outer parts of the posts (the bit that's exposed) are made from milk bottles. The resulting product is something that is useful to me and to the other people that buy it. Without it, I'd buy a treated timber post, which also has an environmental cost (different trade-offs). Is it down-cycling when the resulting product is more useful that the products it was composed of?
Just a clarification: in NZ most soft plastics are sent to landfill, regardless of what happens to most of the plastic that is actually recycled. We're pretty bad for general recycling and really bad for plastic recycling. Most soft plastics here are from agriculture so it's probably a more solvable problem than if it was weighted towards domestic waste, but farming often manages to lobby their way out of regulation.
Sorry - yes. What I meant to say was "most soft plastics that are recycled, are recycled into fence posts".
>which last 50+ years
So it takes 50+ years for UV, rain and wind to turn it into microplastic mush? Sounds like a great product!
So it takes 50+ years for UV, rain and wind to turn it into microplastic mush? Sounds like a great product!
No one (including the manufacturer) knows how long it will last - 50 years is as far as accelerated aging can test to. You're assuming they split or break apart. The posts themselves are recyclable, so maybe in 50 years someone can pull them out of the ground and recycle them?
The point is that we know the weathering process will shed microplastics.
https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-ever...
https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-ever...
Absolutely, and they admit this themselves. From their FAQ:
"the rate of degradation is very, very slow – untreated plastics of the type used in Future Posts degrade in the environment by 1.3um to 22um (0.0013mm/year to 0.022 mm/year for HDPE and LDPE respectively). For the mix of plastics typically in a Future Post, that means the post will degrade at a rate of around 10% of thickness of a hair every year"
"the rate of degradation is very, very slow – untreated plastics of the type used in Future Posts degrade in the environment by 1.3um to 22um (0.0013mm/year to 0.022 mm/year for HDPE and LDPE respectively). For the mix of plastics typically in a Future Post, that means the post will degrade at a rate of around 10% of thickness of a hair every year"
Think about what you’re writing and compare that to your experience with any non-uv stabilised plastic that has spent its life in the sun. For someone who implores for people to “think about it” you sure seem extremely easy to convince with a bit of marketing fluff
I'm not convinced - I'm still thinking about it even now! The plastics, treatments, geometry etc make the posts quite different from the kind of plastics we find falling apart on the roadside etc.
Yes, very dependent on the market.
In some East African markets that don't have much history of recycling, Kubik [0] has a neat model of employing folks to recover plastic waste from landfills which are then used to creating building materials
0. https://www.buildkubik.com/
0. https://www.buildkubik.com/
In Australia a company called REDcycle supposedly recycled soft plastics from all the major supermarkets. After a decade or so operating the business collapsed and it was discovered that they had about 11,000 tonnes of the stuff stockpiled in 40+ warehouses across the country because they hadn't figured out how to recycle it.
And how is that a bad thing?
Instead of being in a landfill and leaching microplastics it's all bundled up and contained. I don't really understand this defeatist attitude where if something is not perfect we should drop it all together. From my point of view any effort at sorting trash is beneficial to the ecosystem because even if we don't have a method to deal with the problem now, we can wait a generation or two for technology to improve.
Instead of being in a landfill and leaching microplastics it's all bundled up and contained. I don't really understand this defeatist attitude where if something is not perfect we should drop it all together. From my point of view any effort at sorting trash is beneficial to the ecosystem because even if we don't have a method to deal with the problem now, we can wait a generation or two for technology to improve.
Some cynics think the plastic industry supports sham “recycling” efforts that don’t actually work, in order to alleviate customer guilt and forestall a ban or mandatory reformulation.
The bad thing, in this line of thought, is that we’re being lied to and taken for fools. Tricked into buying things we’re promised are recyclable when they’re not.
The bad thing, in this line of thought, is that we’re being lied to and taken for fools. Tricked into buying things we’re promised are recyclable when they’re not.
A couple of Intercept articles that seemingly reflect this view.
[0] https://archive.md/mhLWt
specifically "The Recyclable Scam" section
[1] https://archive.md/jCIid
"The promised advanced recycling for plastic but delivered toxic waste"
[0] https://archive.md/mhLWt
specifically "The Recyclable Scam" section
[1] https://archive.md/jCIid
"The promised advanced recycling for plastic but delivered toxic waste"
> I don't really understand this defeatist attitude where if something is not perfect we should drop it all together.
No it shouldn't be dropped. But it certainly should be fixed. It's a bit disrespectful to the consumer to make them drag their plastic back to the store only for them to end up in the same place as their trash bin. That's the kind of thing that creates environmental apathy. Which makes it harder to drive change. People don't like being lied to.
No it shouldn't be dropped. But it certainly should be fixed. It's a bit disrespectful to the consumer to make them drag their plastic back to the store only for them to end up in the same place as their trash bin. That's the kind of thing that creates environmental apathy. Which makes it harder to drive change. People don't like being lied to.
>> Instead of being in a landfill and leaching microplastics
I want plastic to be in landfill leaching microplastics.
The idea of storing all waste plastic in warehouses is impractical, it has to go somewhere.
Where do you want it leached to, if not into the contained area of a landfill? Do you want it somewhere in the environment?
And I’m pretty sure landfills are toxic anyway.
I want plastic to be in landfill leaching microplastics.
The idea of storing all waste plastic in warehouses is impractical, it has to go somewhere.
Where do you want it leached to, if not into the contained area of a landfill? Do you want it somewhere in the environment?
And I’m pretty sure landfills are toxic anyway.
It's bad because they were committing fraud.
In what way? Do you know if they were contractually obligated to the municipalities to "recycle" the plastic?
They were stockpiling the plastics without the required permits and then once one warehouse was discovered, not disclosing the others https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/23/envir...
Thank you, that's a good reference.
They tried to keep it secret that they were storing the garbage instead of recycling it. The trash still needs to be disposed. Your response is to question whether this was fraud and a bad thing. That’s a weird response.
The costs of storing more and more plastics will only increase, storage is cheap at first, and that's why they did that, and when it starts getting expensive, they abandon ship. It is either classic fraud or incompetence.
These plastics will have to be dealt with eventually, recycling, burning or burying them. Waiting is just a waste of money. If we wait "a generation of two", we will be drowning in warehouses full of plastics like over-ground, inadequate and expensive landfills.
These are plastics, not nuclear waste. The "wait and see" strategy works for nuclear waste works because such waste is compact, hazardous and potentially very valuable. It also decays naturally, so the simple act of waiting makes it less hazardous. Plastic waste is the opposite of that: bulky, relatively harmless, mostly worthless, and it becomes worse as it degrades.
These plastics will have to be dealt with eventually, recycling, burning or burying them. Waiting is just a waste of money. If we wait "a generation of two", we will be drowning in warehouses full of plastics like over-ground, inadequate and expensive landfills.
These are plastics, not nuclear waste. The "wait and see" strategy works for nuclear waste works because such waste is compact, hazardous and potentially very valuable. It also decays naturally, so the simple act of waiting makes it less hazardous. Plastic waste is the opposite of that: bulky, relatively harmless, mostly worthless, and it becomes worse as it degrades.
It’s a shame about Redcycle.
However since then many small cycle plastic to oil (Pyrolysis) plants have popped up, which are set to scale up. This reclaimed oil will be used to create new plastic.
Australia is targeting 50% recycled content in its packaging by this year.
However since then many small cycle plastic to oil (Pyrolysis) plants have popped up, which are set to scale up. This reclaimed oil will be used to create new plastic.
Australia is targeting 50% recycled content in its packaging by this year.
Around 2015 China stopped buying much of the worlds' plastic refuse which caused most municipal waste recycling programs in America to shut down. Since then it's sort of just been thrown away because plastic is really hard to recycle into something equally useful, in a way that does not just add more pollution. Even LEGO won't use recycled plastic.
The solution is to move away as much as possible from disposable, and most forms of consumer and retail plastic. It has invaluable uses, but there is simply too much and it's polluting faster than we can clean it.
The solution is to move away as much as possible from disposable, and most forms of consumer and retail plastic. It has invaluable uses, but there is simply too much and it's polluting faster than we can clean it.
LEGO is well known for using high quality extremely durable and long lasting plastic in their products so saying even LEGO doesn't use recycled plastics seems painfully apparent. There are other children's toy brands that do use recycled plastics.
The safest place for waste plastic is in a landfill.
Landfill is not a demon.
Landfill contains the toxicity.
The obsession with recycling plastic leads to unintended consequences.
For example some countries put waste plastic in roads, where cars and trucks grind it out into microplastic that go into air water food animals dust adults and children. Parts of India require this by law.
The entire concept of recycling plastic is ridiculously false and is perpetuated by the plastic packaging companies so you won’t question the infinite firehose of plastic packaging they are blasting into every part of the earth.
What exactly is all this plastic being recycled into? I certainly hope not food containers. The real answer is “not much”, because there’s zero match between the output of the plastics packaging industry and the “recycling”. Go ahead try to make a list of what could possibly be made from the gagillion tons of new plastic packaging. It’s fiction.
Why are we so desperate to “keep things out of landfill”?
Landfill is where plastic should go.
I personally throw all my plastic waste not in the recycle bin, but in the waste bin, to ensure it goes to landfill, and because I don’t want to be part of the lie that is plastic recycling.
Landfill is not a demon.
Landfill contains the toxicity.
The obsession with recycling plastic leads to unintended consequences.
For example some countries put waste plastic in roads, where cars and trucks grind it out into microplastic that go into air water food animals dust adults and children. Parts of India require this by law.
The entire concept of recycling plastic is ridiculously false and is perpetuated by the plastic packaging companies so you won’t question the infinite firehose of plastic packaging they are blasting into every part of the earth.
What exactly is all this plastic being recycled into? I certainly hope not food containers. The real answer is “not much”, because there’s zero match between the output of the plastics packaging industry and the “recycling”. Go ahead try to make a list of what could possibly be made from the gagillion tons of new plastic packaging. It’s fiction.
Why are we so desperate to “keep things out of landfill”?
Landfill is where plastic should go.
I personally throw all my plastic waste not in the recycle bin, but in the waste bin, to ensure it goes to landfill, and because I don’t want to be part of the lie that is plastic recycling.
You conveniently leave out the negative effect of landfills on people and the environment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill
Only PET can be recycled. Here in Zurich all other plastic is incinerated to produce power and the CO2 captured and sent to greenhouses and also sold to soda bottlers.
They do say that 30% of it is "downcycled" into lower grade products. That sounds like a win to me (although obviously not completely circular).
I'm OK with burning it in power plants. Polyethylene has 4-5x higher energy content than lignite.
Instead of digging up lignite to burn, and putting plastic in the ground as landfill, just burn the plastic and leave the lignite in the ground. Easy peasy.
Instead of digging up lignite to burn, and putting plastic in the ground as landfill, just burn the plastic and leave the lignite in the ground. Easy peasy.
Surely the choice is not only between digging up lignite and putting plastic in the ground. We can also leave the lignite alone, put the plastic in the landfill, and not increase the concentration of CO2 in the air.
Yes, we could stop using fossil fuels.
But that isn't going to happen.
Edit: Well, not voluntarily.
But that isn't going to happen.
Edit: Well, not voluntarily.
Sure, you just need to make sure that wherever it's being burned isn't just sending the byproducts into the air, because when you burn plastic, you get a lot of crap coming off it from incomplete combustion which isn't particularly healthy
Thats a solved issue.
That's not true when burning in a power plant. Incomplete combustion is caused by insufficient airflow.
I hope you have excellent regulations and unyielding oversight with strict fines from the government level to maintain accountability and keep it that way, otherwise... optimizing for cost.
A powerplant is optimizing for producing the most energy from their feedstock. Incomplete combustion means they would be throwing out usable energy, that they could earn money from.
Complete burn is not guaranteed to be 100% clean. If you don't filter coal plants you get all the nasty up in the air.
If you could burn something at a level you don't need exhaust filters, and that even doesn't clean up all the harmful particles, we'd be building coal plants everywhere, rendering PV and renewables (and even nuclear) research unnecessary.
If you could burn something at a level you don't need exhaust filters, and that even doesn't clean up all the harmful particles, we'd be building coal plants everywhere, rendering PV and renewables (and even nuclear) research unnecessary.
You throw out usable energy every time you fill your car's tank - unless you shake the handle vigorously and wait several seconds to make sure every last drop made it into your tank.
Likewise, power plants won't spend inordinate amounts of effort to get every last drop burned.
Likewise, power plants won't spend inordinate amounts of effort to get every last drop burned.
Only up to a point, there’s always a tradeoff which limits economic efficiency below theoretical limits.
This is very pie in the skyish.
If only humans operated as you suggest.
If only humans operated as you suggest.
> Incomplete combustion is caused by insufficient airflow.
In fact it's often due to insufficient temperature, that can be caused by excessive airflow.
But that's right that a power plants (in a country with good enough environmental regulation) shouldn't have this kind of problem.
In fact it's often due to insufficient temperature, that can be caused by excessive airflow.
But that's right that a power plants (in a country with good enough environmental regulation) shouldn't have this kind of problem.
Also post-processing any exhaust is much simpler when you have large enough scale. And incinerator powerplants can get to that point.
Even with complete combustion, the byproducts are CO2 and H2O. And power plants won't get extra profit from dealing with the CO2
Trex makes composite decking planks from recycled shopping bags. Seems like a perfect use for the material. Its durable. It doesn’t have to be sterile or pure. Apparently 100,000 bags will go into a typical deck.
https://nextrex.com/
Having said that I don’t see what’s wrong with incineration if it’s done correctly. It’s not open pit burning, with waste gases going into the environment. It’s high temperature, with additional gas and oxygen to promote more complete burning. And waste gases are filtered.
https://nextrex.com/
Having said that I don’t see what’s wrong with incineration if it’s done correctly. It’s not open pit burning, with waste gases going into the environment. It’s high temperature, with additional gas and oxygen to promote more complete burning. And waste gases are filtered.
> Seems like a perfect use for the material.
Provided they don’t get too much sun, because those dense plastic planks get much hotter than wood (I’ve measured 65C on mine). A deck is not much good if you can’t stand on it.
Also they’re expensive and don’t look very good.
Provided they don’t get too much sun, because those dense plastic planks get much hotter than wood (I’ve measured 65C on mine). A deck is not much good if you can’t stand on it.
Also they’re expensive and don’t look very good.
I think some of the Trex looks pretty good, they're definitely not all the same. If you do go this route then you will need an outdoor rug on the planks if it gets direct sun though. They're just way too hot otherwise, as you've stated. But throw a nice outdoor rug down and it's problems solved.
Which is also why it’s critical that they be installed with a gap between the boards (Kreg makes a useful set of spacers and drill jig to hide the screws). Otherwise expansion will destroy the deck.
Oh, mine have spaces and all (the very-expensive, not-optional mounting clips create the requisite spacing). They're just hot. Google "composite deck heat" etc will find lots of people complaining about it.
CO2 is a major waste gas which can't be filtered. That's one problem with incinerating plastic waste. Being buried in a landfill, that CO2 wouldn't be released. The other environmental problem is that it's not being reused so more virgin plastic has to be produced, and that production process releases CO2.
I can only assume that burning fossil fuel represent an order of magnitude bigger problem than burning soft plastic. So until we have phased out fossil fuels it seems relatively unproblematic to burn plastic?
I think it’s a problem to lie to people about what’s happening with their “recycled” goods.
Sure it's a lie which is bad, but collecting soft plastic separately may still be a net win for society so how do we give a simple enough explanation for the nuance?
Yeah, this seems fine to me. I believe my general waste is also incinerated though so I wish they'd encourage adding the soft plastics to that to simplify recycling - it might lead to more hard plastics being recycled!
Didn't Penn and Teller do a video about this 20 years ago showing that glass and metal cans are the only real recyclable products? I'm guessing not much has changed since then.
And in the USA, at least, glass containers that could be re-used are instead crushed and then either (a) used to create new glass, significantly more energetically costly than re-use OR (b) used for applications like asphalt.
Erewhon is a grocery store in LA and makes its own sauces. You return the bottles back to the store and they reuse them.
Reminds me of my childhood when a milkman delivered milk to your home in bottles and you washed and left the old bottles for him to pick up. (Plus, as a kid, you would tease your friends that the milkman was your real father).
Reminds me of my childhood when a milkman delivered milk to your home in bottles and you washed and left the old bottles for him to pick up. (Plus, as a kid, you would tease your friends that the milkman was your real father).
Straus Family Creamery uses glass bottles for many products, and the farmer's market refunds a $3 deposit when they're returned. The bottle caps are plastic, and there's an address where you can send them by mail.
https://www.strausfamilycreamery.com/sustainable-manufacturi...
https://www.strausfamilycreamery.com/sustainable-manufacturi...
Sending a few bottle caps by mail probably causes more environmental pollution than sending them back (after which still even more energy needs to be spent to recycle them).
And even glass is a problem because people don't just throw bottles in it but also broken windows, vases etc. Those things are made of different types of glass than the bottles and too much mix means the batch needs to be discarded.
Metal cans also contain a plastic layer inside.
There's no escape, is there? I'm not even talking about recycling at this point. If metal cans are plastic-lined inside, is there any way to avoid microplastics in drinks? I guess glass, but that's exceedingly rare and some drinks don't have a glass option where I live. Mostly it's sugary soda that does, or alcoholic beverages.
You can just drink water?
drum roll...... bottled water!
> In fact, 34 percent of the growth in bottled water sales during the past 11 years (from 2012 to 2023) has come from people switching from soft drinks and fruit drinks to bottled water. U.S. consumers now drink an average of 46.4 gallons (176 liters) of bottled water per person, compared to 34.4 gallons (129 liters) of carbonated soft drinks. -- https://wcponline.com/2024/10/01/2024-state-of-the-bottled-w...
PS: To be fair, I switched from the (acidic!) soft drinks to tap water. Almost always boiled water. Despite being comparatively confident in the quality of our tap water, the pipes mustn't be great. According to our city's water supplier, the tests come out classifying the water at their end as "soft" (bordering very soft). Yet on our end, there's a lot of chalk build up in the water kettle. I am entertaining the idea to send a sample of the tap water to a lab.
> In fact, 34 percent of the growth in bottled water sales during the past 11 years (from 2012 to 2023) has come from people switching from soft drinks and fruit drinks to bottled water. U.S. consumers now drink an average of 46.4 gallons (176 liters) of bottled water per person, compared to 34.4 gallons (129 liters) of carbonated soft drinks. -- https://wcponline.com/2024/10/01/2024-state-of-the-bottled-w...
PS: To be fair, I switched from the (acidic!) soft drinks to tap water. Almost always boiled water. Despite being comparatively confident in the quality of our tap water, the pipes mustn't be great. According to our city's water supplier, the tests come out classifying the water at their end as "soft" (bordering very soft). Yet on our end, there's a lot of chalk build up in the water kettle. I am entertaining the idea to send a sample of the tap water to a lab.
I live in a hard water area as well.
I researched about this, and the best solution is to get a water softener. These are devices that mix salts with the water that break down the limescale minerals.
That said, most reputable manufacturers and installers of these devices will recommend you have an unsoftened tap for drinking water. The minerals in the water are actually good for you, and removing them could have deleterious effects on your health. Watering plants is generally best done with unsoftened water as well.
I researched about this, and the best solution is to get a water softener. These are devices that mix salts with the water that break down the limescale minerals.
That said, most reputable manufacturers and installers of these devices will recommend you have an unsoftened tap for drinking water. The minerals in the water are actually good for you, and removing them could have deleterious effects on your health. Watering plants is generally best done with unsoftened water as well.
> To be fair, I switched from the (acidic!) soft drinks to tap water. Almost always boiled water. Despite being comparatively confident in the quality of our tap water, the pipes mustn't be great.
if you’re making hot drinks, sure, but by boiling, you’re going to concentrate the minerals (and anything else in there that doesn’t like to evaporate, like PFAS)
if you’re making hot drinks, sure, but by boiling, you’re going to concentrate the minerals (and anything else in there that doesn’t like to evaporate, like PFAS)
If you really want to avoid getting anything in your water - even essential vitamins and minerals - you can always distill your water. It’s worse for you though, much worse. That ‘chalk’ in your carafe is just small amounts of minerals you need anyway that come out of solution.
Bottled water has it too.
If they build up to the point it’s bothering you, a little vinegar will dissolve them right out.
Bottled water has it too.
If they build up to the point it’s bothering you, a little vinegar will dissolve them right out.
My understanding is that soft water is classified as 0-60 mg/L of CaCO₃ equivalent, so there's no such thing as "very soft"). Maybe they're claiming "Moderately hard" is actually soft water?
> Yet on our end, there's a lot of chalk build up in the water kettle.
That's practically unavoidable, rapid changes in temperature cause the limescale to crash out of solution.
Get a water filtration device.
That's practically unavoidable, rapid changes in temperature cause the limescale to crash out of solution.
Get a water filtration device.
Of course I can, and tap water, filtered or not, constitutes most of my liquid intake. That said, I also like to drink other things every now and then. Sparkling water, kombucha, the eventual beer or cider...
Water destroys bridges and roads, imagine what it would do to your intestines :) (old drunkards joke)
I avoid microplastics by drinking only water and wine. I was never really one for other types of beverages, so this isn’t very limiting to me. Keep in mind that any closure other than natural cork contains plastic or other noxious chemicals: in theory there’s also metal, wood, natural waxes and rubbers, but they are rarely used without plastic.
Perrier used to sell water in glass bottles. Not sure if it's still a thing
Yes, they do. It's not everywhere but I can find them. That's what I mean though, there are alternatives - only fewer and far between.
As another user pointed out, even those still probably have plastic in the lid. That's not great, but at least the lid is a very small contact area, whereas a lining of the entire interior of a metal can is about as large as it gets.
As another user pointed out, even those still probably have plastic in the lid. That's not great, but at least the lid is a very small contact area, whereas a lining of the entire interior of a metal can is about as large as it gets.
I imagine they burn it off along with the food residues when they go to melt the can.
Cardboard and paper are also recyclable.
How is turning it into fuel pellets not recycling? It's giving it a second life, rather than going into a landfill.
Sending it to landfill would produce a lot less CO2.
That assumes that it does not decay in the landfill.
Even if that is true today, I don't think we can rule out the evolution of bacteria etc. (possibly bio-engineered) to feed on plastics.
If we are going to phase out fossils, we might just as well as phase out plastics last. (By burning it.) It the meantime, figure out how to make plastic less toxic and also how to use less of it.
Maybe in a few generations there'll be a ban on burning any fossil fuels other than plastic.
It's barely one step removed from just being burned in an incinerator, it's maybe recycling in a very strict sense but it's definitely misleading to say that.
Well, plastic came from the underground (as oil) and to the underground should return, as much as possible. You could argue that when plastic waste is not burned, a corresponding amount of fossil fuels are extracted from the underground to make up the difference, but I think the existence of renewable energy sources makes the replacement ratio (waste plastic to new fossil fuels) much less than 1 to 1.
I thought it was common knowledge that plastic recycling (including soft plastics) was only ever a way for the plastics industries (and downstream businesses lile food packaging) to keep on pumping out the plastic. And I say this as someone who keeps putting plastics into my domestic recycling here in the UK, and taking soft plastics to the supermarket collection points.
Question: would it be better if I just put it all in the non-recyclables bin?
Question: would it be better if I just put it all in the non-recyclables bin?
Not common knowledge because it’s not right. Totally depends on the jurisdiction. Where I live the recycling industry is doing a lot better.
There’s too much toxic flame retardant in recycled plastic, apparently.[0]
So until we can guarantee that recycled plastics don’t end up in contact with food, or the plastic that does doesn’t contain nasty chemicals, it’s probably safer to bury the stuff.
[0] https://share.upmc.com/2025/03/black-plastic-cookware/
So until we can guarantee that recycled plastics don’t end up in contact with food, or the plastic that does doesn’t contain nasty chemicals, it’s probably safer to bury the stuff.
[0] https://share.upmc.com/2025/03/black-plastic-cookware/
That research was partly debunked. The authors made several errors.
Some of the work is still true, but the final conclusion about black plastic is not.
Some of the work is still true, but the final conclusion about black plastic is not.
The link I provided mentions a correction they made (where they undercalculated the EPA's reference dose of decaBDE by a factor of ten), but the study authors maintain the overall conclusion is sound. And I'd rather have zero decaBDE in my breakfast than what the EPA says is okay, whatever my cookware's color might be.
I've searched around for other corrections or challenges but haven't found any. Got a link?
I've searched around for other corrections or challenges but haven't found any. Got a link?
From what I remember after the correction there was no longer a correlation with color.
Obviously no one want flame retardant, but staying away from specifically black plastic doesn't do anything.
I can't find a link right now, but for what I remember other authors agreed with the data after correction, but disagreed with the conclusion.
Obviously no one want flame retardant, but staying away from specifically black plastic doesn't do anything.
I can't find a link right now, but for what I remember other authors agreed with the data after correction, but disagreed with the conclusion.
Got it. I didn't intend my original post to be color-specific. But if that's the case, then all the more reason to just bury plastics.
(Or burn 'em, I guess, but when you have potentially a whole host of mystery toxic chemicals hiding in them, is your typical scrubber going to catch all of 'em? I don't know the answer, but I'd be surprised if specialization wasn't required. Probably safer to bury.)
(Or burn 'em, I guess, but when you have potentially a whole host of mystery toxic chemicals hiding in them, is your typical scrubber going to catch all of 'em? I don't know the answer, but I'd be surprised if specialization wasn't required. Probably safer to bury.)
decaBDE will burn to CO2 and bromine. Bromine is highly chemically reactive and will easily be caught in a filter.
Most chemicals are like that, they are either non-reactive and safe, or reactive and dangerous but easily filtered. (The in between stuff is a bit harder.) Interestingly it's true for nuclear reactions: The highly radioactive stuff decays very fast and is not a problem, the really long lived stuff is barely radioactive. The worrisome stuff has medium length lives.
Most chemicals are like that, they are either non-reactive and safe, or reactive and dangerous but easily filtered. (The in between stuff is a bit harder.) Interestingly it's true for nuclear reactions: The highly radioactive stuff decays very fast and is not a problem, the really long lived stuff is barely radioactive. The worrisome stuff has medium length lives.
I think that the focus on technological solutions is beside the point. What would accelerate reduction in use and an increase in recycling would be a total ban on exports of used plastic and a ban on packaging plastic from non-renewable sources. This should also cover clothing.
The technology required can be left to the industry once it becomes impossible for them to hand off the responsibility to foreign and unregulated third parties.
The technology required can be left to the industry once it becomes impossible for them to hand off the responsibility to foreign and unregulated third parties.
But won’t that make all the things more expensive that our lifestyle depends on? /s
Afaik the idea of giving plastic back to supermarkets, is to make them give less plastic to us in the first place. In this case, the point is not what percentage is recycled. The point is shrinking the total amount of plastic, i.e. the number to which the percentage is applied. Do they burn 70% of 10 tons or 70% of 1 ton.
So is this happening?
So is this happening?
The main point of the linked website seems to be that providing “recycling” collection in supermarkets is basically a fraud to make consumers more comfortable using soft plastics — if it can be recycled, then using more isn’t so worrisome.
I've wondered about that after reading the article.
In my country, we collect plastics at home (PMD) and it gets picked up bi-weekly in a bag. The PMD system has similar recycling stats as in the article. It is seen as an excuse for shops to declare the plastic waste problem as 'solved' without doing anything, and making consumers responsible.
The shops are fighting tooth and nail against collecting plastics themselves or introducing reusable drink bottles.
What's the UK alternative for collecting at the shop? Collecting at home? Doing nothing?
In my country, we collect plastics at home (PMD) and it gets picked up bi-weekly in a bag. The PMD system has similar recycling stats as in the article. It is seen as an excuse for shops to declare the plastic waste problem as 'solved' without doing anything, and making consumers responsible.
The shops are fighting tooth and nail against collecting plastics themselves or introducing reusable drink bottles.
What's the UK alternative for collecting at the shop? Collecting at home? Doing nothing?
An intermediate step between recycling and combustion would be disassembling the plastics back to useful feedstocks, potentially including monomers of the plastics involved.
This (and combustion) would be easier if the plastics were not chlorinated, I think. So maybe focus on elimination of PVC and the like from the waste stream?
This (and combustion) would be easier if the plastics were not chlorinated, I think. So maybe focus on elimination of PVC and the like from the waste stream?
This is pyrolysis based recycling (also called chemical recycling I think). My impression is that it's fairly energy intensive and can still be hard to purify. Some companies claim to be able to to it relatively effective. https://www.quantafuel.com/ claims to have a catalyst which improves the efficiency for instance. They are now privately owned and the amount of news they publish has become limited. This makes me believe they still struggle to make optimize the process.
This article is mostly about soft plastics used for food packaging, surely little to none of that is PVC. It least here in Norway most such plastic is low density polythene and PET, neither of which are chlorinated. Most PET bottles are separated from general waste because bottles have a deposit on them here.
I was going to point to Saran Wrap, but it was changed from polyvinylidene chloride to polyethylene in 2004.
A long time ago (2? years back) I remember a guy on Joe Rogan speaking how 'the best case scenario' is to burn that plastic. I did some reading about the fact, spoke with a guy that I knew that owns a "recycling factory" and I was 'convinced' that realistically this is (and should be) happening.
We know that now 'they' lied to us and most plastic is NOT recyclable, and they did so only to continue the oil business.
Seeing the map (Finland, Turkey, France), and in the past having garbage shipped all over the planet, do people calculate the "carbon tax" to move X tonnes to another country? The total cost of extract the energy from (the) earth (petrol for ships, fuel for planes, etc.)? Would it be better to use modern filters (as others wrote in comments) and burn them at the place of production?
We know that now 'they' lied to us and most plastic is NOT recyclable, and they did so only to continue the oil business.
Seeing the map (Finland, Turkey, France), and in the past having garbage shipped all over the planet, do people calculate the "carbon tax" to move X tonnes to another country? The total cost of extract the energy from (the) earth (petrol for ships, fuel for planes, etc.)? Would it be better to use modern filters (as others wrote in comments) and burn them at the place of production?
I think the problem with exporting plastic waste is the poor environmental standards at the destination rather than the shipping. The containers usually come laden with goods from Asia and might otherwise be returned empty (aka repositioning or repatriation).
Well if a guy on Joe Rogan says it it must be true.
Landfilling is even better.
I don’t understand why we can’t do the propane tank model at grocery stores. Reusable bags that I drop off on the way in, I get some token for N bags so I don’t have to carry them around the store, then I get cleaned bags on the way out (deducted from my credit). If I need more, I buy more immediately and more bags are on my account. Stores could even partner to share bag programs (again, like Blue Rhino).
We bring our reusable bags in and reuse them ourself. They sit flat in the cart and don’t bother us while shopping.
I wouldn’t want to take a bag that someone else had used and was poorly cleaned, especially given how little trouble it is to just manage and reuse my own (including cleaning them ourself if we spill meat juice or something on them).
A Blue Rhino propane tank just has to hold propane; there’s no need for it to be particularly clean; as a result, I don’t care what tank I get in exchange.
I wouldn’t want to take a bag that someone else had used and was poorly cleaned, especially given how little trouble it is to just manage and reuse my own (including cleaning them ourself if we spill meat juice or something on them).
A Blue Rhino propane tank just has to hold propane; there’s no need for it to be particularly clean; as a result, I don’t care what tank I get in exchange.
We actually had this for soda bottles in Holland in the 80s. The bottles were not recycled, they were cleaned and refilled. They were much thicker than current PET bottles to be more durable.
The system worked great, I never understood why they dropped it.
The system worked great, I never understood why they dropped it.
maybe "cleaned" is too expensive to implement
That’s a nice idea. Unfortunately this would negatively affect shareholder value so it’s not allowed to be done (fiduciary duty) /s
If you don't to cram it back underground and it has no other use then burning it (cleanly I hope) is the next best thing.
As an ordinary person, what we can do is try to reduce our use of single use plastics as much as possible, but single use plastics are everywhere in daily life, which can indeed be frustrating.
I didn’t see anyone else bring this up here, but the real issue with plastic recycling is twofold: it is a dead end and recycled plastics shed microplastics like crazy. Other materials, like aluminum, can effectively be infinitely recycled, but plastic cannot; recycled plastic is worse than virgin plastic in every way. It also destroys the environment around us, because recycled plastics are effectively really shitty plastics that shed everywhere.
In short, plastic recycling is a fraud perpetuated by greenwashing initiatives. The only proper thing to do with old plastic is to incinerate it at high temperatures that achieve complete combustion. This is rare though; most plastic is burned at low enough temperatures that it causes pollution.
Great stuff, plastic, huh?
In short, plastic recycling is a fraud perpetuated by greenwashing initiatives. The only proper thing to do with old plastic is to incinerate it at high temperatures that achieve complete combustion. This is rare though; most plastic is burned at low enough temperatures that it causes pollution.
Great stuff, plastic, huh?
Even if you buy aluminium cans, there's a thin layer of plastic lining to prevent reactions with the metal. I've also noticed lots of paper/cardboard packaging have a plastic coating.
Yes and in many cases that coating is even PFAS.
Oh yes, don’t get me wrong, I am strongly opposed to plastic or PFAS lined anything for food storage, such as cans, coated cardboard, bag in box etc. I was just bringing up aluminum as another material generally considered as recyclable.
I was expecting it to end up in landfill, so it getting burned was a pleasant surprise.
Just stop producing it.
How. People oppose even paper straws. Most of the food can be and should be stripped of usage of plastic, but then there also is medical usage.
Yes I oppose paper straws because they get soggy quickly, still contain plastic and of a much more dangerous type (PFAS).
The old plastic straws hardly shed while drinking. The new ones the paper gets soggy and it disintegrates and leaves the pfas coating mixed into your drink. Nice... :X
The old plastic straws hardly shed while drinking. The new ones the paper gets soggy and it disintegrates and leaves the pfas coating mixed into your drink. Nice... :X
Almost no one _needs_ straws to begin with. Do people really have that big an issue with drinking out of a container without one?
I do, it's the ice that hurts my teeth a lot without one. And without ice it's too warm again (also on the ordering machines these days you can't select without ice).
Also with alcoholic drinks eg rum colas it's easier to drink more slowly with them.
Also with alcoholic drinks eg rum colas it's easier to drink more slowly with them.
So instead of drinking more slowly and taking smaller sips we have to use a plastic device we throw away after, got it. Doesn't seem very smart to me honestly.
As I said, "almost no one needs" but your example isn't what I meant. Let's say someone with a disability that can'd use a cup.
As I said, "almost no one needs" but your example isn't what I meant. Let's say someone with a disability that can'd use a cup.
Medical usage is often necessary. Why not just start with things that are completely extraneous, like packaging, bottles, etc.
We should. But even small baby step measures with no downsides like plastic bag bans are wildly contentious.
I live in a county that's enacted one, and it's been unambiguously an improvement for the area on top of the core goal of "reduce plastic waste". But visiters look at me like I live in East Germany when I mention that.
I don't say this to discredit the idea, but it's politically treacherous, and not a lot of people are willing to stick their necks out for the right thing.
I live in a county that's enacted one, and it's been unambiguously an improvement for the area on top of the core goal of "reduce plastic waste". But visiters look at me like I live in East Germany when I mention that.
I don't say this to discredit the idea, but it's politically treacherous, and not a lot of people are willing to stick their necks out for the right thing.
After a certain point we have to force consumer's hands and tell them to get the fuck over it.
The level of inconvenience added to my life by not using plastic bags is so unbelievably small it's not even worth the oxygen I would need to spend to express my discomfort. It's really, really not a big deal.
The fact that some people are extraordinarily high-stress and enjoy making problems out of nothing should not be our concern. Let's not optimize for those people, they'll never be happy anyway.
The level of inconvenience added to my life by not using plastic bags is so unbelievably small it's not even worth the oxygen I would need to spend to express my discomfort. It's really, really not a big deal.
The fact that some people are extraordinarily high-stress and enjoy making problems out of nothing should not be our concern. Let's not optimize for those people, they'll never be happy anyway.
Here they tax the bags. I don't use them so much, only if I really need them.
The problem is, sometimes you do need them because you had to change plans and didn't bring any bags. I don't own a car or anything where I can leave them. Often leave the house without even a backpack.
And paper bags don't work when it rains or when you need to bring heavy stuff like drinks.
The problem is, sometimes you do need them because you had to change plans and didn't bring any bags. I don't own a car or anything where I can leave them. Often leave the house without even a backpack.
And paper bags don't work when it rains or when you need to bring heavy stuff like drinks.
The rain complaint is fair, but I frequent several grocery stores that only use paper bags, and when I buy heavy stuff, they just double the bags. Never have had a problem with that.
Hmm I often buy 3 or 4 2L bottles and in my experience that is wayy too heavy for paper bags.
And my water, I buy it in 6-packs of 2L, they come plastic-wrapped with a handle so you can carry them more easily. The tapwater in my city is not drinkable.
And my water, I buy it in 6-packs of 2L, they come plastic-wrapped with a handle so you can carry them more easily. The tapwater in my city is not drinkable.
That doesn't seem too bad. That means 30% got recycled, which is more than I expected given the general cynicism around plastic recycling. 30% definitely seems worthwhile.
For the plastic that got incinerated, it is presumably more efficient to burn products for energy reclamation that are already separated by type.
Having these recycling pathways set up is a necessary step towards improving recycling rates. We should be able to improve on that 30% over time.