Posted on 10/15/2019 7:03:13 AM PDT by Rio
It was bound to happen. In a recent report from Greenpeace, “Throwing Away the Future: How Companies Still Have it Wrong on Plastic Pollution Solutions,” the organization has concluded that not only is plastic bad for the environment, every other “alternative” material is, as well.
Those who are promoting a return to paper packaging will soon be hearing outcries from Greenpeace about how paper usage is destroying the world’s forests. After all, it is the earth’s forests that consume tons of CO2 from the atmosphere like so many giant sponges. So, all you tree-huggers can breathe easy, so to speak.
Additionally, it was noted that a lot of paper packages (as well as single-use paper cups and containers) have plastic liners and can’t be recycled. Off to the landfill with those! Paper recycling facilities are drowning in paper, and some recycling centers have stopped collecting paper entirely.
And if you thought that bioplastics were safe from Greenpeace, think again. Greenpeace has dismissed bioplastics, or bio-based plastics made from plants such as sugar cane or corn, as just so much “greenwashing.”
As I’ve noted many times in my articles, bioplastics are designed specifically to be left out in the open environment to degrade over several years. And when it does break down, it merely fragments into smaller pieces. The same is true of the so-called “compostable” plastics. So, I actually have to admit I agree with Greenpeace on this one.
Greenpeace has determined that recyclability is a “myth.” Except for the mechanical recycling of PET and HDPE, many of these newly developed “loop-type” recycling schemes involve the shipping of consumer goods all over the country for washing and sterilization, and then shipping them to the brand owners' fill plants and back again to the consumer. Forget about following the money—follow the carbon footprint on this one!
Chemical recycling was mentioned in the report, which I think has some merit, especially for co-mingled plastic waste and dirty ocean plastics. Greenpeace doesn’t hold out much hope for that, either. “Investment in new chemical recycling infrastructure is risky in that it will ‘lock in’ demand for plastic waste in order to generate more plastic as well as non-plastic by-products,” said the report.
So what are we to do? What materials should we use to hold the goods we purchase? Everything has a downside. Multi-use plastic retail bags are being banned in favor of non-woven carry bags, which are still “plastic.” As for cotton bags, they come from agricultural processes requiring gasoline-powered equipment to plant and harvest, not to mention the aircraft used to drop defoliant on the mature cotton so the bolls can be more easily gathered by another piece of gasoline-powered equipment.
Everything we can think of that might be an alternative to plastic has been proven over many studies to be not as eco-friendly or cost and resource effective as plastics. Greenpeace’s idea that every community should go to a “zero-waste” model sounds good on paper, but in large cities it probably isn’t practical. That’s why we have municipal waste collection.
Greenpeace, as well as other groups seeking ways to eliminate plastic packaging and other single-use plastics from the planet, just may have to pivot, whether they like it or not. Alternative materials aren’t cutting it and waste won’t be eliminated.
Greenpeace, as well as other groups seeking ways to eliminate plastic packaging and other single-use plastics from the planet, just may have to pivot, whether they like it or not. Alternative materials aren’t cutting it and waste won’t be eliminated.
“Original headline was too long.”
—
Oy. That’s not a headline, it’s a novel!
Greenpeace members have to come to the realization that they are human carbon units and must off themselves for the sake of the environment.
Folks here have been pointing this out for decades.
The only way to “Save the Planet” is to Kill the People.
You can be sure it is the Deplorables and not the Elites they want to kill.
It is just a matter of time before the enviro-wackos take off the mask and tell us their real agenda.
Just how can plastics be eliminated from the planet when core samples from Antarctic testing show that microplastics have been in the oceans for millennia?
Plastics are part of nature.
Human flesh
So these liberals realize that human technology and existence has limitations, at least in this case. It’s progress.
Leftists and Gaia worshippers are the worst breed of fools.
All trash, along with these left wing groups, should be pumped down to subduction zones. Then you will have real recycling.
Early this morning I was out in the yard with the dogs and noticed that one of them was drinking dew water that had collected in a fallen leaf curled like a bowl.
Eureka!
Instead of plastic plates and bowls and glasses and cups and utensils we should be using curled up leaves.
We’re in a carbon drought. We need much more CO2 in the atmosphere.
The whole CO2 thing is high comedy.
People used to burn most of their trash - try doing that nowadays.
Leaves can be currency too according to Douglas Adams.
These are the main money quotes:
“Moving to bioplastic, paper, 100% ‘recyclable’ packaging, incineration and chemical recycling all but guarantee this environmental crisis will get worse.”
And companies must
“invest heavily in systems that prioritize reuse”
This is an improvement on my idea - after dinner you can smoke the plates and bowls - you will never have to wash dishes again and you will be saving scarce water.
Well, at least they’re burying windmill blades. True but ridiculous.
“paper usage is destroying the world’s forests.”
This is some of the biggest hogwash ever.
Does anyone realize that trees are LIVING things? That they DO die and are born from seeds? It’s called “planting again”.
Trees are a renewable resource; they can be replaced AND most trees die within a century anyway, so you’re going to “lose” them pretty soon anyway.
AND, since trees (as all plants) NEED CO2 to “breathe”, what is so terrible about the “carbon footprint”? Animals need oxygen, plants need CO2, and each outputs the other. It’s very symbiotic.
1 turtle dies or is injured with a straw and the world cries hysterically! Thousand of turtles are eaten by poachers, wild animals, birds, fish, etc... and nobody cares.
Should we go back to using ivory?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.