Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The world currently produces more than 50 million tonnes of “mismanaged” plastic waste each year, and some researchers project this flood of pollution into the environment will double by mid-century. However, they also say that if countries can agree to adopt four key policies during global plastic treaty negotiations this week, we could slash that by 90 per cent.
Plastic pollution ends up clogging ecosystems on land and at sea. “This has an impact on every level of the food chain, from phytoplankton cells to humans,” says Sarah-Jeanne Royer at the University of California, San Diego. Plastics are also responsible for about 5 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.
That is why most of the world’s countries are meeting in Busan, South Korea, this week to hammer out the final details of a global treaty aimed at ending such pollution. In 2022, 175 countries agreed to develop a legally binding treaty and have spent the past two years debating its requirements, with particular disagreements over setting limits on the production of new plastic.
To bring more clarity to the debate, Douglas McCauley at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his colleagues used an artificial intelligence model trained on economic data to test how the policies under consideration would affect this pollution globally. “I wasn’t convinced that [eliminating plastic pollution] was actually possible,” says McCauley. “But it turns out you can get pretty darn close.”
According to their projections, under current conditions, such pollution is set to roughly double to between 100 and 139 million tonnes by 2050. But a combination of four policies, all of which are still on the table in the current treaty draft, were enough to reduce this by more than 90 per cent.
The most impactful was a mandate that plastic products contain at least 40 per cent recycled material. That rule alone cuts plastic pollution in half by mid-century. This effect is so significant because it reduces demand for newly made or “virgin” plastic, while also spurring demand for recycled materials, says McCauley. “Suddenly there’s a giant global market for recycling.”
But recycling on its own wasn’t sufficient. “If your target is to end plastic pollution, you need to do things across the entire life cycle,” he says. Deeper cuts required limiting production of virgin plastics to 2020 levels. This cap cuts plastic pollution by around 60 million tonnes per year by the middle of the century, according to the model. This change also had the greatest impact on greenhouse gas emissions from plastic production, as extracting fossil fuels and turning them into virgin plastics involves emissions-intensive processes.
A third policy, spending $50 billion on waste management, reduced pollution by nearly the same amount as the production cap – especially if these funds were spent in low-income countries with poor infrastructure, which are also the most inundated by plastic pollution. “When you start talking about global finance, [the amount of money needed] is not that big,” says McCauley. “Building a sanitary landfill is not like building a port.”
Finally, a small tax on plastic packaging cut pollution by tens of millions of tonnes. The researchers based this estimate on case studies of how people reduced their plastic use in response to similar taxes, such as a 5 cent fee on single-use plastic bags in Washington DC. Money raised by such a tax could also be used to pay for other changes, like building more waste management infrastructure or improving recycling systems.
Royer, who wasn’t involved with the study, says she thinks those policies would all help. Targeting the use of single-use plastic, such as grocery bags or plastic forks, via a tax or a ban could also make a difference, she says. “If we look at plastic pollution in general, 40 per cent of the plastic being produced is single-use items.”
[...] In Busan, countries have now reached the deadline to decide on a final treaty draft, but they remain far apart on key issues. A main fault line is whether the treaty should include a production cap on newly made plastics, which the researchers found was the second-most impactful policy. Plastic-producing countries and the petrochemical industry oppose these caps, instead throwing their support behind recycling measures.
A “high-ambition coalition” of 68 countries, including the UK, is pushing for a treaty that would include both, with the goal of eliminating plastic pollution by 2040. Other researchers have also argued a cap on production is necessary to end pollution. But just last week, advocates for this were dismayed by reports the US wouldn’t support a specific limit. McCauley recently penned an open letter – signed by more than 100 researchers – to the administration of US president Joe Biden urging it to support a strong plastic treaty.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday December 06, @03:39AM (19 children)
There's a *lot* of money invested in the status quo. So much that no matter what the regulations are, there will be people willing to cheat on them to make more money. And since crimes aren't really crimes so long as you commit them within the structure of a corporation, any rules you make will get broken on a large scale.
Industry has always considered waste to be Somebody Else's Problem. At best, regulations in some localities convince them to ship their waste to someplace with less regulations. They have no reason to change that behavior now, and you can't shame the shameless.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Friday December 06, @06:50AM (15 children)
There's also 8+ billion people in the status quo. If your target is "end plastic pollution", then these strategies might make sense. If your strategy is to make things better for those 8+ billion people, then plastics are a key part.
Plastic waste isn't a significant problem in the first place. A process that uses cheap, plentiful ingredients (like energy or plastic) inefficiently is superior to an process that uses very expensive resources (like human time) inefficiently.
And why is that supposed to be a serious problem? A lot of the time, the place with less regulations is also a better place for that waste because it's less harmful there - with less harm being the reason for less regulation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday December 06, @12:01PM (12 children)
What makes you think that human time is an expensive resource? In the US, we've decided that an hour of labor from waitstaff is worth less than a gallon of unleaded gasoline. In a lot of other countries, it's worth even less than that. Those 8+ billion people you mentioned all have to eat, and a lot of them are desperate enough for any way they can do that that they will work under grueling conditions for 14+ hours a day 7 days a week for peanuts.
And then there are the people that are basically enslaved that are essential to making a lot of products people in wealthier places enjoy without thinking too much about it, like chocolate, jewelry, and pr0n.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Friday December 06, @04:32PM (5 children)
Which isn't actually true. It's several gallons. How much depends on tips and the local price of gas. Keep in mind also that the US like much of the developed world has artificially elevated the price of gas both through taxes and artificial restriction of supply. Meanwhile, we also have artificial consumption of human labor on low value makework and such (for a themed example, forcing people to sort recyclables for free).
"Basically enslaved" != real slavery.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Thexalon on Friday December 06, @05:50PM (2 children)
Yes, I was assuming that management was stealing waitstaff tips, something that happens somewhere around 10% of restaurant staff, without consequences to the person doing the stealing.
When I said "Basically enslaved", the people I was referring to:
- Aren't paid for their work. At all. They typically get a cramped place to sleep and a bit of food.
- Are prevented from leaving their situation or refusing to work or telling government authorities via the threat of getting shot and killed. (Also, those government authorities are often being bribed by the slavers and won't do anything even if they know.)
- Are beaten and raped whenever their overseers want.
That sure sounds like slavery to me. A lot of them are children, who typically wind up in this situation due to war, being orphaned, or sold into it by their (frequently desperate) parents.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday December 06, @11:57PM (1 child)
I wasn't assuming such. For a glaring counterexample, my employer doesn't do that and wait staff typically makes enough per hour after taxes to pay for about half a tank of gas.
I would grant that would be actual slavery when it happens. When it doesn't, then I wouldn't. For the list you described, "chocolate, jewelry, and pr0n", I dispute that most workers are so enslaved.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 07, @12:00AM
That's expensive, middle-of-nowhere gas BTW.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mcgrew on Saturday December 07, @05:24PM (1 child)
Which isn't actually true.
My, but you are one ignorant human being. In five states, the minimum wage for waitstaff is $2.13. The lowest gas price is $2.61 in Oklahoma. My ex-wife was a waitress, and my daughter has been a waitress. Those working the graveyard shift don't get any tips, and those in locations with little business might get three bucks in tips for an eight hour shift.
Doesn't it embarrass you to look so stupid on a nerd site?? You do this constantly!
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Saturday December 07, @11:00PM
Two points to make here. The tipped minimum wage only applies if the employee gets enough in tips that week to have earned more than untipped minimum wage. Federal law allows for the above tipped $2.13 per hour, it guarantees $7.25 per hour. In my part of Wyoming, which is one of these states, fast food restaurants are offering around $17-22 per hour for starting workers. Tipped waitstaff typically gets more than untipped fast food workers. And for my place of employment, waiters at sit-down restaurants command the highest wages on location.
No. Because it's your perception not actual stupidity. Honesty and diligent rationality trump feels and appearance.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DadaDoofy on Friday December 06, @05:31PM (2 children)
"In the US, we've decided that an hour of labor from waitstaff is worth less than a gallon of unleaded gasoline."
That is of course, complete bullshit.
https://oysterlink.com/career/waitress/salary/ [oysterlink.com]
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353031.htm [bls.gov]
https://www.waiterpay.com/blog/average-wage-of-new-york-city-waiter-and-waitress-is-23-34-according-to-a-pay-survey [waiterpay.com]
https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/oz0vim/whats_your_average_hourly_wage_including_tips/?rdt=34283 [reddit.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Nobuddy on Wednesday December 11, @01:23PM (1 child)
If I give one person $1000, and four more $0, why should they complain, they all got an average of $200!
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Wednesday December 11, @07:17PM
They can complain all they want, but if their tips are $0, it's a pretty clear indication they should move on to a job they're more suited for. Thankfully, the screwball European notion that we should do away with tips and pay shitty, lazy, often hostile waiters the same as we pay waiters who deliver exemplary service, has been a non-starter in the US. We certainly don't need that enshitification of our service industry.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 07, @04:13AM
How much does it cost to double your personal consumption of plastic? How much does it cost to double your lifespan?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday December 07, @05:16PM (1 child)
an hour of labor from waitstaff is worth less than a gallon of unleaded gasoline
Which is why the federal minimum wage should be the minimum, for everybody, rather than 1/4 of the minimum for some, and the federal minimum should be tripled so it buys what it bought in the 1960s.
That said, there are only five states where the federal minimum is the minimum.
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 07, @11:02PM
The laws on this are weird, but the end result is that a tipped position can receive a lower minimum wage only if the worker gets enough in tips to exceed the untipped minimum wage. If they don't, then the employer covers it. The worker never receive less than minimum wage in wages and tips.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday December 07, @05:09PM (1 child)
Plastic waste isn't a significant problem in the first place.
Are you really that ignorant or just trolling? Or perhaps are employed by the plastics industry?
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday December 07, @08:24PM
We have four problems more or less, including a novel one mentioned here: plastics pollution in ocean, microplastics, PFASs, and greenhouse gases emissions. All four are overstated greatly. Sure, it's not pretty when some charismatic animal ends up with its head in a six pack holder, but it's a small amount of material per unit area/volume. Microplastics and PFASs are at the detectable level (which is far from the causing harm level). And greenhouse gases are a long term problem that might resolve itself just by switching away from fossil fuels (plastics production wouldn't be a problem if we were to mass switch away from fossil fuels, and it's a high value usage). Intellectually, it's an interesting problem to consider, but a need hasn't been shown to radically reduce our plastics usage or engage in hardcore recycling.
Meanwhile fighting poverty is a huge deal.
I ran across an interesting term the other day, "doom loop" (Obama using it while referring to Trump's administration). More or less, it's the idea that certain groups of actions, behaviors, and beliefs result in a negative feedback loop, making things worse. There's even a climate change version where climate change is somehow bad enough to create a doom loop - though in the purely imaginary sense, of course.
This story is an attempt at a real world doom loop. First, it's attacking a minor problem while ignoring huge problems (seriously the article is all about "if your target is to end plastic pollution" while ignoring that humanity and its problems are not - at best there are many targets, not just plastics pollution). And what's going to happen if we go targeting plastics pollution to the inevitable exclusion of the rest? It'll increase poverty just like all the other short-sighted environmentalist policies do. That in turn will increase the need for things like plastics along with a society-wide disinterest in environmental matters.
I wouldn't be posting this, if there was awareness shown that the proponents were balancing the needs of plastics with the costs of plastics pollution. But it's instead a classic case of a one-issue story calling for a specific conclusion with no consideration for the actual cost/benefit of plastics or plastics pollution control.
(Score: 2) by corey on Friday December 06, @11:10PM (1 child)
Hit the nail on the head.
Governments need to put on big boy pants and regulate the cost of disposal/recycling into the product and mandate that the companies do what’s necessary. Our tax then that amount and use the money to do it. I’m talking about big refunds for returning bottles (glass) like they do in Africa for cleaning and reuse, proper recycling of plastic (that’s properly sorted), etc. Currently there’s absolutely no incentive for anyone to do anything. Except in my state we get a measly 10c back for every can and bottle, so my kids are the only ones who care because they value $3.70 for a few cans and bottles collected.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday December 07, @05:35PM
If you're American, good luck with THAT! Democracy died in America in 2002 with the Supreme Court Citizens United [wikipedia.org] ruling that said corporations are people.
You're worried that Trump will kill democracy? You can't kill a corpse! We are now a plutocracy; money rules our land.
However, congress could define "person" like the SCOTUS said congress could define "limited" in the Lessig copyright case. I'm not holding my breath.
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 07, @02:00AM
I do find it a bit weird that some "developed countries" are making such a big fuss over plastic straws, bags etc when they actually don't litter that much and dispose of their trash properly (relative to the top offenders).
If your plastic trash is disposed properly and locked in a landfill or is incinerated to generate electricity, it doesn't end up in the ocean, whether it's a plastic straw or bag or wrapper.
So if you want to do significant stuff about plastic getting to the oceans maybe go convince the top offending countries to do something about it? https://plasticbank.com/blog/which-country-is-the-most-accountable-for-ocean-plastic/ [plasticbank.com]
Sanctions and tariffs seem like popular "negotiating" words nowadays so...
Yes I know about tyre particles and clothing stuff. Can't do much about the tyres, but if clothing was designed to last longer it wouldn't generate so many microplastics when washed, plus if you made manufacturers prewash the clothes to capture the initial big bunch of microplastics, you'd probably reduce the amount getting to the ocean by a fair bit.
Also, putting stuff in a landfill seems to be considered almost a sin, but why? If plastic is stuck in a landfill it's like carbon sequestration. Dispose of your waste properly and future generations might even mine your waste deposits.
(Score: 4, Informative) by mhajicek on Friday December 06, @06:40AM (1 child)
Some plastics, like the PEEK used for many medical devices, don't recycle. Many plastics with recycled content have reduced and less predictable mechanical properties, making for a lower quality product.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Friday December 06, @02:06PM
Absolutely so. Still, there is a cascade of products needing lower and lower plastic quality. If plastics can be reused maybe four times until burned or buried that would lead, by optimistic reckoning, to a reduction of plastics entering and leaving the cycle by 4.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anotherblackhat on Friday December 06, @03:33PM (1 child)
What will it take to solve Plastic Pollution?
Energy.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday December 07, @05:41PM
Far more, I'm afraid. First we need to stop making the shit, we did without it basically until my lifetime, and there were none in the 1800s. We can live without plastic. Although ziplock bags and Saran wrap sure are handy!
But do we have to imprison every new purchase in plastic? What was wrong with cardboard boxes? Wax coated paper straws work just as well as plastic, and wax coated paper milk cartons posed no problems at all.
Why are we using plastic for soda bottles? What was wrong with glass?
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday December 06, @04:37PM (1 child)
Stop paying poorer countries to take first world trash and toss it in a river.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Wednesday December 11, @01:42PM
Don't me silly. they just dump the shipping the containers oveboard during the sea crossing. All the river plastic is home grown.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 07, @03:06PM (4 children)
There are bacteria which produce enzymes that can break down some kinds of plastic. The obvious solution is to culture huge batches of these little buggies, collect the enzymes, and use them to break down the waste into its constituent monomers/oligomers, then send said raw materials back to be remade into more plastic.
But, it has to be done this way instead of "dump plastic into the bio-reactors" because if plastic-eating bacteria get into the wild, that will basically end civilization. So there needs to be a very strict rule: separate the enzyme production from the plastic recycling by a large margin, and never the twain shall meet.
This doesn't do anything for the oceanic garbage patches unfortunately, but it absolutely would help stop them from getting bigger.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 07, @03:56PM
I can already tell you how that rule will break down. The raw materials often won't be sterilized properly. Keep in mind that the natural equivalent to plastic - that is, cellulose, lasts pretty long in a natural environment even with a large variety of organisms evolved over hundreds of millions of years to eat it. I doubt we'll develop a plastic eating bacteria that can do better than that. Perhaps we'll end up in a situation where wet environments chew up plastic pretty quickly. But not the end of civilization.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 08, @07:14AM (2 children)
Make more plastic from bio sources if you want to take even more CO2 out of the atmosphere.
The plastic in the ocean problem is because of littering and improper waste disposal. Get the top offending countries to stop dumping their trash into the oceans. They should stop doing that whatever that trash is anyway, even if it's not plastic.
The easily degrading plastics are a big problem that prevent people like me from using/reusing plastic for years/decades. Nowadays partly because of those vocal environmental retards (and "capitalism"), too much plastic starts crumbling to plastic dust after a mere few years if not months. I have plastic stuff from the 1970s that are still in ok condition (surface still smooth and no sign of crumbling or depolymerization). But what the fuck is with so much 2020s stuff not even making it to 2024?
If my cheap plastic stuff lasts forever, that's a feature not a problem. People should stop spreading the idea that it's a problem for plastic to last "forever". Even if it lasts for centuries in a landfill that's not a problem either - it's generating fewer nano/microplastics per year that way. If you bury a huge enough amount somewhere, future generations might call it a hydrocarbon deposit. 🤣
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 08, @08:20PM (1 child)
If things lasted like they did in the 70s I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but as you've correctly pointed out, today's plastic turns into nanoparticles in short order. And this happens because it's made as cheaply as possible for the single-use, mass-produced society we find ourselves in. THAT is why I want the enzymatic recycling process: because unlike your Bakelite cleaver handle or what have you, an empty 2024 plastic Coke bottle represents 100g of plastic nanoparticles in 2030.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10, @10:36AM
The crappy plastic will still turn into nanoparticles if it's disposed of improperly. The bulk of the plastic in the oceans is due to littering and improper waste disposal (other than the car tyre stuff and the laundry stuff[1]). If the crappy plastic is locked up in a landfill, it will turn into nanoparticles much slower anyway AND it will also leach out at a very slow rate from the landfill.
Meanwhile the crappy plastic being crappy will substantially turn into nanoparticles WHILE still in active use. So maybe lobbyists and people should be lobby not for plastic to degrade faster (which seems to be the popular opinion) but plastic to degrade slower.
[1] The laundry stuff can be mitigated by producing clothes that don't break down so fast AND by making the manufacturers prewash the clothes to capture that presumably bigger initial burst of micro/nanoplastics.