| Envirowatchers
|
[
Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
17024 |
|
|
Date: March 18, 2020 at 23:44:53
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Is Plastic Recycling Just a Big Fraud? |
URL: LINK LINK |
|
As plastic pollution has become a more well-
recognized problem, public awareness about the need
for recycling has grown as well. The question is
whether or not recycling is a viable answer. Growing
evidence suggests plastic recycling efforts can have
only a minor impact even under the best of
circumstances. As reported by The Guardian:1
“Consumers are led to believe that the Earth would be
healthy, if only they recycled properly, when, in
reality, there is no market for most plastics to be
recycled …
Past studies have shown only about 10% of plastic
gets recycled, but … once those numbers are updated
to reflect the recent collapse of the recycling
market, it will probably show that only about 5% is
getting recycled.”
Increasing recycling may sound like the answer, but
as Jim Puckett, executive director of the Basel
Action Network, tells Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone
magazine,2 “When you drill down into plastics
recycling, you realize it’s a myth.”
“Since 1950, the world has created 6.3 trillion
kilograms of plastic waste — and 91 percent has never
been recycled even once, according to a landmark 2017
study published in the journal Science Advances.
Unlike aluminum, which can be recycled again and
again, plastic degrades in reprocessing, and is
almost never recycled more than once,” Dickinson
writes.3
“Modern technology has hardly improved things: Of the
78 billion kilograms of plastic packaging materials
produced in 2013, only 14 percent were even collected
for recycling, and just 2 percent were effectively
recycled to compete with virgin plastic. ‘Recycling
delays, rather than avoids, final disposal,’ the
Science authors write. And most plastics persist for
centuries.”
Companies Sued for Creating Plastic Pollution
As reported by The Guardian,4 Earth Island Institute
filed a lawsuit against 10 major companies at the end
of February 2020, in an effort to force them to take
responsibility and pay for the environmental and
ecological destruction their products are causing.
According to Environmental Health News,5 “Two-thirds
of all plastic ever produced remains in the
environment,” which helps explain why tap water,
bottled water,6 sea salt7 and a variety of seafood8
all come with a “side order” of microplastic.
At the rate we’re going, plastic will outweigh fish
in our oceans by 2050.9,10 Already, plastic outweighs
phytoplankton 6-to-1, and zooplankton 50-to-1,11 and
more than half of the plastic currently inundating
every corner of the globe was created in the last 18
years alone.12 With plastic pollution estimated to
double in the next decade,13 it’s quite clear we’re
traveling full speed ahead on an unsustainable path.
The companies named in the suit — Coca-Cola, Pepsi,
Nestlé, Clorox, Crystal Geyser, Mars, Danone,
Mondelēz International, Colgate-Palmolive and Procter
& Gamble — were identified as the top producers of
the plastic debris collected during a worldwide audit
in 2019, in which 72,000 Break Free From Plastic
volunteers picked up beach trash.
These companies, Earth Island Institute says, rely on
single-use packaging that never gets recycled and
ends up as environmental litter instead. The lawsuit
also demands an end to advertising claiming these
kinds of single-use products are recyclable, since a
vast majority never are. David Phillips, executive
director of Earth Island Institute, tells The
Guardian:14
“These companies should bear the responsibility for
choking our ecosystem with plastic. They know very
well that this stuff is not being recycled, even
though they are telling people on the labels that it
is recyclable and making people feel like it’s being
taken care of …
This is the first suit of its kind. These companies
are going to have to reveal how much they’ve known
about how little of this stuff is being recycled.
It’s not that we’re slamming recycling. We’re totally
in favor of recycling. We just want companies to take
responsibility for what’s really happening to all
this plastic they’re producing.”
Advertisement
Landfills Clogged With Recycled Plastic
A little-known problem that contributes to the
misperception that plastic is being properly recycled
— provided you put it in your recycling bin — is the
fact that many recycling facilities cannot process
mixed plastics, even though many mixed plastic
products are marked and marketed as being recyclable.
A 2020 Greenpeace survey of hundreds of U.S.
recycling facilities reveal none were able to process
coffee pods, for example, and each pod may take up to
500 years to degrade naturally.15 “Fewer than 15%
accepted plastic clamshells … and only a tiny
percentage took plates, cups, bags and trays,” The
Guardian reports.16
Rather than getting better, U.S. recycling efforts
are faltering since China stopped accepting plastic
waste for recycling in 2018. With infrastructure
lacking, much of the plastic being collected for
recycling is simply sent to landfills. John Hocevar,
director of Greenpeace’s Oceans Campaign tells The
Guardian:
“This report shows that one of the best things to do
to save recycling is to stop claiming that everything
is recyclable. We have to talk to companies about not
producing so much throw-away plastic that ends up in
the ocean or in incinerators.”
Based on its findings, Greenpeace is considering
filing federal complaints against companies that
“mislead the public about the recyclability of their
packaging,” as such claims violate the Federal Trade
Commission’s Green Guides that state “marketers must
ensure that all reasonable interpretations of their
claims are truthful, not misleading and supported by
a reasonable basis.”
Being more transparent about the recyclability of
plastics would also save municipalities lots of
money. According to The Guardian,17 Berkeley,
California, alone spends $50,000 a year “attempting
to recycle material that largely isn’t recyclable.”
So, rather than making a profit, recycling facilities
end up subsidizing brands that falsely claim their
products are recyclable when in fact they aren’t.
Shocking Amount of Plastic Ingested Over a Lifetime
The plastic pollution extends to our own bodies.
According to a study commissioned by the World
Wildlife Fund and carried out by University of
Newcastle, Australia, people consume, on average, 5
grams of plastic per week.18
Based on an average human life span of 79 years, the
average person will consume 44 pounds (20 kilograms)
of plastic, which equates to about two recycling
bins’ worth.
While seafood may sound like a logical source of most
of this plastic, data reveal that drinking water is
actually the primary source. Investigators have found
plastic particles in all water sources, including
groundwater, surface water, tap water and bottled
water19 throughout the world.
In the U.S., 94.4% of tap water samples have been
shown to contain plastic fibers, as have 82.4% of tap
water samples from India and 72.2% of those from
Europe.20
Research21 has also shown we inhale microscopic
particles of plastic each day. Plastic particles
identified in indoor air include synthetic fibers
such as polyester, polyethylene and nylon, and
nonsynthetic particles composed of protein and
cellulose.22
As in the environment, plastic does not break down in
the human body, and many of the chemicals used in the
manufacture of plastics are known to disrupt
embryonic development, dysregulate hormones and gene
expression, and cause organ damage. They also have
been linked to obesity, heart disease and cancer.
So, while researchers claim the health effects of all
this plastic in our diet are still unknown, it seems
logical to suspect it can wreak havoc on public
health, especially younger people who are exposed
right from birth.
As Pete Myers, Ph.D., founder and chief scientist of
the nonprofit Environmental Health Sciences and an
adjunct professor of chemistry at Carnegie Mellon
University told Consumer Reports, “There cannot be no
effect.”23
Coca-Cola Accused of Undermining Recycling Efforts
Of the 10 companies named in the Earth Island
Institute’s lawsuit, Coca-Cola is responsible for the
creation of more plastic trash worldwide than the
next three top polluters — Nestlé, PepsiCo and
Mondelēz International — combined.24,25
And, while Coca-Cola claims it is “working to … help
turn off the tap in terms of plastic waste” and that
it is “investing locally in every market to increase
recovery of our bottles and cans,”26 evidence
suggests the company has in fact been undermining
recycling efforts by lobbying against so-called
“bottle bills” or deposit laws that require companies
to add a deposit charge to their bottled beverages
that is then refunded when the bottle is returned for
recycling.27 As reported by The Intercept:28
“States with bottle bills recycle about 60 percent of
their bottles and cans, as opposed to 24 percent in
other states. And states that have bottle bills also
have an average of 40 percent less beverage container
litter on their coasts, according to a 2018 study29
of the U.S. and Australia …”
However, these kinds of bills also place a portion of
the responsibility and cost of recycling on the
companies selling the bottles which, undoubtedly, is
why Coca-Cola and other beverage makers keep fighting
against them whenever they come up.
Coca-Cola also doesn’t appear to be sincere in its
promises to “turn off the tap” of plastic waste,
considering it uses virgin plastic (so-called
nurdles, which are a key plastic pollutant) to make
bottles rather than using recycled materials.
The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2020
Lawsuits are not the only route being taken to rein
in plastic pollution at its source. As reported by
Rolling Stone,30 New Mexico Senator Tom Udall has
introduced new legislation — the Break Free From
Plastic Pollution Act of 2020 — which would hold
companies that profit from plastic accountable for
the pollution they create.
Aside from banning certain single-use plastic items,
the bill would require companies selling plastic
products to finance “end of life” programs to ensure
the plastic doesn’t end up polluting the environment.
The bill stands like David against Goliath,
considering the plastic industry involves not only
global food and beverage companies but also Big Oil
and the tobacco industry.
All of these industries have deep pockets and are
notorious for their extensive lobbying and PR
expertise. As just one example, Rolling Stone
highlights the industry-funded nonprofit Keep America
Beautiful, which in the early 1970s aired public-
service announcements decrying littering.
“People start pollution. People can stop it,” the ads
said. Little did the public realize that this was
simply a clever way to shift the blame of mounting
plastic pollution onto consumers. Meanwhile, behind
the scenes, Keep America Beautiful fought to prevent
bans on single-use packaging.
As noted by Rolling Stone, Big Oil plays a
significant yet largely hidden role in all of this.
As countries around the world are weaning its
citizens off gas powered transportation, oil
companies are homing in on the plastic industry for
its continued growth.
Hopefully, the bill will receive the support it needs
despite the inevitable industry pressure to kill it.
At present, plastic pollution carries a societal
price tag of $139 billion a year. By 2025, it’s
expected to be around $209 billion.31
By forcing companies to solve the pollution problems
their products produce, and pay for the
implementation of those solutions, they just might
rethink their unwillingness to switch to materials
that are recyclable not just once but repeatedly,
such as glass or aluminum. We as consumers can also
incentivize such changes by minimizing our day-to-day
use of plastic items of all kinds.
Reduce Your Dependency on Plastic
It can be extraordinarily difficult to avoid plastic,
considering most food and consumer goods are
enshrined in plastic packaging. However, you can
certainly minimize your dependency on these products.
For example, consider:
Opting for products sold in glass containers rather
than plastic whenever possible
Looking for plastic-free alternatives to common items
such as toys and toothbrushes
Choosing reusable over single-use — This includes
nondisposable razors, washable feminine hygiene
products for women, cloth diapers, glass bottles for
your beverages, cloth grocery bags, handkerchiefs
instead of paper tissues, and using an old T-shirt or
rags in lieu of paper towels
Drinking filtered tap water rather than bottled
water, and bringing your own refillable bottles when
going out — Bottled water tends to have far higher
amounts of plastic debris than tap water. I recommend
filtering your tap water, not only to get rid of
potential plastic debris, but also to avoid the many
chemical and heavy metal pollutants found in most
water supplies
Buying glass food storage containers rather than
plastic ones
Bringing your own reusable cloth shopping bags
Bringing your own glass dish for leftovers when
eating out
Skipping the plastic cutlery and using your own
silverware when buying take-out
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17031] [17032] [17025] [17028] [17030] [17036] [17037] [17029] |
|
17031 |
|
|
Date: March 21, 2020 at 15:49:52
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: excellent article... another suggestion |
|
|
Don't use large plastic bags for leaf and yard debris, use paper. Hardward
stores sell extra large, heavy duty paper bags for that purpose. They're
cheap at Ace hardware. There's NO reason to use those heavy black plastic
bags when clearing your yard!!
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17032] |
|
17032 |
|
|
Date: March 21, 2020 at 17:47:17
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: excellent article... another suggestion |
|
|
Also: burlap tarps. When we were doing fire-hazard
reduction business (weed whacking, clearing of debris,
dead wood, etc), we had several, large burlap tarps.
You load the debris, tie the corners together and take
it to the dump--save the burlap. It's reusable.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
17025 |
|
|
Date: March 19, 2020 at 03:19:31
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Mercola: Conspriacy-Pseudoscience site/Questionable |
URL: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mercola/ |
|
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may
publish unverifiable information that is not always
supported by evidence. These sources may be
untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information,
therefore fact checking and further investigation is
recommended on a per article basis when obtaining
information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-
Pseudoscience sources.
Overall, we rate Mercola.com a Quackery level
pseudoscience website that advocates for sometimes
dangerous, inaction or action, to serious health
issues.
Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: LOW
*full report at link
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17028] [17030] [17036] [17037] [17029] |
|
17028 |
|
|
Date: March 21, 2020 at 08:02:11
From: Awen, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Question, Redhart |
|
|
Many of the articles chosen by Logan lately, though
from questionable sites, have been fully consistent
with information that has been known and promoted by
mainstream sites and science journals for some time.
This, for example, has been taught in college
classes since the late 1990s.
Frankly lately he's been posting what the Left has
been trying to tell everyone for years, and likewise
what academic moderates have been saying for
decades.
The question is this:
I know you have a problem with the source, but when
the source is correct, despite being questionable in
general, why comment? Why dismiss something that
can potentially produce a change in human behavior
for the better?
I do notice, Redhart, that you go against what you
yourself have posted in the past in your eagerness
to dismiss anything Logan posts from these sites.
Does the site offend you so much that you renege on
your own knowledge and common sense?
I like you Redhart, and most of what you post, but
protesting the site just because it is THAT site,
even though the message is correct, is undermining
efforts at making positive change in the world.
I'm for whatever aids the planet at this point. If
the info is correct, and people actually read and
change their behavior accordingly, I don't give a
flying eff about the source.
I care more about the planet than agendas at this
point.
More and more, this bleeding heart Liberal finds
herself aligned with quite a bit (though by no means
all) of what Logan is posting (which is mostly a
rehash of what the Left and the Academic
professionals and tree huggers have been saying for
years)
If Logan wants to think it's the Right, and it
changes his behavior, let him. At this point the
planet is what matters.
In an ideal world, yeah, posting about sources and
quackery and pseudoscience, and aiming toward
correct thinking should be the aim.
The world is broken. Frankly, whatever means to fix
it, provided it does no other harm, is acceptable to
me at this point. People only give a d@mn about
what their echo chamber tells them to do, and
telling them their source is a conspiracy only makes
them cling harder to it. That's basic human
psychology. Calling them out only makes them more
resistant you YOU.
So lets use their echo chambers and promote said
echo chambers when they're correct.
Heck, lets infiltrate the echo chambers.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17030] [17036] [17037] [17029] |
|
17030 |
|
|
Date: March 21, 2020 at 13:26:20
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Question, Redhart |
|
|
even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I post the warning as additional info --up to you to
decide what to do with that...fact check the info..find
an alternative source, or ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17036] [17037] |
|
17036 |
|
|
Date: March 24, 2020 at 08:08:18
From: Awen, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Fair...and until about 6 months ago I probably would agree fully |
|
|
It's not that I see anything wrong with that
perspective....and you know me well enough to recall
that in the past I've been a lot less diplomatic
than you have been calling people out.
Kudos to you for maintaining diplomacy.
I think, fundamentally, humanity disappoints me more
and more...and reason never has seemed to work (even
when I read posts of others who say the same thing
as I but without my vitriol...I KNOW my vitriol
drives people off).
And so...maybe I've sold out. Joined the
tricksters...strategically I don't see honesty as
workable anymore. Manipulation...playing
sources...propaganda...seems to be the only thing
that works. Make them think they're following one
of their own, just so long as it saves the world.
And that's an entirely disgusting viewpoint to have.
And yet...it seems the only way. Honest discourse
seems dead. People have taken sides. The only way
to get a point across is to wrap it in rhetorical
decorations that make it seem to people that their
own echo chamber is speaking to them in their own
language. It's cheating.
But...I don't know what the alternative is anymore.
And I question the usefulness of honor when it
simply breeds resistance. And that makes me want to
cry.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17037] |
|
17037 |
|
|
Date: March 24, 2020 at 13:27:53
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Fair...and until about 6 months ago I probably would agree fully |
|
|
Well, I hear you--but in the end I need to be true to
myself and my own values. To thine own self be true. I'm
responsible to my own conscience in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
17029 |
|
|
Date: March 21, 2020 at 12:54:03
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Question, Redhart |
|
|
|
I have to agree with you Awen, heck even zerohedge has been posting some valuable info lately. It appears this pandemic has knocked some sense into some of the otherwise senseless out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ] |