• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    But it’s not that simple. Back then no one recycled the can and all too many wouldn’t now. The can itself was heavier and not as effective. Plastic truly is a wonder material for packaging / it does a better job of keeping things fresh, is more convenient, and saving that weight, saving the energy going into making a can, saving the weight for shipping, is all a benefit of a plastic. We don’t have anything that works nearly as well

    We all need to face the idea that convenience items like pudding probably shouldn’t be sold at all, especially with how easy instant pudding is

    • yacht_boy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      The group think around here is so crazy. Should we be using less single use plastic, especially the thin films? Absolutely. But the environmental impacts of mining all that metal and making all that glass to replace plastic with, plus the added energy for transporting the heavier packages and the cost of increased spoilage and product lost to dented cans and broken bottles, dwarfs the negative impact of the plastic replacements.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Also, I haven’t seen enough research on where environmental plastic comes from. While they’re are some benefits to just using less plastics, less packaging where we can, it would be much better to focus on the larger sources

        Realistically what I’ve seen for larger sources of microplastics is:

        • industrial waste
        • tire dust
        • clothing

        I already have a lint trap on my washer outlet and see there are a few filters meant to trap much of the manmade fibers that come off in the wash, to dispose of in the trash rather than back into the environment with treated wastewater. I have no idea whether that would actually be helpful but the filters aren’t that expensive, and it’s one of the few options under my control.

        Increased standards on industrial waste cleanup are always a good idea. However a lot of this may be in undeveloped countries

        If laundry is a significant source of micro plastics in the environment, we need to figure that out and add filters or something

        We really really need to figure out something with tire dust, since it will continue to get worse as more people can afford personal transportation. I did read one article about filtering runoff near roads making a big difference but it was light on details and I’ve only seen something like that once

        • yacht_boy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I actually work in the wastewater industry and from what I’m reading, a properly functioning sewage treatment plant already captures a very high proportion of microplastics. This widely cited study noted above 98% removal efficiency at one plant.

          We’re already at approaching 2 log (99%) removal without actually trying to. It doesn’t seem improbable to me that with a few relatively modest tweaks to the system we could get 3 log removal (99.9%). Getting to 4 or 5 log removal is likely where things will get really expensive and challenging. But for now, a 2-3 log removal is probably good enough to focus on other sources like tire fragments/dust that typically pass directly to receiving waters with no treatment at all.

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I wonder how well PLA would work for food storage. I learned it’s made with beets and can break down very quickly.