• spaceghotiOP
      link
      English
      20
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yeah, that’s not going to happen. It’s too useful. So the next best thing is to figure out what to do with it going forward.

      • @doppelgangmember@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        168 months ago

        Plant based plastics, easy.

        It’s simply petrochemical based plastics pushed by the oil industry that are so bad aren’t biodegradable.

      • @ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        88 months ago

        Landfills are the answer for the US. It sits completely contained under ground after use, and if technology comes that can utilize the waste in a profitable way, we know exactly where it is.

        • @obbelusk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          What about burning it for heat and electricity. I’ve heard that those plants are really effective now.

          • @lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            Could potentially be a legit use for CCS I guess. If it worked. Needs to get better first.

            Although, if this displaces coal on the grid, I guess it’s a step in the right direction?

            • ANGRY_MAPLE
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              That would help solve the plastic quantity problem, but we should also probably find a way to filter all of the forever chemicals from reaching the air.

              Some of those chemicals can do pretty nasty things in high quantities or when repeatedly consumed over a long period of time.

        • @MediumGray@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          98 months ago

          You often can’t though unfortunately. Most plastics can only be recycled a handful of times before they degrade too far. Recycling, while better than nothing, is a far more inefficient and flawed process than it is often presented as. That’s why it is far better to reduce usage in the first place and reuse things as is where you can. Of course this is all still easier said than done.

          • @KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            68 months ago

            Yeah, the bullshit marketing of companies that presented pollution as a consumer problem instead of a corpo problem is a huge issue. It lead people to believe that plastics were infinitely recyclable, and the only reason there’s any pollution is because consumers just aren’t properly recycling.

            In reality, the majority of plastics used aren’t even recyclable, and end up in landfill regardless. But somehow that’s still the fault of the consumer.

            Utter bullshit.

          • @Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            48 months ago

            I kind of like the approach of the Germans. You build a product, you are responsible for its disposal. Therefore, you have to engineer so that materials are cheaper to get rid of. Sure, recycled plastics degrade and eventually can’t be used for anything. But, it should be up to the last manufacturer to dispose of it in a safe way.

            • @MediumGray@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I entirely agree, and that does sound like a good approach. I just caution against presenting recycling as a solution rather than as a reduction of harm.

        • @bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          By recycle it, do you mean throw it in the blue bin? Because if so that’s not really recycling. That’s just choosing to throw it in an overseas landfill instead of a local one.

  • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    188 months ago

    If it were actually comprehensive, they wouldn’t need to add “most” and “ever.” Those two words indicate that they’re patting themselves on the back for clearing a low bar.

  • DessertStorms
    link
    fedilink
    98 months ago

    If it’s anything other than “abolish capitalism” it’s not only not comprehensive, it isn’t even in the fucking neighbourhood.

    As long as profit is prioritised over people and the environment, pollution will be a problem.

    • @photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      168 months ago

      Bro pollution was a huge issue in the USSR. In China, its worse than it’s ever been. You must know that “abolishing capitalism” won’t fly in the US, not this decade.

      Can’t we celebrate the steps we take to reduce the problem, however small?

      • DessertStorms
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Lmfao, love it when bootlickers just can’t help but willingly broadcast their ignorance like this, it always gives me a good chuckle, thanks!

        (hint: those whatabout examples weren’t/aren’t communism, but state-capitalism, and therefore not the “gotcha” you think it is, not that that would ever stop you from repeating the same wilfully ignorant bullshit every time you feel personally attacked by someone pointing out how terrible capitalism is 🤦‍♀️😂)

        • @Jax@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          118 months ago

          Yeah, you’re cancer. Capitalism might be bad, but people like you are even worse for setting normal people against the cause.

          The entire world will not change overnight. You can keep being a toxic dickhead, or grow the fuck up and accept that.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)
        link
        fedilink
        48 months ago

        I got the opportunity to visit China as a kid in the 90s. Amazing country with a lot of history and cultural works that deserve recognition (including those from periods of time that deserve recognition for how terrible they were). That said, I would blow my nose at the end of the day in Shanghai and the tissue would come away black with soot.

        Not supporting or detracting from your points, just adding some “flavor” from my experience.

    • @AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      18 months ago

      Not at all. You capitalists, both pro and con, neglect that it’s government’s responsibility to establish a fair marketplace to benefit its citizens. Capitalism can do its magic within that marketplace. I put the blame squarely on the government for abdicating its role, failing its responsibility, forgetting that it’s supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people”.