![United States United States](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/usa_64.png)
The White House Has a Plan To Slash Plastic Use in the US (nytimes.com) 112
Calling plastic pollution one of the world's most pressing environmental problems, the Biden administration on Friday said that the federal government, the biggest buyer of consumer goods in the world, would phase out purchases of single-use plastics. From a report: The administration also said it planned tougher regulations on plastic manufacturing, which releases planet-warming greenhouse gases and other dangerous pollutants. The efforts, which the White House called the first comprehensive strategy to tackle plastic use nationwide, aim to reduce demand for disposable plastic items while also helping to create a market for substitutes that are reusable, compostable or more easily recyclable.
Brenda Mallory, who heads the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement that the changes would "require unprecedented action at every stage of the plastic life cycle." Because of its purchasing power, the White House added, "the federal government has the potential to significantly impact the supply of these products." The emphasis on curbing plastic use mirrors a growing recognition that the world can't recycle or manage its way out of a deluge of plastic waste. Global plastic production rose nearly 230-fold between 1950 and 2019, to more than 400 million tons a year, and is expected to quadruple from current levels by 2050. An estimated 40 percent of that is single-use plastic, which makes up the bulk of the world's plastic waste.
Brenda Mallory, who heads the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement that the changes would "require unprecedented action at every stage of the plastic life cycle." Because of its purchasing power, the White House added, "the federal government has the potential to significantly impact the supply of these products." The emphasis on curbing plastic use mirrors a growing recognition that the world can't recycle or manage its way out of a deluge of plastic waste. Global plastic production rose nearly 230-fold between 1950 and 2019, to more than 400 million tons a year, and is expected to quadruple from current levels by 2050. An estimated 40 percent of that is single-use plastic, which makes up the bulk of the world's plastic waste.
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
The amount of plastic (packaging, et al) has gotten out of control. I'm sick of needing tools to get to things I purchase. If you visit Europe, you can see how it doesn't need to be this way.
Don't relax just yet . . . (Score:2)
We have no idea what the next White House will look like, but Nick the Greek's giving 20:1 on Blue, 1:5 on Red.
(What, you were expecting a fair shake or something? This is US Politics, we don't do that sort of thing here!)
Re: (Score:2)
There's so much excessive over-packaging with plastic in the US, it feels like a massive joke or insult.
Like the most stupid overuse are plastic, single use cups at restaurants. Paper cups are fine when you need disposability. Nobody ever recycles the plastic cups, and far too much crap "plastic promotional cups" exist.
But the over-packaging that is the worst is still the "tiny USB drive inside a 5" plastic clamshell that you have to take kitchen shears to open.
Re: (Score:2)
It's far worse than just single use plastics.
F
Re: Finally (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing from the article worth mentioning the federal government, the biggest buyer of consumer goods in the world.
Repeat it three times.
They're the same ones telling us to reduce, reuse, recycle.
The US government at all levels is likely near the top in ...
1. Fossil fuel used
2. Electricity used
3. Rubber used
4. Air miles traveled
5. Paper products, cardboard used
6. Water used
7. Plastic used
Factoids:
25% of the entire US Federal budget is spent within 50 miles of Washington,
Re: (Score:2)
While I love pointing out how Europe is some wonderful utopia compared to the United 3rd world States of America, Europe has *plenty* of problems with plastic packaging.
Some of the strictest rules have only recently been introduced and they still do not go nearly far enough. Sure we got rid of plastic straws, attached bottle caps to bottles, but there's still a hugely disappointing amount of pointless plastic packaging in the world.
And yes our fucking scissors are still encased in that fucking plastic that
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Theft is why you need to buy another knife to open that shiny new knife.
Theft is why everything you open takes 10 minutes and hurts your ears in the process.
Theft is why everything has to be the size of a plastic football.
Theft is why everything costs more.
Theft is why modern home centers feel like a cage match.
Theft is why swipe fees are so expensive.
Seriously, stop tolerating theft. Your wallet will thank you. Damn sheep
Re: Finally (Score:2)
Yeah. The Lowes in the next town over started locking up the Romex recently. Maybe they know something I don't.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that the problem is often worse in low crime countries, e.g. Japan.
Plastic packaging is cheap and keeps the product pristine. Consumers don't like tatty cardboard boxes that have been shipped around and kept on the shelf for a long time, with signs of other consumers having handled them. Sealed plastic also helps prevent the product from degrading due to contact with the air, humidity etc.
And most of all, it's the cheapest option. In Japan you get some amazing origami cardboard packaging from some manufacturers, but it all costs money to develop and to assemble at the factory, so cheap stuff comes in heat sealed shells.
We need to adjust consumer expectations a bit. It can be done, e.g. some UK supermarkets offer "imperfect" vegetables and fruits at a small discount.
Re: (Score:3)
Chances are, they will have carve outs for packaging and shipping materials, like they did for the ban on Formaldehyde in wood products.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of plastic (packaging, et al) has gotten out of control. I'm sick of needing tools to get to things I purchase.
I have to take medication. Each and every individual pill is encased in plastic. It is a serious pain in the ass to open.
WHY THE FUCK IS EVERY FUCKING PILL ENCASED IN PLASTIC?!?!?!
I mean why? What is purpose served by wrapping each and every pill in plastic? How does this benefit me? I don't want it, plastic is bad for the environment, and yet somehow or another, every fucking pill is wrapped in plastic. Please make it make sense.
I gotta admit, I have heard cries about reducing plastic since almost the day
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
sounds sensible since we currently don't have viable alternatives. With an actual viable plan that could be changed over say 30+ years but political greentards aren't up to anything like that engineering problem.
read: "as long as it doesn't inconvenience ME"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Glass and fiber based bags is always a viable alternative to plastics. It takes a small amount of effort to implement, but it is eminently achievable.
And are politically neutral since modern greens and 1950s fans can both approve of paper and glass.
Re:Meanwhile the Trump campaign (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Meanwhile the Trump campaign (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Meanwhile the Trump campaign (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ubiquitous plastic is a relatively recent thing.
If by relatively recent, you mean for the past 30 years. That was about the first time I was cut by a clamshell pulling out someone else's Sony Walkman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile the Trump campaign (Score:5, Funny)
Masks and Covid tests aren't about control, you drooling moron.
You really need to stop drinking bleach.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just the word "Trump" has become a magical incantation to summon the idiotic knuckle-draggers.
Plus there are the idiot nuckle draggers that invoke the word in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Meanwhile the Trump campaign (Score:3)
Typical liberal, conservatives don't drink bleach (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I almost certainly shouldn't weigh into this stupidity, but it's not about control... it's about [unthinking] compliance & uniformity.
Compliance makes control easier, but where some people can't see the motive because they can't see cui bono.
They miss the point of power. To some, power is about power; nothing more, nothing less. There's no benefit to being able to tell someone to jump... other than the appreciation of being able to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
So... You think masks and tests during a pandemic are just about "unthinking compliance"?
Just how stupid are you anyway?
masks as compliance (Score:1)
"just" ? No, but this was the environment we were in... some people wore masks inside their own private cars, or outside while jogging in their subdivisions. "Karens" screaming about other people not wearing masks in public parks or on public streets.
Students in band playing wind instruments were required to wear masks but cut holes into them so they could actually direct their breath into them.
And let's not forget plastic geodesic domes on sidewalks outside of restaurants so the patrons don't freeze.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you're a very special kind of stupid.
I wore a mask in my car frequently. Do you know why? I forgot I was wearing it because wearing mask wasn't a big deal. I didn't cry like a little bitch just because a business asked me to cover my mouth and nose to help protect themselves and their customers.
I also wore a mask on public streets. Do you know why? So I didn't have to bother with putting a mask on before talking to someone or going into a building. Because I'm not a pathetic right-wing snowflake,
Re: (Score:1)
I hope you have enjoyed your stay at the illustrious Ad Hominem Hotel...
Meanwhile, I did wear a mask... when I went to the hospital [lab] or doctor's office or grocery store. After all, that's an enclosed space and it actually makes a bit of sense.
On the other hand, once I was out of there I took my mask off.
I didn't find the experience of having to wear a mask [properly] pleasant, but I could and did. There were others who found it much more difficult.
As to any whining and crying... I'm not the one who bro
Re: (Score:2)
I see you have trouble reading as well. Why am I not surprised?
I do love the back-peddling. It's hilarious to watch! Just how pathetic can you crybaby plague rats get?
The Soviets had a name for this behaviour.
You freaks really do have a hard-on for authoritarians. Try to keep in you pants, okay?
thoughtless compliance (Score:2)
I'm not sure which part needs refutation the most.
Back-peddling: you made some assumptions about my position, then proceeded to try to burn it down. That's called a straw-man.
As to authoritarianism... dude. I said I was against thoughtless compliance. Authoritarianism is about forcing thoughtless compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure which part needs refutation the most.
The nonsense you wrote, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Lmao ever hear about tin soldiers?
And lead, cast iron, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
immediately released a plan to boost the use of plastics in the US, calling them a great use of our abundant oil resources and pledging to 'drill baby drill' in order to jump start the plastics production industry.
Wrong. Paper, metal and glass will be preferred. Just like the 1950s when everything was good.
Back To Glass? (Score:1)
Glass is pretty environmentally inert, but people get cut. What's the trade-off? When I was a kid, I stepped on a broken bottleneck, which lodged. Weeks later, Mom performed impromptu surgery and removed it. Painful. Lots more of that, traded for diminished environmental impact? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The beverage industry does not like glass anymore because its way heavier than plastic. This means it costs a lot more to make and transport. Hence they will continue to use plastic, while gaslighting the public about its recyclability or lack thereof.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a "glass" problem, that's a "littering" problem.
Guess what - littering fuckheads throw plastic on the ground too, and while it may not cut your feet if you step on it barefoot (don't do that?) it instead finds it's ways into waterways and the environment where it leaches chemicals. Glass doesn't do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Bottles are reusable. You used to have to pay a deposit which would be reimbursed when the bottles were returned. Litter wasn't that much of a problem. Discarded bottles would be collected by kids and homeless people for the refund.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Glass is a lot less environmentally friendly when you take into account the carbon required to produce, recycle (which requires extensive water use as well) and transport it. I think it's a factor of 200x.
Plastic is relatively easy to recycle, if you recycle it into either other plastic or fuel, but many people are opposed to that as well, so they have strict government regulations that make it practically impossible to do. If you treat plastic like the oil it is (eg pyrolysis and then mix it with corn etha
Re: (Score:2)
people would be harvesting it from the oceans (easier than drilling) and solve a great deal of the pollution problem.
Oil is localised and concentrated more than plastic waste floating in the ocean, even where it is concentrated, so that seems unlikely to be viable.
Re: (Score:1)
The media makes it sound like there is a massive plastic island floating around the size of Texas, so if the problem is so massive, it should be easy to solve if you can just use it as a fuel.
Glass can be reused to an extent, it doesn’t solve the transportation problem (makes it worse) but also requires massive cleaning and liability issues. Any scratches on the inside or neck could harbor dangerous bacteria, so you need a good QC process. We have a local farm that does it for their milk bottles, the
Re: (Score:2)
The media makes it sound like there is a massive plastic island floating around the size of Texas, so if the problem is so massive, it should be easy to solve if you can just use it as a fuel.
The area is large, it's a problem due to micro plastics, but the volume is tiny compared to a typical oil field. Given the effort and energy required to collect it and process it for fuel, it's not worth collecting
Glass can be reused to an extent, it doesn’t solve the transportation problem (makes it worse) but also requires massive cleaning and liability issues. Any scratches on the inside or neck could harbor dangerous bacteria, so you need a good QC process. We have a local farm that does it for their milk bottles, the milk is more than twice the cost of a premium milk brand in plastic containers
In the UK, delivered milk Is about 25% more. The true cost of milk in plastic includes the externalised costs.
they can only reuse the bottles up to 3 times before they HAVE to be recycled.
https://blog.themodernmilkman.... [themodernmilkman.co.uk]. 25 to 30, not 3 in the UK.
Re: (Score:1)
How fast does your milk go off in those glass bottles? The difference in days in delivered glass in the UK vs weeks in the US is the measure of bacteria leftover after cleaning from the article you posted, yes, big problem from many Reddit posts I can find. We used to have the same (government sponsored) milk delivery in my country of origin, this would be wholly unacceptable to FDA standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glass is pretty environmentally inert, but people get cut.
Having lived in that era, the concern of getting cut by a glass soda bottle was down there with a concern about a lightning strike. At least in the context of handing a kid a bottle of coca cola.
What's the trade-off? When I was a kid, I stepped on a broken bottleneck, ...
I was only cut, nothing lodged. :-) I expect your bottle, like mine, was a beer bottle. Which we still have today. So switching soda back to glass is likely a quite minimal glass hazard. Coca cola bottles just did not break as easily as some beer bottles.
Fallacy of composition, in reverse (Score:4, Interesting)
The classic version is that if I'm in a crowd and stand up, I get a better view, but if everyone also stands up, no one will have a better view.
Here, it's a little more subtle. If my municipality bans plastic bottles or bags or whatever, people will make do by purchasing these products at greater hassle or expense elsewhere. And in an emergency like a water outage or extended utility outage, the same government that banned plastic will happily distribute water in plastic bottles and food aid packages in plastic bags that are readily available because a few one-off bans don't affect the availability of these products in the wider market.
But if *everyone* bans these products, then the industry sinks, and next time there's an emergency, everyone is SOL having to import it from China or India or anywhere else they don't give a fuck about green because they have bills to pay and no time for luxury belief radicalism.
Then there are the second-order effects from taking away a revenue source for petrochemical feedstocks sold to make disfavored plastics that will have the effect of driving up the cost of manufacturing not-disfavored products made from those petrochemical feedstocks whose cost of extraction, refining, and transport is amortized over the "good" and "bad" stuff right now.
Tldr version: government getting full of itself and thinking it can pick winners and losers without imposing costs elsewhere. Just like in the old country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Fallacy of composition, in reverse (Score:1)
How about a less childish reading: the world is complex so we must maintain humility about policies that can have unintended negative consequences, especially when we know what those might be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fallacy of composition, in reverse (Score:3)
If your "solutions" have the property that they impose costs and burdens, do little to address the stated problem, and exist mostly to "send a message" to the designated bad guys, the way a lot of these plastic bans do*, then I'll take benign lying over earnest troublemaking any day of the week and twice on whatever say of the week your religion deems holier than the others.
*Like the checkout bag bans. Some only ban petroleum-derived plastics leaving the rest all legal; others require bags to be recyclable
Re: (Score:2)
others require bags to be recyclable meaning little thin checkout bags are replaced with big honkin ones that use more plastic, etc
They can be reused. I'm in the UK and every time I go to the grocery store, I see people reusing bags. The ban in the UK has not been noticeably unpopular and the use of plastic material used in bags overall, which takes into account that reusable ones are thicker, has reduced. So what you are saying won't work has been tried and did work.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And in an emergency like a water outage or extended utility outage, the same government that banned plastic will happily distribute water in plastic bottles and food aid packages in plastic bags that are readily available because a few one-off bans don't affect the availability of these products in the wider market.
But if *everyone* bans these products, then the industry sinks, and next time there's an emergency, everyone is SOL having to import it
You sure are a genius compared to that government you invented.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is banning more and more single use plastic things apart from bottles.
Many countries have a container-deposit scheme for plastic bottles. If the plastic you throw in the nature is worth money, you tend to throw it less. And if you do, someone will be more likely to pick it up to claim that money. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oh no! what ever will we do without the emergency plastic bag industry!
Re: Fallacy of composition, in reverse (Score:2)
Yeah, whatever would we do if we unwittingly cripple the industrial base that supplies our emergency equipment by cutting off its revenue from other products that are made from the same raw materials and share supply chains, factory lines, etc. What *would* we do if we were so shortsighted and so blinded by our zeal to please $deity that we threw out that baby with our bathwater?
That's a silly question isn't it? That's like asking, what would happen if we delayed elections, closed down libraries, businesses
Re: (Score:2)
Blah Blah Blah (Score:3)
Meanwhile the plastic company lobbyists are busy filling the coffers. Get to the root of the problem already.
Re: (Score:2)
They're delicious when properly cooked. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but unless your fresh food is delivered in plastic, how do you know it's never been touched by human hands?
Bring back paper cartons (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bring back paper cartons (Score:3)
Psper cartons are lined on the inside with plastic. Before plastics, there were glass bottles and metal cans.
Yeah, this'll work (Score:2, Offtopic)
So how's that gonna stop China, Joe?
Re: (Score:2)
Well damn, I guess if we can't solve every aspect of one of the biggest challenges facing our species all at once - and it had better cost nothing - we better just not even try.
Yep, 100% or 0%. Those are your choices! Incremental progress is for WOKE SOCIALISTS, AMIRITE?
Please stop this stupid line of thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop this stupid line of thinking.
You know, I wasn't calling names at other people here about this. Why do you feel like you have to get in the gutter about it?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't call names either. I evaluated your logic as being stupid. Which it is.
Just because another country is a polluted shithole, doesn't mean that EVERY COUNTRY must be a polluted shithole.
Incremental progress is still progress. And leading by example is a thing, because it allows you to shame the countries that don't follow in the progress.
Would you say the same thing about coal? Oh, well because China is still burning coal, that means we should continue burning all the coal we can too, right? Tha
Feeling Unconvinced (Score:3)
High energy / low entropy hydrocarbons under the ground are probably best left where they are, but if you pull them from under the ground, the most stupid thing you can do with them is burn them.
There are other uses - Oiling machines, making plastics, any other variant of organic chemistry in industry and medicine.
If I have some plastic waste and put it in the ground, that's putting it back where it came from. I don't see the problem. If I burn it, that's turning it into atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is maybe not the best idea ever.
Reducing waste is fine, but don't lose the utility of the thing while you are trying to eliminate the waste.
Re: (Score:3)
Hydrocarbons deep in the ground are generally not an issue. If you dig, pump them out, and burn them you get some relatively short-lived pollution... it's the quantity we burn that is at issue with fossil fuels - it's well out of proportion to the natural sequestration process.
Plastic, though, that's worse. When you take oil out of the ground and convert it into plastics you're making extremely stable molecules that may 'break down' at a macroscopic level, but those chains aren't very likely to crack. An
Pointless (Score:2)
liberal logic (Score:1)
Scorched earth (Score:2)
Some single-use plastics are essential (Score:2, Offtopic)
Next time you go to the hospital, make sure they use glass bottles of IV fluid, sterilized rubber surgical tubing, glass syringes, etc. Single-use plastics help ensure sterile equipment, healthy outcomes, and save money. Get rid of all single-use plastics and prepare for more disease, death, pandemics, and expenses. Single-use plastics have fantastic economic savings elsewhere, but buying scissors in a sealed clamshell package that take scissors to open...nope.
BTW, by far the plastics pollution is not in
And the Trump Whitehouse (Score:2)
will throw out everything Biden did.
Plenty of recyclable plastic around (Score:2)
built-in waste (Score:2)
Medical care and aged care requires a lot of single-use items: Obviously for disease control, but also food. Once something touches a plate, it (and the plate) become a single-use item. A number of jobs are more about look-what-I-did (a version of checking boxes), than resource-management: How much stuff is thrown-away, how much is never used, is irrelevant.
The part-time nature of those industries also means there's no-one to track how old something is (a lot of food never gets "expiry" labels, see ne
Different day, same idiocy (Score:2)
These bans to "save the planet" designed by lobbyists and political staffers and pushed by moron politicians produce the same stupid results with the same unintended consequences over and over again.
Remember the California plastic straws ban that replaced plastic straws wrapped in paper with paper straws wrapped in plastic?
"Ban single use plastics!" is a cry that sounds great to morons, but when actually considered it means the following: Get rid of safety-sealed affordable packaging for food and medicine,
white house has a plan (Score:2)
White House has a plan: we will do everything by executive fiat, because Trump would be a dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
Slash the size of the federal government down so it isn't the biggest purchaser of consumer goods
Right, that took 0.001 seconds to achieve given your premise is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If you get rid of it, you'll need welfare. Good luck with those millions jobs gone.
Re: (Score:2)
And it will probably happen in the US, too:
I can still get things in glass jars and bottles in the UK. Loose fruit, etc. What you describe seems to be particular to Australia, not bag bans. A decade ago some of the packaging you mention was more common in the UK than it is now. Yes, sometimes meat does come as you suggest, but not generally.