Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
May 19, 2025 - 9:31pm
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
After about 2 years of fundraising, a local group was able to donate this glass crusher to our recycling center. So now rather than pay to haul glass 500 miles to Salt Lake City to be melted down, which few/zero communities do this far away, or rather than pay to bury it somewhere (after hauling it there), we can crush it back to sand and gravel. It's very very unnerving to stick your hand into a pile of sand after watching glass bottles go in one end and the sand comes out and the rock-salt-sized cullet in another bin and it's not sharp at all. Very unnerving. But it's cool. The machine spits labels and caps and corks into a third bin and that is a tiny amount of chaff per ton of sand. Anyway they asked my opinion on something basic and I wound up helping them with their campaign; meet "Sandy Crusher," our new addition at Powell Valley Recycling Center!
Full disclosure: I did not draw the cartoon. I use an illustrator in Indonesia for stuff like this and he asked a lot of questions but I thought he did a great job of anthropomorphizing the machine. So much so that when I suggested adding the face to the machine itself, the committee all sort of giggled and went for it!
After about 2 years of fundraising, a local group was able to donate this glass crusher to our recycling center. So now rather than pay to haul glass 500 miles to Salt Lake City to be melted down, which few/zero communities do this far away, or rather than pay to bury it somewhere (after hauling it there), we can crush it back to sand and gravel. It's very very unnerving to stick your hand into a pile of sand after watching glass bottles go in one end and the sand comes out and the rock-salt-sized cullet in another bin and it's not sharp at all. Very unnerving. But it's cool. The machine spits labels and caps and corks into a third bin and that is a tiny amount of chaff per ton of sand. Anyway they asked my opinion on something basic and I wound up helping them with their campaign; meet "Sandy Crusher," our new addition at Powell Valley Recycling Center!Full disclosure: I did not draw the cartoon. I use an illustrator in Indonesia for stuff like this and he asked a lot of questions but I thought he did a great job of anthropomorphizing the machine. So much so that when I suggested adding the face to the machine itself, the committee all sort of giggled and went for it!
Seems like a bit of an over-reaction to an innocuous comment that plastic is not great for the environment...nowhere did I ever argue for an extreme measure to "Stop Plastic, Now!" Or even argue to stop using microfibers in clothes... You had asked and I had provided a couple of examples where putting plastic into the supply chain creates pollution and costs that are never fully accounted for or monetized...unless i missed something back in business school where companies are actually accounting for the full impact of pollution? If you want to argue otherwise, go ahead. But I haven't heard anything convincing yet. I'm used to looking at rocks, and even find some to be beautiful, but not so much piles of plastic. Maybe i just need to change my perception.
You stepped into the middle of a conversation with some fairly specific accusations with a vague Uh, plastics aren't great for the environment, m'kay? comment. Your examples so far are complaints of some kind of unspecified pollution and "the cocktail of toxins that are spewed into the air by trash incinerators".
Sorry if I unwittingly included you as a supporter of the microfiber attack ad. If you'd like to broaden the attack on plastics you're going to have to provide a bit more detail than that, and maybe explain why you think incinerators are relevant.
A pile of trash isn't pretty, but other than the aesthetics it isn't really a large-scale threat to the environment.* Mother nature doesn't care what it looks like and doesn't care what we think about it. And why is the pile of trash the fault of the people who made the objects and not the fault of the people disposing of them improperly?
*Yes, I've seen pictures of birds with six-pack holders around their necks. That goes on the negative side of the ledger. On the positive side are the are things like the ease of recycling, lower energy use in their production than alternatives, minimal production waste compared to alternatives, energy savings from transport and handling, better product hygiene when used in containers, and the design possibilities they open up for the products that make our lives better. One is very visible, the others not, but just as real. On balance plastics are quite positive for the environment.
Emissions - found in the gases released or ash - from incinerators include dioxins, heavy metals and other toxins, resulting from burning plastics as well as metals. As for blame, there is enough to go around for both manufacturers and consumers...I admit I'm not up to speed with the full costs of pollution on plastics or alternatives (back to my comment that it could still be the best material for packaging...), but it would be nice if there was better transparency for consumers and manufacturers to make more informed choices.
Seems like a bit of an over-reaction to an innocuous comment that plastic is not great for the environment...nowhere did I ever argue for an extreme measure to "Stop Plastic, Now!" Or even argue to stop using microfibers in clothes... You had asked and I had provided a couple of examples where putting plastic into the supply chain creates pollution and costs that are never fully accounted for or monetized...unless i missed something back in business school where companies are actually accounting for the full impact of pollution? If you want to argue otherwise, go ahead. But I haven't heard anything convincing yet. I'm used to looking at rocks, and even find some to be beautiful, but not so much piles of plastic. Maybe i just need to change my perception.
You stepped into the middle of a conversation with some fairly specific accusations with a vague Uh, plastics aren't great for the environment, m'kay? comment. Your examples so far are complaints of some kind of unspecified pollution and "the cocktail of toxins that are spewed into the air by trash incinerators".
Sorry if I unwittingly included you as a supporter of the microfiber attack ad. If you'd like to broaden the attack on plastics you're going to have to provide a bit more detail than that, and maybe explain why you think incinerators are relevant.
A pile of trash isn't pretty, but other than the aesthetics it isn't really a large-scale threat to the environment.* Mother nature doesn't care what it looks like and doesn't care what we think about it. And why is the pile of trash the fault of the people who made the objects and not the fault of the people disposing of them improperly?
*Yes, I've seen pictures of birds with six-pack holders around their necks. That goes on the negative side of the ledger. On the positive side are the are things like the ease of recycling, lower energy use in their production than alternatives, minimal production waste compared to alternatives, energy savings from transport and handling, better product hygiene when used in containers, and the design possibilities they open up for the products that make our lives better. One is very visible, the others not, but just as real. On balance plastics are quite positive for the environment.
I recently moved into some new Levis 501 jeans. I also recently joked that these jeans will be in my estate sale.
I would posit that a much more environmentally shitty thing to wear is cheap jeans. One pair of jeans in my closet is nominally also Levis 501s but they are Chinese knockoffs that appeared in Costco. They're uncomfortable, look ugly, are thin and ... will go un-worn for the most part, unless I remember to pull them out to do yardwork. I also have a few pairs of other jeans that are just junky and don't hold up like the good Levis. All of those required the growing, processing, shipping, labor as the good ones, but the result is not a product with the same durability or utility.
I have a microfiber jacket that I have worn every ski day for the past decade. You cannot begin to convince me that it's a bigger threat to the environment than those knockoff Levis jeans.
You with the subjective practicalities and the objective yard work...or is it the other way around?
There are still costs that are not being captured, or maybe the greenhouse gases are not a big deal, nor the cocktail of toxins that are spewed into the air by trash incinerators, or the fact it virtually never breaks down...but i doubt you are actually asking me for reasons why plastic is "not so great."
What greenhouse gasses? Where did trash incinerators come into this?
In what way is something that "virtually never" breaks down a threat? Are rocks threats? The petroleum the plastics came from—should we dig it up and, I don't know, rebury it as a hazardous material?
I'm asking you to justify the action you want to take. With like, actual evidence. Science and stuff.
And if you get it wrong expect to be called on it. there are no end of activists out there demanding things, demanding an end to things, demanding that everybody stop what they're doing and remake the world in an image they find appealing but have no clue how to implement—or if it would even be any better. Build solar roads! Power cars with compost! Stop using cell phones because they cause brain cancer!
They can produce slick videos. They can be persuasive. But for the most part they can bask in the feel-good glow of activism without the responsibility of having to actually implement any of the things they think are such great ideas for the rest of us.
Because they don't know what they're talking about.
Demand evidence when someone tells you there is a crisis. The sky is falling? Show us a piece.
Seems like a bit of an over-reaction to an innocuous comment that plastic is not great for the environment...nowhere did I ever argue for an extreme measure to "Stop Plastic, Now!" Or even argue to stop using microfibers in clothes... You had asked and I had provided a couple of examples where putting plastic into the supply chain creates pollution and costs that are never fully accounted for or monetized...unless i missed something back in business school where companies are actually accounting for the full impact of pollution? If you want to argue otherwise, go ahead. But I haven't heard anything convincing yet. I'm used to looking at rocks, and even find some to be beautiful, but not so much piles of plastic. Maybe i just need to change my perception.
There are still costs that are not being captured, or maybe the greenhouse gases are not a big deal, nor the cocktail of toxins that are spewed into the air by trash incinerators, or the fact it virtually never breaks down...but i doubt you are actually asking me for reasons why plastic is "not so great."
What greenhouse gasses? Where did trash incinerators come into this?
In what way is something that "virtually never" breaks down a threat? Are rocks threats? The petroleum the plastics came from—should we dig it up and, I don't know, rebury it as a hazardous material?
I'm asking you to justify the action you want to take. With like, actual evidence. Science and stuff.
And if you get it wrong expect to be called on it. there are no end of activists out there demanding things, demanding an end to things, demanding that everybody stop what they're doing and remake the world in an image they find appealing but have no clue how to implement—or if it would even be any better. Build solar roads! Power cars with compost! Stop using cell phones because they cause brain cancer!
They can produce slick videos. They can be persuasive. But for the most part they can bask in the feel-good glow of activism without the responsibility of having to actually implement any of the things they think are such great ideas for the rest of us.
Because they don't know what they're talking about.
Demand evidence when someone tells you there is a crisis. The sky is falling? Show us a piece.
Not being a scientist, that's not really my job. Regardlessl, the point that plastic is not great for the environment doesn't change. Plastic as a raw material is cheap, but it's full cost (certain waste/pollution costs) are ignored. If there was a better accounting for its full cost, we could more easily uncover "cheaper" alternatives, or just deal with the increased shrink from not using it for packaging. Or maybe it's still cheaper, but at least consumer would be paying the full cost to deal with proper waste management.
Then how do you know your diagnosis (that "plastic is not great for the environment") is even valid?
You heard it (and repeated it) from people you trust. Are they scientists? If so why don't they have alternatives?
Last time I hauled stuff to the dump I had to pay for it. There are already numerous schemes to discourage littering (which seems to be the only part of the refuse chain where costs are externalized); why don't they count? If those measures are inadequate why not enhance them rather than a blanket condemnation of plastics?
There are still costs that are not being captured, or maybe the greenhouse gases are not a big deal, nor the cocktail of toxins that are spewed into the air by trash incinerators, or the fact it virtually never breaks down...but i doubt you are actually asking me for reasons why plastic is "not so great."
I recently moved into some new Levis 501 jeans. I also recently joked that these jeans will be in my estate sale.
I would posit that a much more environmentally shitty thing to wear is cheap jeans. One pair of jeans in my closet is nominally also Levis 501s but they are Chinese knockoffs that appeared in Costco. They're uncomfortable, look ugly, are thin and ... will go un-worn for the most part, unless I remember to pull them out to do yardwork. I also have a few pairs of other jeans that are just junky and don't hold up like the good Levis. All of those required the growing, processing, shipping, labor as the good ones, but the result is not a product with the same durability or utility.
I have a microfiber jacket that I have worn every ski day for the past decade. You cannot begin to convince me that it's a bigger threat to the environment than those knockoff Levis jeans.
Those are not microfibers, those are large objects—some large enough to make me suspicious that the image is fake.
Every garbage dump has vast flocks of seagulls around it picking them over for food. Every garbage dump has large numbers of waste objects like those. Garbage dumps do not have large numbers of dead seagulls who choked on plastic objects.
It's a large bird. I think the gist is that the birds died of malnutrition. Or simply died, and the contents of their bellies was interesting.
the point that plastic is not great for the environment doesn't change.
rhahl wrote:
Cotton and wool come to mind.
When I clean the lint trap in my dryer, it's full of powdery cotton (mostly). Do we know that smaller particles of cotton and wool aren't also washed into the ocean by the same process as the plastic microfibers in the video?
We are constantly being told that raising livestock is not good for the environment, wool must have a nonzero environmental impact. Cotton is a great fiber, but it's also not grown without doing a lot of damage.
This is all worth thinking about. If you want to put clothing on several billion humans in the most environmentally friendly way, I think your solution needs to be a bit more comprehensive than what this video is doing.
Those are not microfibers, those are large objects—some large enough to make me suspicious that the image is fake.
Every garbage dump has vast flocks of seagulls around it picking them over for food. Every garbage dump has large numbers of waste objects like those. Garbage dumps do not have large numbers of dead seagulls who choked on plastic objects.
Not being a scientist, that's not really my job. Regardlessl, the point that plastic is not great for the environment doesn't change. Plastic as a raw material is cheap, but it's full cost (certain waste/pollution costs) are ignored. If there was a better accounting for its full cost, we could more easily uncover "cheaper" alternatives, or just deal with the increased shrink from not using it for packaging. Or maybe it's still cheaper, but at least consumer would be paying the full cost to deal with proper waste management.
Then how do you know your diagnosis (that "plastic is not great for the environment") is even valid?
You heard it (and repeated it) from people you trust. Are they scientists? If so why don't they have alternatives?
Last time I hauled stuff to the dump I had to pay for it. There are already numerous schemes to discourage littering (which seems to be the only part of the refuse chain where costs are externalized); why don't they count? If those measures are inadequate why not enhance them rather than a blanket condemnation of plastics?
re. the questions...let's go back to the basic point: our over-reliance of plastic for temporary storage of consumables, apparel...is not so great.
Then propose an alternative and explain why it's better.
Not being a scientist, that's not really my job. Regardlessl, the point that plastic is not great for the environment doesn't change. Plastic as a raw material is cheap, but it's full cost (certain waste/pollution costs) are ignored. If there was a better accounting for its full cost, we could more easily uncover "cheaper" alternatives, or just deal with the increased shrink from not using it for packaging. Or maybe it's still cheaper, but at least consumer would be paying the full cost to deal with proper waste management.
