this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

memes

9948 readers
1313 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think it's worth pointing out here that there are some major downsides to glass.

Weight. Glass is heavy, more weight means more energy (and emissions) required to transport it, and a lower product mass to packaging mass ratio.

Durability. Glass bottles have to be much thicker than plastic bottles to achieve the same strength, which means thicker glass and/or additional packaging is required to get the product to the consumer.

It would be interesting to see the total life cycle emissions for packaging types, and to figure out how many re-uses (if any) are required for a glass bottle to offset its pollution footprint compared to a disposable vs recycled plastic bottle.

I can't really advocate for plastic/aluminum/glass packaging, since I'm not aware of a study the considers the total footprint for each.

Ideally, we'd purchase our own containers, and then fill our own containers from a local bulk supply. Minimizing the weight and distance traveled while maximizing re-use is key.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I agree with all of your points, but the original picture was showing plastic pollution and you went on to compare it with carbon emissions. So when you use a phrase like "total footprint" it's difficult to interpret that any other way than we must make one problem worse to solve the other.

I don't see why we can't have solutions that are low/zero carbon AND don't result in plastic being dumped in the ocean.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

Is the goal to reduce plastic, or is the goal to live as long and sustainably as possible on the only known rock that can support human life?

But I see it as two sides of the same coin. Plastic or glass, we're not getting at the core problem, which is long distance, packaging intensive transportation of goods. Plastic is bad because it becomes trash, and eventually a pollutant. Glass may have less pollution in the product, but more pollution in the distribution.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The ideal solution you propose was often used when we used glass.

The only reason we could have started throwing our containers is because plastic is so much cheaper.

To be fair, when we used glass, fewer product were transported long distance.

Nowadays we can do like Germany who incentives to bring back bottles for recycling.

Or an even better alternative would be to use glass for individuals and another method for transportation.

Although i've seen some bio stores starting to refill plastic containers, wich isn't perfect but a nice middle ground to start changing habits.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

We should also switch away from liquid based detergents. My partner gets liquid dishwasher detergent, and it bugs me a bit because we're paying extra money, and buying extra plastic, just to ship a dilute version of the powder that I'd rather buy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think realizing that there is a problem is the first step to fixing it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

I remember seeing really old papers posted here where our current climate problems were being forecasted as early as 1920.

BP invented the carbon footprint term in an (successful) attempt to shift responsibility to the consumer in about 1990 I believe.

We're way past realisation and spreading the word.

This is pure ignorance we're fighting today.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem was realized decades ago, and yet we've accelerated our use. It's very similar to emissions. If only we had left that thick sludge in the ground, neither of these would be an issue.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

I don't think it is as urgent as the media makes it seem. For the media it is all about sensational stories. Yes long term it is something to be concerned about but it isn't something you should freak out over.

Also if it gets bad enough some company will profit from it. If there is money to be had with solutions suddenly you get the best minds working on it.

load more comments
view more: next ›