Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumCarbon Capture, Ocean Plastic Trawls, Space Junk - All Part Of Big Tech's "Solutions" Bullshit
EDIT
One self-styled solution for plastic waste has won outsized influence. In 2012, Dutch teenager Boyan Slat presented a TED Talk on his concept for cleaning up the ocean with simple mechanisms to sweep up all the trash. While scientists and plastics experts cautioned that his ideas were ineffective, Slats non-profit the Ocean Cleanup, founded the year after his talk went viral, has gained millions of followers and big-name backers, including Salesforce, Maersk, KIA, and PayPals Peter Thiel. But the venture had one major problem: its first two designs didnt work, despite the group burning through tens of millions of dollars over the course of a decade. The Ocean Cleanup has since pivoted to work with upstream river interceptors that are much more efficient at capturing garbage, but its website still prominently features its latest ocean debris solutionessentially a trawl fishing net dragged between two boats that has, to date, collected a comparatively miniscule amount of trash.
Even if the Ocean Cleanup one day somehow beats the insurmountable odds and removes all surface-level traces of plastic marine pollution, itd still be missing the vast majority of waste that sinks to the bottom of the ocean floor, or breaks up into tiny microplastics. While companies like these bring increased attention to the plastics crisis, theyre ultimately flashy gimmicks that lull our public consciousness into thinking a clever gadget can solve a collective-action problem. These projects also allow consumer brandslike Coca-Cola, an official Global Implementation Partner of Slats groupto greenwash their continued massive plastic production, while lobbying behind-the-scenes against regulations that would actually help the world break its plastic addiction. We now know that we cant start to reduce plastic pollution without a reduction of production, environmental scientists Imari Walker-Franklin and Jenna Jambeck write in the introduction to their forthcoming study, Plastics. To meaningfully address this crisis and others like it, we need to look upstream, invest in reuse infrastructure, and mandate biodegradable packaging and high material recyclability. At a minimum, we need to start making producers bear the cost for the collection and disposal of their poorly designed goods.
Unfortunately, theres now a plethora of cleanup ventures clouding our better judgement. Miles above our plastic-filled oceans, a crowded wasteland of man-made debris now orbits the Earth. For decades, aerospace companies have shed defunct rocket launchers, abandoned satellites, and millions of stray pieces of machinery that can circulate almost indefinitely in orbit around our planet. Todays private space ventures are set to increase the number of active satellites tenfold by 2030, even as experts warn about the persistence of space junk and increasing collision risk. Some believe we could soon see a catastrophic chain reaction that renders low-earth orbit unusable, jeopardizing the cosmic infrastructure that undergirds modern life, from GPS and weather monitoring to digital payments. But rather than curtail deployment, or embrace even modest end-of-life guidelines for spacecraft, the industrys leaders are addressing the trash problem in the silliest ways possible: VCs have invested tens of millions into cleanup ventures that use lasers, spider webs, and harpoons to capture space debris.
Our cleanup delusion extends to the grandest environmental stage possible. One of greentechs hottest sectors is carbon removal, a kind of cleanup for fossil fuel emissions. While the UNs climate science body asserts that carbon removal is essential to curbing catastrophic warming, the question is just how much were going to need. If the world immediately begins cutting back its fossil fuel use, we may only need to employ expensive carbon removal technologies sparingly. But instead of focusing on regulations to curb emissions at a fraction of the cost, governments and giant corporations alike have begun funneling billions into various solutions to suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Accordingly, tech ventures developing massively expensive carbon capture technologiestechnologies which may never turn a profit or be truly scalablehave begun pitching themselves as climate saviors, relying on the high end of those UN estimates to make their case. The cycle becomes never-ending: the longer we wait to crack down on pollution, the more trillions in capital, and megatonnes of net-new emissions, we must spend to build an unproven infrastructureone that may never even deliver the promised returns for its investors.
EDIT
https://newrepublic.com/article/173780/big-techs-waste-solutions-scam
bullimiami
(13,103 posts)As far as ocean cleanup. It is pulling tons of plastic out of the water. That cant be bad.
Is it a solution to the worlds big plastic problem? Of course not, but it is an effort and a part.
There are lots of efforts starting up.
They will cover the spectrum from total scam to best intentions and from carefully managed funding to ones that are essentially someones slush fund.
Its not going to improve by sitting around and complaining.
hatrack
(59,592 posts)If you read the article, you'll also note that we are now producing 14 million tons of plastic waste per year.
So, yeah, feel free to "rejoice" (I guess) in scooping up a few thousand tons, and by all means, keep on buying and throwing out plastic, because someday, somewhere, somebody will somehow take care of disposing of it.
orthoclad
(2,910 posts)The feedstock for virgin plastic is fracked gas. The fracking boom led to a boom in artificially cheap virgin plastic. We are crisscrossing the country with pipelines leaking methane in order to produce gigatons of cheap plastic waste.
Musk burns enough fossil kerosene to heat a Maine town for a whole winter each time he sends up thousands of Starlink junk satellites.
These issues intersect.
Privatize the profits and socialize the costs.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Its just a magical ingredient for manufacturing cheap stuff.
2 ᳵ ♾️ = ♾️
2 ᳵ 0 = 0
Double the price for dirt cheap and its still dirt cheap.
orthoclad
(2,910 posts)when fracking came in. The subsidized fracking indudstry made the feedstock artificially cheap. For an example, mushrooms used to come in reusable fiber containers that breathed and kept them longer from rotting. Now it's all but impossible to find those fiber containers -- they're all plastic tubs now, that don't breathe and rot the food faster. The nonrecyclable plastic has become far cheaper.
We had an excess of plastic before fracking, but now it's gigatons greater.
In the public comments for the Mountain Valley Pipeline at Jefferson National Forest, one of the very few positive comments was from a factory in Virginia that wanted the pipeline so they could make cheaper plastic.
The vinyl chloride railcars that devastated East Palestine Ohio were carrying the intermediate product between fracked gas and polyvinyl chloride.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)It seems to me that plastic production just seems to increase relentlessly.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-plastics-production
orthoclad
(2,910 posts)more feedstock = more plastic. Without the cheap ethane, no cheap plastic.
https://oceana.org/blog/the-plastic-to-pollutant-pipeline/
"Most single-use plastics are made from fossil fuels, so why arent they part of climate change conversations?"
Advancements in technology have given drilling companies access to previously unreachable gas, fueling the fracking boom across America. In other countries, oil is still a primary feedstock for plastics.
....
For these plastics to get from the ground to grocery stores, millions of gallons of water and a cocktail of chemicals some of which have been found to be toxic are injected into the ground to frack, or hydraulically fracture, a single well. The pressure causes the shale to shatter, allowing gas to escape and flow up to the surface. Its effective, but with a catch: The process is notorious for leaking methane, a potent planet-warming gas, into the atmosphere.
And fracking is just the first step. Natural gas has to be processed into separate components, including ethane and methane. Next, at sites called cracker plants, ethane molecules are exposed to extreme heat until they crack, or separate, into a highly flammable and hazardous gas called ethylene. That gas can then be processed into a resin, such as polyethylene, and turned into plastic products.
In the US, we see a shift from oil to fracked gas as the source for plastic. Other countries still use petroleum for plastic, so the global curve in your link obscures the fracking connection.
Also https://www.greenbiz.com/article/hidden-relationship-between-plastics-industry-and-fracking-us
"The hidden relationship between the plastics industry and fracking in the US"
While the report looks at emissions from plastic production worldwide, it focuses on the United States, and for a good reason: Nowhere is the plastic industry development as fast as it is here, where new plastic plants are predominantly designed to use natural gas, as opposed to the oil-based production favored by much of the rest of the world. "We are seeing a rapid export of plastics technology based on natural gas that is linked to the plastics boom," Muffet said.
A quick search turned up many of these links.
Fracking enables plastic pollution. It's not the only source, but it's now the commonest in the US, the biggest source of plastic pollution. That plastics factory REALLY wanted the pipeline to the fracking wells.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)However, if you check out the link I gave you, there seems to be a steadily accelerating rate of world wide production of plastic, irrespective of fossil fuel production.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-plastics-production
ScienceAdvances: Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made
Fracking may help enable increased plastic production, but I dont think it drives it.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Minderoo Foundation: Plastic Waste Makers Index 2023
Blues Heron
(5,940 posts)They have found that 90 percent of the ocean plastic is from the fishing industry - i.e. boats.
So to every ton of plastic this one kid arranged for the removal of , I say HELL to the YEAH.
bullimiami
(13,103 posts)Brenda
(1,072 posts)When scientists point out the greenwashing or simply the facts of the matter (insignificant dent in the crisis in this case) and people get huffy about "complaining."
I mean why not cheer the little ant whose moving the rubber tree plant? (Don't look Up (stream))
Guess it all boils down to "feel good" shit now.
Blues Heron
(5,940 posts)Thank god for people that are actually hauling garbage out of our oceans.
Brenda
(1,072 posts)The amount of garbage and plastic being hauled out of the oceans is a fraction of the amount that continues at this very moment to be dumped into the oceans.
That's the point we are trying to make. Yes, it's good to net a bunch of bad stuff and remove it. But, as is often the case with green washers, making a TED talk and getting lots of hype and money to do something that ends up being wildly insufficient is disturbing.
It makes people feel good that something, just anything is being done despite the fact that it really amounts to negative progress.
Massive changes, paradigm shifts have to be made SOON within multiple systems (economic, agriculture, transportation, lifestyle, etc.) in order to slow down the climate and pollution problems. I see no evidence of that happening in the US or elsewhere.
Tiny steps like picking up trash on beaches and taking a reusable grocery bag to the store are nice (and nobody said to not do those things) but they do NOTHING to stop the very real root causes and industries that are FFS actually being given our tax money right now, to "capture" the bad stuff!
Blues Heron
(5,940 posts)He is a private citizen taking an initiative. Its actually just plain cleaning. He is literally hauling tons of plastic out of the ocean, leaving it better and safer for critters.
Brenda
(1,072 posts)Blues Heron
(5,940 posts)Blues Heron
(5,940 posts)You think they were going to clean it up in one year? Lol!
ThreeNoSeep
(87 posts)Perhaps these direct interventions won't work, and we are all doomed-doomed-doomed. Perhaps some of these actions will help.
The author reminds me of the depressed twin in the room filled with toys (There must be a pony in here somewhere!).
I'm just spit-balling here, but maybe we can do both - Try to Intervene directly AND find better ways to reduce our usage and waste.
At least the author inserted a partial solution in the article that also hasn't been tried on a large scale. "At a minimum, we need to start making producers bear the cost for the collection and disposal of their poorly designed goods." Except producers will simply pass the cost on to the consumer and the problems of poverty and over-population just circle the bowl until the toilet floods (again).
This waste (ground, air, water and orbit) is a huge problem, but we have to shovel the shit somewhere.
orthoclad
(2,910 posts)is to stop producing plastic, CO2, and commercial space junk.
The second best is, as you say, make the bloated ticks pay for the mess they got obscenely rich from producing. Corporations make a profit coming and going: first for producing the junk, then getting our tax dollars to clean it up.
From the link Think.Again posted in https://democraticunderground.com/1127166784:
Last week Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm announced $1.2 billion in new funding for Direct Air Capture projects, including a giant project led by Occidental Petroleum. Unbelievably, we will be giving tax dollars to an oil company as Big Oil makes record profits to try to mop up some of the pollution they created.
They're soaking us to clean up behind their horses.
NNadir
(33,544 posts)Mine the shit out of very last ore, even the lowest grade ores, every deposit on the planet, tear up every bit of wilderness to cover it with solar cells and wind turbines, and build lots and lots and lots of hydrogen cars and trucks and keep large deposits of human slaves to dig cobalt for batteries.
Oh, and of course, pretend we're not burning gas and coal and petroleum to accomplish this "greenery."
It's all working out just great, isn't it?
Think. Again.
(8,392 posts)The fossil fuel industry will use any trick they can to extend the excessive profits they get from US using their products.
We need to stop the sources of CO2 emissions (no matter what fossil fuel profiteers want) AND clean up the mess fossil fuel use has left us with.