Recycling plastic has wasted vast sums on “an enterprise that has been harmful to the environment as well as to humanity, says John Tierney in City Journal, and now even Greenpeace has admitted the truth on this. He writes:
Now Greenpeace has seen the light, or at least a glimmer of rationality. The group has issued a report accompanied by a press release headlined, “Plastic Recycling Is A Dead-End Street – Year After Year, Plastic Recycling Declines Even as Plastic Waste Increases.” The group’s overall policy remains delusional – the report proposes a far more harmful alternative to recycling – but it’s nonetheless encouraging to see environmentalists put aside their obsessions long enough to contemplate reality.
The Greenpeace report offers a wealth of statistics and an admirably succinct diagnosis: “Mechanical and chemical recycling of plastic waste has largely failed and will always fail because plastic waste is: (1) extremely difficult to collect, (2) virtually impossible to sort for recycling, (3) environmentally harmful to reprocess, (4) often made of and contaminated by toxic materials, and (5) not economical to recycle.” Greenpeace could have added a sixth reason: forcing people to sort and rinse their plastic garbage is a waste of everyone’s time. But then, making life more pleasant for humans has never been high on the green agenda.
These fatal flaws have been clear since the start of the recycling movement. When I wrote about it a quarter-century ago, experts were already warning that recycling plastic was hopelessly impractical because it was so complicated and labour-intensive, but municipal officials kept trying in the hope that somebody would eventually find it worthwhile to buy their plastic trash. Instead, they’ve had to pay dearly to get rid of it, typically by shipping it to Asian countries with cheaper labour and looser environmental rules. In New York City, recycling a ton of plastic costs at least six times more than sending it to a landfill, according to a 2020 Manhattan Institute study, which estimated that the city could save $340 million annually by sending all its trash to landfills.
The environmental price has also been high because the plastic in American recycling bins has gone to developing countries with primitive waste-handling systems. Much of it ends up illegally dumped, burned (spewing toxic fumes), or reprocessed at rudimentary facilities that leak some of the plastics into rivers. Virtually all the consumer plastics polluting the world’s oceans comes from “mismanaged waste” in developing countries. There’d be less plastic polluting the seas if Americans tossed their yogurt containers and water bottles into the trash, so that the plastic could be safely buried at the nearest landfill.
The Environmental Protection Agency has promoted recycling as a way to reduce carbon emissions, but its own figures show that the benefits are relatively small and come almost entirely from recycling paper products and metals, not plastic. I’ve calculated that to offset the greenhouse impact of one passenger’s round-trip transatlantic flight, you’d have to recycle 40,000 plastic bottles – and if you used hot water to rinse those bottles, the net effect could be more carbon in the atmosphere.
While finally admitting the futility of plastic recycling, Greenpeace is making no apologies for the long campaign to foist it on the public, and the group is unashamedly pushing a new strategy that’s even worse. It proposes finally to “end the age of plastic” by “phasing out single-use plastics” through a “Global Plastics Treaty.” This is a preposterous goal – imagine “phasing out” disposable syringes – and would be laughable except that environmentalists have already made some progress toward it. They’ve found yet another way to harm both the environment and humans, as demonstrated in the movement to ban single-use plastic bags.
Banning single-use plastic grocery bags has added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by forcing shoppers to use heavier paper bags and tote bags that require much more energy to manufacture and transport, John says. The paper and cotton bags also take up more space in landfills and produce more greenhouse emissions as they decompose.
Why demonise plastic, he asks. “Why ban products that are cheaper, sturdier, lighter, cleaner, healthier, and better for the environment?”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’m looking forward to some daylight being shone onto the “recycling” of municpal waste in the UK. My expectation and understanding is that local authorities have been obliged to invest in PFI-financed mechanical recycling facilities that achieve damn-all other than to take the emotive words “landfill” and “incinerator” out of the vocabulary.
Local residents dutifully secregate their waste into various categories, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it ends up going into the same plant as unsegregated materials. In my own local authority area, any low value waste with a calorific value is sent to an “Energy from Waste” plant and no-one is expected to ask what happens to the residues after combustion…
It depends on how the “waste to energy” plant is designed and managed and also what waste stream is fed into it. But the residues can often be utilised for aggregates or added to cement in concrete.
Obviously GangGreen are only interested in burning in inhaling illegal substances. But one of the problems of destroying the coal industry is that various grades of ‘furnace bottom ash’ and ‘fly ash’ etc. from coal power stations were very useful in cement manufacture and improved the properties of the concrete made with them. Only a small proportion of the ash went into that, but there were other components of fly ash (the cenospheres) that were very valuable. Not only in cosmetics but in high tech stuff like rocket nose cones.
No doubt the Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank, as all that, and cement manufacture, as well as coal and reliable affordable energy have been banished from our shores.
There’s definitely something to be said about banning certain single-use products – starting with all the carp face nappies imported from China, that do nowt but restrict breathing, aid criminals and give succor to people who apparently cannot feel happy in their lives unless they live each day in fear. Add to that all the plasic PPE, the plastic screens hanging over shop counters and the nonsensical test kits and we’ve already helped the environment as well as ourselves.
I’ve found it quite ironic that all the voices screeching for more plastic face rags and useless test kits have no problem ignoring the impact this waste has on our immediate environment (fields, woods and waterways filled with the stuff), even though the covidnazis are frequently the same people as the climate nazis. And the same people who stand with Ukraine, yet do not worry about the carbon emissions of months and months of bombing, fires and uncontrolled destruction of buildings.
BINGO. The ocean-killing “paper” (really, plastic) masks are the biggest elephant in the room in terms of plastic waste. And they serve literally NO useful purpose whatsoever, except MAYBE during surgery. Those are the very lowest-hanging fruit of what to ban. That and those truly silly plastic face shields too. And the plexiglass or Perspex screens as well.
Yes and also all the plastic disposable gloves that came out during covid! We are discouraged from using disposable plastic bags, but encouraged to use disposable plastic gloves…
I suggest the very first thing that needs banning are all the totally incompetent computer models, none properly initialised, none verified, all failing to match reality and this totally falsified.
Think Professor Pantsdown Ferguson, even before Covid, his absurd computerised prognoses were never less than an order (often 5 or more orders) of magnitude exaggerated when compared to actual measured outcomes.
Cynics would suggest that is precisely why he was chosen.
And then there’s Glowbull Warming…
Plastic is all part of the show because it’s a very efficient use of petro chemicals. The demonisation of plastic was key even know it’s non toxic, have you ever met anyone who died of plastic poisoning? It’s all part of the green blobs propaganda. Remember they are fascists and cannot be reasoned with, they will not be beaten with arguments sadly.
It’s not completely non-toxic (think phthalates, BPA, BPS, antimony, styrene, etc.). But those are for specific types of plastics and ways to make them, not plastic per se.
Always amusing to see GangGreen claim how toxic plastic is, then pointing out that it remains in the environment for thousands of years. All in one breath.
So if it remains in the environment it is insoluble and reacts with few chemicals. So not toxic, then. Just as well for all those with hip replacements and so forth.
It’s why I always just burn plastics on our bonfires. Only glass and metal can be ‘reasonabl’ recycled
Chuck it all in a massive incinerator and generate electricity. Simples. It’s only oil.
Or turn it BACK into OIL via thermal depolymerization. Yes, it can be done.
That would require a certain input of energy so the net energy gained from a ton of plastic would be less than just burning the plastic to generate electricity. If environmentalists were motivated by logic rather than dogma they would’ve supported waste to energy decades ago. Instead they seem keen on biodegradable plastic made from crops of one kind or another, without taking into account how much wildlife habitat would have to be trashed to produce millions of tons of bioplastics plus the millions of acres used to produce biofuels. It’s hard to believe that people can belief in this kind of level of stupidity.
There’s a false dichotomy here: Banning single-use plastic bags doesn’t necessarily result in people using other kinds of single-use bags. Before the great plastification at the end of 20th century people already did their shopping using reusable bags. They can simply do that again. Additionally, there’s a lot of single-use plastic which is just plain useless. An example which would come prominently to mind is wrapping individual vegetables in a tight layer of plastic. That’s common-place in every English supermarket and simply not being done in Polish supermarkets.
There’s no reason why I’d have to take half a bin-load of junk I have to throw away immediately back home when buying food for the next week. While still living in Mainz, I used to go to the weekly market in order to buy all of my groceries. After being done with that, I’d go to the next public waste bin, throw all of the plastic bags forced onto me into it and put all of the food back into my shopping bag before going home. When shopping in supermarkets, this is much worse because each and every different kind of product comes wrapped in several layers of junk. None of this is needed for anything, except maybe some people’s hygiene delusions.
So, in Mainz, you never had a nutter or a crook trying to blackmail a food producer by adding poisons to supermarket foods?
Lucky.
How dare you!
A second comment:
This is a preposterous goal – imagine “phasing out” disposable syringes
People already used syringes before convenient throwaway materials were invented. They were made of glass and sterilized between uses. Nothing preposterous about that. Granted, they’re unsuitable for street use by addicts but I dare say that should be a lesser concern (I could also do without the remains in the backyard of the house I’m living in — I’ve informally christened the place Abandoned Syringe Plaza).
There was once a big problem in the past with those things not always being sterilized properly, though. Lots of Baby Boomers got Hep C iatrogenically as a result.
I’ll do my bit:
I’m quite happy to go without the 72 layers of plastic wrapping that comes with almost everything you buy at the supermarket these days.
If oil were as scarce as we are led to believe, 1kg of waste plastic would have the same value as 1 litre of unrefined oil.
Plastic can be repurposed using Cold Plasma Pyrolysis. https://www.ncl.ac.uk/who-we-are/vision/green-energy/
Even if it were not as economical as refining crude oil, it still does make sense to reduce the quantity of unsightly plastic in landfill and in the seas and hedgerows.
And thermal depolymerization can turn it back into crude oil completely. A light crude (the good stuff) with barely any asphaltenes, though plastic itself can also be used to pave roads as an alternative to asphalt too.
Here’s an idea: used plastic (along with anything else carbon-based) can be turned BACK into OIL via thermal depolymerization. And used plastic can also be used to pave roads with as well. Heck, we can even build houses with used plastic bottles filled with sand!
What are we waiting for?
We stopped recycling our plastic, when our cheery local binmen told us that it isn’t even sorted out at the other end. It just goes in a big hole.
So, this is actually something that matters, that if we can get away from the dogma of Climate Change, we might be able to improve. I don’t like to think of all this waste just being discarded. What can we do sensibly to reduce packaging?
It all gets sent to China I hear. At least from the USA. And China just dumps it into the ocean. Before I first heard that, I didn’t think I could possibly get any more cynical, but here I am.
In fairness, China banned imports of plastic and other waste some years ago.
But that isn’t the case for Vietnam, Phillipines, Bangladesh, several African Countries, Albania etc.
Why is it still permitted for Waste Management Companies in UK, USA, Europe etc to export ANY waste?
It doesn’t matter what happens to it as long as it looks like it’s being recycled so the council and households an feel virtuous and look good. It reminds me of a youth hostel I used to work at that had loads of recycling bins for customers to use because it looked good. Because it was in a remote location the council didn’t collect recycling so the staff just emptied the recycling into the bins for general waste, all about image rather than end result.
the point about banning plastic bags causing people to use paper bags which is adding CO2 to the atmosphere is ludicrous climate cult gobbledegook.
CO2 is the stuff of life. we need more of it. the planet is not warming, the ice caps aren’t melting, and sea levels aren’t rising.
for really brilliant forensic deconstruction of how data fraud of present and past climate and weather data is being used to support the World Economic Forum’s criminalised ‘great reset’ anthropogenic climate change cult dogma, please see YT videos by Tony Heller of RealClimateScience.
Wow I didn’t realise this. So should I not bother recycling anything? What about paper and glass?
Glass and metals certainly makes sense. Stuff that is genuinely toxic (flourescent tubes and those twisty bulbs HMG insisted we all use have Mercury inside. People don’t realise the danger of those if they get broken). They won’t get “recycled” but at least disposed of safely. Paper was pretty good when the Scouts used to collect it. But recycling used to consist largely of removing the wood & cloth fibres leaving an alkaline sludge, very useful for restoration work. Until the EA banned it…
I don’t know that I agree with re-usable bags being bad things – they last for ages. Many of my bags are over 10 years old and look like going on for another 10. I would have thought that their durability negates the energy used to manufacture them. They are also certainly not something that the ordinary consumer will dump into landfill on a regular basis, as implied in the article. The only thing I find now is I never have a spare thin plastic bag when I need one – I used to have piles of the things when they were given out for free.