They both release and attract toxic chemicals, and appear everywhere from human placentas to chasms thirty-six thousand feet beneath the sea. Will we ever be rid of them?
In case anyone hits a paywall, https://12ft.io can get around it. I also just learned that the Calibre software for ebooks has a news function that can download ebook versions of different publications. The New Yorker is available for download.
Articles like this make me sad because they tend to show the futility of what individuals can do. I try to reduce single-use containers and recycle where I can. But like the lady who tries to eliminate her family’s trash for a year, she was demoralized to learn that her plastics probably weren’t being recycled. And the ones that were, likely wasn’t having much good in the grand scheme of things. So what can individuals realistically? I try to use reuse-able grocery bags. The end of this article references a study done that claims reusable bags can have greater environmental impacts. I suspect there’s some nuance to that that’s being left out. This article talks about that same study and says (I’m paraphrasing here), “that the results table given by the study only draws attention to the worst environmental indicator for each material, rather than providing the whole story of how the bag performs in all categories. Ozone depletion was the biggest environmental impact for cotton bags. Taking into account just that factor, a cotton bag would need to be re-used 20,000 times to equal a regular plastic bag. But in many other categories, cotton was the preferable option.” I think this kind of science reporting happens a lot. Nuance can get left out.
I think all individuals can do is use common sense. Reduce the single-use things. Reuse things when they can.
In case anyone hits a paywall, https://12ft.io can get around it. I also just learned that the Calibre software for ebooks has a news function that can download ebook versions of different publications. The New Yorker is available for download.
Articles like this make me sad because they tend to show the futility of what individuals can do. I try to reduce single-use containers and recycle where I can. But like the lady who tries to eliminate her family’s trash for a year, she was demoralized to learn that her plastics probably weren’t being recycled. And the ones that were, likely wasn’t having much good in the grand scheme of things. So what can individuals realistically? I try to use reuse-able grocery bags. The end of this article references a study done that claims reusable bags can have greater environmental impacts. I suspect there’s some nuance to that that’s being left out. This article talks about that same study and says (I’m paraphrasing here), “that the results table given by the study only draws attention to the worst environmental indicator for each material, rather than providing the whole story of how the bag performs in all categories. Ozone depletion was the biggest environmental impact for cotton bags. Taking into account just that factor, a cotton bag would need to be re-used 20,000 times to equal a regular plastic bag. But in many other categories, cotton was the preferable option.” I think this kind of science reporting happens a lot. Nuance can get left out.
I think all individuals can do is use common sense. Reduce the single-use things. Reuse things when they can.