A new report by Greenpeace finds that plastics
recycling in practice falls far short of popular
belief:

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste-increases/

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf

From the second link:

"According to the report, which is an update to a
2020 report, mechanical and chemical recycling
of plastic waste fails because plastic waste is
extremely difficult to collect, virtually impossible
to sort for recycling, environmentally harmful to
reprocess, often made of and contaminated by
toxic materials, and not economical to recycle."

Only about 5 percent of plastics are recycled
at all, and what is recycled cannot be used for
the same product. For example, PTFE bottles
might be turned into fabric for clothing, and
discarded clothing made from synthetic
fibers cannot be recycled farther.

Have any interesting solutions to this problem
been put forward in modern science fiction?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> writes:
>A new report by Greenpeace finds that plastics
>recycling in practice falls far short of popular
>belief:
>
>https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste-increases/
>
>https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf
>
>From the second link:
>
>"According to the report, which is an update to a
>2020 report, mechanical and chemical recycling
>of plastic waste fails because plastic waste is
>extremely difficult to collect, virtually impossible
>to sort for recycling, environmentally harmful to
>reprocess, often made of and contaminated by
>toxic materials, and not economical to recycle."
>
>Only about 5 percent of plastics are recycled
>at all, and what is recycled cannot be used for
>the same product. For example, PTFE bottles
>might be turned into fabric for clothing, and
>discarded clothing made from synthetic
>fibers cannot be recycled farther.
>
>Have any interesting solutions to this problem
>been put forward in modern science fiction?

The most interesting solution is to stop using
plastics for disposable objects - seems obvious.

Humanity survived just fine without plastic
straws, shopping bags, juice jars, bottles, disposable
silverware and produce bags.

Return to the days of bottle deposits on glass,
returned to the retailer. Undamaged bottles can
be sterilized and reused and the damaged turned into
cullet.

Paper bags are reusable, compostable and can be
used as wrapping paper, halloween masks and
a host of other purposes.

Natural fibers in clothing[*] are compostable, pearl buttons
(from clams) will naturally degrade with time.

[*] Some may note that there aren't enough natural fibers to
replace synthetic in clothing - I would argue that the elimination
of the useless fashion industry completely would alleviate that issue.

"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:adef76bd-07f3-49c8-adb6-92e993b55bb3n@googlegroups.com:

> A new report by Greenpeace finds that plastics
> recycling in practice falls far short of popular
> belief:
>
Is it fundraising season for Greenpaced or something? This hasn't
been news for 40 years.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 1:36:29 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "peterw...@hotmail.com" <peterw...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >A new report by Greenpeace finds that plastics
> >recycling in practice falls far short of popular
> >belief:
> >
> >https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste-increases/
> >
> >https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf
> >
> >From the second link:
> >
> >"According to the report, which is an update to a
> >2020 report, mechanical and chemical recycling
> >of plastic waste fails because plastic waste is
> >extremely difficult to collect, virtually impossible
> >to sort for recycling, environmentally harmful to
> >reprocess, often made of and contaminated by
> >toxic materials, and not economical to recycle."
> >
> >Only about 5 percent of plastics are recycled
> >at all, and what is recycled cannot be used for
> >the same product. For example, PTFE bottles
> >might be turned into fabric for clothing, and
> >discarded clothing made from synthetic
> >fibers cannot be recycled farther.
> >
> >Have any interesting solutions to this problem
> >been put forward in modern science fiction?
> The most interesting solution is to stop using
> plastics for disposable objects - seems obvious.
>
> Humanity survived just fine without plastic
> straws, shopping bags, juice jars, bottles, disposable
> silverware and produce bags.
>
> Return to the days of bottle deposits on glass,
> returned to the retailer. Undamaged bottles can
> be sterilized and reused and the damaged turned into
> cullet.
>
I remember reusable soft drink bottles. Pepsi Cola changed
the design of their bottles once, and it took several years for
the old-style bottles to disappear from commerce; I suspect
the last of them were kept by collectors. Over time Coke
bottles would gradually take on a frosted appearance at
the widest points.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On 2022-10-25, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> Humanity survived just fine without

Modern medicine, for instance.
Hey, it's your line of argument.

> plastic straws, shopping bags, juice jars, bottles, disposable
> silverware and produce bags.
>
> Return to the days of bottle deposits on glass,

I take it there is no deposit on plastic bottles in your part of
the world.

A mandatory deposit on drink containers does wonders for littering.
It's rare that I find any discarded plastic bottles or aluminum
cans on the sidewalk, and if I do, they are virtually always of
foreign origin and can't be redeemed for a deposit.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote in
news:slrntlgev7.182h.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de:

> On 2022-10-25, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Humanity survived just fine without
>
> Modern medicine, for instance.
> Hey, it's your line of argument.
>
>> plastic straws, shopping bags, juice jars, bottles, disposable
>> silverware and produce bags.
>>
>> Return to the days of bottle deposits on glass,
>
> I take it there is no deposit on plastic bottles in your part of
> the world.
>
> A mandatory deposit on drink containers does wonders for littering.
> It's rare that I find any discarded plastic bottles or aluminum
> cans on the sidewalk, and if I do, they are virtually always of
> foreign origin and can't be redeemed for a deposit.
>
None of that has anything to do with recycled, though. It's all just
virtue signaling.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tuesday, 25 October 2022 at 18:29:52 UTC+1, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> A new report by Greenpeace finds that plastics
> recycling in practice falls far short of popular
> belief:
>
> https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste-increases/
>
> https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf
>
> From the second link:
>
> "According to the report, which is an update to a
> 2020 report, mechanical and chemical recycling
> of plastic waste fails because plastic waste is
> extremely difficult to collect, virtually impossible
> to sort for recycling, environmentally harmful to
> reprocess, often made of and contaminated by
> toxic materials, and not economical to recycle."
>
> Only about 5 percent of plastics are recycled
> at all, and what is recycled cannot be used for
> the same product. For example, PTFE bottles
> might be turned into fabric for clothing, and
> discarded clothing made from synthetic
> fibers cannot be recycled farther.
>
> Have any interesting solutions to this problem
> been put forward in modern science fiction?

I don't know about "interesting" - if you mean realistic -
or modern, but in Warren Ellis's _Transmetropolitan_
graphic series, it's common to have a matter former
or "Maker" as a home appliance, but poor households
gather litter in the street so that they have matter to
feed /into/ their machine.

In the real world, there are "bioplastics".
See - oh dear -
<https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191030-why-biodegradables-wont-solve-the-plastic-crisis>

And there are retailers who put /their/ stuff in
/your/ re-usable containers. Apparently "refill shop"
or "refill store" is one, well, two names for this way
of doing business.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), "peterwezeman@hotmail.com"
<peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:

>A new report by Greenpeace finds that plastics
>recycling in practice falls far short of popular
>belief:
>
>https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste-increases/
>
>https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf
>
>From the second link:
>
>"According to the report, which is an update to a
>2020 report, mechanical and chemical recycling
>of plastic waste fails because plastic waste is
>extremely difficult to collect, virtually impossible
>to sort for recycling, environmentally harmful to
>reprocess, often made of and contaminated by
>toxic materials, and not economical to recycle."
>
>Only about 5 percent of plastics are recycled
>at all, and what is recycled cannot be used for
>the same product. For example, PTFE bottles
>might be turned into fabric for clothing, and
>discarded clothing made from synthetic
>fibers cannot be recycled farther.
>
>Have any interesting solutions to this problem
>been put forward in modern science fiction?

I have no idea if modern science fiction has put anything forward, but
actual scientists, per /Science News/ some time ago, have produced a
plastic that, made into a specific item (bottle?) can be melted down
(as it were, not literally) and reformed into the same item 100 times
and be just like a new one when subjected to the appropriate torture
tests.

The problem, as always, is in scaling the process up.
[https://www.sciencenews.org/?s=plastic+recycling] brings up a list of
articles.

This one
[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/plastic-polymer-recyclable]
should be readable for free (the popup is dismissable) and provide
some idea of what is going on in this area.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 2022-10-25, peterwezeman@hotmail.com <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Have any interesting solutions to this problem
> been put forward in modern science fiction?

Well, there was _Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters_ ...

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On 27/10/22 12:03, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2022-10-25, peterwezeman@hotmail.com <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Have any interesting solutions to this problem
>> been put forward in modern science fiction?
>
> Well, there was _Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters_ ...
>

1971. After five decades, perhaps not modern; I am sure I have read this
though don't recall the outcome.
From reading headlines, I believe that there are now bacteria or
something that do feed on certain types of plastic.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 17:47:48 +1300, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 27/10/22 12:03, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2022-10-25, peterwezeman@hotmail.com <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Have any interesting solutions to this problem
>>> been put forward in modern science fiction?
>>
>> Well, there was _Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters_ ...
>>
>
>1971. After five decades, perhaps not modern; I am sure I have read this
>though don't recall the outcome.
>From reading headlines, I believe that there are now bacteria or
>something that do feed on certain types of plastic.

I think I have read that also. That would probably be more like
decomposition than recycling, though.

Plastic which comes from oil which comes from dead dinosaurs (thus
restricting the rest of this statement) is, after all, /organic/.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <tjd2hk$2mi8v$2@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 27/10/22 12:03, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2022-10-25, peterwezeman@hotmail.com <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Have any interesting solutions to this problem
>>> been put forward in modern science fiction?
>>
>> Well, there was _Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters_ ...
>>
>
>1971. After five decades, perhaps not modern; I am sure I have read this
>though don't recall the outcome.
>From reading headlines, I believe that there are now bacteria or
>something that do feed on certain types of plastic.

(Hal Heydt)
Latest one I've seen is--IIRC--silkworm spit.

On 10/25/2022 12:29 PM, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> A new report by Greenpeace finds that plastics
> recycling in practice falls far short of popular
> belief:
>
> https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste-increases/
>
> https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf
>
> From the second link:
>
> "According to the report, which is an update to a
> 2020 report, mechanical and chemical recycling
> of plastic waste fails because plastic waste is
> extremely difficult to collect, virtually impossible
> to sort for recycling, environmentally harmful to
> reprocess, often made of and contaminated by
> toxic materials, and not economical to recycle."
>
> Only about 5 percent of plastics are recycled
> at all, and what is recycled cannot be used for
> the same product. For example, PTFE bottles
> might be turned into fabric for clothing, and
> discarded clothing made from synthetic
> fibers cannot be recycled farther.
>
> Have any interesting solutions to this problem
> been put forward in modern science fiction?
>
> Peter Wezeman
> anti-social Darwinist

Not in SF, but I firmly believe that our great-great-grandchildren will
be mining our landfills for the good stuff. Just watch out for the
dirty diapers !

Lynn

On 10/27/2022 2:40 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 10/25/2022 12:29 PM, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
>> A new report by Greenpeace finds that plastics
>> recycling in practice falls far short of popular
>> belief:
>>
>> https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste-increases/
>>
>> https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf
>>
>>  From the second link:
>>
>> "According to the report, which is an update to a
>> 2020 report, mechanical and chemical recycling
>> of plastic waste fails because plastic waste is
>> extremely difficult to collect, virtually impossible
>> to sort for recycling, environmentally harmful to
>> reprocess, often made of and contaminated by
>> toxic materials, and not economical to recycle."
>>
>> Only about 5 percent of plastics are recycled
>> at all, and what is recycled cannot be used for
>> the same product. For example, PTFE bottles
>> might be turned into fabric for clothing, and
>> discarded clothing made from synthetic
>> fibers cannot be recycled farther.
>>
>> Have any interesting solutions to this problem
>> been put forward in modern science fiction?
>>
>> Peter Wezeman
>> anti-social Darwinist
>
> Not in SF, but I firmly believe that our great-great-grandchildren will
> be mining our landfills for the good stuff.  Just watch out for the
> dirty diapers !
>
They bite and will follow you home!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 11:29:52 AM UTC-6, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> A new report by Greenpeace finds that plastics
> recycling in practice falls far short of popular
> belief:

This is not news to me.

In Edmonton, we have transit benches that replaced two-by-fours with green
structural members made of recycled plastic. They sag after people have been
sitting on them for a while. This didn't prompt a change in the design of the
benches so that the recycled plastic beams would be thicker in the vertical
direction.

So the fact that plastic gets recycled into a very poor quality of plastic, only
good for a very limited number of uses, is common knowledge here, even if
that is not the case elsewhere.

Could old plastic be turned into a petrochemical feedstock instead? To make
good plastic - although at a higher energy cost than simply re-using it as
plastic fragments? I'm not a chemist, so I can't really say.

John Savard

On 10/27/2022 9:48 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 11:29:52 AM UTC-6, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
>> A new report by Greenpeace finds that plastics
>> recycling in practice falls far short of popular
>> belief:
>
> This is not news to me.
>
> In Edmonton, we have transit benches that replaced two-by-fours with green
> structural members made of recycled plastic. They sag after people have been
> sitting on them for a while. This didn't prompt a change in the design of the
> benches so that the recycled plastic beams would be thicker in the vertical
> direction.
>
> So the fact that plastic gets recycled into a very poor quality of plastic, only
> good for a very limited number of uses, is common knowledge here, even if
> that is not the case elsewhere.
>
> Could old plastic be turned into a petrochemical feedstock instead? To make
> good plastic - although at a higher energy cost than simply re-using it as
> plastic fragments? I'm not a chemist, so I can't really say.
>
> John Savard

I had a back patio deck made out of shredded milk jugs with a green
resin to keep the plastic 2x4s from sun damage in a house 20+ years ago.
Worked well.
https://wpde.com/news/local/new-myrtle-beach-boardwalk-made-of-recycled-milk-jugs-soap-bottles-environment-eco-friendly

Lynn

On 27/10/2022 11.23, Paul S Person wrote:

> Plastic which comes from oil which comes from dead dinosaurs

That's a common myth, probably originating in Sinclair's marketing
department. It's incorrect.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Exodus 22:21

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 7:09:33 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 27/10/2022 11.23, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> > Plastic which comes from oil which comes from dead dinosaurs

> That's a common myth, probably originating in Sinclair's marketing
> department. It's incorrect.

Plastic does come from oil. But, yes, oil doesn't come from dead dinosaurs.
Like coal, it comes from dead plants from around the age of the dinosaurs...

Ah, but the Carboniferous period is from 360-286 million years ago. In the
Paleozoic, not the Mesozoic, from 248 to 65 million years ago, with the
Triassic, the Jurassic, and the Cretaceous.

Ah, the Carboniferous is when the amniote egg first evolved. So there were
only very early land animals around at that time, including the crocodile.

Oh, but only 10% of oil deposits are Paleozoic. Most oil - and also most natural
gas - was formed from 10 million years ago to 180 million years ago. So there's
some overlap with the dinosaurs, but a lot is from dead plants _after_ the era
of the dinosaurs.

Ah - only 20% in the post-dinosaur Cenozoic, 60% in the Mesozoic, the dinosaur
heyday. So most oil was formed from dead plants contemporary with dinosaurs.

John Savard

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 9:27:18 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> Oh, but only 10% of oil deposits are Paleozoic. Most oil - and also most natural
> gas - was formed from 10 million years ago to 180 million years ago. So there's
> some overlap with the dinosaurs, but a lot is from dead plants _after_ the era
> of the dinosaurs.
>
> Ah - only 20% in the post-dinosaur Cenozoic, 60% in the Mesozoic, the dinosaur
> heyday. So most oil was formed from dead plants contemporary with dinosaurs.

These statistics came from the Google summaries of two different random web
sites. Presumably, there are inaccuracies that account for the appearance that
10% of oil deposits seem to have originated outside of Time.

John Savard

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 9:30:23 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 9:27:18 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > Oh, but only 10% of oil deposits are Paleozoic. Most oil - and also most natural
> > gas - was formed from 10 million years ago to 180 million years ago. So there's
> > some overlap with the dinosaurs, but a lot is from dead plants _after_ the era
> > of the dinosaurs.
> >
> > Ah - only 20% in the post-dinosaur Cenozoic, 60% in the Mesozoic, the dinosaur
> > heyday. So most oil was formed from dead plants contemporary with dinosaurs.

> These statistics came from the Google summaries of two different random web
> sites. Presumably, there are inaccuracies that account for the appearance that
> 10% of oil deposits seem to have originated outside of Time.

And here are some sites that talk about the dinosaur issue:

https://earthsky.org/human-world/is-my-cars-fuel-made-of-dead-dinosaurs/
http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/tad/education/bgbb/2/mis_formation.html
https://sciencenorway.no/dinosaurs-oil-and-gas/no-oil-does-not-come-from-dinosaurs/2024040

I see that the reference to "Sinclair" is to Sinclair Oil, one of the Standard Oil companies
that used a Brontosaurus in its logo at one time, and not to the British company created
by Clive Sinclair that made unusually inexpensive electronic gadgets.

John Savard

On 10/28/2022 6:09 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 27/10/2022 11.23, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> Plastic which comes from oil which comes from dead dinosaurs
>
> That's a common myth, probably originating in Sinclair's marketing
> department. It's incorrect.
>
Oil is compost carried to the extreme and a bit beyond. :)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>:
> Not in SF, but I firmly believe that our great-great-grandchildren will
> be mining our landfills for the good stuff. Just watch out for the
> dirty diapers !

I remember reading that they have done "test drilling" in landfills, and
they were (10-15 years ago) quite close to being profitable mining
sites. However https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.015 indicated
that a decade ago this had not been proven to be a profitable endeavour.

As to recycling there is several levels: the reusable item (e.g. old
style PET- and glass bottles and second hand household items), the
material reuse (e.g. plastics, glass or aluminium, and arguably
composting) and finally using the items as a combustible energy source
(the dirty diapers will burn just fine). Ok, the stuff that is too
hard/expensive to recycle or too nasty (e.g. mercury, spent nuclear
fuel) is deposited. Actually Sweden imports garbage, and not just in
the form of fast fashion clothes: we use it for heating in urban
areaѕ[1].

/Pär

[1] Suitably located plant burns mixture of scrap lumber, household
garbage, etc, and produces hot water, that is then distributed to single
and multi-family homes.