this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
73 points (98.7% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5205 readers
797 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
73
When Is “Recyclable” Not Really Recyclable? When the Plastics Industry Gets to Define What the Word Means. (www.propublica.org)
submitted 2 months ago by SteveKLord@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Companies whose futures depend on plastic production, including oil and gas giant ExxonMobil, are trying to persuade the federal government to allow them to put the label “recyclable” on bags and other plastic items virtually guaranteed to end up in landfills and incinerators.

They argue that “recyclable” should apply to anything that’s capable of being recycled. And they point to newer technologies that have been able to remake plastic bags into new products.

I spent months investigating one of those technologies, a form of chemical recycling called pyrolysis, only to find that it is largely a mirage. It’s inefficient, dirty and so limited in capacity that no one expects it to process meaningful amounts of plastic waste any time soon.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Their marketing team figured out that so long as the average consumer thinks the problem is solved, they will just keep buying the product.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Recyclable is inherently a marketing term. Almost any new plastic is recyclable, almost all of it will end up in landfill whether it's recycled or not. Glass is more efficiently recycled, but it requires a lot more energy to do vs plastic. Just use plastics that are already recycled and reuse the shit out of them.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Only PETE and HDPE are truly recyclable (resin maker 1 and 2 (the "recycle triangle" on the plastic)). Every other plastic is either impossible to recycle from jump, or degrades every time it's recycled. I don't think "any new" plastic fits the reality.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Almost any new plastic, by proportion of consumer plastics, mostly virgin PE & PET. As you mention, they degrade per cycle, which is why they end up in landfill regardless of being recycled.