this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
132 points (95.2% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3989 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Stop making new plastic would be a good place to start.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Yeah, that's not going to happen. It's too useful. So the next best thing is to figure out what to do with it going forward.

[–] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Plant based plastics, easy.

It's simply petrochemical based plastics pushed by the oil industry that are so bad aren't biodegradable.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Landfills are the answer for the US. It sits completely contained under ground after use, and if technology comes that can utilize the waste in a profitable way, we know exactly where it is.

[–] obbelusk@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What about burning it for heat and electricity. I've heard that those plants are really effective now.

[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Could potentially be a legit use for CCS I guess. If it worked. Needs to get better first.

Although, if this displaces coal on the grid, I guess it's a step in the right direction?

[–] Angry_Maple@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That would help solve the plastic quantity problem, but we should also probably find a way to filter all of the forever chemicals from reaching the air.

Some of those chemicals can do pretty nasty things in high quantities or when repeatedly consumed over a long period of time.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You can recycle it. Make something useful out of it. Instead, they save pennies by buying new.

[–] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You often can't though unfortunately. Most plastics can only be recycled a handful of times before they degrade too far. Recycling, while better than nothing, is a far more inefficient and flawed process than it is often presented as. That's why it is far better to reduce usage in the first place and reuse things as is where you can. Of course this is all still easier said than done.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago

Yeah, the bullshit marketing of companies that presented pollution as a consumer problem instead of a corpo problem is a huge issue. It lead people to believe that plastics were infinitely recyclable, and the only reason there’s any pollution is because consumers just aren’t properly recycling.

In reality, the majority of plastics used aren’t even recyclable, and end up in landfill regardless. But somehow that’s still the fault of the consumer.

Utter bullshit.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I kind of like the approach of the Germans. You build a product, you are responsible for its disposal. Therefore, you have to engineer so that materials are cheaper to get rid of. Sure, recycled plastics degrade and eventually can't be used for anything. But, it should be up to the last manufacturer to dispose of it in a safe way.

[–] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I entirely agree, and that does sound like a good approach. I just caution against presenting recycling as a solution rather than as a reduction of harm.

[–] bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

By recycle it, do you mean throw it in the blue bin? Because if so that's not really recycling. That's just choosing to throw it in an overseas landfill instead of a local one.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If it were actually comprehensive, they wouldn't need to add "most" and "ever." Those two words indicate that they're patting themselves on the back for clearing a low bar.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It’s a start, and much better than “recycle ur plastic bags, folks”

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Then they should call it a start instead of insulting everyone by expecting them to buy this "most comprehensive evar" garbage.

[–] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A low bar is better than nothing. I don't know if this bill is comprehensive or not, but it still is better than what Republican Party offers.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

"Better than Republicans" is only an accomplishment if you think that it takes effort to be better than people who actively work at being bigoted turds all the time.