These Environmentalists Want To Ban Single-Use Plastics Because Recycling Them 'Will Never Work'
And yet infinitely recyclable plastics are on the horizon.

"Although some materials can be effectively recycled and safely made from recycled content, plastics cannot. Plastic recycling does not work and will never work," assert Judith Enck, a former regional administrator with the Environmental Protection Agency, and chemical engineer Jan Dell in The Atlantic. Never is a long time.
Leaders of the activist groups Beyond Plastics and the Last Beach Cleanup, the two researchers cite data from their organizations' recent joint report that found that the recycling rate of plastics in the United States has fallen to an abysmal 5 percent. They argue, "The problem with recycling plastic lies not with the concept or process but with the material itself." Why? Because there are thousands of different kinds of plastic that are simply too costly to handle separately. Their chief solution: A ban on single-use plastics.
Enck and Dell are entirely correct that plastic pollution, especially in the world's oceans, is a serious and growing problem. A 2021 report by the activist group the Environmental Investigation Agency calculated that humanity has, over the past 65 years, produced more than 10 billion tons of plastic, at least 6 billion tons of which are now in landfills or the open environment.

On the other hand, University of Manitoba interdisciplinary environmental researcher Vaclav Smil declares in his new book, How the World Really Works, that plastic is one of the "four pillars of modern civilization." (The other three are steel, concrete, and ammonia.) Smil points out that the global production of "these diverse and often truly indispensable synthetic materials" has increased from 20,000 tons in 1925 to 2 million tons in 1950, 150 million tons in 2000, and 370 million tons in 2019. If the world's still-poor countries seek to replicate China's recent rise from poverty, Smil projects that would involve a 30-fold expansion of plastic manufacturing over the next 30 years.
The good news is that there are some promising technical solutions for making plastics infinitely recyclable on the horizon. In just the past two months, two research teams, one at the University of Texas and another at the University of Leipzig, have announced the development of two different energy-efficient, low-temperature enzymes that quickly disassemble the ubiquitous polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic back into its basic molecular building blocks, also known as monomers. Those monomers then can be resynthesized into new PET products. PET accounts for 12 percent of global solid waste.
"Beyond the obvious waste management industry, this also provides corporations from every sector the opportunity to take a lead in recycling their products. Through these more sustainable enzyme approaches, we can begin to envision a true circular plastics economy," said University of Texas chemical engineer Hal Alper in a press release. By employing its powerful new enzyme process, the German researchers similarly note that "it is possible to directly recycle post-consumer thermoform PET packaging in a closed-loop process with a low carbon footprint and without the use of petrochemicals, realizing a sustainable recycling process of an important PET plastic waste stream."
Another approach is to develop infinitely recyclable plastics to replace problematic versions like PET. As I reported earlier, a team of researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a new plastic called polydiketoenamine, or PDK. Items made of PDK can be bathed in acid that separates the plastic molecules from any additives; this material can then be reassembled into different shapes, textures, and colors again and again without loss of performance or quality. While producing virgin PDK resin is initially expensive, the researchers calculate that recycled PDK resin will be competitive with petroleum-based virgin plastic resins.
Of course, these specific new technologies for infinitely recyclable plastics may not take hold, but with respect to human ingenuity, never say never.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I keep hearing people talking about microplastics these days as well. Still no idea if that's just a scare or if there's any validity to it. It feels like a scare, since folks I ask about it can't really give me concrete reasons why it matters.
It sinks. So they get to claim as much as they want is at the bottom of the ocean along with all the extra global warming they predicted.
It's actually the other way, it's indeterminately buoyant. So, even if you swim to the bottom and measure all the plastic down there, you aren't doing it right because you have to capture all the plastic in the water column all the way down and if you don't find any, you weren't looking in the right water column and should collect 50-500 at a time to get any definitively measurable/identifiable amount.
Great
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (ghj-17) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going this article.
.
>>>> http://xs2g.2.vu/1
Microplastics is the rejoinder to "Most plastic decomposes when left in the sun for a period of time". The argument goes that it breaks down into micro plastics that are ingested by fish and other wildlife and ultimately ends up in the food we eat.
The majority of plastic waste comes from Asia and Africa. The United States is pretty damn good at getting rid of plastics- either into landfills or recycling.
Therein lies the issue I have with almost ALL of these groups.
Problem caused somewhere else by someone else. Make life a bunch harder on me, who isn't causing the problem. The people who cause the problem don't give a rat's ass what the law is here (or anywhere).
Rinse and repeat.
And yes, that is a recycling joke.
They are the problem though.
You're falling for their trick.
Am I?
I don't make these laws. I don't vote for these laws. I definitely don't put my trash anywhere in the watershed. I tell people they are insane when they repeat the lies that *we* are the ones causing the garbage in the ocean.
Still have to ask for a fucking straw because it was all the rage in San Francisco 5 years ago and the SF Progressives have a remarkably outsized voice in state politics.
So, which of their "tricks" am I falling for?
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going this article.
.
>>>> http://oldprofits.blogspot.com
Kind of, microplastics get eaten by zooplankton that then die because they cannot digest plastic. Critics claim the microplastics undermine the very bedrock on which the entire aquatic food chain is built. How much it really matters? Who knows. If your paycheck depends on it being a big problem, you are going to sell it as a big problem. Likewise, if you make a living selling plastic, you are likely to downplay the problem. Truth is it is probably something we should avoid but isn't going to end all life in the ocean.
I have not seen any info on zooplankton deaths. Everything I have seen is a bunch of hyperventilating about how many microplastics are in your sushi.
Same, but I hear it from places I know to be dumb as fuck and alarmist (4chan) so that's why I just ask.
I've seen that claim (that zooplankton then die because they cannot digest plastic) but have seen no hard evidence for it.
The counter-argument is that the environment is already full of all kinds of indigestible material at every scale, including that of the microplastics. Zooplankton successfully excrete all the other indigestible roughage in their diet. I have not yet even heard a plausible mechanism by which they will be unable to excrete microplastic roughage, much less any data demonstrating that fact.
From what I have read, different zooplankton are differently affected by microplastics. Some are relatively unharmed, and some get sick. More importantly however it affects the reproduction of some of them. So at a minimum microplastics in the environment represents an evolutionary experiment with zooplankton.
The "affects reproduction" argument is based on studies of the chemicals that leach out of the plastic (the same chemicals that make it stay flexible and, well, plastic). There is some evidence that some of those chemicals behave similarly to hormones and could therefore affect development or the ability to reproduce.
The problem with that reasoning is that the leaching occurs regardless of the size of the plastic particle. So that may be a problem for (some kinds of) plastic in the sea generally but it cannot be a problem of microplastics. And microplastics (as opposed to plastic waste generally) is the topic of this particular discussion thread.
…. ingested by fish and other wildlife..
And promptly shit it out because it’s inert.
"The United States is pretty damn good at getting rid of plastics- either into landfills or recycling."
So once plastic is in an American landfill, it is no longer waste and no longer breaks down? How does that work?
Once it is in a landfill, it is contained and not a concern for getting into the broader environment. Let me guess- you have no idea how landfills work, do you?
I know that chemicals that comprise PET, endocrine disruptors, and many others leach from landfills and are found in drinking water. Isn't that a broad enough environment for you? Encompassing the garbage dump and your kitchen sink.
Sad
I think microplastics are one of those "we can measure it and it exists, so it must be bad!" kind of things.
I have yet to see anyone show any proof at all that they cause harm. Only that they must cause harm because micro and plastic.
That's the feeling I get from a lot of what I hear people say about it. It crosses a few things that tend towards alarmism:
1) It's invisible
2) It's considered unnatural, so the natural fallacy comes into play
3) It allows for increased conspicuous consumption of more expensive non-plastic goods
So, it's all set up for a good way for people to be angry and feel better than others, but also, I don't know. It sounds at least plausible that there might be an issue with it.
"I have yet to see anyone show any proof at all that they cause harm."
Like everything else in this sad world of ours, you get what you pay for. You want indisputable proof, it's going to cost a lot of money. To answer a question nobody really wants to see answered.
a new plastic called polydiketoenamine
That is an interesting confluence of word roots. And they are calling it PDK? If there were any justice in the world, it would be given the trade name Cameltite.
"Polydike" must be one of the new genders.
Guessing it's like a lesbian that doesn't believe in relationships...which is most lesbians I know.
If you're worried about fish populations plastics is probably not on the list of top 200 concerns. micro/nano plastics should be studied better certainly, but the knee-jerk stuff is ridiculous.
I'm reminded of the man in the Guinness Book of World Records for eating a plane. He died of natural causes.
"at least 6 billion tons of which are now in landfills or the open environment."
These sorts of PR statements boil my blood. How much is in landfills that I care very little about, vs the environment where we have at least some concerns?
What's the conversion factor for landfill tons to 55 gal. barrels?
Interesting question. Assuming that landfill (after compaction) is approximately the same density as dirt (1.3 grams/cubic centimeter on average), that works out to a bit under 600 lbs per barrel or between 3 and 4 barrels per ton.
If you're asking specifically about the tons of plastic, let me think...
The density of common plastics ranges from .75 to 1.25 g/cm3. If we assume the low end (.8), that works out to about 5.5 barrels per ton. 5.5 barrels is almost exactly 1 cubic meter. Further assume some less-than-perfect compression by the landfill (air left in the debris) and you might get to 10 barrels per ton.
Scaled out to the worldwide "6 billion tons", that would be a landfill volume of between one and two cubic miles. For scale, that would be approximately one percent of the volume of Lake Erie (the smallest of the Great Lakes).
I've got a plastic folding work table in my backyard. Is that in the "open environment"?
Just erect some 1/2" PVC around it, throw some visqueen over the top and, "No."
Shit, add a vinyl screen door to it and you just built yourself an entire outdoor dining pavilion!
Items made of PDK can be bathed in acid that separates the plastic molecules from any additives;
Is it a specific acid or would say, a solution of carbonic acid or acetic acid do the trick? Does this miracle acid separate the plastic from the acid it contains or do I just end up with a slurry of monomers and an actual, no-shit hazardous mixture of acids (or whatever the hell else was in the plastic)?
And how much does this enzyme cost in both money and energy? Still probably cheaper and more energy efficient to just keep making new plastic.
And yet infinitely recyclable plastics are on the horizon.
Coming at you in the trunk of a flying, self-driving car.
...and nuclear power to cheap to meter.
Cold fusion, everybody!
And peace on earth.
About 50 years ago Shel Silverstein did a piece in Playboy entitled "Everything's Going To Be Plastic Bye And Bye".
It certainly seems to be the case. The problem with "bans" is that those proposing them offer no alternatives.
Wood!
Plant and animal products. I've said it before, but that's the implications to what many environmentalists demand.
Even if we went back to say, the 1930s in how we packaged everything: glass and metal containers for food stuffs etc., the increased weight and energy to transport them would be significant.
Of course no one was drinking bottled water back then which must be one of the largest sources of single use containers.
My guess is medical equipment as well. Think of how many syringes are used on any given day. Or plastic gloves for food service. The sanitation advantages of single use plastic have been significant, and going back would not be trivial. It may be possible, though no doubt more expensive, to go back to glass vials, but it will likely come with some level of decreased sanitation as well.
The amount of that though, I have no idea. It's like the organic foods thing leading to increased food borne illness again. There's at least some reason why we moved away from things like that. I just prefer leaving those questions of cost and risk to people.
While I agree that we should leave these questions of cost and risk to people with an actual incentive to get it right, the sanitation risks you posit are, in many cases, overblown. Properly washed hands are as or even more sanitary than gloves out of a cardboard box. Gloves are popular in food service not because they are actually more sanitary but because they are easier for inspectors to check off.
Exactly.
When I was in food service we did washed hands. Washing your hands between tasks takes less time than switching out gloves and is more sanitary.
It's all about being seen to do something. I hadn't really thought about inspectors, just assumed it was virtue signalling to the public, but you're right.
Isn't most medical waste incinerated?
Not so much anymore .
I find excessive packaging to be quite annoying and unnecessary. But overall, plastics are a great boon to health and the environment. Plastic packaging reduces shipping weights and saves fuel. Plastic food containers are quite safe and sanitary. And if you are into CO2 reduction, putting plastics in a well sealed landfill is a great way to sequester carbon.
Dumping shit in the ocean isn't great. But from what I understand it's mostly commercial fishing gear and trash from third world countries with bad sanitation systems, not plastic straws from Americans.
Even if you can't "recycle" plastics the same way you can aluminum, you can still pelletize them and use them as filler in lower grade concrete. Just one idea off the top of my head. I'm sure dozens more uses can be created if people just get past their religion of "no plastics".
NPR did a whole Saturday morning about how recycling is a Big Plastics plot. Was just a few months ago.
After decades of freaking NPR supporting hippies have been shouting "RECYCLE" at me.
BTW, I've listened to more NPR in a month than most leftards have heard in their entire lives.
Condolences
Why are you doing that to yourself?
My understanding is that currently it takes more energy and more oil to recycle plastics than to make new plastics. Recycling plastics doesn't work not because it is impossible, but because it is uneconomical.
This is unlikely to ever change. Any technology advance that improves the efficiency of recycling plastic is likely to have the same impact on the manufacture of new plastics, leaving the relative economics unchanged.
" Recycling plastics doesn't work not because it is impossible, but because it is uneconomical. "
Wouldn't that change if these new plastic containers were reused multiple times before recycling, as glass containers are?
Glass containers could be reused multiple times because they could be washed and sterilized multiple times in boiling water or even a pressure cooker. That was a high-energy process, so I'm not so sure it was environmentally friendly. Most plastics will deteriorate if they are repeatedly temperature cycled like this.
See, chances are many people are reading such things while sitting on or wearing recycled plastic. Because a whole hell of a lot of it is used to make fleece.
I burn plastic in my burn barrel. It goes somewhere. Isn't that recycling?
Ah fond memories of when you could burn your own trash.
Been a long time since we were able to do that where I live.
Can remember loading up my grandfather's burn basket with un-exploded fireworks from July 4th picnic at his home and watching the fun when he burned the trash the next day.
A good documentary to see on the effects of microplastics:
https://www.imdb.com/video/vi1310767129/?ref_=tt_vi_i_1
Even if you are skeptical of the claim that microplastics are a threat, this documentary will at least give you some insight in to what "the other side" thinks.
A friend of mine’s dad was a chemistry professor and I remember him saying 30 years ago that “all these plastics are turning boys into girls and girls into boys because they can mess with hormones.’ Well, maybe he had a point, in which case, progs should love plastics.
Endocrine disruptors, present in all plastics, and more, are thought to be related to declining sperm counts, problems with genital formation etc. We love plastics, though, and seem willing to put up with whatever negative effects there may be down the line.
Endocrine disruptors are not present in all plastics; furthermore, they are used in many products other than plastics. Therefore, banning plastics per se isn't going to address this problem.
Endocrine disruptors are present in PET, which is commonly used and makes for 12% of total global solid waste according to the article. You're consuming microscopic particles of PET every time you take a sip of water from a PET bottle, according to various studies to be found on the internet.
"Therefore, banning plastics per se isn't going to address this problem."
I'm not sure this is seen as a problem. Plastics are more important to us than a high sperm count, male fertility, and well formed genitalia.
re: "present in all plastics"
Flatly untrue. Present in some plastics. And documented to have medically relevant effects in actual usage in ... Actually, I'm not aware of any studies to that effect, though I cannot say that there are none.
" Present in some plastics. "
You mean the plastics we use and discard?
One of the nice things about glass containers is that they can be both recycled and reused. A typically glass container can be reused perhaps 20 times before it is melted down and recycled. It would be nice if the recyclable plastic could also be reused as glass is.
And yet, nobody does that anymore. When was the last time you saw a glass bottle with "frosting" on the contact points? I remember it on the coke bottles when I was very young (late sixties) but nothing since.
Until you address the reasons why we don't reuse glass containers, you'll never be able to convince people to do the same with plastic containers.
"And yet, nobody does that anymore. "
The world is a big place. I am sure that a lot of bottles are reused without your being aware of it. Though I take your point, and reuse isn't what it once was.
Ah, the oil-stained hand of the Koch Brothers is revealed once again! Because freedom matters....these billionaires NEED the freedom to destroy the Earth's biosphere