The question sounds hyper stupid but hear me out.

We have an underwhelming volume of shit that relies on plastic. Plastic is cheap and versatile. If we replaced the vast majority of it, I presume costs for most products would creep up, and we would also shift our demand for natural resources (such as wood for paper ). Are there enough resources to sustainably replace our current volume of single use plastics? Or would we be sentencing all of our remaining forests to extinction if we did? Would products remain roughly equally affordable?

Let’s imagine we replace, overnight, all single use plastic in this hypothetical scenario with an alternative. All parcels are now mailed in paper; waxed paper if you need humidity resistance. Styrofoam pebbles are now paper shreds and cardboard clusters. No more plastic film, anywhere. No more plastic bags, only paper. No more plastic wrapping for any cookies confectionery, etc; it’s paper and thin boxes like those of cereals. Toothbrushes, pens, and a variety of miscellaneous items are now made of wood, cardboard, glass, metal, etc. The list goes on, but you get the idea.

Is this actually doable? Or is there another reason besides plastic companies not wanting to run out of business that we haven’t done this already? Why are we still using so much fucking plastic?

  • HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 days ago

    20 years ago:

    "We need to stop using paper bags! They’re cutting down all the trees!” (a renewable resource)

    "We should use plastic bags instead! They’re recyclable!” (so is paper, and it’s far more economically viable, but plastic is made from petroleum)

    So now we use plastic bags made of a much heavier material, so we can reuse them, or cloth bags for a similar reason.

    Cloth bags are made from cotton, like paper is made from trees.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      Try 40 years ago. My dumbass sister was advocating for plastic bags, as if we were chopping down old growth forests for fucking paper.

      Forestry is an awesome practice, and we’re damned good at it. I’d advocate for waxed paper in place of plastic.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    Zero plastic doesn’t need to be a goal. There has rarely if ever been a more versatile and useful material. Delivering food and medicine to humanity would be impossible if we all woke up tomorrow without plastic.

    So it’s more a case of judicious use:

    1. use when no feasible alternative exists (not just because plastic is most convenient)
    2. invest in effective recycling and recovery programs, including total incineration - AND (important) make sure the cost of this is shifted upstream to the manufacturers of plastics

    There will be many cases where “no feasible alternative exist” and that will mean “it is prohibitively costly to do it with glass and steel.” I think that is really your questions. The answer is yes, sometimes plastic is actually best.

    But I’d feel much more comfortable deciding that for a given use case IF #2 actually existed. Under current conditions, there may be no reasonable use of plastic at all.

    • octobob@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m at a hotel right now and every single coffee cup is wrapped in plastic. It’s just like… why? There isn’t even a logical reason for it. If anything it costs more to individually wrap paper cups. Is it to appease germaphobes? You don’t even put your mouth on that part, and the lids are unwrapped.

  • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    An oft-overlooked part of this is the fact that it is also a socioeconomic issue. Due to half a century of wage suppression, the diminished purchasing power of the majority of the population would not be able to handle the shift to more durable goods. Wealth/income inequality is a major hurdle for reducing single use plastics and disposable goods.

    • CCMan1701A@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Soda steam (and similar products) have likely saved a lot of plastic bottles from being purchased. This product doesn’t save money, I think it’ll should work out to the same costs for anyone that drinks a lot of bubbly drinks.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Exactly. The actual cost of durable goods tend to be pretty consistent, when corrected for inflation. It’s just that wages are so terrible compared to what they should be, if they were not completely divorced from the value created by labor.

  • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    If you use reusable bags, bottles, and other containers, that’s way more sustainable than any single use product.

    But using paper is still better than plastic, and yes, trees can be and are sustainably farmed in many parts of the world.

    I have seen some shifts away from plastic. For example, Apple seems to have removed almost all if not all plastic from their packaging, replacing it with paper.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 days ago

    The real trick to make this better is moving away from a consumerist mindset. Which isnt really possible in capitalism at its current stage.

    • Cousin Mose@lemmy.hogru.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      And a small part of that I think is realizing that a ton of stuff we use plastic for is totally unnecessary. How many times have you opened something and thought “fuck that’s a lot of plastic?”

      To me it’s unbearably frustrating how much companies use plastic.

      • zout@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Very much this, a lot of stuff is packed in plastic today where it doesn’t need packaging at all. Packaging is becoming an industry where there is no added value very quickly.

  • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Why are we still using so much fucking plastic?

    Capitalism, gotta make that line go up.

    Let’s take clothing for example. It’s way easier to say, make a polyester shirt that breaks in a few months in a sweatshop than make a linen shirt that lasts for 20 years.

    Now, let’s say that these two shirts have been made and now they are in a store. Someone goes there and chances are that they will take the polyester shirt because it’s cheaper. (also: plastic fibers feel soft at first, but soon become rough and itchy, while natural fibers like linen or cotton are rough at first and become softer with time. For example, the linen clothing I’m wearing right now was very rough and kinda uncomfortable at first but now is soft.)

    Another reason is that plastic can be made into nearly any form. Combined with the fact that plastic items are cheaper to make than longer-lasting and/or enviriomentally friendly items, this leads to companies making a lot of plastic items.

    I presume costs for most products would creep up

    Yes, they would. But the thing is that in a world where items weren’t made of plastic, they would be more durable, especially if we made items to be actually used not just to be sold. Companies don’t care if your new shirt breaks the very next day, all they care is that they got that sweet, sweet money.

    And if there were only, say, well-made, durable linen shirts instead of polyester ones sewn up by a Vietnamese child in 50 minutes, they would be way more expensive, yes, but you would need to buy new shirts very rarely. If all shirts could last 20 years, you wouldn’t have to buy that many shirts.

    Last but not least, in order to achieve this kind of world, we’d need to let go of the “buy, buy, buy” consumer mentality and replace it with quality over quantity, because chances are that in a world like this, you would have less stuff than you do now. For example, if you look back a couple of centuries, clothing was very valuable. You’d have like, three shirts unless you were really rich, but those shirts would last you decades, assuming you or someone else would mend them and moths wouldn’t find their way to your wardrobe. (of course, with modern farming technology and mechanised spinning and weaving, clothes would still be far less expensive)

    So in conclusion: there’s so much plastic shit because it’s cheaper to make plastic shit than actually good products. And yes, prices would go up, and we would need to have less stuff over all, since the amount of stuff we have nowadays is ridiculously unsustainable. Humans have done just fine without single-use plastics for millenia.

  • UNY0N@linux.community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    This is already being done in Europe to an extent. It is doable, but it requires a shift in thinking and more investment as well as planning. It’s not really about getting rid of plastic. Just single-use plastic.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    OK, with what would you replace the materials of LEGO bricks?

    This is not a trick question, but one that LEGO has already spent millions on research on. They found an oil-free alternative to the soft plastic used for leaves and other plant parts, but are stuck on other types of plastic they use.

    • Mothra@mander.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Okay we can make an exception for LEGOs… But it’s illegal to dump them as regular trash!

      • rockstarmode@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I don’t know if this is common, but in my family Legos are a common gift for children, and they never get thrown away. When kids age out (usually because they move out or go to uni) the bricks get tossed in a big mixed bag and handed down to the next round of youngsters. After at least 3 generations of this, the kids now inherit literal full sized trash barrels of mixed Lego. It’s awesome!

        When it was my turn I got a big bucket, but two of my cousins got all of the Technic stuff, I was very jealous.

        • Mothra@mander.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Hah! Unfortunately I don’t own any anymore. They didn’t make the cut for the 60kg of essential stuff you can carry when moving to another country. But they’re awesome.

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    The solution isn’t so much to replace plastic as it is to eliminate “single use” from our way of life, except as needed for emergencies (eg, situations where the only way to be sanitary is by destroying the object after use).

    If you eliminate the majority of non-reusable stuff from your life, the rest becomes much easier. The volumes of plastics would be much lower such that much of it could actually be recycled at least once.

    The second bit is to always incorporate end of life into a product’s lifecycle. Shrink what’s allowed to go in landfills. Provide a system to reclaim and often re-use damaged or worn out materials. Design things so they can be easily parted (broken up into parts) so that if a battery dies, you take the old ones in for servicing and either get them replaced or refreshed, instead of tossing the entire device.

    Groceries? I no longer use bags; I get the store to give me the flats it gets its stuff in, and I fill those up with my groceries. General shopping? I have a set of cloth bags that stay in my car and another I can shove in my pocket when I’m walking.

    I’ve got a metal water bottle I take with me when I go places.

    Rejecting single use will get us much further than rejecting plastic.

  • phant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    This is less to do with single-use plastics, but plastic is often a really good option from a functional POV. It doesn’t conduct heat like metal, it doesn’t break like glass/ceramics and has better moisture resistance than timber. (Not saying plastic couldn’t be replaced a lot of the time, but some times it’s a frustratingly good option).

    In terms of complete single-use plastic replacement, I’m not sure, but would also be interested. I’d hope it’s mostly possible.

    • kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      often a really good option from a functional POV

      This right here. Electronic devices are full of plastics because they are often the best, or only, way to make those devices function and remain safe. You’re not going to make a car that meets any modern crash safety standard without plastic materials. Your not going to replace medical tubing with paper or cloth. Etc., etc.

      The world can certainly use less plastic, and should use less. But eliminating it completely will require either (a) developing some novel new replacement material, or (b) giving up a lot of useful things humans have developed in the past century.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    It’s doable. The world existed and functioned without plastic.

    You would see glass for bottles, etc. We would adapt and be fine

    • The world before plastics also suffered more food scarcity. Cheap, easy, light, safe, food-safe, airtight containers won’t find a replacement in old materials, the food will just go to waste faster.

      Traditional construction also wastes incredible amounts of energy. Wooden crates are much heavier than plastic crates. Bent metal structures much heavier than molded plastic. Just compare the weight of a modern plasticised car to a steel one from 100 years ago.

      We would adapt and we would be fine (in rich countries) but without inventing solid replacements, we’ll be fucking ourselves and our planet over in new and exciting ways.

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      The world existed and functioned without plastic.

      This isn’t a good argument. The world existed and functioned without cars, computers, phones, electricity, etc - doesn’t mean it’s viable in the current time.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        viable in the current time.

        That is just a way of saying don’t change anything.

    • Mothra@mander.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yes, I understand that and I really wish we did things that way. But we as a society are a different beast than we were a century ago.

      Plastics started to creep up in the 60s, maybe earlier than that, and back then not only we were a smaller population, but we also relied a lot less on parcels. Online shopping was non existent. Smaller scale and more local businesses made reuse and recycle easier (think glass milk bottles delivered to you; I also remember shopping cookies loose by the kilo when I was a kid, and I no longer see that as the norm anymore). This also made transport logistics easier and less reliant on packaging to endure long trips.

      It’s good to see the positive replies here, but that also depresses me because it means the only reason we have so much plastic is corporate greed

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Plastic is not a climate problem. Ocean pollution is mainly fishing nets. There is a garbage problem that automation can help with recycling. Making fishing nets out of cotton instead of nylon would be a big improvment.

    Wood and paper is a renewable resource that could be used more. Global warming is especially a threat to vast northern forests with fire that are paper sources, while also permitting more/bigger tree growth in the regions. Harvesting trees is a solution to fires, and more demand an incentive to prevent fires.

    Manufacturing with compressed sawdust could be a cost competitive alternative to plastic, but the binder could make the wood product less recyclable.

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Is this actually doable?

    Not at the same price.

    Why are we still using so much fucking plastic?

    Profit margins.

  • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    This is a non-trivial problem. The best thing for the environment is for all of us to stop buying so much shit we don’t need, but that would require a dramatic shift in how society works and the cultural values of pretty much everyone. Cookies coming in metal tins again would be way worse for the environment than plastic, but you also have to remember that when cookies came in metal tins, they were luxury items people would buy for holidays and special occasions. The only way to meaningfully improve things for the environment in terms of packaging is for all of us to buy less pre-packaged food in general.

    Expanding access to goods is both good and bad, and plastic containers are a big part of that process. I think it’s completely unrealistic to replace all single-use plastics with non-plastic alternatives, and I think that efforts to do so have largely backfired in unexpected ways. This problem is best solved by reducing the amount of useless shit we buy but in the meantime I think biodegradable polymers are a good bridge technology. We actually already know about a lot of biodegradable polymers because the earliest polymers were based on biopolymers such as cellulose, resin, and rubber, and these have remained commercially important enough to maintain a high degree of knowledge of their chemistries.

    Another problem, of course, is that most people don’t actually want truly biodegradable polymers. You don’t want a ketchup bottle that starts breaking down while you’re still using it or impacts the taste of the ketchup, but you also don’t want to buy it in a thick, non-squeezable glass bottle. So from an engineering perspective we have to devise plastics that are biodegradable, but only when we want them to be. There are a lot of advancements in this field, but it’s still not enough on its own to fix things. This issue also applies to paper, since almost all “paper” packaging products also include polymers as sealants to improve performance precisely because paper has all the same issues without it.

    • AugustWest@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I get your point, but I gotta say: I do want to buy my ketchup in a glass bottle. And I do, mostly because the ketchup is 10 times better than then generic crap that is Heinz or whatever major name.

      But I don’t mind shaking the bottle, it’s not hard.

      Most things I don’t want plastics for, and in the case of viscous fluids, why not jars?

      It would be nice to drop off the jar with the local mustard maker and get a fresh one. Standardizing on glass sizes would help a lot, but then of course we gave water issues for cleaning all of them.