Studies find red, blue and green plastic decomposes into microplastic particles faster than plainer colours
Retailers are being urged to stop making everyday products such as drinks bottles, outdoor furniture and toys out of brightly coloured plastic after researchers found it degrades into microplastics faster than plainer colours.
Red, blue and green plastic became “very brittle and fragmented”, while black, white and silver samples were “largely unaffected” over a three-year period, according to the findings of the University of Leicester-led project.
The scale of environmental pollution caused by plastic waste means that microplastics, or tiny plastic particles, are everywhere. Indeed, they were recently found in human testicles, with scientists suggesting a possible link to declining sperm counts in men.
I might be missing the point but does it matter if it breaks down into micro plastics over 3 years or 13?
If single use plastics are destined to become micro plastics does the time scale matter?
I think it’s bad to have more micro plastics rather than less, at any given point in time
You’re still going to have the same amount in the long run, though. All this is doing is delaying the inevitable.
By that logic, we may as well burn all of our trash, because eventually it will be pollution so why not get it over with now?
Burning and breaking down are two different things.
Microplastics will last for thousands of years, so unless the less colorful plastics take thousands of years to break down to the point of bright ones, the difference is irrelevant.
It’s just so silly though. You’re dismissing the uncountable number of people absorbing unknowable amounts of micro plastics over the next few decades as unimportant.
Not only do we want to reduce exposure in the near term, we may find a way to effectively remove micro plastics from the environment in the future, so no, it’s not settled that releasing as many micro plastics as possible is fine as long as it would happen eventually anyhow
How about we reduce all plastics. It’s not going to happen in my lifetime but it would be something.
Yes obviously. we don’t have to do only one thing
it’s not settled that releasing as many micro plastics as possible is fine as long as it would happen eventually anyhow
Is anyone making that argument? My thoughts are that we should reduce plastics (both macro amd micro) entering the ecosystem.
As 22% ends up as litter and directly enters the ecosystem, and 49% is put in landfill (which may enter the ecosystem later) is seems using less plastic is the best solution to this problem.
Edit: I forgot the link:
We can and should use less plastic and also limit the rate of micro plastics…?
Sure, but the impact would be less bad if you have the same amount spread over a longer time.
It’s the same impact. It’s the same amount of microplastic it just takes longer. If I give you the choice of 100 beans today or 1 bean each day for 100 days it’s still 100 beans. The total impact is identical it just takes longer.
Or maybe I’m missing the second half of the answer, but if that colored plastic continued to degrade more quickly, could it be better. I have no idea if there’s any way to get microplastics out of the environs that it’s everywhere, but it has to degrade eventually, right?
I’d hope that the rate is slower and less will be absorbed by humans consumers if it breaks down slower.
A feelings.
Probably doesn’t matter with the amount of microplastics that car tires are shedding every day.
a car’s four tires collectively emit 1 trillion ultrafine particles — of less than 100 nanometers — per kilometer driven. https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemicals
I can imagine trying to push this and Marketing going, “No thanks, that doesn’t look good.” And that’d be the end of it.
I could see them putting out some feelgood but meaningless press release about how they will look for new, greener sources of brightly colored plastic in the future.
“Compostable plastic” (that needs an industrial sized composter with heat regulation to fully degrade and isn’t available everywhere)
Firms: “Ha ha, fuck you. Capitalism always lets us do whatever we want. Now we’re off to swim in our Uncle Scrooge-style moneybins.”
Actually communist/totalitarian countries tend to pollute more, because the people don’t have a say. It’s not about capitalism, it’s about regulation.
Wait, communist countries have less regulations than capitalist ones?
Regarding polluting and cleaning up afterwards and using toxic compounds in products yes in general they have.
On what scale? It seems like the current climate change issues were triggered and amplified before communism was practiced by any state, but while capitalism was actively being used by colonialists throughout the 1800s. Do we count those 100+ years without regulations? If the punishments are minimal, not a single violation of any environmental regulation on a large scale has been appropriately pushed in the leading capitalist state, the US, ever, do those regulations really mean anything to those that are truly the greatest impacts to environment?
On what scale?
Apples to apples, for instance Soviet Union compared to Europe, there is no doubt Soviet union was decades behind the west regarding regulating on toxic compounds and pollution and cleaning up.
Same with China, they build their industrial capacity on polluting without limits, compare that to Japan or South Korea. China even had the advantage pollution wise that they started later, so a lot of know how was available on how to pollute less for comparable industrial output.At least China has improved, but Soviet union never did.
So the lack of enforcement means what in this case?
And the right would tell you that regulation is anti-capitalism.
Yes they would, but in reality it’s anti libertarian like completely free market capitalism,. which is shown not to work, so how anybody takes it seriously IDK?
Capitalism is ALWAYS regulated, but not always with consideration to consumers and environment. Social democrat societies like Scandinavia are generally considered among the best. But even more “free” capitalism oriented countries like USA have regulations.But you can’t have societies without regulation, the whole idea is moronic. The difference is whether it’s good as in beneficial regulation, and what it attempts to benefit, Profits or citizens and environment.
Brightly colored plastics may break down into microplastics faster but they’re also drastically more visible, meaning they may get spotted and picked up before other colors.
It doesn’t matter if they’re discarded properly or not… They’re still gonna end up in the environment at the end of the road anyway. Most plastic isn’t recycled, even when it is collected into the system.
What I don’t get when I was in school the whole thing was save the trees use astic bags. Like wtf trees are renewable and paper breaks down why was there a big push in the 80 and 90s to use plastic.
If discarded plastic litter was being picked up enough for that to matter maybe…
They’re definitely isn’t enough of it being picked up, but I would be curious to see the ratio of brightly colored plastic to not brightly colored plastic in what has been picked up.
If more brightly colored plastic is being picked up then we could increase the amount of plastic that is being picked up by switching to annoying colors.
Every little bit helps, even if it’s just 1% more.
