If you've assumed that "Spend a ton of resources making something so you can use it once and throw it away!" is at all sane, there's really not much in the way of argument that you're going to find acceptable.
But fundamentally, we have a "linear waste problem" in society. Things are built with non-renewable-in-human-times resources, used once, and then thrown away - and this model has to die. Across the board.
We live on a finite planet. We do not, as of yet, have any sort of off-planet resource extraction, and I genuinely hope we never manage that (the difference between "We've put an asteroid into orbit to mine resources" and "We've put an asteroid into a country we dislike" is a remarkably small delta-V). We should not be using "disposable" items, and I include an awful lot in that - despite having used some myself (we use disposable diapers for overnight, because cloth simply doesn't absorb enough beyond a certain age, and work to eliminate those as rapidly as possible).
Whatever it is you think you need disposable plastics for, I'm willing to wager that 100 years ago, before the age of plastic, people were doing exactly the same thing you want to do, without disposable things. So they're not required. They may be cheap, the may be convenient, but required, no. They're not.
The mental view of reality required to consider "disposable anythings" as sane is quite recent, and, IMO, quite broken.
> the difference between "We've put an asteroid into orbit to mine resources" and "We've put an asteroid into a country we dislike" is a remarkably small delta-V
We can already put a few thousand atomic bombs, warheads or EMPs there, with far more predictability, more accuracy, lower probability of early detection and, as a bonus, lower costs. We have had planet destroying weapons for over half a decade now; if a nation really wants to end another nation - or most of humanity altogether, for that matter - it wont need an asteroid.
OR maybe it is just that the requried industrial layout is not in place yet to make those containers in such a scale. But I think that we need a replacement, and the less plastic we use, more alternatives will appear.
These materials predate plastic and existed when the decision to build out the plastic industry was made.
Capitalism isn't flawless, but it does handle money very efficiently. If, for example, landfill space was in low supply, the cost of waste disposal would go up and consumers would prefer products that produce less waste. Likewise if oil was running out.
Capitalism fails where externalities don't have an immediate cost. The pollutants generated in the production, shipping, and disposal of plastics don't come with financial consequences. Plastic is evidently cheaper than alternatives, so companies who avoid them will be outcompeted by companies that do.
Consumers might solve this by boycotting plastics, but I think wealth inequality won't make it easy. Companies might solve this by agreeing not to use plastics, though I'm not sure about the legality and they still could be undercut by new competitors. Or a government could use taxes to add costs to the generation of pollutants, but that depends on pertinent industries' influence and the government's incentives towards national economic performance.
Exactly, people love to hate on Capitalism, but it is a very powerful tool. But externalised cost is the downfall that governments need to step in and control.
Anything food related should be compostable, including in supermarkets. If it means we can't store food for months, the good. It means we can compost them as fertilizer so the planet is still okay.
Without getting draconian on companies who don't give a shit about anything except for profits, they won't lift a finger to do anything about it.
there are lots, such as paper packaging, paper cups, bamboo (for disposable cutlery, packaging etc) there are lots of alternatives
i guess the hardest is plastic food packaging in grocery stores... that plastic is sterile, lightweight and lasts forever (which is good for shelflife, fuel usage etc)... i wonder what airtight alternatives there for that...
> Bioresin is a thermoplastic made from organic materials instead of petroleum products. Bioresin is a substitute for PET and polystyrene and can replace polyethylene and polypropylene.
> PLA stands for polylactic acid and is a resin made from corn starch. PLA is used to make clear compostable containers and PLA lining is used in cups and containers as an impermeable liner. PLA is biodegradable, and fully compostable.
> Bagasse is a natural byproduct of sugarcane refinement. Bagasse pulp requires minimal processing and elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching to turn it into a woven high-strength paper that is biodegradable and compostable.
i thought about that too, but glass is 1000s of times as heavy, and typically recycling it means re-melting which is wasteful of energy and has carbon emmissions problems
as i see it, the only way that would work is if
1. we reused the glass
2. some national system where someone comes by and pick up the glass for sterilization (like those old 50s milk bottles)
3. standardized glass containers that are mandated/traded across industries
and that still doesnt fix the usage of fuels to transport all that glass to and fro...
Compostable items are probably the best bet for many common uses. For instance, in many Asian countries you are served food in a plate or bowl made of banana leaves instead of plastic. In cultures where eating with your hands is normal, you can skip needing flatware of any kind. The other alternative is re-use, like we do with shopping bags. Plastic itself perhaps can be less problematic if disposing it is illegal and re-use or recycling is encouraged and enforceable. But a lot of plastic today is not recycled at all (https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/whopping-91-perce...).
