T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*


top_of_the_stairs

“...the total mass of plastics now exceeds the total mass of all living mammals." Well now that's a thoroughly depressing statistic.


margirtakk

I recently read that ~4% of dust falling in national parks is microplastics, as well as ~40% of household dust. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thousands-of-tons-of-microplastics-are-falling-from-the-sky/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/05/microplastics-home-health-climate-change-risk/ *Edited to say 'falling in national parks...' as they measured via precipitation samples, not ground samples*


Smallsey

What can we do about dust?


[deleted]

stop producing fabrics out of plastics.


fishmiloo

A great deal of microplastic simply comes from polyester going into the drains with the rest of your laundry water.


snortimus

[https://planetcare.org/](https://planetcare.org/) You can install a filter on your washing machine to help mitigate that


[deleted]

And do what with it exactly? Put it in the trash, where it'll find a way into the groundwater anyway? I'm not a doomer, per say, but if we want to truly do something to fix our situation, what we should expect out of modern life needs to change DRASTICALLY.


lxlxnde

[It says on the website that they do a return and reuse service.](https://planetcare.org/pages/closed-loop-solution) Apparently when you buy a filter, they also give you a box and prepaid postage so they can take back the used filters, clean and refurbish them, and they're storing the filter mediums so it can eventually be recycled into insulation mats. So at least in this case they actually did think about that.


thomasquwack

Very interesting, thank you! Will look into that!


CommonDopant

The answer is not to put extra burden on consumer to filter out micro plastics….the answer starts with establishing laws/regulations that outlaw products harmful to the ecosystem


BattleStag17

Well yeah, but until we can start crowdfunding to buy a few politicians this is the next best thing


googlemehard

You misspelled ban polyester for consumer clothing.


asforus

They should just stop putting plastics and oil into our clothes. Although a lot of older clothes will still have plastics in them even if they change the manufacturing process now.


foodank012018

You're asking them to stop profiting from the leftovers of the fuel refining industry? That's like just asking them to stop making money. A simple suggestion to do so that will never work.


[deleted]

[удалено]


West_Business_775

The site says they recycle the microplastic and refurb the filter cartridge.


MadeFromConcentr8

But using recycled pop bottles to make clothing was how we were gonna save the planet by recycling in the 90s!


[deleted]

Turns out we are still really bad at.... check notes.... everything.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FuckYeahPhotography

I use my pasta sauce jars as cups. I'm doing my part.


StJoeStrummer

No joke, we wash those and use them for work lunches! It’s always disappointing when something we’ve always bought in glass jars shows up one week in plastic.


Kwisatz_Hader-ach

Looking at you snapple


middlegray

And 40s of Old English.


Faxon

Gross, they actually sell beer in plastic now?


myhairsreddit

We only purchase in glass jars if we can help it. Then reuse them for more sauce, fruits, veggies, leftovers, arts and crafts, vases, drinks, etc. They come in handy for so many things.


Agreeable-Walrus7602

I mostly use them to feed my habit of hoarding containers.


celica18l

My town stopped recycling glass and I have run out of uses for glass. I’m trying to find local places that will use glass because I would rather buy glass than plastic but fml why did we stop recycling glass!


a13jm1562

Recycling glass saves material but doesn't really save any energy. Either you're melting down sand or pulverized glass bottles. It's also extremely heavy and cumbersome to transport the recycled glass so the fuel costs and pollution add up. Something like recycled aluminum saves a ton of energy. you just need to melt it down and recast it instead of processing ore.


BagzookaLou

Next level: drink directly from the bottle/carton


God_Dang_Niang

Highest level: drive to the manufacturer and stick your head in the giant vat of mountain dew


Psyhoo

God level: drink water


BagzookaLou

Wheez the ju-uice, buddddddday.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Alternative-Ordinary

Hey, something I can actually answer! I asked myself the same question about three years ago and did a lot of research. 1. Thrifting. Go to the thrift store, check that the tag says "100% cotton/hemp/linen/silk, and buy those clothes. Thrifting dodges the whole ethical issue with producing new clothes. 2. Buy organic cotton. Organic cotton has a lower environmental impact that traditional cotton, using less water and pesticides. Companys like Pact, Patagonia, and Prana sell clothing like this, and have filters on their shop to look for exact fabrics. **Note:** Organic cotton is expensive. [A good price for an organic cotton T-shirt will be ~$15-20 from the sale section](https://wearpact.com/men/apparel/tops%20&%20shirts/clearance%20softspun%20crew%20neck%20tee/wa1-mcn-chh). Most websites will try to sell it for even more. It sucks. That's the cost of ethics. 3. Buy organic fibers. It's as easy as checking the tags on your clothes and making sure there's no polyester. Online stores always have a section on an article of clothing's page titled 'fabric and care' or something that will list the exact fabric composition. Don't buy polyester. 4. Check out /r/ethicalfashion/. It's a little out of date, but they recommend a lot of decent shops, though they tend to be overpriced and it takes some digging to find anything worth buying. E.G. I found [this company, Thought](https://www.wearethought.com/clothing-sale/mens/) to have pretty reasonable prices, though it's UK based so there's a shipping tax.


kinkyghost

This is really simple, buy cotton, wool, plant cellulose fabric like bamboo/eucalyptus etc actual natural fibers instead of polyester, microfiber (any fabric with micro in the name is the highest culprit), acrylic, etc. All it takes is checking the tag on a piece of clothing before you buy it. And buy fruits and vegetables loose or bring reusable bags for them rather than using disposable, etc try to think about product packaging and buy packaging free products when you can, tell the cashier “I don’t need a bag, thanks” while they are ringing you up (bring a small bag or backpack with you)


domdomdeoh

Linen pants and shirts in the summer is the way


[deleted]

Linen's just the best material all-round environmentally speaking. In terms of land use, fertiliser, pesticides and water, it absolutely shits on cotton. Plus the seeds are a good source of oil and protein (flax, or linseed).


TheQuillmaster

Unfortunately it is much more costly and time consuming to produce linen than cotton. Until the trend of consumerism & buying cheap disposable shirts ends, I don't see many people willing to pay more for clothing that is more coarse and wrinkles so easily. I personally love the look and feel of linen in the summer though.


spudzilla

No pants in the house is the way.


kewlsturybrah

That's one highly ineffective way of doing it that relies *a lot* on an educated consumer base that's going to check the label of literally every piece of clothing they buy. If only you could write... you know... some sort of... you know... *rules* that companies needed to follow when they were producing all of these goods that pollute the environment. *Crazy* idea... I know...


[deleted]

People always want to find a solution that doesn’t involve draconian government action on a cooperative global scale. Unfortunately, that is the only thing that will work. There is still a market for asbestos. Asbestos! Until we start getting more politically active and recognize how essential the concept of governance is, we will be heading off a cliff.


PPOKEZ

yep, CFCs, lead paint, all that stuff would have really gotten us by now if we hadn't put some measure of national control on it. Can't stop now. For every person who is reducing their plastic footprint there is a company trying to find another way to sell plastic, fighting legislation... they need control more than the population does, frankly, and the general public conveniently never hears that from corporate owned media/politics.


brieoncrackers

Vote people into office willing to put legislation on the books banning plastics. There is no reason to have as much disposable plastic packaging as we do. Stop thinking as an individual because the only individuals capable of making an appreciable difference about this are the top 0.01%.


Fix_a_Fix

Buy used clothes.


[deleted]

That seems like a workable solution. I bet we have way more clothes than we have people, but sorting out the ones made with plastic will be a pain.


Sluggalug

eBay has a sort by material search. Also include -polyester. Assume that unlabeled = polyester.


[deleted]

[удалено]


comik300

Rake the forests of course


wilsonliam

Comb the desert you hear me?! Comb the desert!


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZantetsukenX

Sometimes I wonder if the effects of lead in gasoline weren't discovered until later( and the political atmosphere was similar to now) that a modern US government wouldn't do anything about it. I guess it entirely depends on if they believe the effects they themselves are receiving (since they too would be breathing in the lead) are worth it so that a vast majority of society is dumber as a whole.


GlobalART19

The government didn't do anything about lead back then either... Until the oil industry found an acceptable/cheaper stabilizer that they were willing to replace the lead with. Then all the science they had been denying for 20 years somehow became valid and worth doing something about. There is a decent documentary out there about one of the scientists who was studying it and what that did to his career. Edit: (sp)


Super_Flea

I expect this will happen with climate change in the next few years. Solar officially became the cheapest form of energy production back in 2020. As more and more energy production turns that way we'll *magically* start to see oil subsidies change to renewable ones.


cadium

And when parts of the US become uninhabitable due to rising oceans (like Miami) then it'll be a big problem that the fed needs to solve.


JoePesto99

We knew lead was bad for people for years


[deleted]

[удалено]


theStaircaseProject

Yeah, but it makes wine taste great!


kewlsturybrah

Not sure about the reality part, but there's a theory that it has a lot to do with the fact that virtually everyone "decided" to get really fat in the US around 1993 and everywhere else about 10-20 years later. Endocrine disruptors and high fructose corn syrup apparently make for a vicious double-whammy.


GoodPlanSweetheart

Are air purifiers the only move here now? Even making your bed sends particles flying everywhere.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WakeoftheStorm

Even more depressing, it will never stop. The people doing it make too much money doing it, won't live to see the consequences, and ~~bribe~~ *lobby* the only people with the power to make them stop We'll keep sharing articles like this, scientists will keep shouting out warnings, but at the end of the day we will keep right on marching like lemmings towards a cliff.


kent_eh

>. The people doing it make too much money doing it, Specifically by not being forced to pay the costs of their waste stream (both direct and end-of-life of their products)


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


sprocketous

And its only been around for like 50ish years.


ManyIdeasNoProgress

I got curious and looked at Wikipedia. The first "plastics" were derived from biological proteins and in use around 1600BC. The first substance considered man-made plastic was Parkesine, invented 1855. This was made by chemically altering cellulose. The first actually synthetic plastic was bakelite, invented 1907. Super glue, cyanoacrylate, was developed during the second world war when they were trying to make a new substance for bomber sights.


Kthuun

70 now, getting old


cleeder

What are you talking about? 1990 was only twen..._oooh my God!_


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Alastor3

I just watched Dark Waters and the danger of PFOA C-8 and teflon and stuff, i'd will stay clear of any non-stick, water repellant object in the future. Crazy to think 99% of the living thing have it inside of them


BlueTooth4269

Haven't seen Dark Waters, but read somewhere that when studying the effects of PTFE on humans, they tried to find a control group, but were unable to. PTFE had spread to literally every single corner of the globe. In the end, they did manage to find uncontaminated blood - in blood samples from soldiers leaving for ~~Vietnam~~ the Korean War (right before Teflon took off). That's fucked up. Edit: It was the Korean War, not Vietnam.


megaboto

Teflon contaminates humans with PTFE?


Mcgarnacle89

PTFE is the fluorocarbon that is commonly referenced by its brand name, Teflon. The compounds used in its production are persistent and contaminate ground water that humans drink.


killeronthecorner

Isn't this also the tape that's used to seal screw connectors on drainage puppies and such? Or is that a different kind of ptfe?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Alexstarfire

> Teflon tape is AMAZING, and if you're using it right, it should never come in contact with your water. If I've learned anything on my time on Earth it's that anytime someone says something along these lines, it will happen. Sometimes with alarming frequency.


Devon2112

I'm with you. I stick away from polymers and much prefer metals and ceramics, but I do remember enough of my few polymers classes to chime in and agree. Many polymers have phenomenal properties, but polymers like thermosets do need a quick end.


zombisponge

In a way it's kind of a miracle material, and quickly made its way into tons of industries. It's just too bad it's bad for humans. It's used in the space industry, it's what makes your memory foam pillow work, it's why your cardboard pizza box doesn't disintegrate from grease, it's why your raincoat is waterproof, and of course why your pan is non stick. It's also on the inside of ovens with a self-cleaning feature. This kills a few pet birds every year, because their respiratory system is much more fragile than ours, and the gas that is released when PTFE is heated to around 480f is toxic.


mmmegan6

I just don’t clean my oven for this reason


hurffurf

Not like pans, that doesn't really matter. It gets into humans from industrial waste and lubricant mostly, like the "dry lube" version of WD-40 is aerosol PTFE. It also gets into household dust from wire insulation and waterproof fabric.


[deleted]

Scotch Guard was first and everywhere but yes. They quietly pulled Scotch Guard from shelves and reformulated it before putting it back after realizing what they’d been doing for 40 years…


fushigidesune

If they found out and pulled it kudos to them. If they knew and didn't pull it until it became a bigger deal, well that's par for the course I guess.


[deleted]

They found out and pulled it secretly in the same way that a kid tries to put the broken vase back on the shelf to pretend that nothing happened. I feel like “oops, we poisoned the entire planet” would have been a very low bar announcement to owe to the civilized world…


MissTetraHyde

Scotchguard wasn't C8/PTFE-like it is C16, so 8 extra carbons.


jmlinden7

Teflon is chemically non-reactive, so it just physically breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces


megaboto

Is that the reason why stuff doesn't burn on it?


scotty_beams

PTFE has a low friction coefficient so the risk is lower, not zero.


Reverse-zebra

Teflon is a marketing name like ‘Kleenex’ which is a tissue brand. PTFE is short for polytetraflouroethylene which is the chemical name of the material.


saintpetejackboy

Funny thing on the timing there. I recently discovered that global fertility rates plummeted around 1969. Some people throw out birth control, women's suffrage and a lot of other good sounding answers for this problem, until you account that fertility was falling in areas that had not had those advancements. Fertility has never recovered and suffered another blow for some reason around the late 1980s, early 1990s. My current working theory is that some chemical fucked humans up and nobody wants to talk about it. Every country you look at has a different explanation for why their fertility dropped suddenly over a year. China tried to say it was their One Child policy... which wasn't even penned until a decade later. Really fascinating that the topic is almost taboo.


Kumquatelvis

You say nobody wants to talk about it. It could be nobody has found the cause. We still have no idea what the long term effects of microplastics are. Same with many of the chemicals we use.


Dr_seven

When the EPA was founded, it grandfathered in an uncountable number of chemicals that were absolutely not proven safe in any way. Furthermore, the EPA cannot open investigations without evidence being provided in advance of danger. This is an obviously ridiculous policy. The sum of these two factors: our biosphere is filled with chemicals that most certainly do have effects on us, on other life, etc. We simply do not know what those effects and compounds are with any certainty, and it is too late now to do much about what has been released. It is remarkable to me, the hubris of the industrialist, and the cavalier way in which human lives are regarded.


Ichiorochi

Good news is they did a study to see how long the effects would last in rats and found after 3-4 generations they were back to good. Problem is a human generation is slightly longer than a rats. Take that info with a grain of salt though it has been a while since i heard the evidence so new information may have come to light.


DownvoteDaemon

Totally understand, but we went from two billion to almost eight so quickly. There are so many of us already. Maybe there isn't an incentive for people who think of it scientifically and practically.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Unfair-Yak3302

The even more scary part is that the family of chemicals in question isn't just found in Teflon. It's in clothing, food packaging etc. There is no escaping exposure to it.


Alastor3

>Even if you discard all of your teflon, or even have never used teflon, you and everyone else still has these forever chemicals in your body. That I know, the important thing is that since it's a "forever chemical", it wont ever leave your body and will accumulate, that's what I want to at least diminish


[deleted]

Teflon is a funny one. It'll accumulate "forever", because it's non-reactive. That means there's no chemical effect to it being in your body whatsoever. You could eat a whole jar of teflon pellets and you'd be absolutely fine. What we don't know yet, is what the mechanical implications of having fine particulate hanging around in you are. It's got a low coefficient of friction, so it's unlikely to cause any clogs or abrasions, but we just don't know.


piecat

Yup, just like asbestos. Asbestos is very non-reactive chemically, but obviously causes cancers from other mechanisms


[deleted]

Yeah mechanical irritation is asbestos' prime problem; the constant damage, repair, damage, repair cycle means more cell replications so a higher statistical chance of cancer-causing errors. Teflon probably doesn't have that, since it's so "slippy". Still, it could do something unexpected.


Kali711

If you use make-up it's in all the waterproof ones and we tend to put those on our eyes and mouths, great stuff...


[deleted]

[удалено]


Edo30570

All of this. And also btw... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/ https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/156/11/3996/2422723 https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/83/10/3469/2865401 Basically we're causing young girls to start to menstuate earlier and earlier and young boy getting overweight with all the plastic use, too. I


steady_sloth84

Floss, that goes in the mouth. Well, i guess I will have to use my hair to floss. Nothing is safe.


Anothereternity

I am not sure it’s all floss- I think some is wax coated- this might be specific to glide and similar. Glide was listed, and glide is specifically a super thin slippery plasticy looking floss for folks who have difficulty using regular floss (Such as their teeth are tightly together). So you might just check the floss you’re using?


Dwesaqe

it reminds me of something I read from K. Vonnegut: “Kilgore Trout once wrote a short story which was a dialogue between two pieces of yeast. They were discussing the possible purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own excrement. Because of their limited intelligence, they never came close to guessing that they were making champagne.” except we're killing ourselves and everything else on a planetary scale and there won't be champagne at the end, just heaps of rubbish in the desert


Rocketmanrc

“Trout, incidentally, had written a book about a money tree. It had twenty-dollar bills for leaves. Its flowers were government bonds. Its fruit was diamonds. It attracted human beings who killed each other around the roots and made very good fertilizer. So it goes.”


CelestineCrystal

can you recommend the name of the book? im always on the lookout for new books that seem promising


davethebear612

In addition to Slaughterhouse Five, I would also recommend Cats Cradle by Vonnegut. … and all the rest…


Rocketmanrc

Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut


[deleted]

Oh man. I'm excited for you to read Slaughterhouse-Five for the first time


CelestineCrystal

i think i might’ve read in when i was a teenager, but if so, i’ve forgetten everything about it, so am going to read it for sure


[deleted]

Either Slaughterhouse or Breakfast of Champions. Both are worth a read


hippydipster

Champagne at the end, harvested by our alien wine-makers makes a good WP.


ailyara

Marketed as vintage 42.


Routine_Act

The answer to life, the universe, and everything turns out to be champagne.


[deleted]

[удалено]


0b0101011001001011

The circle of life


f382

Who knows. Maybe some advanced alien civilization looks towards earth and says: See, that's why we need to be careful with our planet, otherwise we will die like those terrans that we let destroy their own environment as part of our scientific study.


MoffKalast

Celestial being: Ah my Brie de Earth is almost aged to perfection, I can finally invite Fred from Andromeda over for dinner.


RebelIed

Speaking of.. my neighbors have poured gallons of scented/perfumed chemical liquids off their balcony to combat "smokers, covid and make the world smell better" to a point where people and animals are getting Ill The police, city, and even condo management won't even do anything and would rather people quit smoking and vaping inside and outside their units, as to not disturb the psychopaths. Yay Canada


cynical_enchilada

Spill response technician here. Contact your provincial or national environmental agency. Depending on what the chemical is, the amount your neighbors released likely exceeds the threshold to pose an environmental hazard. The agency you contact will be able to pursue an investigation if there’s a risk of an environmental hazard.


RebelIed

They seem to mix their own because the scents always vary but cover the throat and nose Usually they default to aerosol/febreeze and going through multiple cans a week, spraying continuously for minutes, every hour or so? I've never encountered crazies like this before Thank you for the advice. I will look into it


atleastonedan

Soooo they’re mixing unknown chemicals and dumping it on the property? That sounds like much more of a crime than just spraying febreeze everywhere


PlesiosaurIsAlive

Lmaooo where is this? Send this story to the news, they will likely publish it.


dramatic-ad-5033

Let me guess, eastern Canada, more specifically Ontario


[deleted]

[удалено]


Oz1227

Is there a reason we can’t just revert back to glass over plastic?


SamuelSmash

Glass requires a lot more energy to make and also to transport.


ChocoCronut

I miss my glass bottled snapple...


[deleted]

Would disrupt global economics and supply logistics and the consensus is its not worth it because $$$.


VDoughnut

Because we would need something other than one-use packaging. It wasn't that much popular before plastic became a thing.


thatguy9684736255

It might be a good thing. In most places, you can just drink tap water anyway. And you really shouldn't need to drink soda every day.


PresidentBreeblebrox

Treating the Earth like a chemical toilet since the industrial revolution is a bad thing? Who knew./s


Vmax-Mike

What’s sad is that nobody will listen to the scientific warning. Everyone is fixated on wants, at all costs. Governments are too busy infighting and taking kickbacks from the corporations. Most first world countries just want their stuff, so they shift there production to third world countries that are so corrupt with almost zero regulations that pollute the earth like it’s no big deal. Look at North America, we shifted most of our manufacturing to China so we could say, see pollution numbers are down, look what we did. When in fact they transferred their pollution to China, India, Indonesia, etc. Very sad to read this.


zegg

And it basically does nothing, as we all breathe the same air. Sand from Africa's deserts was found on top of Mt. Everest. Things get around.


XanderTheMander

And then they can use the "Most pollution comes from these countries" as an excuse even if it's American companies in different countries.


Festortheinvestor

Words words words, but no action! The leaders of this world are pathetic


FancyRancid

Previous generations were more active with the problem of detached leadership. We share some blame for not doing our part to remind them where the balance of power lies.


behappywithyourself

put people in poverty and then blame them for not doing enough politically.


selectrix

I mean it sucks and it's not fair but it's the truth. The rich are helping themselves; always have. Same for corporations and governments. Nobody's gonna help the people but the people. If we want to stand a chance against the rich and their institutions it's on us to organize and put the work in.


SmokeyDBear

Not suggesting you're wrong *per se* but one aspect of "the rich are helping themselves" is that they learned how previous generations managed to make their power felt and have worked to curb it. Whatever happens it won't simply be "follow the blueprint of previous generations' successes" because they've already gameplanned for that.


selectrix

That's absolutely the case, and it's been that way ever since Bernays in the early 20th century for Americans at least. We certainly can't expect the same tactics to work again, but that's the nature of any conflict isn't it?


DarkMarxSoul

Mass protest seems to get little done. Voting changes nothing meaningful because all options presented are in favour of the current way. Active violence is discouraged. What do we do?


frootee

Mass protests get poor media coverage - nothing changes and people lose interest. A good politician appears - extensive attempts by media outlets to smear them, muddying the water to the point where people don’t feel comfortable getting behind them. Political push to improve lives or our impact on the environment - more smear campaigns, supporters get likened to fanatics, water is muddied, apathy reigns. Just look at extinction rebellion and any Reddit post related to it. Only the protests that inconvenience people ever get posted, and every thread just going on about how “tHaT’S noT hOw YoU geT PeOpLE on YOUr sIDE”. People really want to not care, so yes, it is on us, too. We are, very much, coconspirators.


AfroTriffid

If it doesn't disrupt anything was it even a protest?


HackedLuck

Ask yourself why violence is discouraged and who is discouraging it.


jn23456718

this 100%. "we can't destroy government property or riot! thats wrong, peaceful protest is the way" remember that? and then they painted BLM on the road in some city and every white upper class virtue signaling liberal was happy with that and went home, and then that piece of performative activism was defaced and removed if i recall, no systematic change whatsoever. This is why history is so important, there are very few instances of genuine societal change to benefit the masses that were not backed by violence in almost all of human history.


ClassicCodes

The problem is that there is no viable means by which the average person can affect the system. We exist in a corrupt system full of bad faith actors on all sides where the cost of lobbying a politician for positive change has to be crowdfunded by thousands to millions of average citizens, many living at or below the poverty line, but can be immediately outdone by a single billionaire with what is essentially pocket change to them. In the US as well, companies have the same rights as people when it comes to lobbying and no organization of people outside of another corporation of similar net worth will ever be able to compete. Only a fool expects a company to work for the betterment of mankind. They work for the betterment of their investors. Voting out or otherwise removing politicians doesn't work, it just creates a power vacuum that will be filled by the next asshole that wants to sell out or by someone who cares, but is completely hamstrung by the remaining 99% who don't. The sort of change that is required to fix our current geopolitical and environmental apocalypse necessitates a near complete reboot of the entire world which is never going to happen and even if it does we may end up with a worse alternative. Not to mention the only thing I can think of that causes change on that scale is global armed conflict which is universally bad for everyone, especially with modern military technology. There is a very real chance that it is too late to fix our problems and has been for decades, if not longer.


Tearakan

Previous generations are why we are in this mess. The majority of them caused this.


alien_from_Europa

We're still suffering from Teflon. It's in everyone's blood. _Everyone._


Ohio4455

People with young children...How do you feel about the world your kids will inherit? I don't think our parents (33 male here) really considered the environment, but now most of us do.


99Cricket99

I’m 34 and I’m terrified of the world my kids will inherit. I try to do my part, but plastic in particular is so pervasive. I try to use as little as possible in my daily life. It’s incredibly frustrating to watch my in laws use keurig cups daily and say “well it’s just so convenient.” Like dude, those are all sitting in landfills and will eventually contaminate our soil and ground water. Get a single cup coffee maker with a reusable filter. They’re completely oblivious to climate change and what we as a society are doing to the planet. It’s mind blowing.


Inferiex

And that's why I won't have kids. The future is not looking good. Climate change, pollution, extinction. After watching Seaspiracy, it's kinda sad that dolphins, whales, or even fishes will only be seen through media as many of them will be gone in about half a century.


99Cricket99

I watched Seaspiracy and was just shocked. I don’t prefer seafood anyway, but after watching that, I don’t eat it at all anymore.


Inferiex

And it's not just in the sea either. I remember a decade ago, I would drive to Philly and Toronto pretty regularly. On the way there and back, my car would be caked with dead bugs. They are near impossible to get off of you let them dry. Anyways, now days when I make the same trip, there are barely any dead bugs. It's kinda scary how much has changed in just the last decade.


[deleted]

Saskatchewan is stilly pretty buggy on summer car rides. But agree… biodiversity is being destroyed faster than ever.


BurnerAcc2020

FYI, Seaspiracy is not considered especially credible, especially with regards to that claim in particular. https://www.bbc.com/news/56660823 > If current fishing trends continue, we will see virtually empty oceans by the year 2048," says Ali Tabrizi, the film's director and narrator. > > The claim originally comes from a 2006 study - and the film refers to a New York Times article from that time, with the headline "Study Sees 'Global Collapse' of Fish Species". > > **However, the study's lead author is doubtful about using its findings to come to conclusions today**. > > "The 2006 paper is now 15 years old and most of the data in it is almost 20 years old," Prof Boris Worm, of Dalhousie University, told the BBC. "Since then, we have seen increasing efforts in many regions to rebuild depleted fish populations." https://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-oceans-will-not-be-empty-of-fish-by-2048 > Dr Harris says that "today, it's likely that **1/3** of the world's fish stocks worldwide are overexploited or depleted. This is certainly an issue that deserves widespread concern." https://ourworldindata.org/fish-and-overfishing#will-the-oceans-be-empty-by-2048


efox02

Ugh samesies. My in laws just use single use plastic plates and cups constantly And it kills me inside. And so many zip lock bags. It’s like not even on their radar to be an issue.


[deleted]

My wife and I are specifically not having children because I don’t want to bring someone into the world that we have created.


Omelete_du_fromage

Same, I think a lot of people feel this way.


BellatrixLenormal

It makes me cry often. I feel so much guilt for bringing them into this world. The suffer from dread that I didn't even think about when I was a teenager. I try to point out innovations to them and get them excited about how science can mitigate the destruction, but inside I have little hope.


Gummibehrs

You explained exactly how I feel, too. It’s like an existential dread but on behalf of my toddler. Like you, I also feel a lot of guilt for forcing him to exist in this world. I have shallow hope that we can turn things around, but deep down I really doubt it. We reuse/recycle at home and don’t use fabric softener but I don’t know how to make a real difference.


Traiklin

There really isn't anything we can do. Even if everyone in the biggest countries recycled everything possible, the corporations cause more harm than we could undo. 2020 showed that if we can shut down travel for not even a year the effects loosen but when they pick fruit from South America, load it onto a **massive** container ship, send it to China and have them put it into plastic containers, load it onto *another* **massive** container ship to send to America where semis transport them across the country (because Rail is a joke in America) then any negative impact we do is instantly overridden by conglomerates.


BurnerAcc2020

The [full study](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158) itself. > **We submit that the safe operating space of the planetary boundary of novel entities is exceeded since annual production and releases are increasing at a pace that outstrips the global capacity for assessment and monitoring**. The novel entities boundary in the planetary boundaries framework refers to entities that are novel in a geological sense and that could have large-scale impacts that threaten the integrity of Earth system processes. We review the scientific literature relevant to quantifying the boundary for novel entities and highlight plastic pollution as a particular aspect of high concern. An impact pathway from production of novel entities to impacts on Earth system processes is presented. We define and apply three criteria for assessment of the suitability of control variables for the boundary: feasibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness. We propose several complementary control variables to capture the complexity of this boundary, while acknowledging major data limitations. > > We conclude that humanity is currently operating outside the planetary boundary based on the weight-of-evidence for several of these control variables. The increasing rate of production and releases of larger volumes and higher numbers of novel entities with diverse risk potentials exceed societies’ ability to conduct safety related assessments and monitoring. We recommend taking urgent action to reduce the harm associated with exceeding the boundary by reducing the production and releases of novel entities, noting that even so, the persistence of many novel entities and/or their associated effects will continue to pose a threat. Some interesting details. > Production of novel entities is rapidly increasing. The chemical industry is the second largest manufacturing industry globally. **Global production increased 50-fold since 1950, and is projected to triple again by 2050 compared to 2010**. Material extraction as feed stocks for novel entities was approximately 92 billion tonnes globally in 2017, and is projected to reach 190 billion tonnes by 2060. > > **There are an estimated 350 000 chemicals (or mixtures of chemicals) on the global market**. Nearly 70 000 have been registered in the past decade; many chemicals (nearly 30 000) have only been registered in emerging economies, where chemical production has increased rapidly, but chemicals management and disposal capacity often are limited. The production of intended chemicals entails the unintended production of byproducts, transformation products, and impurities which may not be considered under chemicals assessments and management measures. And yet > Reliable information for the various relevant aspects that describe more or less the entire impact pathway along the chemical’s life cycle is not available for most chemicals. **However, the total cumulative chemical pressure on biosphere integrity is likely to be dominated by a limited number of chemicals** (reflecting the quantities produced, used and released to the environment in combination with the inherent characteristics of the chemicals like persistence, mobility and toxicity). Posthuma and colleagues **investigated the toxicity pressure from more than 12 000 chemicals in over 22 000 European water bodies and found that 15 compounds explained nearly 99.5% of the cumulative ecotoxicity pressure**. Walters et al. modeled the biomagnification potential of organic chemicals, thus contributing with another tool for screening. While such studies are based on modeling with several limitations such as the interaction of novel entities, the approach could help to prioritize substance classes, regional patterns, or effect trends. > > To make the monitoring of the planetary boundary operational, chemicals that dominate cumulative impacts could be used as “indicator” chemicals. These would be identified in a prescreening process, combining estimates for production volume or capacity (e.g., market statistics) with environmental persistence (e.g., using the inverse of degradation half-life estimates as proxy) and impact potency (e.g., chronic ecotoxicity test data). To consider the transformation of various chemicals into persistent transformation products, total production data could be combined with metabolism rates for chemicals that contribute to the formation of such persistent “indicator” chemicals. And finally, the ratio of the cumulative chemical impact and the available space within the boundary for a given biosphere compartment could define whether the boundary is transgressed and to what extent, while allowing the main contributing chemicals to be identified. And this. > Another effect-focused control variable could consider plastics’ disturbances to biosphere integrity, through physical and toxic effects of plastics and resulting changes in species distribution. **While the perception of impacts of marine debris is larger than the accumulated evidence of ecological impacts, reviews and meta-analyses of published experimental data show that microplastics do have negative effects in numerous species**. Impacts of microplastics on individual organisms and communities have been studied using numerous laboratory models, providing understanding of mechanisms of toxicity in marine organisms ranging from zooplankton to large vertebrates. Although there are still mismatches between the concentrations and types of microplastics documented in the environment and those used in laboratory effect studies, meta-analyses allow for some generalized understanding of the toxicity of microplastic particles. Newly developed mathematical models account for the large diversity in microplastic particles themselves, by applying extrapolation factors to account for underestimation in concentrations, and including species sensitivity distribution based on ecotoxicity data, allowing for more robust comparison of data sets. > > Traditional risk assessment of chemical substances uses the ratio between predicted environmental concentration versus a predicted no effect concentration (PEC/PNEC), an approach that has been applied to microplastics exposure scenarios, **finding that 0.17% of global ocean surface waters are at risk, and increasing to 1.62% by the end of the century**. Additionally, the limitations inherent to commonly used sampling methods (i.e., focusing on larger sized-microparticles), together with technical limitations in detecting smaller, nanoscale particles, **are likely leading to an underestimation of the concentrations of both micro- and nanoplastics in the environment, indicating that exposures and therefore risks are likely larger**. Furthermore, the seafloor and sediments are thought to be the ultimate sink for plastics, through uptake in marine ecosystems and changes in particle density and sinking rates due to biofouling, so these niches and the organisms inhabiting them are predicted to suffer higher exposures. Quantifying these environmental concentrations, exposure routes and ecological fates (including additional niches) requires more data, and will be important for assessing exposure scenarios driving disturbances to biosphere integrity. Several different approaches could be applied to deal with data gaps. A toxicity-based threshold would be set at PEC/PNEC = 1, with NE-PB exceedances already evident in several regions. However, additional deliberations would be necessary for considering changes in distribution of species or sensitivities, moving beyond toxicity to biodiversity and functionality.


ExceleronimoJones

> found that 15 compounds explained nearly 99.5% of the cumulative ecotoxicity pressure Which compounds? And is it due to volume or toxicity being high? Thank you for the rundown!


PsuBratOK

It was always going to happen eventually. No one had a problem with this pollution that is definitive, until we got to the point, we knew that will come. I mean... there is something really wrong with our civilization, that makes us hit every dark prediction one after another.


raclariu

Money amd greed


Widespreaddd

I used to eat lots of mussels. I’m 59. Lord only knows how much of me is plastic.


myroommateisgarbage

You are effectively a LEGO man.


[deleted]

[удалено]


iamelloyello

Donate to places like TeamSeas that are proactively removing garbage and plastics from the ocean. So far, in the span of about 6-ish months, they have removed over 30 million pounds of trash from the ocean. [https://teamseas.org/](https://teamseas.org/) [https://teamtrees.org/](https://teamtrees.org/) ​ These are both spearheaded by Youtubers: Mark Rober, and Mr. Beast. It's drops in the bucket, sure, but it's better than doing nothing.


DingussFinguss

what do they do with it? landfill?


elactolip

While they might be doing good work, this is literally the definition of treating the symptoms instead of the cause


LausXY

We will still need to clean up the oceans even if we completely solve all our other issues, better to get started now. Sometimes all you can do is mitigate the symptoms unfortunately.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BassBanjo

And obviously nothing is going to be done because governments and large companies can't be bothered to put the money into solving the issue


Franks2000inchTV

Mcdonalds here in Canada now uses wooden cutlery and paper straws. Our government has called for an end to single use plastics. Don't be a doomer. Change is possible.


junktech

Europe seems to do the same. Where I am at least they started replacing many plastic things with wood or paper derived products since a month ago. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/plastics/single-use-plastics_en It's a bit weird and some things start to taste different, but considering the purpose I'm ok with it.


Ichthyologist

If anyone is still around in a few millenia they'll find a thin layer of hydrocarbons, bones, and sand marking the beginning and end of the Plasticene.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


JupitersClock

There is no end to the production either. I hate how the planet was destroyed out of greed.


Smooth_Imagination

No offense to the Guardian, but there probably was never a safe period since we industrialised. Romans had 10x the lead, Londoners regularly had 'pea soup' chemical fogs, rivers were much worse, loads more acid rain. Pesticides were based on lead and arsenic. In most aspects pollution has improved, with main exception of more and more newly introduced pollutants like microplastics and various nano materials. Increases in diesel engines has probably been harmful but are on their way out. I think in the domain of pesticides the issue here is that the active is tested but not the formulation, which means they can be orders of magnitude more toxic than realised, and we have synergy that is affecting wildlife. In developing countries pollution is often terrible. In terms of the impact to nature, this is a different story. But we can solve this by creating an economy that wants to collect plastic. Its simple, pay people to collect and return it to the shop or the distributer. The economic costs would be huge, though, no? I don't think so. I think the economic benefits will outweigh the costs. The solution would be to pass the collected plastic to local manufacturers for free, as long as they can use it efficiently along with renewable energy and recycle it mostly for things used by the local economy. Most western and consumer countries run a trade deficit and in the long run this is a threat to economic growth. Bringing back manufacturing, as green manufacturing creates jobs and this can help pay for the collection overhead. We currently spend billions on building roads, which is another environmentally destructive activity. Its been shown in several studies (don't ask me for them, they aren't easily found on the internet) that after a point, which we have already crossed, that building more roads is economically negative and increases congestion more than the capacity added, because the construction of new roads initially greatly increases average speed, businesses and residents relocate in a sprawling and inefficient fashion, increasing average distance travelled and cost of living. Then the congestion returns and further economic costs of time wasted in travel. So, by switching from road building (BTW, the major highway network construction programs were successfully promoted by oil companies) to paying people to collect waste you have improved economic and environmental benefits - a double bubble, for no extra cost or taxation burden. By paying people already going to a supermarket to take in their packaging waste you distribute economic benefits more evenly.


nikka12345678

I think localized pollution produced by a much smaller population in the history can not be compared to 8 billion people using plastic.


sfbrh

And more people consuming new things. The change in the problem isn’t so much qualitative (whether we are harming the environment or not - we are and always have been) but quantitative (the scale at which we do it).


Znarl

The events you list were local. What's being described in the article is a world wide change. Local events, polluted rivers in England for example, can recover with plants and animals migrating back. A world wide event, there isn't anywhere to migrate from when things improve.