Hacker News Reader

> It is far better for the environment

I suppose that depends on where the embodied energy comes from, no? If instead of oil or coal, it's all hydro or nuclear, then presumably the biodegradability is an overall benefit?

Second, I'm curious... how actually does one measure the tradeoff between energy usage and biodegradability? The former would seem to be measured in reduction of CO2 output, while biodegradability is in reduction of non-biodegradable mass. But I can't even begin to imagine how to compare the two.

Is there some standard methodology? Or does it just come down to people's personal preferences?

Imo reduction of plastic is certainly important, but we don't seem to have shown that is quite the imparitive that climate change is.

Bioaccumulation of plastics is certainly terrifying, but I just haven't seen evidence that it's the threat to civilization that climate change is.

That's surprising, I'd have assumed there's a bunch of embodied energy in clay pottery too.

I'd certainly have felt more guilty throwing away a single use pottery cup than one made of paper. It's frustrating how counter intuitive a lot of environmental issues are.

I'm sure things get twisted around like plastic recycling.

This is sort of how it seems to me sometimes: https://www.theonion.com/geologists-we-may-be-slowly-running...

It won't necessarily take a technology shift. Single-use containers could also be legislated against. And the reverse supply chains to get containers back to producers put in place.

> And the reverse supply chains to get containers back to producers put in place.

That isn't as straightforward as it seems, they are returning what is a contaminated waste product. That needs to be kept very separate from the clean food-grade food & packaging deliveries, you can't just chuck a bag of waste in the delivery vehicles.

Soda and juice bottles are also a contaminated waste product, yet in European countries at least, recycling works fine.

It's not the recycling, it's the sending them back through the same supply chain that would be the problem.

Reuse of glass bottles is not recycling (it's reuse.) And there is no problem, it works great.

Use of glass bottles is somewhat controversial in that glass containers mean considerably heavier weight in transport, which in turn means that more energy must be burned to move those trucks. The introduction of plastic packaging immediately led to fuel savings in transport.

That may be the case, but sanitation certainly should not be a concern with glass reuse. Glass is easy to sterilize.

Reuse of plastic soft-drink bottles in northern Europe is somewhat controversial, inasmuch as vast amounts of water must be used to wash and sterilize them.

Or simply start by re-legalizing re-usable containers with some tax breaks to provide an incentive for stores to invest into the technology to fill containers brought by customers while respecting food safety.

> Not a chemist, but AFAIK current market available 'biostarch polymers' (AFAIK always PLA; which may be marketed as made from corn, sugar cane, etc.) are actually extremely environmentally unfriendly because of the massive embodied energy required to create the industry-ready polymer from the bio-waste material. Their single benefit is nominal biodegradability.

Also not a chemist, but this is reminiscent of "bamboo" fabric that is just Rayon made from bamboo cellulose instead of wood pulp cellulose.

As such, it can be a bit more environmentally friendly to produce, and amenable to production in a closed-loop facility, but isn't any more recyclable or biodegradable:

Eg. From 'Abundance of microplastics in the world's deep seas'[0]:

"Rayon -- a humanmade non-plastic polymer used in personal hygiene products and clothing -- contributed to 56.9% of the total fibres seen, with polyester, polyamides, acetate and acrylic among the others recorded."

Which isn't at all the same thing as fabrics made from actual bamboo fibers (often called 'bamboo linen').

The whole 'greenwashing' thing is super annoying to me, because even when regulating agencies are doing their job properly, so much wiggle-room is left for what marketers are allowed to imply with entirely true statements.

eg. The label lists the fiber content as 'bamboo rayon', and the marketing says "made from environmentally friendly and biodegradable bamboo!", Which glosses over that the process used to turn the bamboo INTO rayon may not have been environmentally friendly, or that while rayon is biodegradable, sort of, if it's in a landfill it's going to stick around a long time.

And then I try to imagine consumer labelling requirements for all materials, sources, methods, and lifecycles, or summarizing these into a simple environmental score, and despair.

[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216212253.h...

I'd imagine a big challenge with reusable containers in the retail space is food safety, especially in countries with strong regulation. A lot of restaurants in my area won't pour a beverage into a customer supplied container because they're afraid of contaminating the shared area with it. They see disposable cups as more hygienic, even though they are clearly more wasteful.

Is this product better? https://www.pulpac.com/

I know nothing about it other than the company's own claims, but if their claims are true then it seems interesting.

Doesn't seem to support transparency so it's dead in the water for many present-era retail supply chains. Unsure from the site what it is exactly but it sounds a lot like egg cartons or cardboard, which already have their place.