Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsmith89 | Hacker News Reader

I think my gripe with the argument in this video (which is, nonetheless, interesting from an offensive marketing perspective) is that equating making clothes out of petroleum products with "being a friend of the oil and gas industry" is disingenuous. For the most part, the environmentally disastrous emissions come from _burning_ fossil fuels; I'm guessing cheap plastics are just a side-effect of a massive energy market, and not a major driver of the industry.

View on HN

Pollution occurs in many ways, not just burning. The whole "microplastics" thing is largely due to apparel made from petroleum-based synthetic materials. Activewear and outdoor wear are rarely if ever made from natural materials anymore. Not to mention all the energy needed to process crude oil into those materials.

That used to be the case, but the industry is incorporating more cheap plastics to harden against future projected fossil fuel revenue loss. On that topic, this PBS Frontline episode is a good resource: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/

If we turn every ounce of oil in the ground into plastic that's a problem, but a way more manageable one than burning even half that amount in our atmosphere.

Hell, you could look at it as carbon sequestration.

Given that we're already seeing plastics inside human blood and fetuses, I don't think we could really say how manageable that state would be

I think this is a fair concern, but if we're being honest, we know the real, present, and accelerating danger from putting more GHGs into the atmosphere. We are currently unaware of the negative impacts of traces of plastics in our bodies.

It makes a ton of sense to put the literal fire out now, and worry about what the effects of the plastics are when there is evidence of serious concern.

It isn't enough to say we're seeing something in blood and fetuses, it has to be quantified by how it is a problem.

I find alcohol in my blood all the time, I understand the effects and manage it so it's never a problem. Alcohol in fetuses on the other hand is a well understood problem where no level is really tolerable.

So, back to plastics. I found https://earth.org/how-does-plastic-pollution-affect-humans/ offers some indication. But I would love to see better information from a non-biased source. I've a suspicion that earth.org is biased.

From the linked article, plastics are a problem but the pollution level is probably below the threshold of harm for most people. But it's also possible that the levels have increased over the past couple of years to the point that it is harmful.

This is a very common argument, but I'm still waiting for the link to that and...anything else.

If we think it causes cancer (*and have some evidence) then sure, but if it's just like ' hey this stuff is here' then I will continue to be more afraid of 'ecological collapse.'

Here's one argument: plastics aren't all that recyclable.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-laun...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com