6 ms·

Maybe you're too young to remember the days of paper bags, hemp shopping bags, shoes and shirts. "more environmentally friendly"? Most alternatives are more en

Maybe you're too young to remember the days of paper bags, hemp shopping bags, shoes and shirts. "more environmentally friendly"? Most alternatives are more environmentally friendly in a long run than plastic.

makeitdouble 2y ago
Production of paper comes with many asterisks regarding environment friendliness [0]. It sure can be done, but it's not simple and the majority of the industry isn't "clean". Hemp is only used a low scale so I don't think we have enough data on what would happen if tomorrow we decided to replace all the plastic bags with hemp bags and how we'd produce that. It's not guaranteed to be better until then. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_paper
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  A big advantage of paper is that when people inevitably litter, it doesn't break down into microplastics.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    On the other side we're killing whole forest ecosystems under the pretense trees can be replanted, plus the monoculture effects. It's complicated.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Does any paper at this point come from old growth? I'd figure its new growth treefarms that produce paper. At which point, you can't exactly flip a light switch and expect a complex forest ecosystem that took a millenia to establish to restore itself on human timescales. And thats only if the existing landowners wanted to just say "we are content to not make any money ever again with this land"
      - makeitdouble 2y ago
        There's a few parts to it: - new growth is monoculture, and we're having health issues coming with it (Japan is trying to do something about its pollen problem, but not until two decades from now). It's also more fragile areas, including geologically. - new growth also means the process that took centuries to build forests is not starting either. - if the plan is to produce more paper (replace current plastic use with paper use) we can't just keep the current tree farms. It will be expanded and eat up on the legacy forest, as it needs the right niche to efficiently grow. On the last point, if we were really good at farming new trees, we'd have tree fields not far from manufacturing centers. That's not the case, we're still relying on favorable places where forests used to grow, which doesn't bode well for further mass production in the future.
        kjkjadksj 2y ago
        Seems like the manufacturing centers need to be sited on rivers with rights to pull from and with access to sufficient available power, and a way to distribute this product. Are all forests in such condition? Probably not. I've seen some of these forests, they are often in the middle of nowhere connected by dirt roads built by the logging companies. This is marginal land, sometimes leased by the US forest service. Prime land near rivers and power sources isn't going to be squandered when you can get a permit to farm on marginal land or buy it for cheap if its a private holding, just like how you don't see grazing near feedlots. Grazing needs more land, can be done on marginal land, and you can just ship cattle to feedlots elsewhere near meatpacking plants. As a result we graze cattle in places where you sometimes can't even drag a plow, and have feedlots near chicago where cattle can be processed in vast quantity and then distributed. I will agree that monoculture is no good and neither is taking over virgin forest, but this isn't exactly the only industry on this planet that behaves like this either. Rather than trade paper for plastic we can instead consider how we protect virgin areas from any sort of development. Monoculture is also a risk for industry in the form of crop loss from disease, so I wouldn't be surprised if this begins to change in the future and we see more polycultures farmed, not just in trees either. So if there is a plastic ban favoring domestic paper products instead, as well as sufficient protections in place for existing virgin forest, you can probably expect the value of a tree farm to go up to the point where people who might be using their land for one thing being more inclined to farm trees on this land.
datahack 2y ago
It’s not though unless it’s reused a great deal. Making paper is intense and requires a LOT of water and chemicals. We should really look for more lower hanging common sense solutions. Let me give you one… the boxes that are used to transport food to a grocery store are all crushed and go back into the recycling system as bundles. Why aren’t we sending boxes that can be used in place of paper and plastic bags? It would immediately offset a lot of purchases that require bags. Costco does it. Sam’s Club sometimes too. But manufacturers don’t make boxes designed for the purpose of a second use before recycling, and the vast majority of stores don’t offer it. That would take a waste stream and give it a second use before being recycled. Simple, common sense solutions like this one are all around us but we keep looking for a “solution” rather than an “improvement.”
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
  What’s missing an accurately priced tax for the externalities of products specific to the products.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Nothing like passing costs to the consumer who is already squeezed to the brink.
    - stoperaticless 2y ago
      There is no other way. Whatever you do to producer, it will affect consumer. Increase cost of production? Cost of product increases. Decrease production output? Cost of product increases. (Assuming demand did not change) Forbid a product? Consumer looks, for next best alternative which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick). Regulate prices? Output is reduced. To fill in the gap, consumers look for next best alternative, which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick) The only alternative is for consumer to stop desiring the product somehow. E.g by changing of definition of “good” via education, morals or religion.
      - 2y ago
Zanfa 2y ago
And non-plastic bags last forever. The oldest grocery bag that I can accurately date is from before at least 2008 and I haven't had a single one wear out yet, so no idea how long they'll end up lasting. I don't know about hemp bags though, since I have a mix of cotton and linen bags myself.

makeitdouble 2y ago

Production of paper comes with many asterisks regarding environment friendliness [0]. It sure can be done, but it's not simple and the majority of the industry isn't "clean". Hemp is only used a low scale so I don't think we have enough data on what would happen if tomorrow we decided to replace all the plastic bags with hemp bags and how we'd produce that. It's not guaranteed to be better until then. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_paper

kjkjadksj 2y ago
A big advantage of paper is that when people inevitably litter, it doesn't break down into microplastics.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  On the other side we're killing whole forest ecosystems under the pretense trees can be replanted, plus the monoculture effects. It's complicated.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Does any paper at this point come from old growth? I'd figure its new growth treefarms that produce paper. At which point, you can't exactly flip a light switch and expect a complex forest ecosystem that took a millenia to establish to restore itself on human timescales. And thats only if the existing landowners wanted to just say "we are content to not make any money ever again with this land"
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      There's a few parts to it: - new growth is monoculture, and we're having health issues coming with it (Japan is trying to do something about its pollen problem, but not until two decades from now). It's also more fragile areas, including geologically. - new growth also means the process that took centuries to build forests is not starting either. - if the plan is to produce more paper (replace current plastic use with paper use) we can't just keep the current tree farms. It will be expanded and eat up on the legacy forest, as it needs the right niche to efficiently grow. On the last point, if we were really good at farming new trees, we'd have tree fields not far from manufacturing centers. That's not the case, we're still relying on favorable places where forests used to grow, which doesn't bode well for further mass production in the future.
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        Seems like the manufacturing centers need to be sited on rivers with rights to pull from and with access to sufficient available power, and a way to distribute this product. Are all forests in such condition? Probably not. I've seen some of these forests, they are often in the middle of nowhere connected by dirt roads built by the logging companies. This is marginal land, sometimes leased by the US forest service. Prime land near rivers and power sources isn't going to be squandered when you can get a permit to farm on marginal land or buy it for cheap if its a private holding, just like how you don't see grazing near feedlots. Grazing needs more land, can be done on marginal land, and you can just ship cattle to feedlots elsewhere near meatpacking plants. As a result we graze cattle in places where you sometimes can't even drag a plow, and have feedlots near chicago where cattle can be processed in vast quantity and then distributed. I will agree that monoculture is no good and neither is taking over virgin forest, but this isn't exactly the only industry on this planet that behaves like this either. Rather than trade paper for plastic we can instead consider how we protect virgin areas from any sort of development. Monoculture is also a risk for industry in the form of crop loss from disease, so I wouldn't be surprised if this begins to change in the future and we see more polycultures farmed, not just in trees either. So if there is a plastic ban favoring domestic paper products instead, as well as sufficient protections in place for existing virgin forest, you can probably expect the value of a tree farm to go up to the point where people who might be using their land for one thing being more inclined to farm trees on this land.

datahack 2y ago

It’s not though unless it’s reused a great deal. Making paper is intense and requires a LOT of water and chemicals. We should really look for more lower hanging common sense solutions. Let me give you one… the boxes that are used to transport food to a grocery store are all crushed and go back into the recycling system as bundles. Why aren’t we sending boxes that can be used in place of paper and plastic bags? It would immediately offset a lot of purchases that require bags. Costco does it. Sam’s Club sometimes too. But manufacturers don’t make boxes designed for the purpose of a second use before recycling, and the vast majority of stores don’t offer it. That would take a waste stream and give it a second use before being recycled. Simple, common sense solutions like this one are all around us but we keep looking for a “solution” rather than an “improvement.”

Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
What’s missing an accurately priced tax for the externalities of products specific to the products.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Nothing like passing costs to the consumer who is already squeezed to the brink.
  - stoperaticless 2y ago
    There is no other way. Whatever you do to producer, it will affect consumer. Increase cost of production? Cost of product increases. Decrease production output? Cost of product increases. (Assuming demand did not change) Forbid a product? Consumer looks, for next best alternative which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick). Regulate prices? Output is reduced. To fill in the gap, consumers look for next best alternative, which is pricier (if it was cheaper, it would have been the first pick) The only alternative is for consumer to stop desiring the product somehow. E.g by changing of definition of “good” via education, morals or religion.
    - 2y ago

Zanfa 2y ago

And non-plastic bags last forever. The oldest grocery bag that I can accurately date is from before at least 2008 and I haven't had a single one wear out yet, so no idea how long they'll end up lasting. I don't know about hemp bags though, since I have a mix of cotton and linen bags myself.