environment

Why do companies use so much plastic in their packaging?

This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why do companies use so much excess plastic in their packaging? It costs them more and is worse for the environment.”

Plastic was first synthesized in 1869 as an alternative to ivory due to the growing popularity of the billiards game and the strain it put on elephant populations. A New York supplier of billiard balls offered a $10,000 prize to anyone who could provide a substitute for the genocide of elephants to support an entertainment activity.

A printer from Albany named John Wesley Hyatt developed celluloid by processing raw cellulose fibres through nitric acid and mixing them with camphor to make it a flexible and moldable material. The “plastic” originally meant “pliable and easily shaped.”

It became the name for a category of materials called “polymers,” which means “of many parts.” Polymers are compounds made of long molecular chains from cellulose, a material abundant in nature.

Plastic describes various products that are diverse in composition and very versatile in their adaptability to a wide range of use cases. We find no end of applications in which it is a commercially advantageous material for products and packaging.

Over time, as plastics production processes improved and expanded due to their popularity as a material, we developed ways to create synthetic polymers that relied less on plant material and more on carbon atoms provided by petroleum and other fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels became a popular feedstock for plastics production because they are readily available and inexpensive sources of carbon-based molecules used to create the polymers that make up plastics. The carbon density within fossil fuels resulted in higher production volumes at a much lower cost than has been available through alternative materials like natural fibres.

Additional incentives found within fossil fuel-sourced polymers have led to a broader range of properties than available with natural sources, in the plastics produced, including strength, flexibility, and durability. These properties have all lent themselves to developing attractive options in practically every product created for consumer, commercial, and industrial markets.

The full cost of plastics on society has never been calculated to determine what the prices of various plastics should be. We’ve never truly costed plastics from a complete life-cycle perspective and are now struggling with an overabundance of waste that threatens ecological stability.

The fossil fuel industry has known for over one hundred years now that their processes negatively affect the global environment. Instead of adopting a responsible resource management balance for their products while investing in or planning for appropriate transitions to ecologically supportable solutions, they have chosen to ravage our planet and put us in peril.

Instead of reinvesting profits in environmentally sustainable alternatives to a finite resource, they have chosen to plunder the planet to put us all in peril. As we march headlong toward a global environmental catastrophe that can threaten social stability to such a degree that widespread chaos defines human civilization seeking retribution, the first billionaires who need a date with the guillotines are the oil industry billionaires.

They’re not being charged appropriately for the impact of plastic production on the environment, mainly because it is a big oil product, and big oil has dominated global political agendas for over one hundred years.

They have been derelict as stewards of a finite natural resource. They are like the ivory hunters of the 1800s who cared not at all for the extinction of elephants as long as they could maximize their profits while they still existed. Like the ivory hunters, they will not seek alternatives until they acknowledge the approaching end of their ability to plunder our planet for profit.

Making matters worse is that although fossil fuels are declining as a source of energy production, plastics production is steadily increasing without regulations limiting the creativity of applications they can exploit for profit. They’re not being held accountable in any meaningful way for the damage they have been doing to our environment for more than a century.

Fossil fuels represent an industry that operates with impunity in society and with a global reach. Few people are unaware of at least a few war zones around the globe in which blood has been shed in territorial wars for oil dominance. Countries have been destabilized and even been forcibly regressed into a primitive state to preserve oil production dominance on behalf of a small number of plutocrats.

We should be actively transitioning plastics production to an expansion of alternatives meeting niche requirements, such as hemp, which has superior biodegradable properties that do not threaten global ecological stability. Our technologies have sufficiently evolved, as has our awareness of plastics needs, with a consumer, commercial, and industrial market context to define best cases for using various plastics production processes throughout the market.

We must establish production and usage regulations for plastics according to their applications. Where we can use an alternative to oil, we should use a natural alternative. Production processes have evolved such that plastics producers are providing cost-competitive alternatives to oil-based plastics. What is lacking is the incentive to facilitate a transition to a sustainable method of operation.

I can recount a personal story from a stint with a government stewardship program responsible for auditing plastics recycling. The oversight in this operation is a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. I won’t go into much detail on this issue at the moment. Still, I want to provide an example of how this operation fails to demonstrate leadership in adopting environmentally sustainable practices.

This particular operation relies heavily on plastic bags, not only for internal purposes but also for plastic bags used by recycling facilities throughout the province. In a moment of concern for the sheer volume of plastic bags, which amount to several thousand kilograms per month used throughout the province of BC, I identified a bag producer who offers a hemp-based solution at the same cost as they were purchasing their oil-based plastic bags.

The argument given as my suggestion was dismissed was that the supplier was located in a different geographic location. Rather than plastic bags purchased from an oil industry source in another province, these are hemp-based bags sourced from approximately the same distance away but in a U.S. state across the border. The cost of making the change was practically zero. This is a perfect example of leadership in responsible environmental management principles as a government stewardship program providing leadership within the recycling industry.

To my chagrin, I learned that this operation wasn’t interested in environmental leadership inasmuch as they were interested in a guaranteed annual revenue source as a government service contractor. (Sadly, this is not the only government stewardship operation that operates under a fraudulent representation as a government service with a vision toward contributing to the identified need they pretend to serve, but all of this is an entirely different tangent from this article and so, I’ll stop here and get back to answering this question. You can call me Grandpa Simpson.)

In the meantime, we must charge manufacturers through the nose for oil-based plastics while subsidizing the costs of developing ecologically superior alternatives until they become cost-effective enough to eliminate oil.

We must begin pressuring the oil industry and oil billionaires into owning up to their damage to our planet, and in taking greater initiative in supporting transitional strategies. The sooner we begin, the sooner we take steps toward avoiding chaos, massive riots, and rampant bloodshed from environmental collapse and wholesale panic.

This graphic above refers to “The Garbage Patch,” an island of plastic floating in the Pacific Ocean.

Why doesn’t Elon Musk reverse climate change?

This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why doesn’t Elon Musk or someone else develop a big project for reverse climate change by 2045–2100?”

There are no “big projects” that can reverse climate change occurring due to a cumulative consequence of many different aspects of human society — from energy production and usage to our diets and the homes we live in.

The closest we can get to reversing the effects with a single solution would be through carbon capture technologies, which currently have power requirements that exacerbate the energy contribution to climate change. It’s also nowhere near mature enough to capture enough carbon to reverse the damage.

Until we can generate energy through cold fusion, it won’t be anything close to a solution.

He should, however, use his platform to encourage the changes we need in society that would mitigate the destruction we are doing to our environment. He began his trek to global recognition of that very potentiality through the success of electric vehicles.

He has since shown us that his concerns have always been opportunistic parasitism and is more interested in fleecing hundreds of millions of victims into destitution and early graves than he is in furthering humanity or securing our future on this planet.

He has the power of a global bullhorn that can be marshalled toward uniting humanity in the common cause of saving our planet and societies. Instead, he’s pissing it all away on ego masturbation at the expense of our future as a species.

He could have chosen to be revered like a god among humans for centuries by leveraging his resources to benefit humanity. Instead, he will be remembered as one of history’s most pathetically egotistical villains… assuming we survive his feckless recklessness.

Will the “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement” become more popular?

This is the question as it was asked in its original form: “Will something like the “voluntary human extinction movement” become more and more popular in the future as the Earth’s destruction due to our unending greed becomes more difficult to ignore?”

So… Every human who voluntarily refuses to reproduce does so from a motivation of compassionate care for the environment to lay the entire future of human reproduction at the feet of those who don’t care about our impact on the environment.

This sounds very much like people choosing not to vote in an election because they feel their government is too corrupt, so they decide not to participate in the corruption as a form of protest. The result of that strategy is for the corrupt psychopaths among us to take up the slack of government operations. Abstention facilitates government transformation into a sociopathic entity that the abstainers chose to rebel against by stepping aside and letting the corruption continue without resistance.

Self-sacrifice may seem humane as a movement, but it merely hands unrestrained power to wreak ecological havoc over to those most responsible for environmental destruction.

By culling the portion of our population who have the most developed sensitivities of empathy and compassion, we leave behind a world of psychopaths and sociopaths who are free to do as they please without resistance.

As noble as people may want to make themselves out to be by adopting this attitude, it neither solves the problem of protecting the environment nor does it result in the extinction of humanity by attrition. What it accomplishes is to breed out the most crucial qualities of humanity that would protect our environment while allowing us as a species to achieve a balanced cohabitation with all other life on this planet.

This isn’t a solution to the planet’s problems. It’s a way of hastening them and the destruction of our environment.

It’s doomed to fail as a long-term strategy, but as a form of protest, it might successfully make a statement that could motivate the rest to rise and fight against corruption.

It is otherwise a way of stripping humanity’s only hope for evolving beyond our most destructive impulses. We need to encourage the development of empathy, not cull it from our population.

The main problem with the notion of passivist approaches toward resolving issues created by the psychopaths among us is the naivety involved in believing the most vile amongst us will experience a magical epiphany and become woke enough to care about their destruction.

They won’t.

They’ll destroy everything, and when they’re done, they’ll bemoan their fate while blaming something other than their actions for the consequences of those actions.

This would be like expecting Donald Trump to end up in prison and realizing, “Gee, maybe I should have behaved better.”

Not a friggin’ chance in hell that will happen.

If he ends up in prison, he’ll rail against the injustice of a witch hunt and believe himself unfairly persecuted until his last breath.

Neither cowardice nor apathy are solutions to saving our asses.

A democratic form of governance demands engagement, while the quickest way to destroy democracy is apathy. We’ve been doing a remarkable job of dismantling our democracies since Reagan by meekly handing over power to the powerful predators that have been reshaping human society into a collection of sociopaths who think nothing of exploiting their neighbour for a minor trinket serving as a temporary distraction from despair.

We must do the hard work of facing our monsters and reigning them in.

No shortcuts exist that will save humanity from itself.

No peaceful Kumbaya has ever prevailed against the barbarians at the gates.

This movement may signal a voluntary extinction of humanity, but it’s an extinction that will take every other creature with us. It won’t save them from our psychopathic predations.