I'm using plastic baling twine for large round bales. I'd love to use hemp twine but have never found anybody that made it since I last looked. The other "biodegradable" twine available is soaked in some kind of chemical like diesel or something that makes it much worse for handling with hands and won't use it.
Okay.. I called them and it appears the hemp baling twine should work for me. It is raw untreated hemp twine however the country of origin is China. I think I will give this a shot.
I am not aware of the packaging of regular baling wire. You should be able to source coir twine for cheap from SEA in a packaging you want, assuming baling wire packaging is somewhat standardized. But not sure if you have the bandwidth or worth the hassle.
Actually I just decided to search for hemp baling twine and actually found something on "tractor tools direct". I'll have to investigate more where the stuff was made and if it is treated at all.
FYI Plastic Mulch is very different from the mulch one normally thinks of.
It's just a barrier to prevent light from reaching the soil, preventing weeds.
Would you have been surprised if you did find that plastic mulch is actually shredded plastic? I wouldn't have been. That's the prevalence and abuse of plastic.
In USA, open farm lands are literally covered by huge sheets of plastic.
> The survey also showed that, across all regions, farmers, almost unanimously, were opposed to covering the costs
of recycling themselves.
> The answer: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Shifting the responsibility for managing materials at the end of life away from consumers and onto producers, … It’s not uncommon for manufacturers of computers or tires to ask consumers to pay an extra fee at the time of purchase for the cost of collecting and recycling the product.
Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that this is economically equivalent to making the farmers pay for the recycling.
Plastic recycling is a scam. It was never actually viable, just propped up by the plastics industry to alleviate consumer conscience about all the waste and environmental degradation. Since China stopped accepting plastics almost a decade ago (due to the expense and mounting burden on their healthcare system) most of our recycled and sorted plastic in the US gets shipped across the globe only to be burned or dumped in the ocean on route.
Caveat: there are exactly 2 types of plastic that are economically viable to recycle (it still loses money for everyone involved along the way to the plant, but at least the final recycler can recoup costs): PET and HDPE. Unfortunately, according to google, these are not the most used types of plastic in farming. That would be PP and LDPE.
Yeah when I was a teenager I investigated my high schools plastic recycling supply chain. It is absolutely a scam, at least in many modern ‘single stream’ incarnations.
Split stream is real for at least some I think. Or was.
> Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that this is economically equivalent to making the farmers pay for the recycling.
Which, in turn, is economically equivalent to food eaters paying the cost. There's no free lunch – figuratively and literally. Economically, it doesn't really matter all that much where you place the cost. Socially, though...
Good. It's part of their businesses expenses and should not be externalized. If that causes them to shift away from plastic then it was never viable to begin with.
"It’s not uncommon for manufacturers of computers or tires to ask consumers to pay an extra fee at the time of purchase for the cost of collecting and recycling the product."
The quote is stating that expenses are passed to the consumer, how is that good? It's also talking about things like tires, I think we can all agree the world wouldn't function without tires unless we're all willing to go back to the horse and buggy?
I live down-wind of most of said plastic garbage where I live. Trust me: by now I'd happily pay the neighbours to clean their own plastic garbage from my field. Right now it costs me a day of work every spring to get rud of it.
Is there any other way? Either it can be extra fee or included in the price. In every case the buyer will end up paying for it one way or an other. And either of those is better than it being paid from general taxes.
it's a solution in the sense that it forces them to pay even though they don't want to, just like payroll withholding is a solution to the problem of people not wanting to pay income tax
There's a minor difference in that the cost of recycling is extracted up front so it disincentivizes a farmer from mounding up plastic waste in a field and burning it.
You’re probably right, but I also think this perspective of “they don’t want these costs, so we will find some way of laundering it into the supply chain” makes people feel like they are being infantilized.
People don’t like the increasingly paternalistic perspective policymakers take, even if it is perhaps justified sometimes.
It might be that some people feel infantilized, but it seems to work for the majority?
For example, in lots of jurisdictions there is your gross salary, but then there are often additional costs like employer taxes, or social security contributions that are "paid by the employer". But the reality is, that employing me costs my employer 1.2 times my gross salary.
Do I feel infantilized by this - actually I do, but that's the point - some do, but the majority clearly does not. For them it's actually the opposite, it sounds great: "wow my employer pays that, not me, how great".
And it's the same here: "Oh, I don't have to pay, great." People seem to rarely care about the bottom line. Just think about free shipping.
You and what army will make people do what they don’t want to do?
People don’t like others selling meth and withholding wages, so it is easy to get popular support. But if people don’t understand and support the environmental mandates, all you will get is large-scale popular backlash - unless you can somehow restrain democratic will with force.
I don’t think we really disagree - I just think that we need to either come up with better ways of selling people on this, better ways of being sneaky, or force - and think the first is probably the best option.
Offer an economy not based on growth. The larger a company, the more sociopathic its aggregate behavior.
I’m not talking about going back to mom-and-pop farms. The fact that there’s an enormous supply chain that economizes plastic use on farms is what I’m talking about. Oil companies are more powerful than nation states.
I think we can sell people on reducing consumption and consuming more sustainable materials. How? Work less, have more time for leisure, go out and breathe clean air.
Also Malthusianism is real. But providing education and contraceptives works to reduce birthrates. No genocide needed.
There’s room in all forms of society for regulation. Changing part of the economy isn’t automatically fascism. Slow your roll. Then slow your roll again.
You sit in privilege and sneer at the potential for change. Why change the status quo if you already feel comfortable?
Justify how the most powerful companies in the world, with the worst track records for dishonesty, and with mounds of scientific evidence toward the harm of their products should not be targets of regulation.
Or go ahead and start putting lead into your gas tank, like a hero who doesn’t listen to others.
Plastic is one of the best examples of an Anthropocene trap that is pushing the polycrisis into ecological unpredictability and collapse of consistent life harboring systems
The only solution is global majority cooperation, as game defectors maintain the generation of “externalities” that the majority is not enforcing remediation from
Plastic is literally the oil in MtG's Phyrexia. A card [1] that just seems to symbolize a lot of what I feel about how we douse our environment in petrochemical residue and forever chemicals for a bit of convenience.
This is feeling like another iteration of the Outrage Engine. Can we restrict our outrage to things that are known to be bad, not that we feel (however strongly) are bad?
We're talking about a meaningful fraction of the Earth's surface, and food ingested by billions of people. I don't think it's wise to take a purely reactive stance on something so important.
Are you imagining these plastics are to be used on staple grains or grasslands? I can't imagine these used on other than rather specialized high value crops, and those won't take up much of the land under agriculture.
You didn't rebut points, you invented some kind of additional claim to rebut. This plastic exists in many forms and farmland does indeed take up a ton of real estate. Why are you concluding that this is only a problem if someone is covering every square inch? The point made in the article is that this stuff can shred and get scattered all over the cropland even if nobody is deliberately saran-wrapping the entire farm.
I am not telling you what you're allowed or not allowed to do; I am encouraging you to engage with nuance. I apologize for the clearly misguided attempt.
I was rebutting the claim about plastic on "a meaningful fraction of the Earth's surface". This is a weasel worded claim, but I took it to mean the plastic will be widely used as mulch on common grain crops. Other uses (specialty crops, wrapping hay after harvest) do not affect appear to me to be "meaningful" in the sense intended.
There are a bunch of answers to your question the way you asked it (eg electrical components, or chemical processes that can only be contained in certain polymers) but let's skip them.
The scale of human society requires -a lot of stuff-, and plastics make that possible. Building materials, clothing, tools, storage, etc.
It costs an order of magnitude more to manufacture something out of wood or metal or glass than to make it out of plastic. And then the thing would often be more fragile or cumbersome.
Plastics do such a good job here that we get caught up in the problems their overabundance creates. But without them, costs of living globally would be drastically higher and way more people would be suffering from dire want.
I don't think it's so much that things wouldn't exist if plastic didn't exist. Rather it's that they would be so much different that they would almost be different products.
There's tons of things like automobiles, firearms, and appliances that are dramatically lighter due to plastics.
The non-plastic alternatives for clothing that protects from rain and cold are much more limited. Generally only wool and plastic clothing insulates while wet. In terms of actual rain jackets you'd have to go back to rubber, waxed cotton, or oilcloth.
rubber is a plastic, in the sense that it's a thermoset hydrocarbon polymer that's synthetically crosslinked and commonly shaped by molding, if we're talking about vulcanized natural latex. all the other kinds of rubber are even more obviously plastic: silicone, buna-n, polyurethane, etc.
I can think of plenty of products that would only be available to as many people as they are because of plastic. We should still do something about plastic waste, though.
you can't think of a single product that only exists thanks to plastic? barring trivial examples like 'plastic bottles', 'synthetic fibers', and 'plastic pipes', which are just plastic versions of products that could be produced otherwise, i can think of a few:
· condoms that prevent disease (sheepskin condoms are okay as contraceptives but are not considered safe against hiv)
· transparent flexible medical feeding tubes
· disposable scalpels
· disposable pipette tips, crucial for biology work
· catheters (one company does make them from a bioplastic but it's still a plastic)
· i was going to say 'printed circuit boards' but it turns out that some of them are made out of sapphire instead. so i guess i'm limited to 'impact-resistant printed circuit boards'
· communications satellites (they'd've weighed too much to launch without much larger rockets, and they'd also break during launch)
· cell phones
· playground slides that don't cause burns when it's sunny
· spray foam insulation
· permanent markers (the ink is a plastic)
· bulletproof vests (plastics are the only materials with the necessary combination of strength and lightness)
· landfill liners
· magnetic tape
· photographic film, as opposed to glass plates, and therefore pocket cameras and motion pictures
· pneumatic tires, and therefore bicycles and automobiles that can go faster than a walking pace
· insulating panels for houses
· garbage bags
· breast implants
· adhesive tapes, including duct tape, scotch tape, packing tape, and masking tape (pressure-sensitive adhesives are plastics)
· band-aids
· lcds (the liquid crystals are a plastic, just one that's molten at room temperature; the polarizing filters are also a plastic, a solid one, although conceivably you could find a way to use wollaston prisms for this instead)
· phonograph records. if you're unwilling to consider shellac a 'plastic', even though it's a moldable thermoplastic organic polymer, this can be restricted to 33rpm and 45rpm phonograph records
· compact discs, probably. although you could surely micro-etch a surface to store digital data without plastic, the stamping process crucially depends on plastic's ability to mold to submicron precision as a way to mass-produce the resulting shape
· hologram stickers, similarly
· baby bottles. the nipples are plastic (rubber, a plastic, is the only natural material that will work) and if you make the bottle itself out of glass, the baby will break it
· flexible electrical wires that don't short out if they get wet, I think. you can't insulate flexible wires with glass or porcelain. certainly insulating wires with cloth (silk for small wires) was commonplace in the early 20th century, and although you can get wires insulated with an layer of ceramic so thin it's flexible, i don't think it's flexible enough or abrasion-resistant enough for household use
those are things you can't make at all without plastics. in most other cases, you could make do: by molding things out of beeswax or glass, stamping them out of steel, carving them out of wood, machining them out of brass or mykroy/mycalex (if you don't consider that a 'plastic'), molding them out of plaster, using decay-prone natural fibers instead of stable plastic ones, painting cotton cloth with linseed oil, oxidatively cross-linking linseed oil or urushi as a binder for other uses, sintering sapphire, or bolting together pieces of porcelain or granite that had been ground to shape
that would work for clothing, camping, rock climbing, sailing, electronic components, paints, electrical equipment, automobiles, and most industrial processes. but not for the bullet list above
however, even in those cases, the resulting products would in most cases be orders of magnitude more expensive, so the aspect of modern life that would be missing would be that non-wealthy people have access to them. they would also be much shorter-lived in most cases because they would rot and break more easily
· more generally, safety glass other than tempered glass—tempered glass shatters into tiny pieces that won't slash open your arteries, but sometimes safety actually requires the broken glass to remain intact, as in car windshields
· transparent riot shields
· safety glasses and visors (glass glasses increase the risk of eye injury from projectiles in the right size range, rather than decreasing it)
· plywood, particleboard, and osb (though perhaps in theory you could make them with binders that aren't plastic, plastic resins are for some reason the only things actually being used, so i consider it unproved that you could make them with something like hide glue)
· glue strong enough to reconnect the broken stem of a wine glass
· superglue (superglue is a plastic)
· hot glue guns
· o-rings and other gaskets that don't leak. historically these used to be made of leather, but leather is of course porous. as a result
· virtually anything that hermetically seals around a rotating shaft
· the monterey bay aquarium
· photolithography resists, such as used for making integrated circuits; all the photoresists used for photolithography are plastics. so without plastics you'd have to find a different way to make integrated circuits
· laminators, the kind that sandwiches paper between two sheets of transparent plastic
· aluminum soft drink cans, which depend on a thin coating of plastic to protect the aluminum from the acid
· mechanically stabilized earth walls, which are used for most cuts into the earth for highways and underpasses (often mistakenly believed to be concrete, because concrete plates are hung on their faces). these depend on layering the earth with geotextiles to keep it from slumping over time, and the only natural material that could be used for the geotextiles would be asbestos, which is unacceptable due to the resulting health hazards. natural organic materials would rot and metals would oxidize. conceivably glass fiber could work, but it might be unacceptably hazardous as well
· nomex firefighting suits; no natural material combines the light weight, heat resistance (370°), thermal insulation, and flexibility that aluminized plastics do
· the most common types of 3-d printers (fdm, sla)
· scratch-and-sniff
· pencil erasers (natural rubber, again)
· car batteries; only plastics have the necessary combination of acid resistance, impact resistance, electrical insulation, and waterproofness for this application
· hepa filters
· n95 masks
· carbon fiber (made by carbonizing fibers made from a thermoset plastic)
· silicon carbide fiber such as tyranno (made by carbonizing fibers made from a thermoset silicone plastic)
· asbestos-free brakes (nomex/kevlar again)
· fire poi (kevlar with fiberglass or cotton)
· ping-pong balls
· knife-resistant gloves for meatpackers and cooks (kevlar again)
well, some of them are pretty trivial (life without shrinky-dinks is just life) but others are pretty major. when i started out writing this i didn't realize that plastics were essential to literally every way to record motion picture or audio data until the invention of hard disks
i did mention that, but probably there is some alternative. for example, you could directly selectively etch away a vacuum-coated metal layer with lasers or electron beams, perhaps even using a shadow mask. so i suspect that's more a question of how expensive the products would be rather than whether they would be feasible at all
Should we apply the same logic to the oil industry and how bad things were before we could pump tetraethyl lead into our vehicles to go faster than a horse? It's not "plastics bad insanity" when there are verifiable issues with plastics having to do with our bodies - we've banned certain plastics from being used in food storage for this very reason.
probably? i mean, what would it look like to not apply the same logic to the oil industry? you'd argue for eliminating oil from machinery because it comes from the same industry that promoted tetraethyllead. it's the same kind of overgeneralization, but even more extreme
plastics are more similar than oil-company products, but they are not similar enough to make general conclusions about them like this. the only thing sodium polyacrylate, teflon, polyester, and epoxy have in common is that they're cheap, moldable solids made from oil
The point is that justifying something because life is "better" by some metric while calling the opposing side "insane" for having reservations about something already proven to be potentially dangerous is flawed. I chose the oil industry because it's another example of something which has helped humanity in innumerable ways, but brought its own risks which we should not ignore solely because one metric looks good.
I'm not advocating for tearing down any industry, just pointing out that such extreme rhetoric isn't very intellectual.
i think we need more nuanced examination of the risks and benefits of particular materials. i agree with the earlier commenter that erasing such nuance to the extreme of describing 'plastics' in general as 'things that are known to be bad' amounts to 'insanity'. it's overgeneralization to the point of total irrationality
in particular, i don't think polypropylene plastic mulch, whether embrittling in the sun or inert in a landfill, is any more harmful than the quartz that makes up a large fraction of the soil it's covering. (less so, actually, because inhaling polypropylene particles doesn't give you lung cancer.) and i don't think the endocrine effects of bisphenol-a or the bioaccumulation of dechlorane plus is relevant to that judgment, since polypropylene plastic mulch doesn't contain them. they might contain some other harmful additive, but the problem then is the additive, not the plastic
its pretty difficult to dig up any solid evidence plastic pollution has effects on health beyond banned plasticisers, and even then. whereas plastic mitigation efforts often result in exacerbating actual issues like leading to more carbon emissions
sure, plastic waste should be responsibly handled. but plastics have major benefits to solving many other problems. in this case it's compounded by readers that have nothing to do with farming (or who have a garden and think they could live off of it) thinking farmers are trying to kill them
also, the article railing against landfills is part of the issue to me. plastic that is landfilled is absolutely responsibly managed plastic. we /want/ our waste to become part of geology, not keep circulating, if possible
> its pretty difficult to dig up any solid evidence plastic pollution has effects on health beyond banned plasticisers, and even then.
Indeed. The presumption that plastics are a health risk is created by simply repeating that they are, with a healthy dose of hypothetical thinking and the precautionary principle. Eventually it becomes fixed in the echo chamber as common "knowledge", like the idea that GMOs are bad.
I find this all very illiberal, the notion that people should be prevented from actions because of the mere possibility of negative consequences (as if that possibility could ever be entirely excluded.)
agreed. i think there are certain plastic materials for which the preponderance of evidence tends toward significant health risks, though; specific things that come to mind include bisphenol-a as an endocrine disruptor, polybrominated diethyl ether flame retardants in polyurethane foams as endocrine disruptors, and heavy-metal catalysts used to add photodegradability to some otherwise stable plastics. it seems completely irrational to me to generalize this to plastics in general
the extreme excess and total neglect of the end of the lifecycle / negative externalities that every god damn company on earth likes to push onto people and the environment is the problem. Nobody said plastics aren't useful, why is that so hard to understand?
Hard to get outraged when we’ve so clearly lost the war against billionaires and the consequences of the practices that get them there. Like industrial farming that needs to use a billion tons of plastic to increase profits by decreasing costs. And predatory practices deployed on small independent farms that act responsibly.
People were frequently starving to death. There is not a plausible route from agricultural pollution to killing the 7 billion people.
There is a plausible route from disrupting large-scale agriculture to hundreds of millions+ starving, although they mostly would just ignore any organic, small-scale mandates.
And why is it desirable to have a population of 8 billion that needs such farms for survival, instead of having a stable population of 1 billion that could be sustained by more future-proof agricultural techniques?
Feel free to volunteer to not have children and spread the word to your family and friends.
I find most people who espouse your views typically don’t because the people they are always imagining dying/killing/banning from having babies are usually in the third-world, or at least very far away. They don’t imagine the very real killing, wars, etc. that would have to take place to forcibly sterilize people.
I don’t think organic agriculture is such an important end that we should render 7/8 of the population dead or infertile so that we can transition to organic.
The people who are having children are those that happen to be the biggest polluters: Africa, India, and China(birth rates are collapsing here but not fast enough).
The greenest people are north Americans (excluding Mexico) and Europe. They just so happen to not have any kids.
The solution is to put the economic burden of pollution onto those that cause it the most and right now the biggest burdens are on western states who do the most already to greenify their economies.
And don't post the innane," they're poor and need to burn coal to get ahead!". India is the worst offender with dumping plastic in the ocean. China is even worse with industrial pollutants destroying what good land they had.
The 3rd world needs to be brought to heel if climate change is to be stopped.
The marginal impact of any child you have is much larger than the marginal impact of any child had by someone of the wrong geography/skin color to you.
This is just reskinned eco-racialist rhetoric. We do not need to reduce our population to 1 billion by bringing billions of people in poorer countries ‘to heel’ via forced sterilization or killlings.
i have visited those countries and also have a basic understanding of economics. my child (and likely yours) will almost certainly take flights, which already blows the marginal Chinese child out of the water - before we get into supply chains and anything like that
China currently has a consumer heavy middle class population that is greater in number than the entire population of the USofA.
Your "basic understanding" is certainly that.
FWiW tv and education are great at reducing population growth, Hans Rosling presentations of the past decades show the high correlation between these, women's rights, and reducing population growth.
Mitigating the effects of AGW is multi pronged, population will peak and fall, and then stabilise, this is already projected. Reducing insulating gas emmissions comes with changes in behaviour; alternate energy, reduced consumption, etc.
Doomsayers don't have to go full genocidal in their thoughts, you may consider winding back on that kind of simplistic thinking.
i at least know what the word "marginal" means, which your comment makes clear you do not. reducing population to 1 billion in foreseeable future can only be achieved through genocidal means, it is an absurdist suggestion.
I have several decades in exploration geophysics, in my actual experience "forseeable future" has a long timescale, something your comment makes clear you do not think in.
"Reducing population" is phrased as an active control of population numbers. Populations fluctuate by other means than just genocidal ones, and I made no mention of one billion as a taget.
then stop flying? being unwilling to reduce your consumption isn’t a badge of honor in this discussion.
there are real problems, you identify yourself as a greater contributor than the average global person, then you imply that others in this discussion feel superior to people in “those countries”
maybe stop blowing the consumption of “the marginal Chinese child out of the water”?
We are having a disagreement over population ethics and the impact of AGW - I could hardly think of a less bro-y discussion if I tried.
I absolutely support population control, but all of my replies have been in reference to the specific scenario suggested of lowering population to 1 billion.
- bring up other problems, which is definitely relevant because problems intertwine, but you’re avoiding focusing on any points regarding any single issue at a time. You still have to consider items, even when there’s a collection.
- bring vitriolic accusations (“GENOCIDE!”) into a discussion on plastic pollution, farming, and food supply. This is unacceptable.
i replied to the person below as well, but again, stop accusing people of genocide. fuck sake
also, to address the sentiments in your posts in general, if you’re against government intervention in farming, go ahead and give up farm subsidies, subsidies to oil companies, etc.
be consistent at least. lots of fingers on the scale, most of which prop up farmers and plastic producers.
Pastoralism is brain rot, we should not romanticize "small farms". The romanticization of farming probably has a lot to do with bad agricultural policy. (In the US we can blame the senate, but what about in Europe?)
Also, are there any agricultural billionaires? I kind of doubt it: usually they are rich but not that rich.
I don’t know which era you are talking about. I was talking about the decade after 1989, about when the Soviets were collapsing, before the recent economic downturn. They were not importing food, nor were there oil available to run trucks, tractors or make fertilizer - https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/cubas-urban-farm...
Cubans were literally starving and caloric intake is estimate to have been reduced by 38% in the period you are talking about before food imports resurged. [0]
Another great example case, thank you for pointing that out.
Show how the productivity per acre of arable land times the amount of land available produces enough calories to keep the current population of the world from starting. If you can't produce enough calories, vitamin content doesn't matter.
(hint: the productivity of small-scale farming is often << 10% of the productivity of large-scale farming and the productivity of garden-scale farming is typically < 1%)
Those are some overly broad assumptions with using calories. Not all calories are the same — some foods take more calories to digest, and others, like MCT takes very little to get absorbed by cells. It really depends upon the food being consumed.
Nutritionally-dense food can also change gut biome. I have no idea if anyone ever did a study on long term effects, but it would be interesting to see if the body ends up needing less overall calories if the food quality went up, along with changes in the gut biome.
As far as productivity goes, I don’t think the figures you are quoting takes into account methods other than monocropping. Industrial scale famers who went to polycropping, for example, find smaller yields on individual crops but their overall yield and profit were better. No-till, as another example, underperforms until about five years in.
And then there are losses during transport.
The closest I have seen was someone attempting 100% of his diet from gardens he has planted for a year or harvested himself. It was rough, in a tropical climate (Florida), but was possible. He had to use three gardens, though the deal he made with the residential landowners gave them the right to harvest anything at anytime in exchange for using their front yard. According to him, 80% was doable. I don’t know if he had integrated livestock.
As I mentioned in other comments, post-Soviet Cuba, under sanctions, were forced into developing this because of the lack of oil (trucks, tractors, fertilizer, and pesticides) and other imports.
Feels like we've just been free falling through trap door functions continuously for years. They've acquired too much wealth and can buy power through lobbyists, corporate personhood, money is "free speech", and lately just flat out bankrolling the lavish lifestyle of a supreme court judge. Good luck undoing all that!
