Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I don’t understand how plastic bags for “100 years at current rates” is an argument FOR its longevity/being fine?by hank2000
- Yes… I don't think the author is thinking on a long enough time horizon.
I'm curious what happens to these landfill sites in 100, 1000 and 10k years. Do they inevitably break down and leak into the water table? Do they eventually stop off-gassing and become inert? Do they become fossilized layers of sediment on a long enough horizon? If we maintain our current waste levels, how much land is required by the year 3000?
by bensyverson - Hopefully energy used will become less important. CO2 emissions seem like the biggest threat to our long term health. Microplastics also matter, a bit.
How much plastic is escaping into the environment from the recycling process vs. landfill? What are the CO2 output of landfill vs. recycling? I imagine burning would be the worst option for these.
Not surprised that the market forces tended towards the most energy efficient waste disposal systems; glad we don't have mountains of trash or poor landfills.
by axus - Before anyone gets all excited by they cherry picked evidence and extremely confident tone, remember this isn't being written by a veteran waste disposal professional, environmentalist, logistics expert, or professor.
It's by a "magazine of new and underrated ideas to improve the world". Aka, contrarian armchair experts who did some googling and are now throwing spitballs made to be shallowly convincing enough to make money off it with no skin in the game. Catnip for HN, but 100% unreliable.
by 0xbadcafebee - Just burn your trash
https://www.energimyndigheten.se/en/news/2025/from-waste-to-...
My understanding is that biological decomposition of waste creates methane which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
by lillecarl - Landfills control for that and usually dispose the methane on a less polluting form.by marcosdumay
- That's only if it's buried. Properly managed compost is the best option.by elil17
- The thing with methane is that it has a lifespan of something like 10 years in the atmosphere before it breaks down to CO2 + water, while CO2 persists for centuries. I suspect that burning would release more net CO2 than emitting the methane and having it eventually break down to CO2.
[1] https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/meth...
> A molecule of methane traps more heat than a molecule of CO2, but methane has a relatively short lifespan of 7 to 12 years in the atmosphere. CO2 can persist for hundreds of years or more.
by AlexandrB - Burning waste is listed in the article as an even better for the environment, but somewhat more expensive method.
The methane that landfills produce is routinely captured and burned for power, they may otherwise flare it off before it can contribute to the greenhouse effect. This is also mentioned in the article.
by sigilis - Such a reductive title/framing. Yes, plastic recycling doesn't work very well. But that doesn't mean that getting rid of trash is simple/there aren't opportunities to reduce waste. Metal recycling, compost, glass bottle reuse, and proper management of landfills are all super important!
Also: > In total, Britain’s Environment Agency calculated that a conventional cotton bag needed to be reused 173 times to beat plastic.
They make it seem like this is a bad thing but surely the average cotton bag gets used more than 173 times. I've probably used some of my oldest reusable bags like ~1k times.
by elil17 - In New York City where disposable bag bans occurred I’m quite certain the average “reusable” bag gets used a single-digit number of times. Grocery stores charge 25c for a “reusable” bag in the case that you forgot to bring your own, and every household has a bag full of bags that never get used. Now they’ve re-allowed disposable paper bags, which seems sensible to me.by yunwal
- I think using a cotton bag 173 times to beat plastic bags and a mug 1,000 times to beat disposable cups sounds completely reasonable.by conorbergin
- Absolutely.by dofm
- I have been using the same mug for 50 years.by rjsw
- I have a reusable cotton bag that has been in use for 30 years. That's an extreme example, perhaps, but all the sameby goodcanadian
- thats assuming the plastic bag is used once, but i've always reused them, sometimes had the same bags for 10 years
however i have never re-used a paper bag because they are awfully loud and cannot be compressed. it is the worst kind of bag.
by dinkblam
Small nitpick here: A mug needs to be cleaned and washed after each use. (Certainly in commercial settings.) However, a reusable grocery bag probably gets washed at max: once per month. Still: I love it when a bar goes out of the way to use mugs/glasses instead of disposal cups!> a mug 1,000 times to beat disposable cups sounds completely reasonable.- Can you use the cotton bag 173 times? Cotton wears out over time. They also didn't ask about the cost of washing the cotton bag, which really should be done once in a while since they collect dirt and food particles - this will increase the times you need to use the bag. (it isn't clear if it lasts longer with or without washing - dirt is often sharp enough to wear the bag, but washing also puts wear on them)
Similar for the cup - I've dropped and broke several ceramic cups in my life - and I don't drink coffee/tea. Those cups will never get another use since the shards are scrap.
by bluGill - "I am once again asking you to consider plasma gasification."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification
InEnTec says its plasma technology effectively destroys PFAS - https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/news/inentec-says-its-pla... - August 23rd, 2024
Production of high quality syngas from argon plasma gasification of plastic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41623879 (September 2024) (0 comments)
Plasma gasification versus incineration of plastic waste: Energy, economic and environmental analysis - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2022.107470
by toomuchtodo - Seems to rival incarceration or probably is better.
- What's the point of this when incineration is an option? Even its wikipedia page has only negatives compared to incineration.
> Air emissions can be cleaner than landfills and similar to that of incinerators.
> Large initial investment costs relative to that of alternatives, including [...] incineration.
> Operational costs are high relative to that of incineration.
by murderfs - "In total, Britain’s Environment Agency calculated that a conventional cotton bag needed to be reused 173 times to beat plastic. Denmark’s equivalent public body estimated a similar ratio."
I think there's a thing about food shopping here. Americans just don't go shopping as frequently, so you're better off with paper bags in the back of your car.
I am a Brit. I have a Lidl cotton bag that I've probably used sixty times already. It augments and will ultimately replace two reusable foldable/pocketable bags from Marks & Spencer that I have used for all of my shopping for at least thirteen years, perhaps more like sixteen. (Genuinely can't remember when I bought them but as early as 2010 seems possible)
I shop on foot, about once every four or five days. I wil have used the two M&S bags on more than a thousand journeys. One of them is finally wearing thin. The other goes in my pocket more or less whenever I leave the house. They were themselves made from recycled material (rPET I guess, not cotton).
I use two the majority of the time so I am confident I've avoided using at least 1800 plastic bags.
(Weird timing, but I did end up needing one last night, annoyingly, because I had to shop in an emergency, but it is the first time in five years or so and it already has a reuse purpose)
Reusable shopping bags are easy. A British shopper might even get to 173 uses in a single year.
by dofm - These arguments tend to ignore that a reusable thing is often just a lot better at whatever it does. You can put a few liters of milk in a reusable bag without triple bagging it. You don't have to worry that it will split open and spill out on the ground. You can use the bag to pack for road trips, to store kid's snacks and toys, as a gym bag, etc. Groceries aren't the only thing anyone caries and people go further than between their boot and fridge.
In Switzerland grocery stores have been promoting reusable (recycled plastic) bags for years, and people use them for everything: I saw someone in Interlaken carrying firewood with one.
So:
- To people promoting reuse: maybe go beyond the environmental impact and appeal to quality of life. Having bag or two in your boot all the time is a good idea.
- To people promoting single use: others have pointed out that you need to address the other environmental problems beyond energy, but also acknowledge that you're asking people to find a replacement for their everyday tote bags as well.
by dguest - "Instead of paying more to recycle, we could spend that money far more effectively on other environmental mitigation measures like carbon capture."
Yeah, let's stop doing the fairly well established recycling programs that have knock on benefits like reducing pollution, and instead start scaling an entirely unproven and expensive mitigation program.
These are some prominent Effect Altruism guys so I know "cause prioritization" is their whole thing. But I think this is just basic contrarianism, because you cant fundraise off the fact that the cultural shift to recycling in the first world has been pretty successful and positive.
by SamBorick - > "Instead of paying more to recycle, we could spend that money far more effectively on other environmental mitigation measures like carbon capture."
Carbon capture is a scam to allow fossil consumption to continue as is. The only path forward is rapid destruction of fossil fuel demand and transitioning to clean energy and electric mobility. At this time, there is no effective technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Therefore, capital is best invested where that investment will most rapidly avoid carbon emissions. Broadly speaking, at this time, this is electrifying light and heavy vehicles (includes scooters and ebikes!), and decommissioning coal plants (low carbon generation, batteries, etc will eventually push out fossil gas generation). It's not sexy, but it's straightforward.
Carbon capture may be an effective option in the future, but at the moment, it in no way can be relied on as a component of climate change mitigation. It's performance art.
Solar Power Is Booming in Emerging Markets - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49537375 - September 2026
Global heating will hit at least 1.8C, UN warns, and there are ‘no good outcomes’ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49536875 - September 2026
Ex-oil engineer warns about potential climate collapse [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49335833 - August 2026
EU Locks In Plan To Triple Energy Storage Capacity By 2030 - https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/EU-Locks-In-Plan-... - August 7th, 2026 ("The EU has agreed to nearly quadruple its energy storage capacity, from 55 GW today to a targeted 200 GW by 2030.")
Climeworks’ capture fails to cover its own emissions - https://heimildin.is/grein/24581/ - May 15th, 2025
Carbon capture has a long history. Of failure - https://thebulletin.org/2022/09/plagued-by-failures-carbon-c... - September 1st, 2022
> The entire efficacy of the carbon capture process has been called into question by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its special report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, the IPCC stated: “CO2 storage is not necessarily permanent. Physical leakage from storage reservoirs is possible via (1) gradual and long-term release or (2) sudden release of CO2 caused by disruption of the reservoir.” Carbon capture has been used as a justification for new oil and gas projects. It has a history of poor performance, only captures a fraction of the total emissions from the lifecycle of oil and gas production and its long-term efficacy is questionable.
by toomuchtodo - > benefits like reducing pollution
Not over burying the waste, as mentioned in the article. And, it has the added externality of using more energy... leading to more pollution.
by lanfeust6 - > These are some prominent Effect Altruism guys
https://www.chalmermagne.com/about
I don't see the link with Chalmers. I know Wiblin is.
by lanfeust6 - The push for recycling has been successful at making people feel better about themselves, not successful at saving energy or raw materials. The article also goes on at length about this, but most of what's put in recycling bins gets thrown out anyways and folks regularly put stuff in recycling bins that can't be recycled, just increasing the cost of recycling programs while lowering their effectiveness. Recycling metal cans and containers is a no brainer, recycling most plastics is of questionable value bordering on actively harmful[1].
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plastic-...
by AlexandrB - Almost all EA takes I’ve read strike me as basic contrarianismby m-ee
- ALSO, what is the obsession with embodied energy?
Like lets think about plastic bags from an object use standpoint. Given you have a collection of stuff to carry would you prefer:
A) A reasonably sturdy bag that can be styled to your preference (like with art or whatever) that you have to remember to bring with you when you need.
B) The literal minimum possible material to be considered a bag. Even money whatever you put into it will punch straight through the bottom, or you'll need to use 2-4 nested bags anyway. And it'll be uncomfortable to hold the whole time.
I think from an object use perspective a reusable bag is more pleasant to use.
But embodied energy calculations are convenient because you can get numbers to compare. But it ignores externalities.
Like if you actually considered the embodied energy of the median tote bag vs the median plastic bag from the point that it was extracted from the ground to the point that it returns to dust, I think the story would look really different. I'll bet a sizable percentage of plastic bags don't even make it through their first use. Meanwhile I've got tote bags that I think are fully 15 years old. Plus if you consider the remediation future generations will need to do for plastic bags. meanwhile I can actually bury a cotton tote bag in the dirt to decompose and it doesn't need infrastructure to prevent poisoning the water supply.
Did the authors consider the embodied energy of the landfill itself? Shipping? Trash collection? Ongoing monitoring? The embodied energy of the future carbon capture system?
It's just so convenient to look only at the materials, equate that to kg of co2, and use that for whatever narrative makes you feel good.
by SamBorick