This is like the regular articles about some new fancy battery chemistry that will make EVs as quick to charge as an ICE.
It's effectively misinformation, because EVs are already better than ICE and just boring improvements to existing technology will provide improvements over the next fews years and decades.
But, a) people hawking a new innovation need to grab eyeballs, and b) people fighting the future have saturated the media with BS to stop progress on EVs, renewables, recycling etc. and those two things combine to become potent misinformation.
Recycling is already cheaper than making things from petroleum. It only doesn't happen in places where people think they can push the cost onto someone else. They don't realise that they are someone else's someone else and will end up paying the price they think they have cleverly avoided.
Amusingly, the voices that have said "recycling plastic is impossible" have been so succesful, that there's now democratic support in many places for just banning many uses of plastics. Which was an unintended impact of these petroleum fueled lies. They've recently switched to attacking plastic bans, by promising that tech like this, will make plastic recyclable in the future.
Whether pro or anti recycling, they remain consistently anti-regulation.
There are obvious trade offs between the two technologies and some of those are unacceptable to certain buyers. But your points are just non sequitur.
...quick to charge...
>...EVs are already better...
For whom? In a city, with short trips and reasonable climate, then sure. You haven't provided any reason or information as to why what you are claiming is true.
As for recycling, you may be surprised to know that in the US it has mostly never happened. Companies found that a simple arbitrage could be completed by shipping away "recyclables" to the third world.
Recycling is a corporate check mark, so corporations pay a premium to add a "post consumer recycled waste" label on their product knowing American virtue & status signaling is powerful enough to make it a cost effecting advertising strategy.
Nowhere have I found information indicating recycled plastics are cheaper than new petrochemical plastics. Plastic is unbelievably cheap.
Petrochemical plastics and ICE cars are heavily subsidized, both in the "here have some money we taxed" sense and in the "we don't care if you are destroying the environment and poisoning people, carry on and we'll fix that with tax money" sense.
It's hard to have that conversation if people only care about their next months out of pocket payment. Google whether gas heating is cheaper than heat pumps and you'll find discussion about what is cheapest for ordinary people with the current fossil fuel subsidies. But any simple economic analysis shows it's obviously better to shift to heat pumps and well insulated homes and so sensible countries do that, and reap the benefits.
You'd have to invent some insane conspiracy theory about how climate change wasn't even happening, and all the scientists are secretly conspiring to undermine society in order to stop that, but who would believe that?
You would have to acknowledge that plastics are subsidized in part because they are ubiquitous, absolutely essential to modern life, and will not be going away.
You could also acknowledge that climate change science and climate change politics hold a rather different set of "beliefs", we can call them, the solutions offered are hardly the same and are not entirely justified in either case. Particularly when the known cost to humanity by effecting these solutions (bad) must be weighed against a possibility of a less desirable future based largely on statistical extrapolation.
We might also say there has been a fair number of Chicken Littles wildly exclaiming this and every previous decade to be (/was?) our last on earth.
Comments
This is like the regular articles about some new fancy battery chemistry that will make EVs as quick to charge as an ICE.
It's effectively misinformation, because EVs are already better than ICE and just boring improvements to existing technology will provide improvements over the next fews years and decades.
But, a) people hawking a new innovation need to grab eyeballs, and b) people fighting the future have saturated the media with BS to stop progress on EVs, renewables, recycling etc. and those two things combine to become potent misinformation.
Recycling is already cheaper than making things from petroleum. It only doesn't happen in places where people think they can push the cost onto someone else. They don't realise that they are someone else's someone else and will end up paying the price they think they have cleverly avoided.
Amusingly, the voices that have said "recycling plastic is impossible" have been so succesful, that there's now democratic support in many places for just banning many uses of plastics. Which was an unintended impact of these petroleum fueled lies. They've recently switched to attacking plastic bans, by promising that tech like this, will make plastic recyclable in the future.
Whether pro or anti recycling, they remain consistently anti-regulation.
There are obvious trade offs between the two technologies and some of those are unacceptable to certain buyers. But your points are just non sequitur.
For whom? In a city, with short trips and reasonable climate, then sure. You haven't provided any reason or information as to why what you are claiming is true.
As for recycling, you may be surprised to know that in the US it has mostly never happened. Companies found that a simple arbitrage could be completed by shipping away "recyclables" to the third world.
Recycling is a corporate check mark, so corporations pay a premium to add a "post consumer recycled waste" label on their product knowing American virtue & status signaling is powerful enough to make it a cost effecting advertising strategy.
Nowhere have I found information indicating recycled plastics are cheaper than new petrochemical plastics. Plastic is unbelievably cheap.
Petrochemical plastics and ICE cars are heavily subsidized, both in the "here have some money we taxed" sense and in the "we don't care if you are destroying the environment and poisoning people, carry on and we'll fix that with tax money" sense.
It's hard to have that conversation if people only care about their next months out of pocket payment. Google whether gas heating is cheaper than heat pumps and you'll find discussion about what is cheapest for ordinary people with the current fossil fuel subsidies. But any simple economic analysis shows it's obviously better to shift to heat pumps and well insulated homes and so sensible countries do that, and reap the benefits.
You'd have to invent some insane conspiracy theory about how climate change wasn't even happening, and all the scientists are secretly conspiring to undermine society in order to stop that, but who would believe that?
You would have to acknowledge that plastics are subsidized in part because they are ubiquitous, absolutely essential to modern life, and will not be going away.
You could also acknowledge that climate change science and climate change politics hold a rather different set of "beliefs", we can call them, the solutions offered are hardly the same and are not entirely justified in either case. Particularly when the known cost to humanity by effecting these solutions (bad) must be weighed against a possibility of a less desirable future based largely on statistical extrapolation.
We might also say there has been a fair number of Chicken Littles wildly exclaiming this and every previous decade to be (/was?) our last on earth.