I don't really understand why recycling plastic is not viable. I feel like this is more of a problem with ideology than actual process.
For example, I buy these "Green Toys" products that are supposedly made from recycled plastic and I love it. I have no idea why this recycled plastic is not used in other kid's toys, kitchenware, or random things like garden tools. This recycled plastic is tough, it doesn't decay in the sun like regular plastic. I would pay more for it!
I have actually tried looking for more items made from recycled plastic and it just doesn't exist.
My conclusion is that people don't like the way it looks, because it's very rough and the color is different, so there is no market for it. Most people probably prefer to buy the cheaper, "nicer" looking plastic.
Recycling plastic is difficult because despite being labeled as PE, PET, PP, PS, ... most plastics [0] are customized by additives that change the material properties (in the simplest case the color)[1]. Recently I saw an imprint on the tub of a washing machine that read "PP-K40". Searching for it revealed that this is polypropylene (not surprising) but 40% of the mass of the material is added calcium carbonate filler (very unexpected)!
>I don't really understand why recycling plastic is not viable. I feel like this is more of a problem with ideology than actual process. [...] Anyways, if someone smarter than me tells me the economics doesn't work, I will believe them, but until then I am skeptical of the idea that we can't properly recycle plastic.
This comment is baffling. In the beginning you think it's an ideological issue. Later on you acknowledge that cost might be an issue, but then you move to goal posts from "plastic is not viable" to "we can't properly recycle plastic". Cost is absolutely the main issue here, not that it's "not possible". Even if recycled plastic is substandard compared to virgin plastic, most consumers can be convinced of otherwise if it's sufficiently cheap enough.
You're probably right. My comment was confusing so I edited it to make it more coherent. I struggle with writing, so I appreciate the feedback to improve it.
However, regarding your comment
> In the beginning you think it's an ideological issue. Later on you acknowledge that cost might be an issue
I don't see these as contradictory. Ideology affects what people are willing to spend. As someone who cares about the environment I don't mind spending more on recycled plastic to reduce waste. Most of my peers would not spend a cent more if they don't have to.
>I don't see these as contradictory. Ideology affects what people are willing to spend. As someone who cares about the environment I don't mind spending more on recycled plastic to reduce waste. Most of my peers would not spend a cent more if they don't have to.
I disagree with this characterization. Photovoltaic technology in the 70s were insanely expensive and clearly not economical compared to the alternatives. There were some environmental enthusiasts who would use it despite the economic issues, but I wouldn't characterize the lack of adoption in photovoltaic technology as being an "ideological problem"
In a large part it has to do with the logistics. For simplicity: Oil is used for plastic, the specific kind of oil is siphoned off and processed in bulk for plastic.
If you want to recapture plastic and recycle. You’d need to get plastic, separate it, reprocess (more expensive in most cases), then you could mold again (often at a slight loss of input, I.e. there will be waste).
This makes recycling plastic (today) multiple times more expensive to produce the same good. No one would want to spend double the current price on a soda.
The packaging for a bottle of soda wouldn't double the cost. Soda was distributed in glass bottles which cost more to transport, yet prices weren't nuts back in the day. Most of the cost of soda is sugar. The markup on soda (whether sold in containers or from a fountain) is astronomical.
It's a lie from the plastics industry. If they increase their costs in order to cover recycling, plastic is no longer viable as a solution for many things it's used for. We're talking about a huge industry, one which is very closely connected to another one resisting change successfully for over half a century: fossil fuels.
Have you noticed they’re more expensive than other plastic toys? “Recycled” plastic toys aren’t much different from other types of “green” marketing - they’re charging for a slightly premium product but the market is niche: upper middle class people who care about the environment and aren’t super price conscious.
The recently popular NPR article on the same subject[1] mentioned a few reasons why the economics doesn't work, at a high level of detail. Overall I believe it's because there are so many different kinds of plastic and they all need to be recycled differently, and mainly just that producing new plastic is just so cheap and easy by comparison.
Hopefully with better processes and technical innovations that will change soon.
For example, I buy these "Green Toys" products that are supposedly made from recycled plastic and I love it. I have no idea why this recycled plastic is not used in other kid's toys, kitchenware, or random things like garden tools. This recycled plastic is tough, it doesn't decay in the sun like regular plastic. I would pay more for it!
I have actually tried looking for more items made from recycled plastic and it just doesn't exist.
My conclusion is that people don't like the way it looks, because it's very rough and the color is different, so there is no market for it. Most people probably prefer to buy the cheaper, "nicer" looking plastic.