In embarking on my group’s piece of the plastic journey, I have fully realized what is meant by the term “pilot” project. By this I mean I have had to come to terms with the fact that I have left the plastic pollution problem unscathed. This verdict does not render itself much different when considering the health and safety group’s main initiatives in our Precious Plastic project, either. We were determined to come up with a list of recyclables that were a no go for our facility given the health and safety complications to both the environment and those involved, but we have simply just not gotten there yet. It seems that every source we come across will outline the process of breaking plastic down from the product to the polymer, but omit the effects of these processes. This is even more frustrating when said sources also have sections dedicated to general environmental and health repercussions of recycling, but do not link those to any certain polymer or compound released by the breakdown processes of any certain number of plastic. Such is the case with this website (http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/), which beautifully outlines the production and breakdown of different substances, as well as explains how some of these productions as a whole are hazardous, but do not go the extra mile in truly connecting the two by pinning a certain number of plastic or polymer with the process at the recycling stage. (At least this is what I perceived this to be doing—then again, I am no chemist.) I desperately want to keep scouring the internet and discussing this problem for this reason; the lack of conclusiveness that we have experienced is enraging.
Furthering my frustrations is the overall skepticism I have had to come to terms with in regard to the mere idea of recycling. Obviously, reduction comes first concerning waste. Recycling is an adaptation strategy—one that does nothing to solve the problem at hand. (Even typing that now shocks me still.) However, this skepticism is something that was recognized and appreciated by some wiser-than-I individuals—both the senior Environmental Fellows and Professor Everett. It was reassuring to hear that our dead end had contributed to something, somehow. When we felt like our brick wall meant nothing, these people ensured us that it meant everything. Looking at what we are doing with a critical eye is valuable. When it comes to plastic recycling, the argument that it is a means of allowing continued plastic production bears truth. Additionally, it is most commonly (in the Western world, at least) called into questions based on economic aspects (https://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/recycling-waste-of-time/). Another consideration is the resources that we put into recycling, such as with the amount of water that is consumed to properly wash recyclables (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/recycling-waste-of-money-time/). I have always wondered how we can weigh one resource (in this example, diminishing space for storing our waste) against another (water supply). Thoughts race through my mind revolving around the skepticism behind recycling. This is a multifaceted issue that is a brain teaser, and the fact that we have had so much trouble in just attempting to know the effects of something that in itself is highly questionable just seems like a bottomless, dark pit. (Similar to the one we are digging ourselves into with the amount of trash the human population manages to continue producing.)
Comentarios