From: blockedofcourse@foo.invalid   
      
   On 1/14/2026 10:37 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
      
   > There is a difference between plastics that chemically decompose over   
   > time and those where the item physically breaks up into ever-smaller   
   > particles but doesn't actually decompose.  The latter are responsible   
   > for micro-plastics in the environment but no distinction is made (to the   
   > public, at least) between them and the slightly less-harmful decomposing   
   > type.  The result is that thousands of tonnes of plastic items are   
   > needlessly thrown away and replaced because the plastic is   
   > disintegrating - and the campaigners and politicians have been forcing   
   > this upon us for years.   
      
   Glass is seen as "more precious" to consumers.  Tossing a plastic container   
   out seems like that's its intended destination.  Glass, OTOH, folks seem   
   more reluctant to discard.   
      
   One of the surprising complaints consumers have had is packaging that uses   
   reusable (or, perceived as such) containers -- because of the psychological   
   pressure to retain those containers (and end up with a closet full of them!).   
   They almost feel relieved if they can discard the container without having   
   to find a place to keep it!   
      
   [We keep lots of "good" glass containers -- increasingly hard to find -- as   
   glass is so much better than many plastics for long term storage.  But,   
   you need to find something to store *in* them to merit the space (volume)   
   their storage requires!  Our "spice collection" is in pint-sized glass   
   containers -- because the 2 oz size that the stores want to sell spices   
   in are ridiculously expensive.  Popcorn salt in quart containers, popcorn   
   in half-gallon containers, etc.]   
      
   > Paper bags, cardboard containers and wooden items are far more   
   > environmentally friendly because we can grow more of them and they can   
   > be burnt for fuel when we have finished with them without damaging the   
   > environment as much as plastics would.  They also have the advantage of   
   > using up all those trees the campaigners urge us to plant, so reducing   
   > the risk of forest fires.   
      
   Glass is supposedly very recyclable.  Yet, no longer treated as such,   
   here (though junk mail, cardboard, "tin" cans, and some plastics ARE!).   
      
   Amusingly, no one captures aluminum foil or aluminum cans!   
      
   > We can harvest solar energy without being dependent on China for solar   
   > panels.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)