[walleeee]

> Obviously, the main alternative is having someone slice it at the deli counter for you, but that means you could only ever buy prosciutto at places with a staffed deli counter, including the 15-minute wait for the deli counter if you're going grocery shopping at the end of a regular workday...

This and a million other small inconveniences hardly seem too great a price to pay to avoid filling the planet's air and water (and by consequence our bodies) with plastic waste

[whiddershins]

I think this is overblown. The earth is already ‘full’ of oil and gas and minerals and lots of toxic things. We are just transforming one type of substance into another - more useful to us - type of substance.

The issue is when the waste gets in to places where it wreaks havoc, like especially waterways.

Currently, afaik, this problem is primarily driven by a few countries in Asia, so I think the effort that would have the most impact is figuring out how to convince those particular Asian countries to stop throwing plastic in to rivers.

And anyone else who gets it in their head to throw plastic in to rivers.

As long as waste is contained properly it doesn’t seem to make so much of a net change in the earth.

[walleeee]

> Currently, afaik, this problem is primarily driven by Asia, so I think the effort that would have the most impact is figuring out how to convince Asian countries to stop throwing plastic in to rivers.

The west could start by not exporting a huge portion of its plastic waste to said Asian countries.

> I think this is overblown. The earth is already 'full' of... toxic things.

The earth was certainly not "full" of macro-, micro-, and nano-plastics 50 years ago.

Americans ingest and inhale tens to hundreds of thousands of microplastic particles per year[0]. Microplastics likely impair cognition in hermit crabs[1]. Nanoplastics accumulate in plants[2]. It's not just waterways.

Nobody really understands how this might affect human health. We're all participants in a planet-sized experiment to find out.

[0]: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2020.0030

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517

[2]: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-020-0707-4

[crazygringo]

> The west could start by not exporting a huge portion of its plastic waste to said Asian countries.

That's not how it works. Worst-case scenario that winds up in landfills instead of being recycled.

The problem in Asia is 100% domestic, with citizens and households and apartment buildings dumping their local plastic trash on the side of the road, burning it in backyards, dumping it in the river.

[walleeee]

> That's not how it works. Worst-case scenario that winds up in landfills instead of being recycled.

It's a problem even if it ends up in landfills. Plastics can leach chemicals into groundwater. My point is that the "Asian countries are responsible for most of the world's pollution" narrative is simplistic and unhelpful. Most of the plastic in the oceans is indeed from Asian countries. But plastic concentrations are 4-20x higher on land than in the oceans. The United States has the highest tapwater contamination rate in the world (94%).

> The problem in Asia is 100% domestic, with citizens and households and apartment buildings dumping their local plastic trash on the side of the road, burning it in backyards, dumping it in the river.

You're of course correct to point out that this happens, but calling the problem 100% domestic is disingenuous.