It was supposed to be a normal voyage.
It will be historic.
On March 22, 1987, the barge Moblo 4000 left Islip, New York, carrying 6 million pounds of trash and being towed by the tugboat Break of Dawn. It was bound for Morehead City, North Carolina, but never docked there. Instead, it spent the next five months at sea, rejected by multiple countries and three foreign countries. It made headlines when journalist Dan Rather called it “the most high-profile trash heap in human memory.” But the other rubbish was the story the media reported about it. In reality, no one would have accepted the Moblo because of rumors that it was carrying medical waste. But that is not the narrative imposed by the media.
This advanced the idea that Moblo's fate was the result of a lack of dumping space.
Of course, the “solution” was recycling. The timing was also perfect, as there was already growing public concern about waste. Oh, and as Reader's Digest reported decades ago, America's 1,000 years' worth of trash is 50 miles square (one square meter per state) and 200 feet tall (the average height of a modern dump). Never mind that it may fit in the area of “Never let a crisis go to waste,” and this crisis was not in vain. This story helped promote the recycling movement. The Moblo 4000 may have drifted adrift, but a ship of recycling advocates had arrived.
Of particular concern are plastics, which are said to be polluting the oceans. But what if plastic recycling is a myth, if not a scam, that is not only wasteful but also bad for the environment?
Lies, like Moblo, traveled halfway around the world. Has the truth finally begun to emerge?
Writing in the Telegraph today, Ben Wright said plastic recycling is not only a myth but is “being debunked”. Consumers dutifully jump through the hoops, believing that separating their trash is good citizenship. But Wright points out that they are being fooled. “58 per cent of all plastic waste in the UK is incinerated, 14 per cent is exported to other countries and 11 per cent is sent to landfill,” he says. “Only 17 percent is actually recycled.”
It's even worse in the United States, according to investigative reporter John Stossel. Last year, he said only about 5% of plastic was recycled. In fact, he says, even the environmental organization Greenpeace admits that “most plastics cannot be recycled.”
The problem, Wright and Stossel say, is that while plastic is extremely cheap to produce, it's expensive to recycle. Wright explains this problem, pointing out, for example, that “different plastics…have to be treated differently.” And this can be complicated, as there are “approximately 40,000 different man-made polymers,” according to him.
“Green” material on the wolf’s clothes?
Furthermore, are plastics really environmental destroyers? Dr. Chris Diamit, widely considered one of the world's best plastic materials scientists, says otherwise. He says recycling isn't necessary to make plastics “green”; it's already happening. In fact, DeArmit claims that numerous studies have demonstrated that plastic causes minimal environmental damage in 93 percent of packaging cases. Mr Wright said:
For example, a study conducted by Imperial College in 2019 found that replacing plastic in food packaging with alternatives (such as cotton, glass, metal, and bioplastics) would make the packaging 3.6 times heavier on average and use less energy. It was found that the increase was 2.2 times. Carbon dioxide emissions (note: CO2 is not a pollutant) will increase by 2.7 times. Paper bags are heavier than plastic bags, so they require more fuel to transport. Glass bottles are much heavier than plastic bottles, but they also require more energy to produce in the first place.
Plus, plastics tend to work better. The hard-to-remove polyethylene shrink-wrapping of cucumbers allows them to last three times longer than if they were exposed to air. Banning it would mean, all other things being equal, that we would grow three times as many cucumbers, all of them in Spain, the Netherlands, Morocco and Greece (countries from which the UK imports most of this vegetable). It will have to be transported from
In fact, if you look at the benefits derived from just three uses for plastics: making cars lighter, providing cheap insulation for homes, and reducing food waste, every polymer produced by humanity has a net environmental impact. is having a positive impact. “Yes, plastics are made from fossil fuels, which means they have a carbon footprint,” says Dr Diamit. “But if you only look at the deficit side of the equation, that would be disingenuous.”
(Note: There is actually no such thing as a “carbon footprint.” Calling CO2 “carbon” is the same as calling H2O “hydrogen.” This is a propaganda term.)
Not a harmless myth
Whatever the downsides of eliminating plastic, the obsession with recycling brings its own harm. First is the economic effect. Citing an example, Stossel said last year that “the city could save more than $300 million a year by stopping recycling.” reason? The recycling industry uses increasingly expensive labor to create materials that continually decline in value.
Next is environmental destruction. Because it's not worth recycling in the U.S., much waste is “shipped overseas to places like Malaysia,” Stossel said. What will be its fate?
“They don't burn. Sometimes they're thrown into the ocean,” Stoessel explained. In fact, one garbage truck full of plastic is dumped into the ocean every minute.
Sadly, all of this could be avoided by simply abandoning our obsession with recycling and dumping our plastic waste in landfills. Again, there is plenty of space for trash disposal.
Believe it or not, the government is finally starting to acknowledge the recycling myth in a way. “Last month, the state of California filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against ExxonMobil for falsely promoting the recyclability of plastics,” Wright said.
But here's the real story. First, governments and ruling media create and promote the recycling myth. Then, under pressure, business goes along with it. And even when the farce is exposed, the government doesn't just blame the companies. They also seize opportunities to extort more money, costs passed on to consumers.
In other words, the state is even eradicating criminal organizations. When gangsters are caught, they're just happy to have a down-and-out to take the blame. I also remember my father saying, “The government is worse than the mafia.'' The protests here are as real as plastic flowers.
