How bad is plastic?

[@paulhaynes8045]

Aldi sells biodegradable bags that DO actually biodegrade. I was told that they only biodegrade in the commercial scale digesters that our locally collected food waste goes to (presumably to do with the higher temperature?), but I once accidentally mixed one in with some cuttings and put it on our compost heap, and, by the end of the summer, it had noticably degraded (it was full of holes). I put it back on the compost heap, and when I went to use the compost about a year later, there was no trace of it. My compost heap is literally a heap of compost - nothing fancy - and it doesn't even appear to get warm, let alone reach commercial digester temperatures.

[@poruatokin]

There is an important distinction between "bio-plastics" and "biodegradable plastics" that the vast majority of people get confused over. As Sabine mentioned, bio-plastics are simply normal plastics that are created from foodstock (corn, potatoes etc). Within the industry there has been a bit of a backlash against bio-plastics because they mislead and consume huge areas of farmland leading to more deforestation.

[@helenTW]

I buy compostable bags and they degrade so fast it's crazy, I need to take my biowaste out daily to avoid the bag falling apart. It's a bit annoying but makes me feel assured that they will, in fact biodegrade.

[@Geblorg]

@@helenTW ...but do they actually biodergrade or just break down into microplastics that enter the foodchain?

[@helenTW]

@@Geblorg They actually biodegrade, they are made of plant proteins and starch

[@louisdiedricks7110]

When I was a child, all sodas were in glass bottles that were cleaned and reused. Milk was also in bottles that were cleaned and reused. It would seem to me returning to recycling returnable glass bottles would significantly reduce plastic bottle production.

[@michaelpettersson4919]

Here we get milk in paper boxes that are covered with a water proof lining on the inside.

[@rustycherkas8229]

While your suggestion has obvious merit, it ignores the reasons that plastic is used pervasively: "Consumer convenience" and "lower cost of production". As usual, civilisation is quietly borrowing "an easy life" from future generations who'll be left with our mess.

[@annarboriter]

But such a retro shift to a more sustainable production would likely infringe to a noticeable degree ROI to stockholders, financiers, and investors. so it a no go... or something about efficiency that makes it impossible

[@skootties]

@@rustycherkas8229 every luxury has someone being exploited in the chain of production. the easiest people to exploit are those that don't even exist yet.

[@Misophist]

The jury ist still out, on which of those alternatives is better: Returning and cleaning the containers, then reusing them? Breaking them down, the reusing the raw material? And which material should be used? Germany sustains a recycling System, where you might observe all variants of that. With a twist: There are standards for water and beer bottles, which would allow bottling companies to share the same type of container - which cuts down of transportation cost, since returned bottles only need to get back to the next cleaning station, not all the way to the origin, and then may be redistributed as needed, to be relabelled by a bottling company. Some years back, the syndicate organizing it for water bottles switched the bottles from glass to PET, retaining the shape - for obvious reasons: wight, which is a major contributor in energy costs in transport. So this might be a valid reason to use plastics instead of glass in this scenario. There are other systems, that rely on breaking down the containers: Again, PET has an other advantage here, apart from weight. PET may be melted at ~260°C, but to remould glass, you need in excess of 550°C. If asked, how I would solve that, I would - to detriment of the marketing folks - decree, that the world should agree to heavily standardize containers, not just for beverages, but for everything sold as a liquid, paste, or powders, that can't simply be put in a paper wrap. (e. g. also for mustard, marmalade, peanut butter, detergents, washing lotions, rice, etc). And while we might want to have some sort of color & form encoding, that makes sure that even blind people may safely distinguish edibles, medicine and poisons from the rest, this would definitely cut down on environmental cost.

[@freeheeler09]

Sabine, worked as a plant scientist, in GIS, and then as a natural resource manager. I very much appreciate your posts, your dry humor, and that I usually learn something!

[@raven4k998]

plastic is the new weapon we should use to attack Russia with🤣

[@chrisbooth1392]

Working in the polyethylene business, I can attest that the anti-oxidants that go into plastic manufacturing have a lot to do with their longevity in the environment. Some resins are specifically stabilized with additives to resist UV degradation. Polymers without it breakdown and become brittle rapidly with exposure to the sun. Not all resins are the same either. Short vs long chain vs highly branches polymers will effect their stability. There are many variables to consider.

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

Which do you think would ultimately be more harmful, plastics that are infinitely durable and 'inert', or plastics that break down into bits faster? It doesn't seem like a clear cut problem.

[@dustinjames1268]

@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Depends how it's being used. Super durable plastic is incredibly useful for things like car bumpers, cups for at home, and many other long term usecases However, it should NOT be used for single use. The main problem with the plastic industry today is that for decades we were lied to about recycling. Most plastic is never recycled because it's not economically viable to. For decades we just shipped it to China to offset shipping costs so that containerships didn't have to return empty

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

@@dustinjames1268 So all that plastic sent to China might as well have been put in landfills? Who knows what happened to it on the way back. Probably was just dumped in the ocean while no one was looking. Btw, I recall several instances of "recycling" programs lying about what happened to the plastic recyclables. Usually it just ended up in landfills or was burned.

[@dustinjames1268]

@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 I forget the name of the documentary now, something along the lines of "plastic china" They were recycling it and burning it, but the impacts to the environment and the workers caused international outrage. I'll look into it and if I find the link I'll update my comment

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

@@dustinjames1268 Thanks Dustin.

[@Lmaluko]

More and more i think these Sabine videos show the power of a training in the sciences. The ability to read several papers on a subject (in her case not even her expertise area) to make an internal consensus based on the objective facts and with that be able to visualize what is the problem, its possible solutions and also the caveats of said solutions. We need more people trained to do that, and we need people to better understand this process and therefore trust its results.

[@vladeckk21]

At a minimum, we need more people trained to watch these videos.

[@grantmcinnes1176]

Some of the people I know who are least capable of the process you describe are trained in science... They seem to be trained like dogs or runners... Learning to excel at one dimensional skills. We need less training and more education.

[@loodog555]

I cannot love this comment enough. As a PhD and science teacher, I am dying for more people to know the basics of science fact checking. I also produce KZbin videos, at a much lower production value than Sabine H here, but I try to do the same thing in modeling how to fact check science claims: Here’s a sample: m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3a1nGNoZcR8f6s

[@vedmaburuxova68]

@@grantmcinnes1176 Probably social ""science""-people hehe

[@lewsouth1539]

*its x2

[@mantaray2239]

Many KZbin videos last too long with not much content. Sabine's videos are densely packed with information from start to finish. The amount of research and organization that goes into each video must be immense. Her dry humor throughout, is highly entertaining.

[@smallworldbigworld-yi3xw]

There's money in lengthening videos and dragging them out, without actually saying much.

[@lobotomizedamericans]

@@smallworldbigworld-yi3xw That's why I've been summarizing videos on GPT for about a year now. I've saved HUNDREDS OF HOURS. On the rare exception, I will watch the videos either because the creators are entertaining, and/or the video is saturated with good information, like Sabine's vids, which makes them OK to watch instead of summarizing the transcripts.

[@FernandoJRodriguezFernandoJRM]

As a chemist and materials scientist, I appreciate and applaud how you summarized this complicated topic. Thanks!

[@bundleofperceptions1397]

Are you really a chemist and materials scientists? I have doubts about it.

[@emptyshirt]

The audience for these videos tends to be better educated and more technically proficient than the average youtube audience. Bundle, because you are here you are probably a knowledge seeker as well, and could probably get a scientific job too.

[@FernandoJRodriguezFernandoJRM]

@@bundleofperceptions1397 I have doubts about why do you ask, and little propensity to prove my credentials and reveal too much detail to random people in the internet. If you won’t believe me then don’t, my scientific career will go on either way.

[@phamnuwen9442]

"Over 90% of seabirds now have plastics in their guts. That's bad." This is not true. Seabirds use bits of plastic to grind up food in their gizzard if they can't find pebbles or pumice to use for this purpose. Explanation here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2auZpxrjNtqoLM

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@phamnuwen9442 Bruh, you literally linked to an interview with an industry shill (who uses his past to bolster his credentials rather than talking about what he does now) - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)#After_Greenpeace

[@tsbrownie]

I'm old enough to remember when we were told that lead in gasoline was safe. Getting the lead out came down to 1 scientist pushing the truth, but that happened in the days before corporate owned governments. Plastic is reminiscent.

[@rb8049]

The toxicity and danger of the lead TEL was well known. They simply lied to you. The documentation was clear.

[@Asphyx12]

@@rb8049 well known but lied to the whole world? How tf?

[@manfredconnor3194]

What was the joke with Mango Materials?

[@loodog555]

@@manfredconnor3194 just that it’s questionable marketing.

[@NullStaticVoid]

We also managed to get rid of CFCs in one generation. Now you can't get freon without a scientific justification.

[@thurmanzhou1304]

There was a GE plant on the Hudson river that dumped transformer oil, which was very toxic and was thought to not be biodegradable. They dug it up to find that bacteria had eaten most of it. One of the problems with plastics is what they release, for example estrogen mimics. Much stronger separately and together. Your videos are always excellent.

[@kooskroos]

Research shows micro plastics can enter cells and disturb inner workings maybe even reproduction

[@Patrik6920]

a major disadvantage of biodecomposable plastic idd...it makes ppl infertile...

[@trungson6604]

Good point, but why wait for the bacteria to digest plastic, when we can consume the plastic to produce energy ourselves? Nothing challenging about plastic wastes, this is a very easy problem to solve. Europe and to a lesser extend, the whole world, are having an energy crisis, in increasing energy prices. These plastic trash contain good amount of energy that they can be gasified and turned into combustible gases for home and industrial consumption such as for electricity generation. If gasification is too expensive, the plastic trash can be compacted, pulverized like coal, and shoved into coal-fired electric power plants to generate electricity. The combustible gases can be added to the natural gas system for consumption. Where is Greta Thunberg when we need her?

[@fivish]

I put some chain oil on a tree stump and within months it was reduced to a black power.

[@theq4602]

...did they really just dump...PCBs into the fucking hudson river

[@harrypapageorgiou5980]

I never though I'd hear Sabine saying "Shit Plastic", but I'm glad I did

[@rillloudmother]

hey, i'm not gonna kink shame...

[@blorkpovud1576]

Yup. And it was my main takeaway from the video.

[@andrewpaulhart]

German are obsessed. Their toilets have a little shelf so you can examine it before you flush 😳

[@speedomars]

High IQ people use the correct word in the correct way, often laced with a good amount of profanity.

[@CAThompson]

@@rillloudmother You just ruined the next 5 minutes for me, thanks. 😆

[@piernikowyloodek]

Thank you Sabine, the tree bark comparison was a very interesting perspective

[@Jeffrey314159]

First I heard of that. Fungus put an end to the Coal Forming Era of Earth history

[@galev3955]

Yes, it is so fascinating. I never knew that's how we ended up with carbon in the first place. Honestly has a lot of poetic irony to it.

[@simongross3122]

I don't think that's how we ended up with carbon. The carbon was always there. If it had not been captured in trees for millions of years, it would already be in the atmosphere.

[@circumsizedmind]

Good note about bio plastics. If you source the raw materials from bio mass but end up with exactly the same s _sit_ stuff then it is not bio degradable. And conversely, tweaking the regular plastic to be biodegradable should not depend much on where the raw materials come. One problem with plastics that they degrade to fast where they are needed (I had blinders on the sunny side just turn into crumbs) and yet they leftover parts can linger for decades of not centuries.

[@marzipancutter8144]

@@simongross3122 Yeah. The right phrasing is "that's how we ended up with fossil fuels in the first place"

[@anonimouse8918]

Thanks Sabine... In the UK we contributed to the oceanic plastic pollution particularly severely in the last 20 years by starting our recycling collection drive (we were waaay behind Germany) before we had the facilities to process the plastic. People in the "recycling" chain believed companies in other countries (China among others I think) who said they would "recycle" it for unbelievably low prices. Well when something is unbelievable that often means its not true and actually they often dumped the plastic in uncontrolled sites that ended up in the sea or it was dumped directly in the sea. This is what happens when people believe fantasy and over optimistic publicity. We should have put that plastic in well managed landfill sites (which would never end up in the sea or watercourse) while we properly planned the creation of the recycling /reuse infrastructure. But this would not have been the fantasy they thought the public needed hear so it ended up in the sea...THE very worst place it could be. This same effect is happening now with energy. We need to wise up or we in the rich countries end up doing the very worst things for the environment while feeling smug about it because we believe some marketing BS. For example if you have a Tesla power wall or similar and don't live off grid on some island somewhere this is what you are doing now.

[@samosborne7329]

My god someone who gets it. But surely it was common sense...so the problem is lazy greedy liar's...

[@aberreg]

If I might, I think our politicians are not so naïve: they know those countries who promise to recycle for cheap are making fake promises. But they don't care: they can tell their local electors that the problem is solved. And when news gets out that the problem is not solved, they can blame the bad foreign countries who lied to them.

[@SethTheOrigin]

Very odd that you’re blaming the victim and not the culprit. We believed what China said because they are a sovereign and developed nation, and they dumped it all without telling us. How is it our fault? Why do people never put the blame onto China?

[@carcaperu4041]

9:06 the carboniferous period lasted from 360 Mya to 300 Mya, so it lasted for 60 My no to 60 Mya.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Sorry about that. I noticed this blunder too late. I put a correction in the info below the video.

[@Aufenthalt]

Ah ok someone already noticed...

[@Zhengrui0]

Facts are important, but its all the same, really - when people say "save the Earth" from e.g. plastics, they mean keep it habitable for life as we know it. What does it matter if some way for the environment to cope with plastic emerges, but is toxic to us, or does so too late? At least these recent studies and enterprises do give some hope, I'm thankful for that

[@jasontiscione1741]

@@Zhengrui0 Doesn't sound like a very sustainable ecosystem once nobody is making plastic anymore.

[@deltalima6703]

@@Zhengrui0 true enough. The earth will be fine, those shady environmentalists just want to save themselves! Selfish hypocrites. Like those turkeys that dont stick up for those that make their own way in this world (plants) but instead stick up for those that ruthlessly murder plants for their own gain like the parasites they are (cows). Then these vegetarians have the nerve to pretend to be righteous or something. More hypocrites.

[@mheermance]

I've read that most of the plastic in the ocean isn't post consumer waste, instead it's discarded commercial fishing gear and carelessly discarded industrial waste. Unfortunately those polluters are unlikely to respond to regulations, and switching to paper drinking straws won't improve the situation.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

well, it will, but yes i get the idea.

[@0xCAFEF00D]

"those polluters are unlikely to respond to regulations" If they can't account for the plastics they brought to sea then seize their ships. Regulators have a lot of power.

[@agapitoliria]

I read this too, but I think the data is inconclusive, in wikipedia you can read about how most of it is fishing gear, but later it says "Rivers are the dominant source of plastic pollution in the marine environment [51] contributing nearly 80% in recent studies" which leads me to believe we don't know. I also read about how the garbage patch is fishing gear, but coastal platic(which is a lot too) is consumer single use stuff.

[@paradox9551]

They will never give up the chance to blame it on us, however.

[@basfinnis]

Yeh, best do nothing then.

[@JustNow42]

In a repair I was doing I should use biodegradable soap, I thought that all soap were biodegradable, anyway I asked in the shop and they told me that most soap contained non degradable micro plastic pieces so they would scrub better. They were not marked so but the good biodegradable soap was marked. The opposite world, now the safe stuff has a warning. Brave new world.

[@Rospajother]

Incredibly informative and free from hype, thank you

[@merlinkater7756]

I like the idea for using plastic as carbon in steel! sounds like one of the more eco friendly uses. Other than that perhaps melting and molding it into large solid items like plastic pallets or perhaps even walls, window frames, doors, things that don't need to bear load and preferably aren't exposed to the elements. (floors? Isolation?)

[@trungson6604]

Agree. Furthermore, Europe and to a lesser extend, the whole world, are having an energy crisis, in increasing energy prices. These plastic trash contain good amount of energy that they can be gasified and turned into combustible gases for home and industrial consumption such as for electricity generation. If gasification is too expensive, the plastic trash can be compacted, pulverized like coal, and shoved into coal-fired electric power plants to generate electricity. The combustible gases can be added to the natural gas system for consumption. Where is Greta Thunberg when we need her?

[@Pozi_Drive]

Plastic as a source for carbon COULD be usefull, but the hydrogen could become a problem. Metal hydrides are brittle. Let alone halogens. Coke is pure carbon and contains a lot more carbo in it than plastics. Don't mess with igh tech high temperature production methods.

[@Thomas-gk42]

You're entirely correct, as long as so called fossile fuels will last. Better to leave it underground, where it's saved for so many billion years. As Bee explains, CO2 will grow up anyway. So perhaps it's better to use both, steel and plastic products, for a long time, and then recycle really, by producing the same things as we used before.

[@kellikelli4413]

What about the fact that sun ☀ degrades plastic rather quickly... That's a big problem (imo).

[@Silverhaired59]

Melting plastic would require that the different types of plastic (PVC, PET, and so on) be separated out from the others. Sabine covered this in the video. You cannot treat different types of plastic alike, they have different properties. That is why you do not already see a large market for plastic re-use.

[@poruatokin]

Comment on Micro plastics in the environment - There are many studies that highlight that the highest single proportion (35%) of all micro plastics in the environment originates from the clothes that we wear and your washing machine. Just for reference the PET used in water bottles is 100% chemically identical to the polyester that is in almost every clothing item that you wear. In addition, you'll have nylon and acrylic. In total, about 50% of all clothing comprises some form of plastic. The next largest portion of micro plastics in the environment (28%) comes from car tyres that are shedding micro particles every kilometer that you drive - hint - it's why you have to replace them every 2-3 years.

[@stevejeffryes5086]

Since you talked about Magellan TV right there in your video, I feel that Magellan is fair game for a response. I recently tried Magellan. I find that their science related videos are almost entirely beyond their expiration date. Old documentaries which are disturbingly lacking in and often invalidated by later research and discoveries. I would like to watch documentaries which cover new material and new research. Magellan TV is mostly old news.

[@eds1942]

A lot of streaming services start out like that and Magellan is a fairly recent to the scene. A bunch of old, barely watchable stuff or listing each episode of a series as a unique title to boost the numbers of their available titles as a selling point to signup.

[@jonathansturm4163]

OTOH 40% of published science is invalidated by 40% of papers that contradict the other 40%. And it would be foolhardy to assume that the remaining 20% will stand the test of time...

[@justdave9610]

The downside of allowing anyone to become a sponsor is that their quality or lack thereof can reflect on you for being affiliated. But on the other hand I'm glad she's able to monetize her channel and videos well enough to justify it's continuation so it's a situation where I wouldn't put too heavy a criticism to Sabine for letting them sponsor her. But spreading awareness of your dissatisfaction is still fair.

[@pwnmeisterage]

@Roberto Vidal Garcia "They sell your information to third parties." Everybody does that now. Even the public libraries. There is no way to control who buys and sells "your" information. You can make things a little more difficult for them, you can even go completely tinfoil hat and drop off the grid, but even those things just draw more attention towards anything you want to keep "private".

[@GerardHammond]

@Roberto Vidal Garcia its a tough business selling non-fake news, high quality, reliable, authentic, forward looking, interesting science docos

[@pflichtprogramm1]

As for the 'why worry about microplastics', I was embarassed not to find a notion on the surface phenomena of microplastics. Adsorption of small organic molecules (SOM), aromatic and carcinogenic ones in particular, is crucial. It can turn microplastics into 'sponges' floating across the ocean, fishing toxic substances from it. This is even more true since plastics degrade slowly but break into pieces quickly, enhancing their surface amenable to adsorption and allowing for a much better mixing/perfusion with sea water and its solvates. When in a stomach of living animals, where temperature, pH, solvate and soluent conditions are far different from the open sea, microplastics may release these SOM into the stomach because affinity constants change and/or competitive binding partners show up and elute the adsorbed SOM. Eventually, the animal would take them up via the stomach and/or the colon. As a result, microplastics may be quite toxic. Could you comment on that, Sabine?

[@emerson-sheaapril8555]

Pretty sure she did in the video

[@nagualdesign]

Spot on.

[@Frrk]

She mentions bacteria and the like sticking to the microplastics, but not these SOMs I think. Do SOMs also stick to more "natural" particles that we ingest?

[@jimthechemist5765]

I have heard of this as speculation for quite some time, but I have not seen verification from actual measurements of microplastics recovered from the ocean. I'm skeptical that microplastics would concentrate toxic organic compounds more than the other organic particulates already present. I agree that it would be better if they were not there, but this might not be a battle that needs fighting right now without more convinving data.

[@timothyandrewnielsen]

So what? fuck fish.

[@joshwilliams6482]

Thanks!

[@RaMa-vg5xn]

Hi, I work with biodegradation of plastics and although I appreciate the effort, there are a lot of misconceptions here. Firstly, PET from bottles is amorphous, otherwise it wouldn't be transparent. It can crystallize during degradation if temperarures are too high though. Cystalline PET is e.g. used for microwavable food packaging. Secondly, PET is a special plastic in that it is a polyester. Nearly all polyesters are biodegradable, because breaking and forming ester bonds is an important part of the metabolism of fats, so nature has lots of enzymes for that. Breaking down PP or PVC is therefore a whole different story. Thirdly, it is correct that producing biobased variants of recalcitrant polymers like PP or PE is not the answer, thinking e.g. of how much energy is needed to convert the raw material and that the raw material comes from high intensity corn or sugarcane farming. However, there are bioplastics that are much more reasonable in production effort such as PLA. PLA is the plastic that is referred to with the need for industrial composting. This indeed speeds up the biodegradation dramatically, but the statement that it would degrade as slowly as a recalcitrant polymer when in a "normal" environment is simply not true. So what is the answer here? Biodegradable polymers should be used where a recovery of the material is not ascertained, think of farming, fishing and some aspects of transportation. With a proper collection system in place, combustion of plastic is a viable option. Besides steel, cement production is an industry that requires high amount of thermal energy which used to come from coal that is at least partly replacable with plastic waste.

[@mjaybee]

PET takes 450 years to biodegrade

[@RaMa-vg5xn]

@@mjaybee I wonder where that number comes from. PET is 60 years old. What mathematical model did they use to extrapolate from realistic observation times on a relatively young material to 450 years? Also, it cannot be generally correct. Using the right mictobes, my colleagues can biodegrade PET nanoparticles in a few hours

[@adrianmillard6598]

I love how you present science Sabine! You admit what you and/or science doesn't know, admit estimates, guesses and assumptions, and then pile on with the facts and the research. Its awesome! I would click LOVE your work if there was the option.

[@magnetospin]

Well, the Like button pretty much means LOVE your work.

[@HxTurtle]

well, there's an actual "love"-button (where you can express your gratitude via/through/with money).

[@adrianmillard6598]

@@HxTurtle Are you saying I don't really love something without paying money for it?

[@HxTurtle]

@@adrianmillard6598 no, I didn't say so; was just pointing out available options. (some people really love to throw money towards something they actually love; also just saying. onlyfans is probably entirely based on that principle, I think .. lol).

[@grassgeese3916]

and she is FUNNY as fuuuuuuuck

[@dj098]

Awesome presentation! Never realized how complicated this issue really is.

[@JeremyBrun]

"No-one really knows" is the eternal tribute of the humble scientist to the amount of knowledge left to be found. Sabine, you are my favorite science communicator. Please keep up with the great content!

[@sambac2053]

It is also an expression of an illogical assumption, suggesting that the speaker knows what every other human does or does not know.

[@mikesawyer1336]

Well thank goodness.. no one likes a know-it-all 😁

[@Webgobo]

Only safe conclusion in Germany it's that we all die of Corona if we don't do everything the government tells us.

[@sambac2053]

Mike Sawyer .How do you know ?

[@BlackMambo]

Oh yeah...! 👍🏽👍🏽

[@BANKO007]

Absolutely the best overview of plastic I have ever heard. I am completely with Sabine on the preference for steel in cars rather than beans.

[@Pandora234able]

This was a great introduction into the role of plastics, how they play into the greater ecosystem, and their possible remediation. I specialize in research regarding computational "reconciliation" (machine learning) of the characterization of microplastics and nanoplastics in the environment. The spectra, which tells us about the chemical bond nature of the molecules present in FTIR/Raman, is so heterogenous in composition and altered (peak shifts/peak reduction) after having been in the environment for so long that we can't accurately determine the material so a well-trained machine learning model can help reveal patterns by classifying various stages of degradation by gathering information on their signal features (points of inflection/width at half maximum). For the past year, I've been developing my dissertation over this topic and there were many things that I've learned in your video that was unbeknownst to me especially that "bioplastics" is more of an elusive marketing term than a scientific term. I concur that remediating plastics into something of a "value-added" product with great utility and less environmental impact like steel would aid in its eventual repurposing. I didn't even know that was possible but it's intuitive. You may find this interesting that Leslie in April of 2022 published a landmark paper discussing the first empirical discovery of microplastics in whole human blood taken from 22 healthy volunteers using Curie Pyrolysis. Their concentration estimate averaged to 1.6 micrograms per mL of blood which would translate to about 8 mg of blood for an average human being with 5 liters of blood in their central compartment. In my field, though theoretical, I hope to integrate biomimetic metal oxide nanoparticles that can capitalize on the degradative capabilities of certain enzymes from plants, bacteria, and fungi against various parts of the monomer of certain polymers. For example, I would like one of the nanoparticle types to be able to encapsulate 6-aminohexanoate dimer hydrolase for the degradation of Nylon-6,6 . There's also, as you've said, many papers using PETase (polyethylene terephthalate-ase) enzymes that are more degradative due to site-directed mutagenesis. In addition, there's a research group that is using some "Hxd3" strain of D. oleovorans that can take polyethylene and convert it into fatty acids for metabolism through fumarate addition. I digress, but there's so much importance in this due to the potential toxicology plastics have to our bodies. There's a growing body of hypothesized evidence towards PET as an endocrine disrupting hormone that decreases the fecundity (fertility) of species across the world including human beings. It's a HUGE area of research with many disciplines that intersect it: polymer chemistry, environmental science, biotechnology, toxicology, endocrinology, marine science, analytical chemistry, etc. Another reason why science should become more interdisciplinary. I can imagine distilling the role of plastics in this video was a challenge as there is so much to talk about. Thanks again and great haircut!!

[@SquamusThomas]

I could listen to you talk about plastic for hours you have such a calming yet compelling way of discussing these subjects!!!

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

customer: "Can I get a plastic bag with that fish?" vendor: "Oh, don't worry! It's already inside!"

[@observeoutofthebox7806]

the fuck is libertarian leninist lmaoo Lenin was a hard leftist and a communist. Us communists despise the shit out of Libertarians. It's more of a western pseudo leftist ideology that is derived from first world ideals and not truly an internationale ideology.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

The Wealthy create most of the pollution and they are the ones with the means to do something real about it. Redistribute Wealth first, then talk to me about plastic.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

@@observeoutofthebox7806 _"Lenin was a hard leftist and a communist."_ Yes, I know. All Communists are against the state. We just disagree on the method how to get rid of it. And "Libertarianism"? The original usage of libertarianism was referring to socialists. By using this term deliberately, I'm only taking it back from those market worshippers. "While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." Lenin, State and Revolution

[@andrewj22]

@@LibertarianLeninistRants Whoa whoa... There's two radically different ways socialism can be theoretically realized: 1) State and 2) Anarchist (a.k.a. libertarian). From everything I know about Lenin, he would be considered a state socialist, not a libertarian socialist.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

@@andrewj22 I know. But in the end, every Communist (including Lenin) wanted to get rid of the state. It's just about how. The state socialists want to take over the state, build up socialism and once that is done get rid of the state. Anarchists want to abolish the state and capitalism simultaneously during the revolution. But the end state is the same for both, a stateless socialist society

[@petemack3076]

The biggest problem about recycling/incinerating/biodegrading was never mentioned: end point recovery. Much is lost in litter, or simply the labor cost of separation. This will remain an issue no matter how effective the reuse mechanism. Additionally, seawater at roughly 15C is perhaps not the ideal environment for biodegradation.

[@brendanward2991]

9:05 - The Carboniferous lasted from approximately 360 to 300 million years ago.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Dang, sorry about that. I'll put a correction in the info. Thanks for pointing out!

[@mjnyc8655]

What's more, there are lots of post-carboniferous coal deposits.

[@kebrus]

@@mjnyc8655 serious question: why? Is it because the matter in those deposits never got the proper conditions for bacteria to live in?

[@terencebooth8271]

@@kebrus Termites and their attendant gut microbes didn’t evolve until after the Carboniferous. Coal still formed later but much less prodigiously.

[@kebrus]

@@terencebooth8271 I got that part, my question is why the coal still formed after bacteria and termites exist. Can for example still form today?

[@brown131]

In regard to microplastics in the environment: While it is alarmist to assume it is bad when we don't know what the affects are, it is just as foolish to assume that it's OK.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

The Wealthy create most of the pollution and they are the ones with the means to do something real about it. Redistribute Wealth first, then talk to me about plastic.

[@linuxpython935]

I think that it is much more important to get the plastics, and in particular the microplastics, out of the ecosystem, than worrying about the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because the microplastics can have severe direct impact on our ecosystem, like destroying maritime life. The plastics on the bottom of the sea also destroy maritime life, because not all of that lives in the upper regions of the water. Most notably, crusteans and the like are affected, but maybe kelp as well. The smaller the particles get, the more insidious could be the effect. Eg. nanoparticles are said to be able to traverse the blood-brain barrier. Let's also not forget chemical effects. Eg. PET is said to have similar effects as estrogen, causing eg. cancers and deformation in supposedly male organisms, thus also disrupting the ecosystems. The best idea to reduce plastics in the ecosystem seems to be to me, to just avoid plastics, and to revert to natural materials. Eg. cotton instead of synthetics and metal, wood or glass instead of plastics. This could be done in many cases, but of course, has different tradeoffs.

[@desmond-hawkins]

Great video! I thought it would be fitting to recommend a recent video from the Maker's Muse channel, which covers 3D printing and related topics (title: "PLA - 3D Printing's Biggest Lie"). Most consumer 3D printers use PLA or polylactic acid, which is in fact made from renewable sources such as corn, beet pulp, or sugarcane. One common misconception - and oft-repeated claim - is that PLA is "biodegradable" and can be sent to the landfill where it will decompose as if it was a pile of vegetable trimmings. This is not the case at all, in fact he featured a test from a different channel showing no discernible change in the material after 2 years spent underwater, or buried, or left in the sun (Wikipedia mentions a 2017 study which "found that at 25°C in seawater, PLA showed no loss of mass over a year"). This kind of misleading claim has probably led many to throw their failed or broken 3D prints with compostable material, where it will remain for a very long time without degrading. To actually degrade PLA properly requires industrial composting in heaps over 60°C; some enzymes can also help.

[@kyron6643]

Sabine, you have a superb science channel. You keep to the science, making many topics more clear for us, the general public. Also, calling those common "science" headlines for the BS they are is a great contribution, coming from a real and serious scientist. One little clarification, though, the Carboniferous lasted 60 million years, from 360 mya to 300 mya. 😃

[@robertwoodhouse406]

Using old plastics to help produce steel is exactly the kind of thinking we need more of. Getting energy back out of discarded items is much better than landfills. Nobody should be allowed to send material offshore for disposal or reclaim by countries that have shown a poor track record of environmental stewardship.

[@IlluminatiBG]

Great video. I always expected plastics eventually to become artificially or naturally biodegradable, but the problem with that is while this is good for plastic bottles, plastics is also used a lot as a lightweight structural element with high longevity which will be really bad if subjected into uncontrolled degradation, like uncontrolled spread bacteria around that can digest plastic. Degradation of plastic bottles and garbage - good. Degradation of structural elements of infrastructure - bad.

[@sam5992]

Ah crap, my building's sick! Anyone have any remedies?

[@auntieroach]

Oh that is a very interesting point. If plastics became truly degradable in an uncontrolled capacity, where naturally occuring microbes eat away at cars and plumbing... Life for us humans would change SIGNIFICANTLY.

[@Patrik6920]

Idd a valid point...and one of greate concern for us...alao...this bacteria can not be allowed to live for long b4 self dying...tests so faar been done in a limited fashion on synthetic bactera that eats itself full while decomposing plastics...and then die.... one very big concer is if thay would spread to nature... the unforseen consequences are almost unimaginable... immagine a bacteria that is restant to all forms of penecelline, eats plastics and skin/humans for lunch... we have as a species been very good poison our enviroment... a pattern that must stop now...

[@tochka832]

problem isnt really new, wood is a common polymer that is used in construction, there are ways to make it hard to biodegrade, by various treatments. would require some thought and effort of course, but also you can deliberately create micro organisms that digest only spectrum of plastic that are not meant to last, while not touching others, at least, until evolution takes over.

[@alangil40]

This was actually part of the premise of Ringworld, the famous sci-fi novel by David Niven. Ringworld was this huge artificial world created by aliens and as the name suggests it was a 90 million mile radius ring around a star, so the surface area was many millions of times larger than earth. By the time humans discovered Ringworld, a bacterium naturally evolved which digested and ate all of their plastics (and maybe other materials) dissolving the ability for cities to communicate with each other and eventually leading to the collapse of civilization on Ringworld. (This is from memory, so I might have gotten something wrong)

[@cesartrujillo4190]

You are hilarious. It really is amazing how some things we purchase really break down relatively quickly. I wish more items listed the expected life time that they should last. I’m a little worried about electric vehicles outlasting the softer plastic interiors especially as we increase the use of sanitizers between occupants of rideshare vehicles. Clothing can be a great protectant between occupants but when it’s warm, we wear shorts, skirts, and tank tops exposing more skin to those supple hard to sanitize interiors.

[@w0mblemania]

Here in South Australia, we have no plastic soft drink bottles or cans lying by the side of the road. For decades now, we've had a recycling scheme whereby you got 5 cents (later upgraded to 10 cents) per bottle or can that you returned for recycling. You could even return the bottles to a local shop. Coca Cola fought this initiative, as it continues to do in other regions, claiming it adds to the cost of their sugar-water. However, we do still have plenty of other plastic trash: all the bottle caps and other detritus of modern life. Also, for mostly political reasons, wine bottles are not included in the refund scheme.

[@alanball6691]

That was a serious eye opener as far as the so called 'bio degradable' plastic industry is concerned. Great video as usual S.

[@AndreasStanglPlus]

The big bonus of "bioplastics" is, that they are not made from fossil resources, so when they finally are burned, degrade or whatever, it is not changing the amount of CO2 in the natural cycle.

[@kellylienau646]

If I could add my two cents, another problem with bio based products is growing the crops needed for the products requires a lot of petroleum for the machinery and the fertilizer. More and more land is also being cleared for these crops. Land that was helping sequester CO2. This also goes for ethanol that is added to fuels for transportation. I just don’t see the benefit.

[@TheBerserker50]

sure. it didn't open ones eyes to total plastic production over the last 75 years because it would blow your mind (rough guess 9-12 billion metric tons)and she avoided the fact that each year we produce more. not sure why she avoided those statistics.

[@Sorgesol]

I have never been this entertained when listening to someone talk about plastic... Laughed especially much at the soy bean car. Also, as a side note, I did learn a few things between my chuckling.

[@eglintonflats]

You seemed to be easily amused.

[@7CAJONEZ]

I have several cars more than 50 years old. No plastic. Unless you consider rubber a plastic. The seats are spring steel covered in burlap, cotton bat and cotton or linen fabric. Even the wire insulation is rubber wrapped with cotton braid. The lights are glass. So we dont need plastic. But it sure is convenient. Cant have modern HDTV, electronics, cell phone etc without it. Or covid vaccine.

[@orlock20]

In Brazil, vehicles were running on egg plants which were turned into biofuel.

[@Markle2k]

I think you will find a significant amount of Bakelite and other early plastics in classic cars. The one you are most likely to touch is the knobs and switches and distributor cap. Also, synthetic rubber is plastic and that came quickly in WWII.

[@richardgreen7225]

The soybean-based plastic body components would not rust, and were mechanically quite durable. Henry Ford was always seeking ways to spread the wealth created by the automotive industry.

[@python27au]

The thing that annoys me is the supermarkets going “green” they have taken out all the free plastic bags and replaced them with expensive plastic bags🤔. How this is better I’m not sure. But more than 90% of the things that go into the bags are still wrapped in plastic. So the end result is i pay more for the same amount of trash, so much for going green. As for using plastic in steel? If it works go for it.

[@NowhereNear42]

Many thanks, Sabine! I never heard that coal story before. The only thing I know about the Carboniferous was that it was the age when ferns and trees turned into coal. But I didn't know that there is a well known biological reason for this. This is very valuable knowledge because it links two stories.

[@Ironic1950]

If you read Patrick Moore, the ecologist, you would have known that coal was made from polymers before nature developed a mechanism to recycle the cellulose and lignin they are made from...

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

If we would introduce a microbes that digest plastic.. would that mean that all our plastic items would start to rot? Your car tires would literally be eaten off the rims. Fungus can only start to consume plants that are dead and no longer can defend themselves. How would this work on plastics that have no defensive capabilities?

[@joshua43214]

rubber and plastic are different things. You point is taken though. I prefer to think of all those lovely water bottles that yuppies love so much degrading in their electric cars :)

[@Jopie65]

😂 Hmmm what do I smell near my Tupperware cupboard? Oh no, all my crockery is over the expiration date!

[@fabiant.2485]

It's unlikely that those completely new microbes would be magically able to get everywhere and survive in all types of environments. An apt comparison would be wood. There are plenty of microbes and fungi in the world that can break down wood, but that doesn't mean that a random block of wood on your living room table will spontaneously start to rot. You can leave it there for several years and it will likely show little signs of wear. If you bury it in a forest ground however, where those kinds of microbes are native, it will be gone within a few months. However in some environment (probably warm and wet ones) plastics which are permanently exposed to the elements like those used in construction, would likely have to be replaced slightly more frequently and/or be treated in specific ways to slow down degradation.

[@KerbalFacile]

It's the plot from an old scifi novel "Mutant 59". There's also an episode of British TV show "Doomswatch" by the same authors focusing on the same topic. Basically all our stuff starts rotting and giving off explosive gases, it's a disaster for everything buried in the ground especially for electric wires and gas ducts.

[@mureebe1]

We should engineer them good enough to eat plastic in controlled environments, but not in a natural environment (and hope that natural evolution don't break our control).

[@d.k.barker9465]

Good discussion! Weight was another reason glass bottles were replaced with plastic. This greatly reduced the cost of handling, transportation and fuel use.

[@babstra55]

my ex was a conservator, and she said the biggest problem they have with conserving modern art is that plastics degrade so fast and there's almost nothing you can do. so basically most of the modern art after 1960s will be lost in just a few decades.

[@CAThompson]

Is that plastic sculpture, or acrylic paint as well? If it's the latter that's pretty sad.

[@iankclark]

Thank God.

[@nooneinparticular3370]

And that's a good thing.

[@andrewharrison8436]

... and that's a bad thing? Ahh, you mean modern art that's artistic - sorry. it does sound as if conservators might have the data points to really say how long plastic lasts, although I expect a lot of it is in thin films and surface appearance which doesn't tell us much about solid blocks.

[@babstra55]

@@andrewharrison8436 the very little I know about conserving classical objects is that the main issues tend to be those exact thin films like glues and lacquers. first issue is finding out what was used, and the second issue is reproducing them. I mean you can't just throw a modern material over some mona lisa and not ruin it forever. nor can you glue the cracks in an ancient altar with epoxy. not sure how relevant that's to modern art (being a classical painter myself), but modern artists are notorious for using random materials with little to no regard for longevity. often even deliberately making their work transient.

[@TheGreatFilterPodcast]

"Ok - you may say, 'Who cares about seabirds and fish?' " I sincerely hope nobody watching this video actually said (or thought) that.

[@finwefingolfin7113]

If you change the question slightly to ''Who cares about seabirds and fish enough to modify their lifestyle? '' then the answer is almost no-one.

[@telwood15]

Nor did I.

[@chertfoot1500]

@@finwefingolfin7113 Honolulu passed a no-bag law a few years ago. There's a million people who modified their behavior for the sea life.

[@vencik_krpo]

There've been several long-term studies on how "bio-degradable" plastics really degrade in real-world conditions. One of them was conducted for 5 or 6 years at Faculty of Agronomy, Mendel University in Brno (unless I'm much mistaken). They set up compost heaps, following the manufacturer's documentation, to degrade bio-plastic bags marked as bio-degradable. The conclusion was that even after these years (when the bags should've been pretty much degraded), they only decomposed into bits---much like normal plastic bags. If I remember correctly, the main issue they mentioned was keeping the compost warm enough for the degrading process. As always, just because something works in the lab doesn't mean it works industrially.

[@joemerino3243]

The behavior of compost piles is strange. Some things persist in compost piles, yet seem to vanish from the ground surface. Oxygen and sunlight availability no doubt play a role, besides the different micro (and macro) detritivores.

[@vencik_krpo]

@@joemerino3243 Yes indeed, UV radiation in particular has notable effect. But those bags were designed and explicitly labeled to be compostable (I should've noted that).

[@sciencoking]

Plastics being a carbon capture medium is the hottest take I've learned in recent times

[@L.Scott_Music]

This was really really good. Thank you. It's funny how one can have bits of knowledge taken from many sources and then someone comes along and makes a presentation that puts it all together in logical order. I already knew a lot of this but could not have explained it clearly. Now I can.

[@holdinmuhl4959]

For about 20 years I've got a garden. The pre-owner was not interested in saving the environment as I am and so from time to time I find plastics or what remained of it in the soil of my vegetable patches. 20 years are not a very long time but I can say that almost all of my findings are very brittle. When I try to pull them out of the soil they almost break into crumbles. Thus I assume that there are bacteria or funghi in the soil that can already digest such things. The findings become less with every year and the pieces are smaller and smaller. There are other things like gum, leather and metals that are in a better shape(whereas gum is also plastic).

[@LearnThaiRapidMethod]

I did my own (involuntary) testing of how long plastics last! Plastic bags for carrying your shopping around seem to last about 3-4 months. The plastic used for storing rice and pasta: about a year or two. That expensive plastic (PVC) tarpaulin for shading lasted maybe 3 years, but started deteriorating within 2 years. The plastics used for microwave fast food, that electronic toothbrush or shaver, etc. etc. start to deteriorate after about 5 years if dumped in a landfill at the back of the garden and maybe a bit longer if you keep them indoors in a clean and controlled environment. Don’t keep important papers or foodstuffs in plastic bags (or even folders) in you want them to last; they need to be transferred to new containers every 10 years or less. My plastic fans, bins, water coolers, kids toys etc. have never lasted more than 10 years: they get damaged by this time, but if left lying around in the garden and the sun and the rain will be completely gone after 10 years. :)

[@Novacification]

Completely gone is a bit of a misnomer. No longer visible to the naked eye is more likely the case.

[@smallworldbigworld-yi3xw]

Probably have become micrcoplastics.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@Novacification >more likely the case. You dont need facts when you have a mystical ideal like environmentalism.

[@Novacification]

@@TeaParty1776 sniffing glue will rot your brain, friend. I suggest you give up the habit.

[@jozefwoo8079]

The biodegradable trash bags we get in Belgium (we've had them for years) really degrade very fast, if I keep them more than a week with food in there, the bag starts falling apart. I'm far from being an expert but that looks pretty biodegradable to me 🙂

[@davidhawley1132]

And that's the tradeoff, isnt it. Ideally, we want something that will last forever until we snap our fingers to say Begone.

[@jozefwoo8079]

@@davidhawley1132 well put

[@Ironic1950]

Those bags are just non-biodegradeable plastic, mixed with starch, so they disintegrate but don't really biodegrade ..

[@craigbuckley6040]

Sabine, thank you very much for your pragmatic presentation regarding our global problem of plastics.....I remember decades ago when the first plastic milk cartons were produced and an environmental studies professor predicted that this was just the beginning....ugh! I am hopeful we can solve this chemistry problem, but as the population of the earth continues to grow....a daunting task! Thank you very much again....great job 🤗🤗🤗👍👍👍

[@jonnyhifi]

Fascinating - as always you “bring more to the table” by your prep for each video than I know from having a good “scientific general knowledge” A lot here I was unaware of. Thank you Sabine!

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

The Wealthy create most of the pollution and they are the ones with the means to do something real about it. Redistribute Wealth first, then talk to me about plastic.

[@harrypalmer3481]

Sabine Hossenfelder gets my vote, her 'worst' videos are excellent. This video covers information I've been following from various sources for a while & does it with some breadth, detail & more concisely than I've seen anywhere else so far.

[@zeebeefpv2273]

Thank You Sabine! Your information is correct and I hope changes minds. Please take alook at landfills, as properly managed landfills are the BEST places for waste plastic (if not burned immediately like Sweden does). It protects the environment from organic liquids via the liner. It stabilizes the contents for future land reclamation due to its benign nature there (and, as you noted, is sequestered carbon). Plastic is used to capture methane offgassing of the organic materials for reuse. And finally landfills denote exactly where to find plastics in 300 years when we want togo backand mine it for fuel once we burn up our coal and oil.

[@sinkler123]

So happy I recently found this channel, you approach subjects i thought i was fairly familiarized with, and yet I learned so much from these videos. Kudos.

[@loodog555]

It’s just nice to have well researched summaries on the issues, with solid sources consulted and listed.

[@aboomination897]

i probably don't even know how seafood without microplastic tastes like

[@LePedant]

Chances are you have had tank grown sea animals.

[@aboomination897]

@muhahaha i drink tap water (living in a country where that's safe to do)

[@diegog1853]

In general... I think we should leave single use plastic behind, we didn't need them sixty years ago, and we don't need them now. Les us use again glass coke bottles instead of plastic ones (like beer bottles stil do), let us use paper bags instead of plastic bags, cardboard boxes for milk and juice instead of plastic containers. The only reason companies use plastic now is because its the cheapest to manufacture, and one of the only reasons we are looking into alternative plastics is to give them an alternative cheap option. But... we don't actually need that plastic, and we don't need to just grant favors to the companies littering the planet. They should be forced to role back to previous technologies, even if the products may increase in price a little, and then let them invest in those old materials to come up with cheaper solutions.

[@TheBoofhead]

I have recently made a routine to watch one of your videos every morning. Everyday now I feel way more knowledgable in areas that I survived in pure ignorance - thank you

[@michelegianni389]

I do love your brain, doctor Sabine ❤️️

[@dersieborg5088]

....I guess your assistant called Igor?

[@rogeriopenna9014]

Hope you are not talking that from a Hannibal Lester perspective

[@tim40gabby25]

@@rogeriopenna9014 lector

[@rogeriopenna9014]

@@tim40gabby25 lectEr, not lectOr. and I had written lectEr on my cell phone, which auto corrected it to Lester.

[@tim40gabby25]

@@rogeriopenna9014 I know. By myself deliberately getting it wrong, it means that you don't feel somehow 'corrected' by a stranger. For precision, one might even capitalise, as in 'Lecter'. :)

[@rickknight1810]

A really fascinating discussion of plastic waste. One thing missing, however, is a few words about the distinction between single-use plastics and polymers that are part of durable goods like furniture, buildings, etc. The computer I'm typing on is almost entirely made of polymers, as is the chair I'm sitting in, the paint on my wall, and the coating on my steel file cabinet. These items will last for decades to centuries before possibly ending up in a landfill, long after I'm gone. The reason this matters is that some environmental activists have adopted a view that all plastics should be banned, without thinking through the question of how to replace them. Should we make smartphones out of wood? Aluminum? Ceramics? These would be either environmentally destructive in other ways, or much heavier and thus both impractical and more energy-consuming. We should focus our attention on single-use plastics.

[@CAThompson]

@Sabine Hossenfelder: Guten Nachmittag! I've seen clothing and shoes made out of recycled plastic, did you find out anything interesting about that side of things? One thing I do wonder about is if all the growing of plants for making wooden disposable cutlery is going to bring its own set of problems such as land-clearing, displacing wildlife and people, etc.. Wood is still probably better than plastic regarding ecosystems I guess.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

I haven't looked into this, but if this video goes okay I'll put it on the list. I'm always a little worried with new topics that they'll confuse the almighty AI and end up sinking to the bottom of KZbin, never to be seen again.

[@CAThompson]

@@SabineHossenfelder ... Like a discarded plastic bottle. I would hope though your regular audience would help keep your videos afloat. I for one rather enjoy that you've been diving into such diverse topics. Also, I've been watching 'Undecided with Matt Ferrell' on new energy technologies, that channel is pretty informative.

[@Aufenthalt]

Germans don't say good afternoon but good day after noon😉

[@homewall744]

And what happens to the clothing/shoes once they are worn out just a few years later?

[@jonathansturm4163]

@@homewall744 Poor people’s shoes were commonly made of wood until quite recently. Think traditional Dutch clogs. You don’t see too many piles of them hanging around these days. What you do find during archaeological digs are leather shoes. The tanning of animal skins creates a remarkably long-lived material.

[@jdos2]

Thank you, Sabine (and Co.) for the overview! Following this news over the past 30 years or so has been interesting - our world society is finding more and more choices on how to deal with the plastic waste. Maybe someday we'll be mining those landfills for plastic and metals?

[@zeebeefpv2273]

Landfill mining - blew me away when I first heard of it 5 years ago or so- count me in as a fan.

[@NullStaticVoid]

I've worked in breweries and industrial scale food production (think energy bars and natural cereal). In a lot of cases you aren't paying for the product so much as the container it is in plus all the processing it takes to get it there. Plastic bottles and similar packaging are extremely easy to fill on an automated bottling line. They don't shatter into a thousand pieces from one misfeed. They don't shift on a pallet during transport in the warehouse and destroy themselves. This is a large part of why plastic has replaced glass for a lot of products. One broken bottle shuts down the bottling line for an hour at least. The cost of a consumer getting glass in their beverage is higher than the lost production! But we also put additives in the food to make it move through the machine more easily. Kind of like how you might take laxatives? One of the eye openers to me about plastic pollution is that most of the plastic in the environment does not come from consumers not recycling. It's the tiny plastic pellets that are used to make products in the first place. They blow out of rail cars and factories, and are carried away by wind, birds mistaking them for seeds etc. There isn't a part of the ocean where they are not present. So the best solution isn't recycling. A lot of that never gets recycled anyway, but ends up in a controlled landfill. Better to just never buy anything with plastic or plastic packaging. Sure the corn and soy based versions are not much better. But they are not as evil. And in a lot of cases you can buy stuff in bulk or otherwise not encumbered by packaging. Sadly I think this topic causes so much confusion that people just give up and do nothing.

[@tommymandel]

Thank you for another thought provoking and informative lesson Sabine. Unfortunately, the word 'unfortunately' appears so many times in your videos. But so be it. One fortunate thing this video highlights is how MUCH work IS being done to try to save our future generations. GO SCIENCE!!!

[@mayflowerlash11]

"Mango materials, ... seriously?" LOL. Sabine is priceless.

[@Chris-hx3om]

And the little sideways glance off camera.... I also had a nice laugh at that.

[@sdjhgfkshfswdfhskljh3360]

It is sad that plastic nowadays more political that scientifical problem. Scientists have lots of "we don't know", but politics know everything, and act accordingly. Producing more chaos than initial problem created.

[@JohnSmith-iv3lo]

You could do an entire episode on "conflicting priorities in science." You could mention plastics and CO2 as one of them.

[@bobedgar6647]

Yes, conflicts in science, like everything else. I’m wishing for more acknowledgment that very much of our “knowledge” concerning environmental issues is “made up” ala NOAA and fishing line. I used to go on about Chimpanzees and humans having 99% DNA in common. My question was always: how do they/we/you know that? The technology to measure it wasn’t around when I was younger, not so terribly long ago, but we all knew this to be true. Like how much of your brain is actually used. “Show me the data and methods!”, should be a frequent response to most every claim.

[@homewall744]

Until/unless we have good alternatives, it seems that burying the plastic is the best bet. It sequesters all that carbon and keeps it out of our environment (oceans, rivers, air) and does "break down" (which just means it's released into the air).

[@jonathansturm4163]

@@bobedgar6647 I can assure you that despite the evidence, the human brain uses 100% of its capacity-it’s simple thermodynamics.

[@bobedgar6647]

@@jonathansturm4163 it’s actually evolution. Wasting that much energy has a tremendous cost and organisms that don’t have to bear that cost are going to be fitter, in general. I’m not claiming that the claim was correct. Quite the contrary, I’m pointing out that “everyone” knew something that was simply made up. There are more instances than we could count I fear

[@jonathansturm4163]

@@bobedgar6647 Absolutely. My bugbear is the failure to include embodied energy in supposed green tech. On Friday I had my first ride in a Tesla motor car. Thirty years or more ago I had a conversation with an engineer working for Mercedes. He told me that it took the average vehicle 18 years to consume an amount of energy equal to that used to manufacture the vehicle. The average age of the Australian motor car is 10 years though the estimated lifespan of the Tesla I believe will be closer to 12 years. Since it cost quite a significant amount more energy to manufacture than an ICE vehicle in energy terms, it’s a step backward. Of course the average ICE vehicle can’t reach 100 mph in less than 4 seconds...

[@osliec]

Hopefully some other biologist have also noted this: Sure, one of the problems for the seabirds, sea turtles (and other megafauna) is clogging of the stomach / digestive tract. But another equally serious problem worth mentioning is that the animals have a full stomach and starve to death...! The hunger regulation system (eat/not eat) is strongly influenced by the degree of filling of the stomach (also known from humans, Grehlin/Leptin system etc), so probably the birds stop eating when their stomach is full, but still starve to death as they cannot digest plastic...!

[@JosephKeenanisme]

There has been recent fungi and bacteria discoveries of natural, engineered, and trained (fungi can be trained) to eat plastics. Would be great to have vats of fungi to eat plastic trash, but on the same turn having something get out into the environment that would eat your tires while driving to work or chew away at the rubber insulation on a power utility transformer would suck (having a weaponized version of the bacteria/fungi, which some government would eventually come up with).

[@chuck_moore]

Hello Sabine, Nicely done video. Got a question: At about 9:08 into the video, the Carboniferous Period is stated to range from '360 to 60 million years ago'. Should that be '360 to 300 million years ago' ? Just wondering.

[@ZoltanVaci0]

Yes.

[@mitchellminer9597]

It seems to me that if plastic doesn't biodegrade, it's just strangely shaped floating gravel. The more inert it is, the less poisonous. If it is biodegrading, it could be leaching all kinds of sh*t. On the other hand, biodegradable plastics are very bad at storing things or being durable furniture. There's degraded plastic all around, and some of it is degrading too quickly.

[@Furiends]

Most plastic is used in disposable products and therefor its biodegrading property is just a simplification of any kind of managed waste system which these companies refuse to fund. In reality we don't need any of this. We need a tax on carbon and then companies won't use plastics that are impossible to reuse or recycle.

[@telectronix1368]

except that the plastics we use are not 'inert'

[@Furiends]

@@telectronix1368 glass is inert whatdayaknow

[@telectronix1368]

...aaand back to the topic: plastics.

[@michaelpettersson4919]

I remember years ago when it was found out that plastic bottles effected their content with such leakage. Supposadly they fixed that now but that mean bottles that degrade slower.

[@odyssey21thcentury41]

My big issue with plastics is that there's nothing long term reliable to made from it, it's just plain bad in everything except for the low production cost. Nobody cares about recycling it, I know because I work in a recycling center, everytime I see a batch of plastic coming in I know that this is going to end up elsewhere with the trash. When I wrote ''nobody cares'' it's literally ''nobody'', there's not a single penny coming out from it and this right after the 1st use. I'm not anti-plastics, it's just disheartening to see people glad to make a good action when I know it's for nothing.

[@yashaouchan]

I would like to say thank you Sabine for your awesome videos with dad jokes. I always love the information presented in a very professional and truthful way. I admire what the top scientists are doing right now. It's the only hope I have of seeing my dream if a world like Star Trek. Where money doesn't matter and everyone lives up to their own potentials. Thank you.

[@jamestimmons6838]

Since the carbon is already solid and stabilized, it would seem that grinding and compressing the plastics and burying them in old coal mines and pit mines would be a much simpler form of carbon capture than what is currently proposed. As these solids slowly degraded, the carbon dioxide would be absorbed by surrounding rock. Plastic production could be a way to use oil and coal stocks without converting them to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

[@haydenhuffines8648]

You can't separate issues from their context. In this case, it's not an issue of means, but $$$. Good luck getting this capitalist hellscape to spend extra money for the sake of the environment. If an ongoing cost, like paying to haul plastic waste to the dump, could be turned into a revenue stream, that's a solution this world is willing to accept. In this case, it's why Sabine likes the substitution of plastic in the manufacture of steel. Any idea that allows the plastic to be sold and used is one that has real potential to be adopted at scale. I'm personally looking for a bit more of a longshot, and as soon as she mentioned the free hydrogens from microwaving plastics, I thought of fuel cells. www.fuelcellstore.com/blog-section/what-is-a-fuel-cell If you can get more energy out of such a fuel cell than needed for the microwaving/ect, that could end the issue of plastic waste overnight.

[@michaelblacktree]

That's what I was thinking, as well. Compress the plastic into blocks, and dump it into unused mines. That said, I'm not sure if there are enough mines to hold all the plastic waste we create.

[@Furiends]

I agree although you also have to offset the use of existing plastic. Otherwise you're still contributing to emissions in production.

[@dsc4178]

Not a bad idea, after all they dump stuff into garbage pits, why not mines?

[@jimthechemist5765]

Mixed waste plastic can easily be formed into pellets. These have poor tensile and ductility properties, but the compressive strength should not be bad. Could properly designed mixed waste pellets be used as landfill or aggregate for concrete?

[@dsavchuk1]

Thank you Dr. Hossenfelder for a wonderful video. I was fascinated by the beauty of the idea that the evolutionary gap between the ability of trees to produce lignin and the ability of fungi and bacteria to decompose it explains coal's formation. However, a quick search lead to a wikipedia citation to the paper from 2016 by Nelsen et al. published in Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2016 Mar 1; 113(9): 2442-2447) that provides evidence that it was actually not the case: they attribute it mostly to "a unique combination of climate and tectonics during Pangea formation". I am not a specialist in the area and I have no my own opinion here. But could that be another instance similar to your "Lost in Math" narrative?

[@adultsuede4384]

Legitimately surprised that this wasn't released as the part of the #TeamSea stuff I've been seeing around. Very nice to see a solid breakdown of the numbers, chemistry, and data of plastic in the environment presented clearly and in an easy to consume way!

[@billbradleymusic]

The same tree hugger's are the assholes that pushed plastics as the planet savior. Ever heard of green peace? It's disgusting. Keep your stupid ideas to yourselves.

[@edward_grabczewski]

As someone who's had a concern about this topic for years, this video was fascinating. Thank you!

[@gustavderkits8433]

Thank you for this. One issue that makes things more complex is that most commercial plastics are not simple polymers. They are mixtures of a primary polymer with other organic compounds, usually small molecules that change the physical properties so that the material can be shaped. The slow evaporation and degradation of low molecular weight elasticizers is responsible for the loss of mechanical stability of plastic sculptures, plates, etc.But the underlying polymer may still dominate the environmental impact of the plastic. I believe you are correct about biopolymers. Biopolymers are just the result of using biologically-derived feedstock. It will be more damaging to the environment to replace current plastics with biopolymers because of the inefficiencies in the process.

[@scottfranco1962]

If RFID tags are comolded into plastics, as is already done with many products, the plastic can be separated from the recycle materials and fed back, most likely to the original manufacturer. This just needs the will to implement it. It just happens to help retailers as well, since RFIDing all products makes things like mass purchase work (passing a cart by a reader to purchase).

[@AxMi-24]

That would just lead to a huge increase in transport as you would be returning plastic to the manufacturer rather than to a local concentration centre. Better to legislate specific plastics, lower actual use, most of us have good quality water in the pipe so there is little to no need bottled water, fruit has its own packaging so no need for juices either, and so on. Every extra step you add in the process is tons of energy extra and thus environmental impact.

[@scottfranco1962]

@@AxMi-24 ok. But I don't see that as either/or. Look if you're a thinking person this is not a simple thing. I try to recycle everything with a triangle on it, but they don't (in California) want to do just dump dirty plastics into the recycle bin. So over to the sink it goes. So fine, I recycle plastics, but I am wasting water, a no-no in California. We need to try different solutions. A lot of plastics are already RFIDed, and we don't have any solutions to the mixed plastics problem". So lets try the solution about reducing the different kinds of plastics. Lets try marking plastics. I don't use disposable water bottles, but here in California, everyone and their dog uses them, even people who call themselves "green". IE., lets try stuff out and not just shoot down other peoples solutions.

[@hfislwpa]

Learned a lot today, thanks as always!

[@AmitGafny]

Great video. The one thing that is still missing in it is the near and far future consequences and the . How would you deal with the whole plastic problem, from your point of view... is it a lost cause to save the planet and its whole biosphere? Knowing that these materials are here to stay for thousands of years and as current technology( with all the adapted bacteria that digest plastic) seems not enough to save us from over trashing our planet. I think that a strong message of stating on how to clean or eliminate this concern is essential so we must rethink again before we buy these non-degradable materials -is important now more than ever. Having said that, as always, I appreciate your videos, and they are always done profoundly and with great informative detail that includes research studies and conclusions. Thanks, Sabine.

[@jonathonjubb6626]

Brilliant, as usual. Thank you, again.

[@samatoid]

Brilliant? She makes obvious mistakes and does not come close to presenting the range valid arguments on the subject. She is brilliant, but this is not her subject.

[@decalco1373]

She is far from brilliant. After checking many mistakes she is spreading, I realized that she is a mouthpiece of the German Leftist propaganda machine.

[@isntitabeautifulday1648]

@@samatoid What obvious mistakes do you think she made?

[@johnbarbuto5387]

Very well done, in my view. It is a difficult issue. The commentary on "biodegradable that isn't" and carbon cycling add further levels of insight and complexity to the subject.

[@danguillou713]

Interesting and clear. I do miss some discussion of the chemistry though. Not just: will this material break down, or will it physically linger in the environment? But also: when broken down or burned: what does it break down into? There’s a very big difference between things like cellulose, polyvinyls or polysacharides on one hand that break down into carbon dioxide and trace amounts of a few other mostly benevolent elements. And … PVC, which when broken down or burnt generate compunds with covalent chloride, such as dioxins and PCBs (poly chlorinated biphenyls). Cathegories of chemical compunds that tend to be highly toxic and bioaccumulative. Some plastics, while chemically harmless themselves contain additives for color, hardness or other desirable properties, that have similar problems. Like Sabine says, the chemical diversity of materials in the ”plastic bin” makes recycling difficult. The result is that a lot of plastic end up either burnt for heat and electricity in plants, or in landfills. (Sidebar: do not burn plastic material in your own stove or fireplace thinking ”it’ll all burn anyway ”. An industrial incinerator can control temperature and oxygen flow, and guarantee a very nearly complete break down. Some may also have, potentially, the ability to separate particularly harmful rest products, or at least dilute them beyond immediate harm. A fireplace might generate smoke that can make you sick or kill you right then and there. Compare the current ”burn pits” scandals of the US armed forces.) In landfills, plastic (and wood) have the unfortunate property of catching fire. Burning slowly and incompletely, producing very toxic smoke, and since landfills generally are insufficiently sorted, they will also burn electronics, batteries, insulation, old outdoor furniture and so on, adding heavy metals and a palette of other astonishingly toxic chemicals to either the air or the water table. Finally, there’s a distinction between plastics made from petroleum, and plastics made from trees, corn, sugar or vegetabilic oil. The latter were originally grown by pulling carbon dioxide out of the air. And when they burn or decompose, that carbon will go back into the air, generating zero net gain or loss in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The former will eventually add net amounts of CO2, just as if they had been burned in a diesel engine. Sorry for the long text. I repeat: I really liked the video. I just thought it was a little too focused on the physical properties of plastics.

[@eewls]

The day outdoor furniture manufacturers screamed in agony

[@HarryNicNicholas]

lol "that doggone sabine's at it again"

[@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515]

The other ultraviolet catastrophe : )

[@janerussell3472]

I'm plastered, not plastic. When I was young, many tears/years ago, we had glass bottles and paper bags. Our fish and chips were wrapped in newspaper. That's where I got my news, being too poor to afford a daily.

[@paradox9551]

We should seriously go back to glass bottles and paper bags, biodegradable and healthier!

[@maxm2639]

And don't forget all the lead you ingested from the newsprint! That was so natural...

[@robertthomas4234]

Have one for me!

[@jonathansturm4163]

And the chips were cooked in lard! Apparently that means they had 13% less fat in them as well as tasting nicer.

[@JayFortran]

I remember a study that found laundry wastewater contains microplastics from the fleece and other synthetic fibers 😫

[@bradhoehne6467]

It occurs to me that one potential benefit to bioplastics would be our ability to produce them without tapping into the finite oil reserves. Also, there is a slight benefit to the fact that the carbon for the plastic comes from a plant, thus removing carbon from the air, rather than a sequestered fossil fuel. So perhaps there is a small benefit despite the fact that bioplastics don't degrade.

[@SocialDownclimber]

Cheaper than the direct carbon capture they put in coal plants and more useful too.

[@TheZabbiemaster]

Microplastics and the molecules that they're made of have been known to impact human hormone production, they seem to play a role in our current male fertility decline

[@thirdeye4654]

At least one positive aspect then.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

Africa doesn't seem to be affected

[@TheZabbiemaster]

@@rogeriopenna9014 what is that supposed to mean? We're seeing a decline globally

[@TheZabbiemaster]

@@thirdeye4654 I wouldn't call long lasting carcinogenic and mutagenic chemicals in every aspect of your life a good thing

[@homewall744]

Perhaps, but until we have populations decline for 100 years, we'll be nowhere near the recent mass population increase that is the root issue with all pollution and environmental degradation.

[@williamlangley1610]

Love your programs...and your ideas for them.

[@kristoferkrus]

"Mango Materials" 😂 Great video about a very important topic, Sabine. We need to have a greater general discussion about things like this.

[@andrewsuryali8540]

Engineers use the term "mango" to call things with unimpressive performance or easily made items that are not usually accessible or used for some reason. Mango materials actually refers to using common underappreciated materials to solve problems.

[@LouisGedo]

Excellent episode for several reasons. *And yes, I'm one of those growing numbers of people who cares that aquatic animals and birds are consuming toxic plastics.........for the sake of those individuals.* 😔 😟

[@billmullins6833]

OT: I have a request and I hope the good Doctor reads this. I would like to see Dr Hossenfelder talk about consensus in science. We hear so much about scientific consensus being so-and-so or 90% of scientists agree about something. Does it matter if many - even a majority of - scientists agree on something? My understanding is that all progress is made by outliers and that whenever any science has advanced the consensus was always proven wrong. Please, Dr H. What do you think about the relationship between real science and consensus?

[@daran0815]

"whenever any science has advanced the consensus was always proven wrong": no, that's not how things typically progress at all. The much more common theme is lots of boring fact gathering, sweetened by occasional creative search for possible explanations and exchanges of ideas, followed by more fact gathering. All predicate on getting funding. The popular idea of an Galileo having to fight the establishment is mostly non-sense, he had issues with the church, not with other astronomers.

[@ApiolJoe]

In a nutshell: Imagine there is a phenomenon that you want to understand. Many people can have many guesses to explain this phenomenon. Some people just think and theoreticize, some people construct experiments...etc... in order to understand this phenomenon. Scientists will gather all the ideas and all the experiments that have been done about this phenomenon, and will assess which explanation has the more chances of being true (or be closest to the truth). At first, many people will have many interpretations. But by taking time constructively critiquing all interpretations and attempts at explaining, sometimes all but one explanation get discarded because one just stand out as being much more likely to be true given the available evidence. In that case, you are just much more likely to be right if you follow this explanation rather than any other. This explanation is the scientific consensus. At a given point in time, if you don't have any extra information that others, you are more likely to be wrong if you believe against the consensus. This is not some kind of magic or authority, this is just the way the consensus was constructed: the consensus is born from an assembly of people trying to have as little chance as possible to be wrong. Now, yes, science advances by breaking the consensus. It cannot be otherwise. When a new piece of evidence comes in, this piece of evidence couldn't be used by people to build the current consensus. Therefore if this piece of evidence is strong enough to change something about the beliefs we should have, the consensus will change to reflect the impact of this new evidence. You seem to be implying that because progress is made by outliers then the consensus is useless. Consensus the most reliable way of explaining a phenomenon that we have at a given time. It doesn't mean it's true, all it means is that you have more chances of being wrong if you believe against the consensus. It is more unlikely to get 3 sixes in a row on a die than to get 3 even numbers in a row. And yet, in the world, people getting 3 sixes in a row on a die happen all the time. In the same way, people are more unlikely to be right if they believe against the consensus. And yet, science progresses, because new evidence comes in all the time, letting the consensus evolve to better reflect these evidences. Edit: also, contrary to what seems to be implied in your answer, progress and consensus are not opposed. Every scientist is happy to let go of an old theory for a better one. However since the consensus theory is the BEST theory we have RIGHT NOW, it needs something special for this new theory to be better. When a new theory comes in, scientists try to break it, with the hope that it will hold better than the current consensus. Most of the time is doesn't, but progress happen everytime this new theory holds better than the current one.

[@JanneWolterbeek]

Sabine looks smashing again, most fashionable physicist out there!

[@reina4969]

I keep noticing that too. Must be a European thing. ;)

[@andrewstewartherbst3646]

Practically speaking, one of our biggest problems is sorting plastics that are scattered within our garbage. Many jurisdictions have garbage pick-up and recyclables separated by individual households and businesses. While the intentions are good, the accuracy of sorting is not. Nonetheless, if some pre-sorting can be achieved, then high plastic refuse streams can serve as fuel in incinerators with medium-pressure steam (900 psig, 6200 kpag) which can be used to spin steam turbogenerators. Stack gas cleanup is required, probably requiring wet scrubbers, and of course stack gas monitoring is required. If properly combusted (with sufficient excess air) and water spray scrubbed, only CO2 and water vapor are emitted by the stack. Pay a carbon tax on the CO2 (which is quantified by the stack gas monitors), landfill the ash and scrubber solids, charge a fee for permanently disposing of the plastic waste, and sell the electricity onto the grid. It almost goes without saying that these power plants should be located away from residential areas. Plastics in the oceans can also be gathered up, brought to shore and de-watered, then shipped to the power plants as a fuel, and permanently destroyed by combustion and co-generation. I'd like to see some pilot demonstrations on this.

[@Max_Doubt]

If there were an Aquaman it would be rad but here's the catch: he would kill us all because of that Pacific garbage patch!

[@shonuff4323]

Like Carlin said. Plastic is fine. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth just views it as one of its children

[@bluceree7312]

Haha. I just posted the same comment, did not see yours. Carlin is/was right.