Could you live without plastic?

[ralfy]

From your own source:



For some reason I can't take a screenshot and upload the graph, but those are the numbers clearly stated.

Packaging includes materials used for shipment of goods and long-term storage of chemicals, food, medicine, and others.

Here is how your source's source broke it down visually:

And here in their abstract and introduction (emphasis mine):

We estimate that 8300 million metric tons (Mt) as of virgin plastics have been produced to date. As of 2015, approximately 6300 Mt of plastic waste had been generated, around 9% of which had been recycled, 12% was incinerated, and 79% was accumulated in landfills or the natural environment. If current production and waste management trends continue, roughly 12,000 Mt of plastic waste will be in landfills or in the natural environment by 2050.
...
[P]lastics’ largest market is packaging, an application whose growth was accelerated by a global shift from reusable to single-use containers. As a result, the share of plastics in municipal solid waste (by mass) increased from less than 1% in 1960 to more than 10% by 2005 in middle- and high-income countries.
...
None of the commonly used plastics are biodegradable. As a result, they accumulate, rather than decompose, in landfills or the natural environment (6). The only way to permanently eliminate plastic waste is by destructive thermal treatment, such as combustion or pyrolysis. Thus, near-permanent contamination of the natural environment with plastic waste is a growing concern. Plastic debris has been found in all major ocean basins (6), with an estimated 4 to 12 million metric tons (Mt) of plastic waste generated on land entering the marine environment in 2010 alone (3). Contamination of freshwater systems and terrestrial habitats is also increasingly reported (7–9), as is environmental contamination with synthetic fibers (9, 10). Plastic waste is now so ubiquitous in the environment that it has been suggested as a geological indicator of the proposed Anthropocene era (11).

We present the first global analysis of all mass-produced plastics ever made by developing and combining global data on production, use, and end-of-life fate of polymer resins, synthetic fibers, and additives into a comprehensive material flow model. The analysis includes thermoplastics, thermosets, polyurethanes (PURs), elastomers, coatings, and sealants but focuses on the most prevalent resins and fibers: high-density polyethylene (PE), low-density and linear low-density PE, polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and PUR resins; and polyester, polyamide, and acrylic (PP&A) fibers. The pure polymer is mixed with additives to enhance the properties of the material.
...
Most of the packaging plastics leave use the same year they are produced, whereas construction plastics leaving use were produced decades earlier, when production quantities were much lower. For example, in 2015, 42% of primary nonfiber plastics produced (146 Mt) entered use as packaging and 19% (65 Mt) as construction, whereas nonfiber plastic waste leaving use was 54% packaging (141 Mt) and only 5% construction (12 Mt).
...
We estimate that 2500 Mt of plastics—or 30% of all plastics ever produced—are currently in use. Between 1950 and 2015, cumulative waste generation of primary and secondary (recycled) plastic waste amounted to 6300 Mt. Of this, approximately 800 Mt (12%) of plastics have been incinerated and 600 Mt (9%) have been recycled, only 10% of which have been recycled more than once. Around 4900 Mt—60% of all plastics ever produced—were discarded and are accumulating in landfills or in the natural environment (Fig. 2). Of this, 600 Mt were PP&A fibers. None of the mass-produced plastics biodegrade in any meaningful way; however, sunlight weakens the materials, causing fragmentation into particles known to reach millimeters or micrometers in size (32). Research into the environmental impacts of these “microplastics” in marine and freshwater environments has accelerated in recent years (33), but little is known about the impacts of plastic waste in land-based ecosystems.

So, very clearly when they refer to "packaging" they are predominantly referring to single-use/disposable consumer-oriented items and NOT "long term storage." Or, at least not long-term beyond one year, which is clearly intended as the upper bound.

This is critical as goods involve extensive supply chains across thousands of km, with content needed to be kept intact, clean, safe, and even light to keep transport costs low.

I'm not concerned about a business wanting to keep their profits ridiculously high at the cost of our own survival. Regardless, the solutions can come in a combination of innnovative thinking and how the whole idea of more efficient transport systems and how our "throw away" culture gets transformed (note, that won't mean no plastic packaging at all).

On top of that, in terms of pollution overall much of plastics come from oil and gas

Yep. And much from single-use/throw away.

Just getting rid of single-use plastic won't be enough.

Then it's a damn good thing no one is arguing we just do that and nothing else.

You did not disprove my argument because that's exactly the reason why they are mostly non-biodegradable. Products have to be kept dry and secure, and the weight has to be light or else costs go up, which is why plastic is used. Plastic is not used because of convenience.

Alternatives might include air-tight metal canisters plus wood for frames, but the first involves more fuel needed for mining and manufacturing, and for the second more trees that need to be cut. The additional weight also means more fuel for transport.

Also, much of oil and gas is not used for single-use, throw-away plastic but only around 4 pct for plastics as a whole. The bulk of oil and gas is used for energy and heating, and a significant portion of that in turn is used for manufacturing goods and mechanized agriculture.

We can see this in the four articles that you share. The first struggles with the idea of replacing plastic, considering removing labels, and can only living with minimizing effects of plastic use.

The second does not acknowledge the point that in capitalist systems efficiency is achieved in exchange for MORE production. In short, we make more efficient use of plastics so that we can produce and sell MORE products for MORE profits; otherwise, businesses will have no reason to invest in efficiency.

That point is clearly seen in your third source, which calls for a "New Plastic Economy." Only the incredibly gullible will imagine that plastic use will decrease in such economies which operate among capitalist lines.

At least your fourth source is balanced, but it fails in the same way, as the $8 billion in savings per annum is re-invested for even more production and sales, and with that more plastic needed.

Finally, notice that the topic thread and several points raised by the OP refers to plastics in general and not just single-use, throwaway ones, which is my point: can one live without plastic? I don't think so.

 

[RavenSky]

I don’t see a way of getting rid of the plastic vegetable bags from the grocery. I tried, but they hate when I put wet veggies on the conveyor. I’m not crazy about it either.

https://www.amazon.com/WOHOME-Prese...egetable/dp/B07R4TX6RL/ref=asc_df_B07R4TX6RL/

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You did not disprove my argument

What argument? That we need to do more than just getting rid of single-use plastic? I agree and never argued differently.

 

[ralfy]

You did not disprove my argument

What argument? That we need to do more than just getting rid of single-use plastic? I agree and never argued differently.

As I pointed out in my post,

You did not disprove my argument because that's exactly the reason why they are mostly non-biodegradable. Products have to be kept dry and secure, and the weight has to be light or else costs go up, which is why plastic is used. Plastic is not used because of convenience.

I wrote that in response to what you initially wrote:

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

So, now at least we agree with the point that plastics are actually integral to industrial civilization. In which case, if we get rid of the first, then the second will have to go.

Not that we actually have a choice on the matter.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As I pointed out in my post,

You did not disprove my argument because that's exactly the reason why they are mostly non-biodegradable. Products have to be kept dry and secure, and the weight has to be light or else costs go up, which is why plastic is used. Plastic is not used because of convenience.

I wrote that in response to what you initially wrote:

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

So, now at least we agree with the point that plastics are actually integral to industrial civilization.

Once again, you are demonstrating extremely poor reading comprehension skills and/or are merely being unnecessarily pedantic. As I pointed out, I clearly qualified my comment and included examples of the things I was referring to. Read it again:

They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

What aspect of those examples wasn't clear to you the first time around that you felt you needed to stuff this strawman?

In which case, if we get rid of the first, then the second will have to go.

The first what? Transport containers? Your argument, so far as I can find one, appears to be exclusive to low costs for businesses (which I am not overly concerned about) and methods of transport that would keep various goods dry and secure. Neither considerations are exclusive to plastics. Plastics may make either easier or cheaper, but that's not an argument; it's merely a supply-side observation that simply assumes costs are sacrosanct or otherwise beyond the control of mortal men, so...you know....our hands are tied.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with disposable razors or plastic utensils or any of the other "merely convenient" disposable plastics "in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services" that I was referring to, as additionally qualified in my subsequent posts.

Not that we actually have a choice on the matter.

So, again, what exactly was the point of your strawman? You evidently misunderstood what I was talking about--in spite of clear language and examples to underscore what I was referring to--we agree that it doesn't just stop at these kinds of convenience/disposable plastics and then you end with it doesn't matter regardless because we've passed a tipping point?



Is this some elaborate attempt to boot up the we're already fucked, so why bother doing anything different fallacy or something?

 

[ralfy]

As I pointed out in my post,



I wrote that in response to what you initially wrote:



So, now at least we agree with the point that plastics are actually integral to industrial civilization.

Once again, you are demonstrating extremely poor reading comprehension skills and/or are merely being unnecessarily pedantic. As I pointed out, I clearly qualified my comment and included examples of the things I was referring to. Read it again:

They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

What aspect of those examples wasn't clear to you the first time around that you felt you needed to stuff this strawman?

In which case, if we get rid of the first, then the second will have to go.

The first what? Transport containers? Your argument, so far as I can find one, appears to be exclusive to low costs for businesses (which I am not overly concerned about) and methods of transport that would keep various goods dry and secure. Neither considerations are exclusive to plastics. Plastics may make either easier or cheaper, but that's not an argument; it's merely a supply-side observation that simply assumes costs are sacrosanct or otherwise beyond the control of mortal men, so...you know....our hands are tied.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with disposable razors or plastic utensils or any of the other "merely convenient" disposable plastics "in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services" that I was referring to, as additionally qualified in my subsequent posts.

Not that we actually have a choice on the matter.

So, again, what exactly was the point of your strawman? You evidently misunderstood what I was talking about--in spite of clear language and examples to underscore what I was referring to--we agree that it doesn't just stop at these kinds of convenience/disposable plastics and then you end with it doesn't matter regardless because we've passed a tipping point?



Is this some elaborate attempt to boot up the we're already fucked, so why bother doing anything different fallacy or something?

Strawman? Your WHOLE post talked about reusable utensils and products. See for yourself.

Your next point is also questionable: it's not based on mrely keeping costs low for businesses but for consumers as well. And not just making things easier and cheaper but ensuring safety. If you read some of the four sources you gave earlier, you will see that they support my arguments and not the claims in your initial post.

To answer your question, my point wasn't to argue whether or not we can do anything but to counter your claim that it's all a matter of convenience and single-use plastics but much more than that, and more important, to answer the question given in the thread title: No, we can't live without plastic. There is no way we can maintain industrial civilization (which includes debating in this forum) without plastic and even petrochemicals. In fact, we cannot maintain the same without oil.

In order to live without much less plastic (because it will still be needed for medicine, packaging some food products for safety, etc.), we will have to look at more than just business costs. I'll see if you can figure that out before I continue with this conversation.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Strawman?

Yes. At no point did I argue that the ONLY problem was disposable use. To whit:

To answer your question, my point wasn't to argue whether or not we can do anything but to counter your claim that it's all a matter of convenience and single-use plastics

At no point did I claim that it's all a matter of convenience and single-use plastics.



ETA: My first post (which you evidently responded to), was all about single-use plastics and how they were filling up our landfills and contributing to climate change, etc.

You posted:

Not just plastics but petrochemicals are used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization.

I responded with:

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

Companies have simply chased after convenience as a marketing gimmick, not an economic necessity. In fact, restaurants can actually SAVE more money on reusable utensils than on throw-aways. Here's a good study on what happened when just two public school cafeterias changed to reusable...

I made it perfectly clear--and reiterated it, no less--that I was referring to such things as disposable razors and plastic utensils and the like--i.e., single-use, throw-way consumer-oriented "goods and services" (like plastic bags, etc), which are by far and away the largest pollutants.

These are convenience items, nothing more. We don't need them. They are not beneficial nor necessary. Gillette made billions of dollars off selling the idea of convenience. It is far more economical for a person to own a real razor and just change the blades every once in a while rather than buying and throwing away dozens of plastic razors.

But, again, at no point did I say the problem is ALL about single-use/disposable or that all we need to do is get rid of that particular category and we're all better now.

 

[ralfy]

Yes. At no point did I argue that the ONLY problem was disposable use. To whit:



At no point did I claim that it's all a matter of convenience and single-use plastics.



ETA: My first post (which you evidently responded to), was all about single-use plastics and how they were filling up our landfills and contributing to climate change, etc.

You posted:

Not just plastics but petrochemicals are used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization.

I responded with:

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

Companies have simply chased after convenience as a marketing gimmick, not an economic necessity. In fact, restaurants can actually SAVE more money on reusable utensils than on throw-aways. Here's a good study on what happened when just two public school cafeterias changed to reusable...

I made it perfectly clear--and reiterated it, no less--that I was referring to such things as disposable razors and plastic utensils and the like--i.e., single-use, throw-way consumer-oriented "goods and services" (like plastic bags, etc), which are by far and away the largest pollutants.

These are convenience items, nothing more. We don't need them. They are not beneficial nor necessary. Gillette made billions of dollars off selling the idea of convenience. It is far more economical for a person to own a real razor and just change the blades every once in a while rather than buying and throwing away dozens of plastic razors.

But, again, at no point did I say the problem is ALL about single-use/disposable or that all we need to do is get rid of that particular category and we're all better now.

But that wasn't my point, remember?

Not just plastics but petrochemicals are used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization.

The first paragraph of your response:

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

Thus, you claimed that all of these applications are neither "necessary nor beneficial" in the same way as "consumer-oriented goods and services" are so. But most of those applications don't involve such goods and services.

Your next claim is that it's all a matter of profits, which doesn't concern you:

I'm not concerned about a business wanting to keep their profits ridiculously high at the cost of our own survival. Regardless, the solutions can come in a combination of innnovative thinking and how the whole idea of more efficient transport systems and how our "throw away" culture gets transformed (note, that won't mean no plastic packaging at all).

But some of the articles that you gave which offered "innovative thinking" offered at best partial decreases in plastic use, and still offered a "New Plastics Economy" model that is still essentially based on competitive capitalism, where efficiency (e.g., "more efficient transport systems") means MORE plastic use rather than less. That's because efficiency in competitive capitalism leads to MORE production, and MORE consumption to guarantee maximization of profits, which goes against your belief that profits are already "ridiculously high."

Finally, I wrote, "Not just plastics but petrochemicals are used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization" because that's my response to the question given in the thread title: "Could you live without plastic?"

We cannot because much of applications involve not convenience, as I explained clearly in my previous posts, and as some of the articles you presented also share. I don't remember arguing that we shouldn't minimize the use of single-use plastic or that there's nothing we can do about it. Rather, in growth-driven economies, petrochemicals not used in single-use plastic will be used elsewhere, and a significant component of plastic use in these economies involve applications done not out of convenience.

My view is that with industrial civilization involve extensive supply chains and JIT processes, there is no way we can provide basic needs for the global population without the use of plastic, petrochemicals in general, and oil. Also, if any, one of the reasons why the global population which rests on that same civilization tripled in only a few decades was because of the use of oil for many purposes (especially fuel and petrochemicals used in mechanized agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and shipping) needed not just for conveniences but even basic needs.

In which case, given growth-driven economies that fuel that civilization and growing human populations that have not just middle class dreams but even basic needs, one should not expect a drop in overall use of plastics, petrochemicals, or oil, especially given the rise of a global middle class. If they do drop, they will do so because of a resource crunch, which will halt economic growth.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The first paragraph of your response:

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

Thus, you claimed that all of these applications...

How many times are you going to stuff this pointless strawman? I did NOT claim "ALL of these applications" or anything all-encompassing for that matter. Indeed, I specifically qualified it with "just about" and then only in regard to "consumer-oriented goods and services" and THEN further qualified that with examples of what I was talking about (disposable razors, plastic, one-use utensils, etc).

Further, you said, "Not just plastics but petrochemicals are used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization." Just because something is "integral" does not just axiomatically translate into being necessary or beneficial. Hence my responding with, "That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial."

Even a claim of something being beneficial in one way does not necessarily make it beneficial in another way, or in regard to a grand scheme of things beneficial way.

In other painfully simple terms, I took issue with you describing them as "integral" as if that were salient in its own right. It was not.

A point I then underscored by referring to the disposable/one-use throw aways like disposable razors, etc. that we don't need and were only created in the first place as a marketing ploy for companies to make billions off of; to sell the idea of "convenience" rather than usefulness or longevity. You don't ever need a plastic, throw away razor. Ever.

So we should stop making them and buying them. They are not necessary nor beneficial, regardless of the overall notion of petrochemicals being "integral" to our society.

How is that in any way a controversial or difficult point for you to comprehend?

there is no way we can provide basic needs

Is a disposable razor a "basic need"? No it is not. So does this other point you are making have anything to do with what I've argued? No it does not.

Further, in regard to your argument--at least the part that says we still need some forms of plastics--I have already repeatedly agreed.

So why the fuck are you continuing to post any of this strawman nonsense if it's not to somehow push a status-quo agenda? We both--apparently--agree that we don't need throw-away plastics like disposable razors, but we still need some form of more robust plastics for other applications that aren't just destined for landfills in a month or two.

And those should--in some fashion--be recyclable or otherwise biodegradable and not just, once again, destined to fill an ever expanding hole.

Yes?

 

[ralfy]

How many times are you going to stuff this pointless strawman? I did NOT claim "ALL of these applications" or anything all-encompassing for that matter. Indeed, I specifically qualified it with "just about" and then only in regard to "consumer-oriented goods and services" and THEN further qualified that with examples of what I was talking about (disposable razors, plastic, one-use utensils, etc).

Further, you said, "Not just plastics but petrochemicals are used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization." Just because something is "integral" does not just axiomatically translate into being necessary or beneficial. Hence my responding with, "That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial."

Even a claim of something being beneficial in one way does not necessarily make it beneficial in another way, or in regard to a grand scheme of things beneficial way.

In other painfully simple terms, I took issue with you describing them as "integral" as if that were salient in its own right. It was not.

A point I then underscored by referring to the disposable/one-use throw aways like disposable razors, etc. that we don't need and were only created in the first place as a marketing ploy for companies to make billions off of; to sell the idea of "convenience" rather than usefulness or longevity. You don't ever need a plastic, throw away razor. Ever.

So we should stop making them and buying them. They are not necessary nor beneficial, regardless of the overall notion of petrochemicals being "integral" to our society.

How is that in any way a controversial or difficult point for you to comprehend?

there is no way we can provide basic needs

Is a disposable razor a "basic need"? No it is not. So does this other point you are making have anything to do with what I've argued? No it does not.

Further, in regard to your argument--at least the part that says we still need some forms of plastics--I have already repeatedly agreed.

So why the fuck are you continuing to post any of this strawman nonsense if it's not to somehow push a status-quo agenda? We both--apparently--agree that we don't need throw-away plastics like disposable razors, but we still need some form of more robust plastics for other applications that aren't just destined for landfills in a month or two.

And those should--in some fashion--be recyclable or otherwise biodegradable and not just, once again, destined to fill an ever expanding hole.

Yes?

Here's what I wrote:

Not just plastics but petrochemicals are used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization.

Your claim:

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

"They" does not refer to consumer-oriented goods and services but to "plastics [and] petrochemicals...used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization." You claim that "they are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants," and for examples gave disposable razors or utensils.

Notice, too, that you tried to come up with two definitions of "they": the first referring to what I said and the second only to the component that has anything to do with consumer goods and services. But the second point is meaningless as one can argue that every aspect of the supply chain ultimately leads to what consumers want!

I explained to you that those applications DO NOT refer to "consumer-oriented goods and services" but to applications needed to keep goods secure, safe, and clean. The information which I shared and which you repeated shows that: the consumer products you refer to involve around 10 pct of plastics use.

From there, you then focused on packaging, but I explained to you that even that may also involve reasons other than convenience. You gave articles that suggest solutions, but I also showed you that they support my points, as they suggest some "New Plastics Economy" (rather than a "No Plastics Economy," which is unlikely), making minimal cuts in the use of plastic (such as not using plastic labels), and focusing on more efficiency (which in capitalist systems lead to MORE resource use, which includes the use of plastics, as profit serves the motivator for greater efficiency).

Given that, I don't think it is right that you keep claiming that I have been resorting to straw men. On the other hand, I am certain that you have been misrepresenting me from the start. My first post makes it very clear that plastics are not only used out of convenience or in the same way as disposable razors and utensils, and the numbers show that significant amounts of them are used for applications other than convenience. Think of plastics used for medical and hospital equipment, those needed to keep all sorts of products clean, safe, and secure (including chemicals needed for thousands of applications and medicine), the clothes that you are now wearing, for vehicles to decrease fuel consumption, construction materials (not to mention water and electrical systems), and more.

Remember how you tried to attack me on that point, too? You wrote that businesses are using plastics for those also out of convenience, such that they are only interested in making more profits. And yet none of the articles you shared supports your claim.

Now, you're looking for some solution that involves "more robust" plastics that can be recycled easily. Aren't plastics more robust because they cannot be recycled easily? Or are you referring to some process which allows for that?

In any event, I will assume that you now agree with my first post, and that your claims that I lack reading comprehension or that I am setting straw men or that I am presenting some "we're already fucked, so why bother doing anything different fallacy" are all wrong.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here's what I wrote:

Jtfc.

Not just plastics but petrochemicals are used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization.

Your claim:

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

"They" does not refer to consumer-oriented goods and services but to "plastics [and] petrochemicals...used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization." You claim that "they are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants," and for examples gave disposable razors or utensils.

Yes. And?

Notice, too,

"Too"? You haven't pointed out anything I didn't already point out.

that you tried to come up with two definitions of "they"

What?

the first referring to what I said and the second only to the component that has anything to do with consumer goods and services.

My entire response referred to your response. I first posted about disposable plastics. You jumped into the thread saying, "It's not just plastics, but petrochemicals...that are integral to modern industrial civilization."

I responded with a so what? Being integral does not mean they are either necessary or beneficial, especially in regard to what I had just posted about (consumer-oriented convenience).

But the second point is meaningless as one can argue that every aspect of the supply chain ultimately leads to what consumers want!

CONVENIENCE as a product. You aren't buying a disposable razor; you are buying the CONVENIENCE OF A THROW AWAY ITEM. That's what marketers are selling you with disposable razors. I know. I'm a marketer.

I explained to you that those applications DO NOT refer to "consumer-oriented goods and services" but to applications needed to keep goods secure, safe, and clean.

No, you pointed out that there were other applications that petrochemicals were used for, such as to keep goods cheap and secure. To which I responded, I don't give a shit about a company's profits and I am talking about the applications that I was talking about. See how that works? Somebody talks about a particular thing; you respond to that particular thing.

If you respond to that particular thing and then try to steer the discussion to another particular thing--like you did with your 10% redirection--then it all has to be parsed properly, or else it gets conflated.

So let's recap again. I was talking about single-use throw away plastics (like disposable razors and plastic utensils) that are the largest pollutants among plastics. You then, apparently, wanted to wedge yourself into the discussion by first mentioning plastics--and petrochemicals--and how they are "integral" to our modern society.

I said, basically, who gives a shit if they are "integral" that's not an important enough consideration, particularly when the plastics I WAS TALKING ABOUT are the number one polluants, etc.

See the flow and how you tried to unnecessarily impose yourself into it with a redirection and bullshit about a category that only consisted of 10% of plastics, when I was actually talking about a category of polllutants/plastics that accounted for a much much larger percentage?

Given that, I don't think it is right that you keep claiming that I have been resorting to straw men.

You mean like:

You gave articles that suggest solutions, but I also showed you that they support my points, as they suggest some "New Plastics Economy" (rather than a "No Plastics Economy," which is unlikely)

When did I ever argue for a "No Plastics Economy"?

My first post makes it very clear that plastics are not only used out of convenience or in the same way as disposable razors and utensils

Your first post can't make that clear, because I didn't make it clear until AFTER you posted your first post. Your FIRST post argued that plastics and petrochemicals are INTEGRAL to our modern society. So what? Being "integral" does not mean they are just automatically or axiomatically necessary or beneficial as the disposable plastics I was talking about demonstrate.

We both agree that we should stop making one-use/throwaway plastics (like disposable razors) and that we still need to use some form of more robust (yes, more "robust" meaning longer-duration, yet less detrimental) plastics for industrial uses.

Iow, no to plastic bags at the supermarket, but yes to plastic windshields for jet airliners.

In regard to keeping liquid detergents "safe" during transport, or the like (i.e, in regard to other "consumer oriented" conveniences), all we have to do is go back to using powder instead of liquid and at least one problem solved. Instead of bottled water being bought and sold all over the West, in particular, where it isn't necessary and everyone has a sink, a toilet and a shower in their homes, we clearly need to change that mentality and instead focus on making the water we have available to us at will safe to drink again, because transporting potable water to regions that really need it will become (already has become) a dire problem.

But the solution is not to make billions more 10 oz plastic bottles for Poland Spring.

So that's another way to greatly reduce an unnecessary and non-beneficial aspect of CONVENIENCE single-use/throw-away plastics like the ones I was talking about. If you wish to talk about how to make the plastics used for longer-duration industrial uses either biodegradable or otherwise more durable/less of a pollutant--or ways in which we could eliminate them all together through substitution of other less detrimental methods--by all means, let's discuss.

Point being, there are SO many things that can be done first and foremost--among them, cutting out the largest plastic pollutants as well as changing the mentality of single-use/throw-away consumer-oriented convenience culture--but there are ALSO things we can do in regard to how we use plastic for industrial uses as well.

There is no binary here, nor have I ever argued that "all" we have to do is X, or that we need a "no plastics economy" or the like. That is your straw and you keep stuffing it with every post.

Why?

 

[ralfy]

Jtfc.

Your claim:

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

"They" does not refer to consumer-oriented goods and services but to "plastics [and] petrochemicals...used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization." You claim that "they are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants," and for examples gave disposable razors or utensils.

Yes. And?

Notice, too,

"Too"? You haven't pointed out anything I didn't already point out.

that you tried to come up with two definitions of "they"

What?

the first referring to what I said and the second only to the component that has anything to do with consumer goods and services.

My entire response referred to your response. I first posted about disposable plastics. You jumped into the thread saying, "It's not just plastics, but petrochemicals...that are integral to modern industrial civilization."

I responded with a so what? Being integral does not mean they are either necessary or beneficial, especially in regard to what I had just posted about (consumer-oriented convenience).

But the second point is meaningless as one can argue that every aspect of the supply chain ultimately leads to what consumers want!

CONVENIENCE as a product. You aren't buying a disposable razor; you are buying the CONVENIENCE OF A THROW AWAY ITEM. That's what marketers are selling you with disposable razors. I know. I'm a marketer.

I explained to you that those applications DO NOT refer to "consumer-oriented goods and services" but to applications needed to keep goods secure, safe, and clean.

No, you pointed out that there were other applications that petrochemicals were used for, such as to keep goods cheap and secure. To which I responded, I don't give a shit about a company's profits and I am talking about the applications that I was talking about. See how that works? Somebody talks about a particular thing; you respond to that particular thing.

If you respond to that particular thing and then try to steer the discussion to another particular thing--like you did with your 10% redirection--then it all has to be parsed properly, or else it gets conflated.

So let's recap again. I was talking about single-use throw away plastics (like disposable razors and plastic utensils) that are the largest pollutants among plastics. You then, apparently, wanted to wedge yourself into the discussion by first mentioning plastics--and petrochemicals--and how they are "integral" to our modern society.

I said, basically, who gives a shit if they are "integral" that's not an important enough consideration, particularly when the plastics I WAS TALKING ABOUT are the number one polluants, etc.

See the flow and how you tried to unnecessarily impose yourself into it with a redirection and bullshit about a category that only consisted of 10% of plastics, when I was actually talking about a category of polllutants/plastics that accounted for a much much larger percentage?

Given that, I don't think it is right that you keep claiming that I have been resorting to straw men.

You mean like:

You gave articles that suggest solutions, but I also showed you that they support my points, as they suggest some "New Plastics Economy" (rather than a "No Plastics Economy," which is unlikely)

When did I ever argue for a "No Plastics Economy"?

My first post makes it very clear that plastics are not only used out of convenience or in the same way as disposable razors and utensils

Your first post can't make that clear, because I didn't make it clear until AFTER you posted your first post. Your FIRST post argued that plastics and petrochemicals are INTEGRAL to our modern society. So what? Being "integral" does not mean they are just automatically or axiomatically necessary or beneficial as the disposable plastics I was talking about demonstrate.

We both agree that we should stop making one-use/throwaway plastics (like disposable razors) and that we still need to use some form of more robust (yes, more "robust" meaning longer-duration, yet less detrimental) plastics for industrial uses.

Iow, no to plastic bags at the supermarket, but yes to plastic windshields for jet airliners.

In regard to keeping liquid detergents "safe" during transport, or the like (i.e, in regard to other "consumer oriented" conveniences), all we have to do is go back to using powder instead of liquid and at least one problem solved. Instead of bottled water being bought and sold all over the West, in particular, where it isn't necessary and everyone has a sink, a toilet and a shower in their homes, we clearly need to change that mentality and instead focus on making the water we have available to us at will safe to drink again, because transporting potable water to regions that really need it will become (already has become) a dire problem.

But the solution is not to make billions more 10 oz plastic bottles for Poland Spring.

So that's another way to greatly reduce an unnecessary and non-beneficial aspect of CONVENIENCE single-use/throw-away plastics like the ones I was talking about. If you wish to talk about how to make the plastics used for longer-duration industrial uses either biodegradable or otherwise more durable/less of a pollutant--or ways in which we could eliminate them all together through substitution of other less detrimental methods--by all means, let's discuss.

Point being, there are SO many things that can be done first and foremost--among them, cutting out the largest plastic pollutants as well as changing the mentality of single-use/throw-away consumer-oriented convenience culture--but there are ALSO things we can do in regard to how we use plastic for industrial uses as well.

There is no binary here, nor have I ever argued that "all" we have to do is X, or that we need a "no plastics economy" or the like. That is your straw and you keep stuffing it with every post.

Why?

I referred to thousands of applications used for plastic. You insisted that "they" (ALL of these applications) are not necessary or beneficial, and then changed what you meant by "they" by referring to only those applications (or SOME of these applications) that have to do with consumer goods, not realizing that that can mean any application! So we have plastics that are used in trucks to deliver medicine as necessary or beneficial, but if the same trucks are used to deliver disposable utensils, then the same plastics used for these trucks are not.

What you should have written is that a fraction of applications are used for unnecessary products like disposable utensils, which in some cases might be necessary, as in the case of emergency supplies brought to victims in areas affected by disasters. The same goes for packaging, as the same plastics for that used to keep medicine secure can also be used to wrap unnecessary products.

So, now you're down to throwaway products that are made from plastic and their packaging that are either unnecessary in all circumstances or unnecessary in most. Using your new example, plastic bottles to store potable water is not necessary for those who can't bother to bring their own water bottles but might be important as emergency supplies to areas hit by natural disaster. The same goes for packaging: unnecessary for unnecessary products like disposable razors but necessary for medicine.

This is important because the largest component of plastics is not consumer goods but packaging, with construction materials coming in second. The disposable plastic products you refer to makes up 10 pct of plastics use.

What solutions have been raised to deal with the issue? One of your articles suggested that plastics not be used for labels, but beyond that and calls for some "New Plastics Economy," I do not think the cuts will be substantial. We can also see this in another of your new examples: aren't detergents in powdered form also packaged in plastic?

 

[steve_bank]

It is possible to get rid of plastics, and that wopuld increase costs overall.

If you want to personally get rid of plastic not too hard. No plastic bags in the garbage can, paper if you can find them. Otherwise no bag and clean out the basket when you dump it.

Avoid pastic bags for produce.

Take out containers and starws used to be exclusively paper. No more take out.

Bring your own paper bags to the store. Put produce in them at check out time.

Bring your own cup to the coffee shop.

Avoid fast food restaurants.

No more six packs of drinks with plastic holders. The plastic holders with holes is said to be the worse for wildlife. Easy to get entangled.

Don't buy anything with plastic in the container, like donuts off the shelf.

No more soft drinks and water in plastic bottles.

Bring your own carry bags to the grocery store. I do hate just throwing away plastic bags. Cloth bags are cheap.

And so on. An inconvenience but doable.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I referred to thousands of applications used for plastic. You insisted that "they" (ALL of these applications) are not necessary or beneficial, and then changed what you meant by "they" by referring to only those applications (or SOME of these applications) that have to do with consumer goods, not realizing that that can mean any application!

WTF is wrong with you?

Here it is again:

Not just plastics but petrochemicals are used for thousands of applications, and are integral to modern industrial civilization.

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

I was responding directly to the entirety of your claim. The fact that plastics and petrochemicals have thousands of uses and are integral to modern society does not mean that they are NECESSARY or BENEFICIAL. Not the plastics or the petrochemicals or the fact that they have thousands of applications or that they are integral to modern industrial civilization. NOTHING about what you wrote in that sentence equated with being axiomatically necessary or beneficial.

I didn't change anything or say it in pieces, I rejected the entirety of your statement directly. Plastics/petrochemicals--and their uses because that's what we're fucking talking about--being integral ≠ necessary or beneficial. I then qualified that statement with what I had been referring to in the post you were responding to, "they are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants" and to make it abundantly clear, gave the razors and utensils examples so that no one--no one--could misunderstand what it was I was talking about; disposable, single-use, throw-away plastics that we don't need and were created in the first place to sell convenience, not a necessary or beneficial product.

So on ALL LEVELS a full and unrestricted rejection of your claim first and foremost. What you stated--in any of its parts or in its entirety--NONE of it axiomatically translated into being necessary or beneficial.

And your subsequent examples of industrial applications--about being cheap and dry and secure--ALSO did not counter the fact that they--plastics and petrochemicals and their applications--are still not necessary nor beneficial. Being cheap and dry and secure may be beneficial to a business, but as I pointed out, I don't give a flying fuck about a business making a profit at the expense of our lives AND that we can come up with other means to ensure dry and secure transportation as well as ways of utilizing more robust plastics (ie., non-single use throw away containers, or the like, or a thousand other ways in which we don't need to put 20 oz of liquid Tide in a plastic bottle that will just end up in a landfill in a month), like a currently elusive superpolymer.

NOT, as you kept stuffing, getting rid of ALL plastics; getting rid of the biggest pollutants--the single-use disposable crap at the top of that list--and changing our attitudes, both as consumers and as producers.

Not necessary or beneficial.

In case it wasn't abundantly clear--which is a safe fucking bet at this point--the "necessary" and "beneficial" part applies to US and our continued existence as a species, not to a business's bottom line.

I live in New York, for example. I don't need steaks from thousands of miles away vacuum packed in heavy plastics so that they last for a month on a shelf in my grocery. Yet there they are. I also don't need cucumbers sealed in plastic; or fruit; or plastic bags for that matter; etc., etc., etc. Nor do I need every kind of exotic seasonal fruit or grain or anything twenty four hours a day, seven days a week from all over the world. At least not to last more than they would in a preferably energy-efficient display case or the like.

If there are other places on the map that do need them--as a necessity--then yes, let's take a look at those places and see why they need them and/or if there is a better alternative. Better for humanity; not better for a business' bottom line.

The entire concept of a supermarket in America at the very least needs to be re-thunk, imo, from the top down and in ways that are specific to the location and the actual needs of the consumers, not merely the potential, possible whims of the consumer as they are now. The way it is now is to provide ten thousand variations of the same product. It's the Greek Diner approach to consumerism; give them a menu with eight hundred different meals in the hope that at least one will appeal. We don't need a menu with 800 different dishes; we need a menu with about twenty at the most.

Exactly how that is accomplished is not the issue; that it needs to be and should be accomplished is the point and where we should start is in regard to what constitutes the biggest pollutants. Yes, I'm aware that a carbon footprint can be larger for certain other processes (like cardboard), which is, once again, why I am NOT and was not and have not been advocating for a completely "No Plastic Economy."

Stop the obvious and largest pollutants first and foremost. Change our attitudes toward consumerism and its waste products. Etc. Create better, more sustainable methods/processes. If that means a new kind of plastic, then so be it, but it needs to be the smartest choice for humanity, not a business' bottom line. And not just humanity no matter where they live, but smart in regard to locational needs. If we need plastic bags in Zimbabwe for some legitimate reason, then maybe we use plastic bags in Zimbabwe. We don't need them in the US, so there's hundreds of millions of metric tons eliminated from that location.

Get the point? Is all of that now abundantly and perfectly clear ffs?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It is possible to get rid of plastics, and that wopuld increase costs overall.

If you want to personally get rid of plastic not too hard. No plastic bags in the garbage can, paper if you can find them. Otherwise no bag and clean out the basket when you dump it.

Avoid pastic bags for produce.

Take out containers and starws used to be exclusively paper. No more take out.

Bring your own paper bags to the store. Put produce in them at check out time.

Bring your own cup to the coffee shop.

Avoid fast food restaurants.

No more six packs of drinks with plastic holders. The plastic holders with holes is said to be the worse for wildlife. Easy to get entangled.

Don't buy anything with plastic in the container, like donuts off the shelf.

No more soft drinks and water in plastic bottles.

Bring your own carry bags to the grocery store. I do hate just throwing away plastic bags. Cloth bags are cheap.

And so on. An inconvenience but doable.

There you go. Many excellent ways to start.

 

[steve_bank]

I bring my own cloth carry bags to the grocery store. Heavy duty. I seriously do not like just throwing away plastic bags that get used for a few hours.

I do not drink bottled anything or canned drinks ofany kind, gets rid of plastic webs.

Plastic garbage bags do make it a lot easier and cleaner.

I am generally plastic free. Junk food containers account for a lot of it.

 

[ralfy]

WTF is wrong with you?

Here it is again:

That doesn't mean they are necessary nor beneficial. They are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants. There is no reason for anyone to own a "disposable" razor or to not eat with reusable utensils at ANY restaurant, including a "fast food" joint.

I was responding directly to the entirety of your claim. The fact that plastics and petrochemicals have thousands of uses and are integral to modern society does not mean that they are NECESSARY or BENEFICIAL. Not the plastics or the petrochemicals or the fact that they have thousands of applications or that they are integral to modern industrial civilization. NOTHING about what you wrote in that sentence equated with being axiomatically necessary or beneficial.

I didn't change anything or say it in pieces, I rejected the entirety of your statement directly. Plastics/petrochemicals--and their uses because that's what we're fucking talking about--being integral ≠ necessary or beneficial. I then qualified that statement with what I had been referring to in the post you were responding to, "they are merely convenient in regard to just about anything to do with consumer-oriented goods and services, which are by far and away the largest pollutants" and to make it abundantly clear, gave the razors and utensils examples so that no one--no one--could misunderstand what it was I was talking about; disposable, single-use, throw-away plastics that we don't need and were created in the first place to sell convenience, not a necessary or beneficial product.

So on ALL LEVELS a full and unrestricted rejection of your claim first and foremost. What you stated--in any of its parts or in its entirety--NONE of it axiomatically translated into being necessary or beneficial.

And your subsequent examples of industrial applications--about being cheap and dry and secure--ALSO did not counter the fact that they--plastics and petrochemicals and their applications--are still not necessary nor beneficial. Being cheap and dry and secure may be beneficial to a business, but as I pointed out, I don't give a flying fuck about a business making a profit at the expense of our lives AND that we can come up with other means to ensure dry and secure transportation as well as ways of utilizing more robust plastics (ie., non-single use throw away containers, or the like, or a thousand other ways in which we don't need to put 20 oz of liquid Tide in a plastic bottle that will just end up in a landfill in a month), like a currently elusive superpolymer.

NOT, as you kept stuffing, getting rid of ALL plastics; getting rid of the biggest pollutants--the single-use disposable crap at the top of that list--and changing our attitudes, both as consumers and as producers.

Not necessary or beneficial.

In case it wasn't abundantly clear--which is a safe fucking bet at this point--the "necessary" and "beneficial" part applies to US and our continued existence as a species, not to a business's bottom line.

I live in New York, for example. I don't need steaks from thousands of miles away vacuum packed in heavy plastics so that they last for a month on a shelf in my grocery. Yet there they are. I also don't need cucumbers sealed in plastic; or fruit; or plastic bags for that matter; etc., etc., etc. Nor do I need every kind of exotic seasonal fruit or grain or anything twenty four hours a day, seven days a week from all over the world. At least not to last more than they would in a preferably energy-efficient display case or the like.

If there are other places on the map that do need them--as a necessity--then yes, let's take a look at those places and see why they need them and/or if there is a better alternative. Better for humanity; not better for a business' bottom line.

The entire concept of a supermarket in America at the very least needs to be re-thunk, imo, from the top down and in ways that are specific to the location and the actual needs of the consumers, not merely the potential, possible whims of the consumer as they are now. The way it is now is to provide ten thousand variations of the same product. It's the Greek Diner approach to consumerism; give them a menu with eight hundred different meals in the hope that at least one will appeal. We don't need a menu with 800 different dishes; we need a menu with about twenty at the most.

Exactly how that is accomplished is not the issue; that it needs to be and should be accomplished is the point and where we should start is in regard to what constitutes the biggest pollutants. Yes, I'm aware that a carbon footprint can be larger for certain other processes (like cardboard), which is, once again, why I am NOT and was not and have not been advocating for a completely "No Plastic Economy."

Stop the obvious and largest pollutants first and foremost. Change our attitudes toward consumerism and its waste products. Etc. Create better, more sustainable methods/processes. If that means a new kind of plastic, then so be it, but it needs to be the smartest choice for humanity, not a business' bottom line. And not just humanity no matter where they live, but smart in regard to locational needs. If we need plastic bags in Zimbabwe for some legitimate reason, then maybe we use plastic bags in Zimbabwe. We don't need them in the US, so there's hundreds of millions of metric tons eliminated from that location.

Get the point? Is all of that now abundantly and perfectly clear ffs?

Are you kidding me?! They are necessary and beneficial because they are INTEGRAL to industrial civilization. That's the same civilization that allowed for lower birth rates and longer life expectancy rates because of not just plastics but oil and petrochemicals used in mechanized agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and shipping.

Your lifestyle in NY requires an ecological footprint four to ten times more than that of most people worldwide. See for yourself:

List of countries by ecological footprint

Even if every person on earth were to live in an eco-village (or roughly a footprint of 2 global hectares per capita), we'd still be in overshoot.

If everyone lived in an ‘ecovillage’, the Earth would still be in trouble

For everyone to live like a New Yorker, we'd need around four more earths.

How do you think you are able to access this forum, let alone use electricity, except by relying on goods and services involving supply chains thousands of km across multiple countries? How would you like to figure out how much plastic and petrochemicals are involved for all of your needs, from the clothes you are now wearing to the vehicles that ship those clothes to you, not to mention medicine and processed food that you buy, to the place where you live in as well as the electricity, gas, and potable water provided to you, and more.

Apparently, I was right ALL ALONG: you are no different from the ignoramus who thinks that oil is only used for gas tanks, not realizing that oil is used to even MAKE cars, and almost all manufactured goods, plus the services that need them, including mechanized agriculture. NO WONDER you keep insisting that much of plastic use is unnecessary or beneficial, as you never realized that many of the things you NEED involve or use not just plastics but also petrochemicals and oil.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Are you kidding me?!

No.

They are necessary and beneficial because they are INTEGRAL to industrial civilization.

That's precisely what I am rejecting. Just because something may be INTEGRAL does not just axiomatically translate into it being necessary or beneficial. Like, for example, oh, I don't know, consumer-oriented single-use throwaway items like disposable razors and plastic utensils that are neither necessary nor beneficial due to all of the reasons provided.

Apparently, I was right ALL ALONG

Oh, what a shock. A disingenuous p.o.s. stuffs some straw in order to come back around and claim victory.

It's time for you to

 

[ralfy]

No.



That's precisely what I am rejecting. Just because something may be INTEGRAL does not just axiomatically translate into it being necessary or beneficial. Like, for example, oh, I don't know, consumer-oriented single-use throwaway items like disposable razors and plastic utensils that are neither necessary nor beneficial due to all of the reasons provided.

Apparently, I was right ALL ALONG

Oh, what a shock. A disingenuous p.o.s. stuffs some straw in order to come back around and claim victory.

It's time for you to

So, now it turns out that you never realized that the disposable products you talk about make up 10 pct of plastics, and up to 90 pct involve your basic needs, from the clothes that you wear to packaging for medicine and food that you buy to electrical, water, and gas systems that provide utilities to your residence, to even the construction materials needed for your residence, not to mention the plastics used in the infrastructure and vehicles needed to bring all of these necessities to you.

Even the credit card that you use to buy them is made of plastic.

And since you're now so helpless that you've resorted to personal insults, I'll leave it at that.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, now it turns out that you never realized that the disposable products you talk about make up 10 pct of plastics

Wtf are you talking about? We already did this dance two pages ago:

From your own source:

More than one-third of the plastic polymers produced in 2015 were used for packaging. That category also generated the most waste.

Packaging: 35.9%
Building and construction: 16.0%
Textiles: 14.5%
Other: 11.5%
Consumer and institutional products: 10.3%
Transportation: 6.6%
Electrical/electronic: 4.4%
Industrial machinery: 0.7%

Which I then further broke down by your source's source (emphasis mine):

We estimate that 8300 million metric tons (Mt) as of virgin plastics have been produced to date. As of 2015, approximately 6300 Mt of plastic waste had been generated, around 9% of which had been recycled, 12% was incinerated, and 79% was accumulated in landfills or the natural environment. If current production and waste management trends continue, roughly 12,000 Mt of plastic waste will be in landfills or in the natural environment by 2050.
...
[P]lastics’ largest market is packaging, an application whose growth was accelerated by a global shift from reusable to single-use containers. As a result, the share of plastics in municipal solid waste (by mass) increased from less than 1% in 1960 to more than 10% by 2005 in middle- and high-income countries.
...
None of the commonly used plastics are biodegradable. As a result, they accumulate, rather than decompose, in landfills or the natural environment (6). The only way to permanently eliminate plastic waste is by destructive thermal treatment, such as combustion or pyrolysis. Thus, near-permanent contamination of the natural environment with plastic waste is a growing concern. Plastic debris has been found in all major ocean basins (6), with an estimated 4 to 12 million metric tons (Mt) of plastic waste generated on land entering the marine environment in 2010 alone (3). Contamination of freshwater systems and terrestrial habitats is also increasingly reported (7–9), as is environmental contamination with synthetic fibers (9, 10). Plastic waste is now so ubiquitous in the environment that it has been suggested as a geological indicator of the proposed Anthropocene era (11).

We present the first global analysis of all mass-produced plastics ever made by developing and combining global data on production, use, and end-of-life fate of polymer resins, synthetic fibers, and additives into a comprehensive material flow model. The analysis includes thermoplastics, thermosets, polyurethanes (PURs), elastomers, coatings, and sealants but focuses on the most prevalent resins and fibers: high-density polyethylene (PE), low-density and linear low-density PE, polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and PUR resins; and polyester, polyamide, and acrylic (PP&A) fibers. The pure polymer is mixed with additives to enhance the properties of the material.
...
Most of the packaging plastics leave use the same year they are produced, whereas construction plastics leaving use were produced decades earlier, when production quantities were much lower. For example, in 2015, 42% of primary nonfiber plastics produced (146 Mt) entered use as packaging and 19% (65 Mt) as construction, whereas nonfiber plastic waste leaving use was 54% packaging (141 Mt) and only 5% construction (12 Mt).
...
We estimate that 2500 Mt of plastics—or 30% of all plastics ever produced—are currently in use. Between 1950 and 2015, cumulative waste generation of primary and secondary (recycled) plastic waste amounted to 6300 Mt. Of this, approximately 800 Mt (12%) of plastics have been incinerated and 600 Mt (9%) have been recycled, only 10% of which have been recycled more than once. Around 4900 Mt—60% of all plastics ever produced—were discarded and are accumulating in landfills or in the natural environment (Fig. 2). Of this, 600 Mt were PP&A fibers. None of the mass-produced plastics biodegrade in any meaningful way; however, sunlight weakens the materials, causing fragmentation into particles known to reach millimeters or micrometers in size (32). Research into the environmental impacts of these “microplastics” in marine and freshwater environments has accelerated in recent years (33), but little is known about the impacts of plastic waste in land-based ecosystems.

So, very clearly when they refer to "packaging" they are predominantly referring to single-use/disposable consumer-oriented items and NOT "long term storage." Or, at least not long-term beyond one year, which is clearly intended as the upper bound.

I even used their graphic ffs to clearly and unmistakably qualify what they and I were referring to:

And since you're now so helpless that you've resorted to personal insults, I'll leave it at that.

YOU were the one that first likened me to an "ignoramus," remember? No, of course not.

The only thing I previously said regarding you personally was that you had poor reading comprehension skills, which are demonstrable and evident to all and repeated here.

What STILL confounds me, however, is that WE BOTH AGREE that there are proper uses for plastics and improper ones that we can definitely do without, most notably in regard to the ones I've repeatedly been talking about since the very beginning of all of this utterly pointless nonsense you've derailed with and keep doubling down on because interwebz.

Why?