• HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Get rid of them. I was very young but existed in the 70’s and the grocery store did not have all the plastics and there was plenty of convenience in foods. Its amazing what glass, paper, and aluminum can do. Glass was not even recycled usually. Had a deposit added to the cost and got it back when you returned it to the store where the person supplying the item took them back and they were washed and reused. It was why bottle caps were so prevalent.

    • Jayjader@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      22 hours ago

      glass was not even recycled usually

      Yeah, we would reuse it (as the order implies in reduce, reuse, recycle). Recycling glass takes wayyyyyyy more energy than cleaning it. But the glass makers benefit more from access to cheap broken glass, so we get them lobbying so that glass recycling drop-off/containers almost force you to shatter every bottle you put into them…

      • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        21 hours ago

        I know you’re joking, but as far as aluminum is concerned, this is true. Which is why paper and glass are crucial.

      • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I think this is sarcastic but just in case. Given how much paper we used before and that this is something that works great with recycled paper and that we can make paper from grasses like bamboo now, I don’t see the need for rainforest cutting to do it.

        • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Yes it was sarcastic. Plastic bags were pushed to “save the rain forest”. But we never had the problem to begin with. We have since switched to mostly tree plantations for are wood/paper production.

    • YaDownWitCPP@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Everything is a compromise. We could bring back paper in a larger scale, but then more land would have to be dedicated to working forests which are sustainable but aren’t ecologically friendly. We could bring back glass in a larger scale, but that would make shipments much heavier thus increasing the emissions required to ship it.

      • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        We handled the paper needed for all the paperwork that has gone away and we did not even use non tree alternatives at that time. Plus the grocery usages work well with recycled paper. Most of what glass is used for is filled locally. You don’t ship cans of pop or beer from china. Since most glass was liquids the container is not a majority of the weight.

        • YaDownWitCPP@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Just an FYI, shipping means “the process of transporting packages and mail from one location to another” not literally transporting goods internationally on a ship.

          • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Yeah I was pointing out just the minimal effect. Shipping locally has the capability of being able to be done with clean energy and then there is the whole most of the weight is from the liquid thing. Not implying international shipping is the only prospect but more how its not really tradeoffs as all the tradeoffs are better options.