🚀 go-pugleaf

> Plastics, even if they were being dumped in the landfill
> are still a better option than paper products.

=o= Not inherently, and not in the long term.

> Plastics represent about 7-10% of weight in landfill sites
> (although more by volume) and are stable, not leeching
> chemicals into the water table.  In comparison, paper is 30%
> of landfill, and the dyes leech out when exposed to water.

=o= The weight percentage doesn't tell us much, since paper is
used for quite a variety of applications that plastic just isn't
suitable for.

=o= The stability/instability argument cuts both ways.  Here we
get into what is and what isn't inherent in the materials:  The
leeching problem isn't inherently a problem with paper, because
dyes and other polluting chemicals used in/on paper can in most
cases be replaced with biodegradable, nontoxic chemicals.

=o= On the other hand, plastic's stability is another way of
saying that it's inherently nonbiodegradable.  In the long term,
this is no advantage.  Plastic waste is often found blocking
or strangling things.

=o= (By "non-biodegradable" I mean that it can't degrade into
something that can be assimiliated into the biosphere.  There
are products made of so-called "biodegradable plastic" that do
degrade by biological processes, but they don't degrade into
anything good.  Some of these products have been relabeled
"degradable," which is slightly more honest.)

=o= It is true that current sanitary landfill management prac-
tices do not allow paper waste to biodegrade, but again, this
is not an inherent problem.
    <_Jym_>