JC

Back when we were still gullible fools susceptible to plastic experts, we believed their sincere, PhD-laden assurances that assiduously sorting our garbage into different piles and paying more taxes to sketchy characters for collection and removal was virtuous and would signal to neighbors that we are good people who Care About The Planet

Remember, keep sorting! The Wall Street Journal ran a hard-hitting story yesterday headlined, “California Sues Exxon, Alleges Plastics Deception.” The word ‘plastic’ used to be a nifty euphemism for ‘fake.’ I think that, over time, that terminology lost favor and fell out of common parlance, on account of a totally unfair association with a certain silicone-based cosmetic procedure that doesn’t even use plastic anyway.

image.png
It’s too bad. ‘Plastic’ would be a great term to describe the fake recycling industry and the grifting experts who drift around it like trash-gobbling buzzards. Back when we were still gullible fools susceptible to plastic experts, we believed their sincere, PhD-laden assurances that assiduously sorting our garbage into different piles and paying more taxes to sketchy characters for collection and removal was virtuous and would signal to neighbors that we are good people who Care About The Planet.

The Journal’s article tried frame up a confused narrative about Exxon Corporation deceiving investors, because it over-promised results of investments meant to tackle “climate change.” It wasn’t clear, since climate change is fake (plastic) anyways, so of course any promises to tackle climate problems go nowhere.

If they can sell investments for climate change solutions, why not raise money to increase the Leprechaun population? Or to develop supplements letting mermaids stay longer on land? But I digress.

The article’s facts were much more interesting than its weak narrative framing. It turns out that Exxon holds California’s largest contract to recycle plastic. Cradle to grave! They make the oil that makes the plastic, then they get paid again to remove the plastic when we’re done with it, and the plastic cycle of life starts all over again.

At least, that how it is supposed to work. But guess what? According to the Journal, only eight percent (8%) of California’s plastic waste gets ‘recycled.’ The rest —over 90%— goes right in the landfill.

Exxon’s performance was actually above average. An Energy Department report from 2022 found that only about five percent (5%) of plastic waste is recycled, nine percent (9%) is burned, and the rest gets dumped. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta told the Journal, “The truth is: The vast majority of plastic cannot be recycled.”

Now they tell us. You’d think this would have been bigger news.

Worse, according to the Energy Department, even the minuscule amount of plastic waste that can be recycled is not super productive. Experts are once again baffled, having discovered that consumer demand for recycled plastic is, well, practically nonexistent. For some reason, people don’t want their babies drinking out of plastic that came from the trash. It might not be rational, but there it is.

Every single day, a certain maternal relative (who shall remain un-named) carefully rinses all her plastic waste items, then cuts them up with shears before painstakingly placing them neatly in the recycling bin, in the unshakeable belief her labors will make her garbage more easily recycled.

I get why California is suing Exxon; it has deep pockets and is a hated petroleum corporation. But in a sane world, we would tar and feather the so-called scientists and climate experts who convinced everybody this plastic scam was a good idea.

After a fair trial, of course.