Is this actually doable?

Not at the same price.

Why are we still using so much fucking plastic?

Profit margins.

This is less to do with single-use plastics, but plastic is often a really good option from a functional POV. It doesn’t conduct heat like metal, it doesn’t break like glass/ceramics and has better moisture resistance than timber. (Not saying plastic couldn’t be replaced a lot of the time, but some times it’s a frustratingly good option).

In terms of complete single-use plastic replacement, I’m not sure, but would also be interested. I’d hope it’s mostly possible.

Zero plastic doesn’t need to be a goal. There has rarely if ever been a more versatile and useful material. Delivering food and medicine to humanity would be impossible if we all woke up tomorrow without plastic.

So it’s more a case of judicious use:

1. use when no feasible alternative exists (not just because plastic is most convenient)
2. invest in effective recycling and recovery programs, including total incineration - AND (important) make sure the cost of this is shifted upstream to the manufacturers of plastics

There will be many cases where “no feasible alternative exist” and that will mean “it is prohibitively costly to do it with glass and steel.” I think that is really your questions. The answer is yes, sometimes plastic is actually best.

But I’d feel much more comfortable deciding that for a given use case IF #2 actually existed. Under current conditions, there may be no reasonable use of plastic at all.

20 years ago:

"We need to stop using paper bags! They’re cutting down all the trees!” (a renewable resource)

"We should use plastic bags instead! They’re recyclable!” (so is paper, and it’s far more economically viable, but plastic is made from petroleum)

So now we use plastic bags made of a much heavier material, so we can reuse them, or cloth bags for a similar reason.

Cloth bags are made from cotton, like paper is made from trees.

This is a non-trivial problem. The best thing for the environment is for all of us to stop buying so much shit we don’t need, but that would require a dramatic shift in how society works and the cultural values of pretty much everyone. Cookies coming in metal tins again would be way worse for the environment than plastic, but you also have to remember that when cookies came in metal tins, they were luxury items people would buy for holidays and special occasions. The only way to meaningfully improve things for the environment in terms of packaging is for all of us to buy less pre-packaged food in general.

Expanding access to goods is both good and bad, and plastic containers are a big part of that process. I think it’s completely unrealistic to replace all single-use plastics with non-plastic alternatives, and I think that efforts to do so have largely backfired in unexpected ways. This problem is best solved by reducing the amount of useless shit we buy but in the meantime I think biodegradable polymers are a good bridge technology. We actually already know about a lot of biodegradable polymers because the earliest polymers were based on biopolymers such as cellulose, resin, and rubber, and these have remained commercially important enough to maintain a high degree of knowledge of their chemistries.

Another problem, of course, is that most people don’t actually want truly biodegradable polymers. You don’t want a ketchup bottle that starts breaking down while you’re still using it or impacts the taste of the ketchup, but you also don’t want to buy it in a thick, non-squeezable glass bottle. So from an engineering perspective we have to devise plastics that are biodegradable, but only when we want them to be. There are a lot of advancements in this field, but it’s still not enough on its own to fix things. This issue also applies to paper, since almost all “paper” packaging products also include polymers as sealants to improve performance precisely because paper has all the same issues without it.

The real trick to make this better is moving away from a consumerist mindset. Which isnt really possible in capitalism at its current stage.

Not exactly answering your dilemma, but I was watching a cooking channel yesterday (Sorted), and they were talking about seaweed - it’s wild (heh). You can use it to make straws, bags, packaging and all sorts of stuff that’s foodsafe and biodegradable. And apparently, even if we replaced all the plastic used for that kind of thing with seaweed, we’d barely make a dent in the ocean’s seaweed supply - we’d use less than 1% of it.

If you use reusable bags, bottles, and other containers, that’s way more sustainable than any single use product.

But using paper is still better than plastic, and yes, trees can be and are sustainably farmed in many parts of the world.

I have seen some shifts away from plastic. For example, Apple seems to have removed almost all if not all plastic from their packaging, replacing it with paper.

OK, with what would you replace the materials of LEGO bricks?

This is not a trick question, but one that LEGO has already spent millions on research on. They found an oil-free alternative to the soft plastic used for leaves and other plant parts, but are stuck on other types of plastic they use.

It’s doable. The world existed and functioned without plastic.

You would see glass for bottles, etc. We would adapt and be fine

We could just have less stuff. Plastic allowed us to make massive amounts of stuff so we could have more stuff and stuff stuff stuff stuff stuff.

We need both less plastic and less stuff. We shouldn’t be replacing everything that is plastic, we should be replacing some of it and reduce consumption.

Yeah so you can’t have environmental sustainability and capitalism. The logic of infinite growth demands that the cheapest route must eventually be taken in order to provide value to shareholders. Plastic is cheap in a way that nothing else is.

Plastic is not a climate problem. Ocean pollution is mainly fishing nets. There is a garbage problem that automation can help with recycling. Making fishing nets out of cotton instead of nylon would be a big improvment.

Wood and paper is a renewable resource that could be used more. Global warming is especially a threat to vast northern forests with fire that are paper sources, while also permitting more/bigger tree growth in the regions. Harvesting trees is a solution to fires, and more demand an incentive to prevent fires.

Manufacturing with compressed sawdust could be a cost competitive alternative to plastic, but the binder could make the wood product less recyclable.

The scenario is a bit misleading. We didn’t arrive at everything being wrapped in single-use plastic overnight so we cannot switch the other way that quickly either.

Perishable or hygienic reasons must allow for continued use for some products. But there are plenty of things that don’t fall under that umbrella where waxed paper or single-use bamboo could make sense. You have correctly identified cost as an issue. The reason why everything is still wrapped in plastic like a corpse in Twin Peaks is it’s cheaper. Plastic packaging is also more resistant to damage on the way to the consumer. So the calculations need to change. We need to raise the cost on plastic and lower it on other more quickly biodegradable items. That’s a political decision, one that would be heavily lobbied against by the big boys in packaging. Yet another reason why overnight simply won’t work.

The question about resources also hinges on the time frame. If the switch had to occur today, the answer is probably no. There aren’t enough paper mills and bamboo nurseries in the world to meet demand. But there weren’t a gazillion plastic factories from the start, they grew over time in numbers. One should also not forget that paper mills aren’t without environmental impact. And neither would bamboo toothbrushes be. Also if we increase the amount of arable land to grow bamboo, are we decreasing land for food or animal feed? What are the effects of growing bamboo on the land without fellow periods? What fertilizer would be used? What toxic insect killer chemicals would need to be in use to guarantee sustainable levels of production? It’s not like one option is the perfect solution to fix the problems with the other option.

A holistic aporoach would also have to include us consumers changing our behavior. That’s definitely not happening overnight.

The solution isn’t so much to replace plastic as it is to eliminate “single use” from our way of life, except as needed for emergencies (eg, situations where the only way to be sanitary is by destroying the object after use).

If you eliminate the majority of non-reusable stuff from your life, the rest becomes much easier. The volumes of plastics would be much lower such that much of it could actually be recycled at least once.

The second bit is to always incorporate end of life into a product’s lifecycle. Shrink what’s allowed to go in landfills. Provide a system to reclaim and often re-use damaged or worn out materials. Design things so they can be easily parted (broken up into parts) so that if a battery dies, you take the old ones in for servicing and either get them replaced or refreshed, instead of tossing the entire device.

Groceries? I no longer use bags; I get the store to give me the flats it gets its stuff in, and I fill those up with my groceries. General shopping? I have a set of cloth bags that stay in my car and another I can shove in my pocket when I’m walking.

I’ve got a metal water bottle I take with me when I go places.

Rejecting single use will get us much further than rejecting plastic.