What we need to develop is something that doesn't degrade at all under most human living conditions, but does degrade rapidly if we expose it to some sort of not-common trigger, whether that is another chemical or temperature or pressure or whatever.
Plastic takes the best aspects of wood (lightweight, cheap), ceramics (easy to shape, watertight), and metal (casual resiliency); and dodges some of the biggest issues with each (wood requires a lot of finishing and is very slow to shape industrially, ceramics tend to shatter, metal is comparatively expensive, prone to rust, and also electrically conductive). They're not perfect, but if you add up the stat points it's obvious why they're so prevalent.
The tricky part is how do we even begin to model that with a somewhat comprehensible parameter? Without near perfect traceability across all nations in the world, we can only use sledgehammer methods like a “plastic tax” - which you’ll find very difficult to pass outside of more developed jurisdictions like the EU
A pigovian tax is one solution, though it suffers from issues like the one you describe.
At 5 grams per bag it's also hard to get any real volume of the emissions.
One of my pet theories is that we vastly overestimate the environmentally impact of things we personally touch. People lose sleep over their single use Starbucks cups, while things many orders of magnitude worse happen out of sight.
Burning that is creating between 264 and 750kg of CO2 per person and year, definitely not insignificant.
I'm not saying that big corporations are not responsible for a huge chunk of the emissions, but getting away from using so much plastic is not hurting.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1339439/plastic-waste-ma...
I don't have numbers, but if burning plastic replaces some coal or fracked natural gas, that could be a win, all things considered.
Not to mention, to get usable energy out of the plastic, you have to invest lots of energy for recycling it first - you need infrastructure and education to collect it separately from other trash, you need additional processing to sort it by type, to clean it of many other residue, etc.
And evwn if you do all that fairly efficiently, you're still never going to collect a large percentage of the plastic people use. So any extra environmental impact from plastic in landfills will still be there and need to be resolved.
My argument is not that burning plastic is more efficient than burning whatever fuel. My argument is that extracting, transporting and burning waste plastic may be more efficient than extracting, transporting, and burning whatever fuel. Waste to energy might need a lot less transportation if the plants are near where the waste is generated and/or where it is already collected.
> Not to mention, to get usable energy out of the plastic, you have to invest lots of energy for recycling it first - you need infrastructure and education to collect it separately from other trash, you need additional processing to sort it by type, to clean it of many other residue, etc.
There's already sorting and education for recycling, so the question becomes what's the incremental input needed to get a usable waste to useful energy pipeline.
> And even if you do all that fairly efficiently, you're still never going to collect a large percentage of the plastic people use. So any extra environmental impact from plastic in landfills will still be there and need to be resolved.
Yes, but I don't know how that relates? My argument is that the emissions of burning plastic for usable energy might not be as bad as it looks because it would reduce lifecycle emissions from (direct) fossil fuels. That's not an argument for or against burning plastic, it's an argument that we need to get marginal emissions numbers for the alternatives, and if emissions is the only criteria, then it would make sense to burn plastic in cases where the marginal emissions are in favor of burning it; but even that wouldn't be universal. It might make more (or less) sense to setup trash for energy plants in isolated locations where transport of other fuel is difficult; it almost certainly makes less sense to setup trash for energy plants in places where natgas is a waste product, natgas is a clear choice there.
I would guess they are less than 1 of those 150kg/year.
> Burning that is creating between 264 and 750kg of CO2 per person and year, definitely not insignificant.
Grok says total US CO2 emissions are "approximately 13.83 metric tons per person". I agree that 750kg (0.75 ton) is significant, but I don't thing plastic bags even affect the last decimal of that number.
It's far from the most important issue, but it was the one I had a disagreement with.
It sounds like you agree that plastic bags are not a big problem.
Also, scrubbing 1 ton co2 is around $600 with current tech if I’m not mistaken.
I think it's facile to imagine that the Earth is large, thus that burying something can "make it go away".
But the Earth is also an incredibly dynamic place over long enough time scales (which for the purposes of this discussion can simply mean decades or centuries) so much of the lightweight matter you bury deep in dense rock can find a way to buoy back top the surface far sooner than in millions of years.
Any theoretical other concern from possible impacts of plastic in a landfill (which already will contain many other unknown pollutants) is at best secondary, unless we have some solid evidence otherwise.
Consider also that some significant amount of plastic in landfills is inevitable regardless of any sepatate collection policies. Especially with current recycling practices, you are encouraged to only separately collect certain kinds of fairly clean plastics. If you have a dirty styrofoam container that you just ate out of, you're not even supposed to throw that in the plastic recycling - so it will go to a landfill anyway. This means that landfills have to be mindful of potential plastic pollution even if we burn a lot of the plastic we use.
Plus, if we're truly worried about the health impact of plastic use, the only solution is to massively reduce plastic use. The fact that we "cleanly burn it" instead of letting it seap into groundwater is not going to help one iota when we store and transport and sometimes cook much of our food directly in it.
Climate change won't destroy life on earth, the very worst case according to the IPCC is a billion death by 2099 but nature won't care. Sure some species will disappears but looking at bikini atol, 40 to 50 years after the disaster the remaining one will fill back the newly open ecological niche and the intense genetic pressure will assure that they will eventually diversify.
Since we don't know about the effects microplastics accumulation long term effect, the worst case is that at that there exists some threshold that make higher life form impossible, maybe that threshold doesn't exist but maybe it does. Since humanity won't stop using something so usefull, without plastic millions of peoples would die every year from cause like food poisoning and lack of medical advanced medical care, so cleanly burning the plastic is the ethical choice. As grim as it sounds preventing the possible death of everything is better than preventing a billion death.
And note that I don't suggest that we ignore the 3R, we should still reduce and re-use the plastic and recycle the kind that are truly recyclable but between the landfill and energy producing plastic incinerator, the ethical chois is clear.
I also wanted to answer this. This is non-scientific BS based on literally nothing. Risks don't work like this: unless you can quantify them, you can't act on them. Any activity has some potential risk of unknown catastrophic effects. Maybe there is some chance that after a threshold, flushing our toilets will cause tidal effects that rip our planet apart - it's unlikely but it's possible. So let's all stop flushing our toilets. And stop using 5G if we're there, some people think that has a high risk of causing cancer or whatever.
By what possible measure? Despite clear, well documented science, including very clear dire economical impact, and all within an extremely clear and short term time frame, with escalating effects already visible literally everywhere in the world, we have had almost 0 progress in combating global warming. The best we've done is slowing the rate of acceleration - as in CO2 release is still accelerating, just not as much.
Plastic waste has environmental impact, especially in the oceans, but nowhere near to the level that 2-3-4 degrees warming will have. And that is what we are currently on track for by the end of this century.
I'm no chemist, but they don't really react chemically with anything in nature, as I understand it.
I know it feels dirty and unnatural that they just lie there, but in practical terms I don't think they do any substantial harm.
However, even in developed nations, the quantity is large enough that the remainder is an observable issue: around the same time as my visit to Nairobi, 10 years ago, the UK introduced a minimum price for plastic bags (then 5p, increased in 2021 to 10p), to reduce bag usage, because it's just so easy to just not care enough about free things to make sure they end up in landfill (or recycling): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/single-use-plasti...
You haven't seen any reports about this? "Microplastics" does not ring any bells?
>[plastic bags] don't really react chemically with anything in nature
Almost no one denies that "forever chemicals" are toxic to humans even in tiny concentrations even though they are very much chemically inert. By "forever chemicals" I refer to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (used in the production of Teflon, Gore-Tex, etc) or more precisely the chemically-stable compounds into which they break down. Just like forever chemicals, microplastics bioaccumulate.
But even if it was literally un-reactive, sometimes it's enough to just be in the way. Imagine folding a protein, or assembling a structure of RNA origami*, but some big lump of un-reactive molecule is in the middle — the ultimate shape is different, leading to different biochemical results. Grit in the gears.
Or even just heavy: deuterium is chemically identical to hydrogen, but still has a lethal concentration** because it is twice the mass.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_origami
** Replacing 50% of the hydrogen in a multicellular organism with deuterium is generally lethal, unless this is a widely believed myth that's about to get a bunch of debunking
If we were pragmatic and competent enough to send cleanly-burnable household waste to (say) power plants designed for that, there wouldn't be much of an issue. It's the stupid litterbugs and performative-virtue "recycling" lobby who really drive up the disposal cost.
Or "plastic".
"So far, paper packs have been the most common alternatives to plastic containers. But business experts have pointed out that consumers are less willing to buy goods in paper packs because they cannot see the contents. Transparent paper could overcome this problem, but bringing the material to market will require factories with the technology to mass-produce it."
I know I don't want to use paper BAGS because they break super easily when carrying goods but that doesn't seem to be what the article is talking about.
Plastics do a lot of things; no one material can replace them all. But this is certainly one meaningful niche of disposable plastics.
The problem with plastic also isn't that it can last thousands of years, glass also has that property, to an even greater degree.
The problem with plastics isn't that it won't degrade on its own. It is that you can't really do anything with it after it has been disposed, recycling of glass is simple, recycling of plastics is very difficult as it degrades the material properties.
There is no problem with the fact that a plastic bag does not deteriorate for thousands of years after use: you just throw it in the trash, and it lies in a pile of garbage for thousands of years, absolutely harmless and with a near-zero impact on the environment (because the areas of garbage dumps are tiny both relative to the environment and relative to other human impacts on the environment)
Propaganda about the harm of plastic bags is designed for complete idiots, whose idiocy borders on a clinical diagnosis.
The real problem is with other products of plastic, which break down while in use, polluting the water and air with microparticles.
Car tires, synthetic fabrics, paints and paint coatings and various exterior finishes, sidings and so on. All of this, even with the slightest wear, whether from mechanics or ultraviolet radiation, pollutes the environment throughout the entire use.
Against this problem, plastic bags are completely harmless even if we start using them ten times more and throwing them away ten times more often. And this problem cannot be solved by changing the method of disposal or recycling. Only by stopping the use.
The fight against plastic bags and all this stuff about recycling plastic is literally a joke how drunk man searching for something under the streetlight that he lost somewhere else in the park. Only he searches for it at someone else's expense, actively spending the allocated funds on alcohol and large-scale media projects on the need and importance of the search under the streetlight
That requires that people care enough to collect that material in order to have it transported to the facility that can degrade it. The amount of plastic in the environment indicates that this is clearly not the case.
I haven’t really tossed away a bottle/can in years. I mean, I didn’t really use to do that previously anyways, but now I don’t even throw them into the regular trash, instead collect them in a separate bag.
I’d say it’s all about some sort of an incentive.
One wonders why we don't do this with larger categories of garbage that needs to be sorted. I suppose bottles and cans are fairly easy to semi-automate given their fairly standardised shapes. But that just feels like an implementation detail.
Not a great system for many reasons, not least of which is relying on truly poor people. But they are remarkably efficient at extracting value from the waste stream.
Automated recyclable separation is hard and fascinating. Magnets for ferrous metals. Something about non-ferrous metal and eddy currents for aluminum. Infrared cameras and mechanical arms to detect and separate types of plastics. Blower systems to extract paper. Tumblers with various sized holes (like those coin counting machines) for other separation. (Source: Not that great. I just watched a few Youtubes.)
AKA "Container-deposit legislation" (or "Pant" as we call it in Sweden and maybe also Germany?). Seems to work very well, and you also have a ton of people collecting cans that others throw in the environment, as they'll get money for it.
Kind of wish we had it here in Spain too, as the environment and the sea ends up with a lot of cans and glass bottles. Seems like such an obvious idea to have nationwide.
Most supermarkets have a reverse vending machine that take cans and bottles, crushes single-use ones, and returns a voucher for the deposit.
Some videos of these machines in action (not sure whether there are people on HN who have never seen one):
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWqwu63eTPQ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlfDavzHq7I - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozVpMDDawnw
Or that governments care enough to create laws and incentives for people to collect it.
Besides, there are many places that don't have as much plastic as others in their environment, so clearly it's possible to avoid in some way. Have to figure out how and why, but I'm guessing the researchers kind of feel like that's outside the scope of their research.
Yes, it is. Lasting for thousands of years is the same thing as (1) impermeability to microbes (mold / insects / etc...) plus (2) failure to react with local chemicals. Those two things are the things we want, and if you have them both, you last for thousands of years, because there's nothing to stop you from doing that.
Um, a stitch in time saves nine.
Are you just typing random words?
If a new material can take the place of some of those, that's a win. We don't need to replace plastic wholesale with a single new thing, there's no rule against using multiple targeted materials, we've just got used to material science being all about one material for recent history.
I mean, the simplest solution to this problem might be to leave that borderline uninhabitable hellhole and move to Europe where food in bamboo wraps or home-washed glass containers don't start stringing in matters of hours, but that's not an option for most.
Also, you might be thinking that some of those wrap materials were historically viable, but it has to be noted that the content inside were much less healthier than it is now. Medieval Japanese people were estimated to have taken as much as 50g/day/person of salt, which is literally 10x WHO recommendations, or like 1.5 cups per week, or one small backpack worth per year. Adding that much of salt to food is no different from marinading it in chemical preservatives, only much worse.
"We like it because it lasts thousands of years."
There are numerous other reasons for liking plastic ... in fact that's a very odd and unusual reason to like it. You say that the properties that we like about it are why it lasts thousands of years, but that's a very different statement. In fact, people have pointed out that we would prefer for it to have its likable properties but NOT last for thousands of years. So you've made a whole host of logic errors. You may not think so, but that's another consequence of the underlying problem here.
I won't respond further.
'waterproof' (fluid proof for many things)
Difficult to shatter (drop safe-ish)
Shows stuff off 'nicely'
- any sort of housing window and display protection, I have at least half a dozen within easy reach not including actual computer displays
- transparent food packaging is important to both identify the product and ascertain its state (especially at the store e.g. berries)
- viewing liquid levels at a glance is extremely useful
I'm not sure if there is a scenario something similar could happen with a drink.
Currently, plastic packaging is measured in the tens of millions of tons per year, while coal is measured in the billions of tons.
Not burning the plastic risks its turning into microplastics, which will tend to interfere with the physiology of all plants and animals.
There's a lot of talk generally of running carbon sequestration technologies and how important that will be. Burying plastic waste is exactly doing that, without spending the extra power to actually extract the carbon from the air.
The plastic in our bodies is not generally getting there from environmental pollution, it's getting there from us using plastic to wrap and cook the majority of our food and drink and cosmetics etc.
We don’t need it to last thousands of years to store food. That durability is in fact quite a disadvantage when we consider microplastics in our own bodies. Its time frame to natural degradation could be orders of magnitude smaller and it would still do a great job for food and many other applications, with significantly less harmful drawbacks.
Most fruit only lasts 1-2 weeks and comes in plastic trays, wrapped in plastic film that last hundreds of years after
And of course that reason is economic.
Plastic is essentially free, being a waste byproduct of petroleum extraction. Outside of the upfront infrastructure investment the feedstock is cost negligible. So pure profit once you're up and running. That the process is locked behind a knowledge wall, in that not just anyone is going to have the capitol and knowledge to execute, which limits the competitive landscape. So low risk high reward, which just gets investors salivating. At this point we take plastics as a given. Plastics have been so successful that the glass ceiling has been reached and now we’re all worried about the lifecycle costs.
Regarding that lifecycle: I’m pro plastic. I romantically entertain recycling despite its lack luster performance and track record. At this point in time given the severity and perniciousness with the problems of disposal I feel the only prudent course of action is putting waste plastic back in the holes we get it out of. That this isn’t done is a whole rabbit hole of legislation, economic incentives, technical hurdles, entrenched theological fallacies that persist culturally bringing us back to the ouroboros of legislation.
In all cases, though, a key feature is that it can be synthesized at massive scale for cheap, and it's the hardest part when looking for substitutes.
Depends on the type of plastic used.
Cellophane is a plant-derived plastic that can be used for packaging and it’s biodegradable.
We like plastic because it is lightweight and not biodegradable.
This sounds like something that'd be very cheap and flexible. I've drunk out of plenty of paper cups before.
So maybe this is a transparent paper cup. Which is possibly useful somewhere.
Glass. You are talking about glass. It is re-usable and recycle-able. It just has the unfortunate property that if you break it, the resulting shards will slice people up pretty badly, so it is far less safe for transport logistics. Not to mention heavy.
It's not about finding a universal replacement, it's always going to be a multifaceted approach.
Wrong. People only care for packaging to last before the contents expire, but beyond the expiry date nobody cares about the next thousand years that the packaging will last. And they will very much care when they start suffering the health consequences of garbage and microplastics leaking into their drinking water.
> What we need to develop is something that doesn't degrade at all under most human living conditions
You mean like a "forever chemical"?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9819327/
Etc… just google microplastics.
People think plastic is bad because it comes from oil, that's not the case. Plastic and the oil it comes from is a biproduct of the primary reason we drill for oil - which is energy. The generation of plastic isn't the problem per se, it's the existence of it from then on. So if you find some new zero emission way of making a plastic substitute that has all the same problems of plastic, you haven't really done anything.
The solution to plastic is a change in consumer spending, probably facilitated by national regulation. So... good luck.
If we had plastic that is not transparent and biodegraded in a year, it would be perfectly fine, as it would cover almost all food packaging cases.
But, unfortunately, we use plastics for everything these days. I saw even some cars are now made of plastic (Bezos's Slate).
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ads2426
Apparently they wanted to create a material that:
1. is transparent,
2. can be made thick enough,
3. and is purely cellulose-based.
Cellophane meets 1 and 3 but is hard to be made thick. Paper satisfies 2 and 3 but is not transparent. Celluroid is not explicitly mentioned in the paper, but I gather it does not satisfy 3 since it's hardly pure-cellulose.
The main application target seems to be food packaging.
I think it's Glassine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose_acetate dates back to the 19th century; tough enough to be used for films and eyeglass frames.
Production involves some chems: "cellulose [pulp] is reacted with acetic acid and acetic anhydride in the presence of sulfuric acid."
Acetic anhydride is restricted in some countries because it's used in making heroin.
If only AI/LLM can summarize most research papers like this correctly and intuitively I think most people will pay good money for it, I know I would.
Maybe the technology was "balanced", but the society certainly wasn't. It relied on continual expansion and devolved from a republic into an empire along the way. When the empire couldn't expand anymore, it collapsed and fragmented.
I also don't think their technology level was stable. IMO, they were only about 200 years away from developing a useful steam engine and kicking off their own industrial revolution. They knew the principals, they even had toy steam engines. They were already using both water wheels and windmills to do work when available. They were just missing precision manufacturing techniques to make a steam engine that actually did useful work.
That's the point. They had sustainable and clean technology. It was a sweet spot.
They also deforested large sections of Europe for fuel (especially to make charcoal for smelting iron), building materials and to clear land for crops. They didn't really practice much in the way of sustainable forests, unless they ran into local shortages of fuel wood.
> Roman-era mining activities increased atmospheric lead concentrations by at least a factor of 10, polluting air over Europe more heavily and for longer than previously thought, according to a new analysis of ice cores taken from glaciers on France's Mont Blanc.
A lot less than modern technology manages, but a lot more than nothing. And that with a much smaller population.
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-roman-polluted-european-air-he... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruina_montium
53 million amphoras... That is ceramic containers chugged to a pile... Not exactly sustainable or efficient choice either. Well there is lot of clay, but still not exactly sustainable approach...
Just curious whether I'm missing some connection.
By contrast, lithium bromide is a stable salt and is basically as cheap as the elements used to produce it, so it can be easily scaled up and recycled.
And most other countries dump their garbage in these less fortunate countries for 'recycling'.
Can't really get mad at poor third world countries we have been using as dumpsters.
If you don't believe me or think this is hyperbole, no I'm being literal here. Almost everything you sort out into a recycling bin gets dumped in the the ocean somewhere far from you.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/31/waste-co...
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/03/rich-countri...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-pla...
https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/industrialised-countries-are...
But the articles don't say that. They say that a lot of plastic is unsuitable for recycling and is therefore incinerated or dumped, like into a landfill or a big dirty pile of trash on the ground. Not one of the articles said that the plastic was being dumped into the ocean.
One of the articles makes an observation about beaches and ocean around one Cambodian recycling town covered with plastic trash. Certainly a careless and dirty operation there. But even that article doesn't claim that their modus operandi is to dump it into the ocean.
If those journalists had any evidence that ocean dumping was the goal, or even if they suspected it, then that would have been the highlight of the article and they would have said so explicitly. It would be a newsworthy scoop even.
People change all the time. We are much different than ~10 years ago, before the rise of the far-right in the West. We are much different than 100 years ago.
People get much more exercise, eat healthier, are better educated ... so much as changed. Another new thing is people love to embrace nihilism rather than hope and progress - almost nobody embraces the latter these days.
In the US at least, Obesity is on the rise, people eat more meat than ever before, and life expectancy is basically flat over the past decade.
The main issue of trash has always been separation.
This transparent paper made from cellulose sounds really promising. If it can handle heat, looks good, and actually breaks down in the environment, that would be a big help for shops like theirs.
Has anyone here worked with this kind of material? I’d love to hear how it performs in real use, especially with things like liquids or anything sensitive to moisture.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...
That in spite of all the progress humans have made, we're somehow unable just take the lid off and drink out of a cup without pitching a fit?
Video on this, as well as how much is used as incinerator fuel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU6WogV6UEg
This product seems to solve for a lot of things that have nothing to do with why we use plastic. Plastic is everywhere because it is durable & cheap, that's about it got 80% of applications. This misses the mark even more for the other 20% that cares about things like caustic resistance.
An expensive non-durable product will never replace it. It's nonsensical to say it's as durable as plastic, I assume that's referring to tensile strength, which is not the main property industry cares about. They want a material that will keep their product protected for months or years, it being able to lift a similar amount of weight is irrelevant when you're wrapping bread.
They say the physical properties are like polycarbonate: no problem there.
They don't say how fast it degrades in ideal conditions but do say it takes 4 months in poor conditions, and that it requires microbes not merely water, or oxygen or other chemistry or uv etc, but microbes: sounds like it won't be touched at all in your soda even after a week.
Where is the terrible part?
"Strength" is also a meaningless metric to compare, it just is not a material property.
So again, what do you base this judgement on exactly? Do you have a sample of the material and can claim they are lying and it's not actually like PC and that it somehow fails when used as a drinking straw? Does it taste bad? Did it steal your girlfriend? Like what?
The claim in the article is "strength" which is not a material property at all. Just a very vague description.
Besides that obviously they do not have the same properties, because the article literally says that it is being eaten by bacteria quite quickly in sea water.
Also, ideally not, because the turtles that were claimed to be affected are in the ocean, where the straws degraded in just a few months.
Are you one of those "fake news" types?
That's not to say plastics are good, or that marine life aren't affected by them. Clearly they are. Straws are a small factor in that, and I was simply stating that a cellulose based straw that degrades in the ocean is not going to impact turtles, certainly not more than the few rare instances plastic straws harmed them.
Granted, I expect the novelty has already started to wear off. There seems to be growing movement towards returning to plastic straws. And fair enough. You can only worry about turtles for so long before the next viral video gives you something new to worry about. And for that reason, plastic straws may no longer need a replacement (from the irrational human emotion point of view).
How do they orient them?
This transparent paper made from cellulose sounds really promising. If it can handle heat, looks good, and actually breaks down in the environment, that would be a big help for shops like theirs.
Has anyone here worked with this kind of material? I’d love to hear how it performs in real use, especially with things like liquids or anything sensitive to moisture.
Every time they have failed to replace plastics, because it is extremely hard to match all of the great qualities of the common plastic varieties. Since plastics are so common people underestimate what a great materials they really are.
- Transparent wood takes wood, dissolves the lignin (natural wood glue-ish) with a solvent, and replaces it with epoxy under pressure. It's a pain to make, but is very cool and preserves the wood fibre structure.
- This transparent paper involves dissolving very pure cellulose (long starch) and then allowing it to reconnect tightly (with heat) before drying. It appears to be composed primarily of cellulose at the end and exhibits plastic properties. I presume the chemicals change the cellulose properties to allow this.
"lithium bromide-water" is (apparently, I was corrected) not very toxic and lilley recycled in the process. If this can be scaled and the solvent process can be done safely, then its very clever. It's effectively plastic but using a more "natural" carbon chain, which nature has had a few million extra years to figure out how to break down.
They describe it as paper and compare it to polycarbonate... so my guess is that it is a bit brittle, and cannot nicely replace plastic wrap or plastic bags... but it has some nice properties to replace a group of plastics we don't have very good alternatives to. One open question I have is UV resistance. Most transparent plastics tend to become brittle over time... but I don't know my chemistry enough to know if cellulose has the same issue. Greenhouses would otherwise benefit from it (as they're often made from polycarbonate sheets rather than glass)
That doesn't make it safe, but it's not a crazy carcinogen or auto-immune risk, and it literally dissolves in water. It's present in all sea water ~0.1ppm so you can't escape it.
Highly different compounds, that just contain chlorine atoms.