I thoroughly enjoyed this book and it's definitely on my re-read list. I quite like Charles Moore's style. He's one of those scientists I'd love to meet.
Here are some of this things that really stood out to me:
"But this story has never been only about plastics. It's about an epic shift from austerity and frugality to abundance and profligacy" (97).
*"You may think it's wrong to knock large corporations for their green efforts. You may think they will lead the way to a greener way of life. And while greening efforts are to be encouraged no matter who makes them, they will not be genuine until a company begs you to reduce consumption of their product. And that will never happen" (141).
"That plastics are hydrocarbons, derived from oil, means they harbor the potential for toxicity, because oil, as we know, is inherently toxic" (184).
Now this would make an excellent piece of science fiction (I wouldn't be surprised if it's been done already): "We're all a little taken aback when Ebbesmeyer declares for the camera that the human race may well be doomed by plastics. He gives us a few generations before hormonal toxicants in plastics render us chemical eunuchs" (209).
"The third halogen is bromine... Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) work on the premise that heat causes their molecules to break apart and release bromine that snuffs the flame" (257). I found that interesting.
Oh, here's another good sci-fi story waiting to happen (similar in consequence, perhaps, if not in cause, to Idiocracy: "Since then, the document has gained more than two hundred signatories, most of them prominent scientists and doctors, from thirty countries. These include European countries where BFRs are already banned. Why should they bother? Because our flame retardants affect their ecosystems, and the global food chain. These scientists list among their concerns not only the diseases and disorders already noted but no less than the erosion of human intelligence... Literally dumbed down, a society loses talent, productivity, competitiveness, and possibly the ability to organize politically to combat its own decline" (262). As amusing as Idiocracy was, this book could be elegantly frightening.
"There comes a tipping point when a chemical's purported benefits cannot justify what appear to be harmful unintended consequences" (264).
"BPA is a mildly estrogenic synthetic phenol..." (264). Oh, Science, how you continue to provide fodder for the eager pen. If only I knew remotely anything about chemistry. What effect would widespread, transmittable estrogen have on a population?
"Phthalates and BPA...don't persist and don't bioaccumulate" (263). This isn't a particularly stellar quote, but it will be good to remember.
Regarding large companies 'going green' and wanting 'to educate people about the impacts of their behavior': "It's this kind of moralist scolding from an uber-perpetrator—the one who passes out the weapons and then blames 'irresponsible people' when someone gets hurt—that almost stirs in me a sense of wonder for its sheer audacity" (286).
"The numbers 1 to 6 inside the chasing arrows indicate the base polymer type, but not all are collected in recycling programs. Number 7 simply means 'not 1 to 6.' But even the 'in-demand' resins—typically 1, polyethylene terephthalate (PET); 2, high-density polyethylene (HDPE); and, to a lesser extent, 4 and 5, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polypropylene (PP)—aren't always recyclable or recycled once they're collected. Of the number 1s and number 2s that are sorted, baled, and sold, the winning bidder is usually the one selling to concerns located where labor costs are low—typically China. If no one bids, the pallets of sorted plastics are headed for the landfill anyway. Much of recycling is an elaborate charade" (294).
"The messages Americans hear loud and clear are 'Don't litter' and 'Recycle,' which burden the consumer with trash management. Less loud and clear are the other two Rs: 'Reduce' and 'Reuse,' which carry the faint aroma of subversion" (300).
"In order for a plastic to disappear in the ocean, it must be marine degradable, essentially undergoing the same processes as organic materials in a terrestrial compost pile. Just because a plastic will completely biodegrade in a compost pile doesn't mean it will biodegrade in the ocean. The ocean is much colder than a compost pile..." (302).
"The tipping point may still be distant, but a consumer groundswell against plastics is the most potent weapon in the change agent's arsenal" (314).
"In the United States, where too many people with political clout view environmental restrictions on business as akin to burning the American flag, the movement is necessarily diffuse and often focused on local policy" (314-315).
"We are faced with a fundamental contradiction. The economic system that brought us fabulous wealth and unprecedented growth can't give us, as a basic return on our investment of lives, labor, and loyalty, a healthy planet" (330).
"In the United States... we find ourselves with 10 million workers unemployed, yet supermarket shelves are full, Internet orders for anything you want arrive in a couple of days, and you can get your dog's nails done while you choose from an assortment of treats for your best friend, based on the dog's age and physical characteristics. What are the 14 million supposed to do? Enlarge the services sector? We've got everything we need and much, much more available" (333).
Yes, definitely an excellent read.