Scan barcode
A review by graciegrace1178
Plastic: A Toxic Love Story by Susan Freinkel
3.0
If you're given a choice between this and [b:Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things|5571|Cradle to Cradle Remaking the Way We Make Things|William McDonough|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1417605547l/5571._SY75_.jpg|1589115] or [b:The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability--Designing for Abundance|16066814|The Upcycle Beyond Sustainability--Designing for Abundance|William McDonough|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1360236352l/16066814._SY75_.jpg|21858200], you'll probably have a better, more up-to-date experience reading the Braungart/McDonough books.
PT: Science books, architecture and sustainability, sustainable design, ecology, environmental sci, plastics
3.5 stars on Storygraph
WIL
1) chapter 3: chapter 3 is the content I wanted!! If I were to arrange this book and the topics of plastics coverage, I'd stick more with the content here. Manufacturing and effects. THAT'S what's most relevant.
2) fiNALLY. I'm just really glad I finally finished this. I started it back in, like, 2018. It took me 4 years but I DID IT.
3) a good start. I am really grateful that Freinkel opened the doors to more studies on plastics here. It's definitely a little behind the times now, but the existence of this book kicked off a lot of public awareness and, rightfully, outrage. I am glad that it exists in the public consciousness just enough to get the conversation started.
4) "Cast of Characters." At he very end of the book, there's a section titled "Cast of Charaters" that gives a brief description of all the discussed plastics, their uses, and common products made from each type. Absolutely LOVE that. Calling it "Cast of Characters" was a brilliant creative choice, and the descriptions themselves are IMMENSELY helpful in the reading process.
WIDL
1) What was chapter 7. I mean what even. Contradictions abound.
2) Closing, and I quote:
“Just as individual action is no substitute for the exercise of our collective political will, neither can we simply legislate our way to that sustainable, enriching future we know is possible. Remaking Plasticville into a place where our children and their children and their children can safely live will require us to confront assumptions about ourselves and what we need for fulfilling lives and satisfied minds. We don't need to reject material things but to rediscover that their value may reside less in the quantity of things we own and—as with Della's comb—more in the way our material possessions connect us to one another and to the planet that is the true source of all our wealth.”
C'mon, man. What was that? This book, this CONCEPT, doesn't warrant a soft ending. Plastic contamination is an incendiary topic, and Susan just took that fiery spirit and drove it into the ground a little bit. This is an immediate threat to the livelihood of EVERY single person on the planet, and she's closing it with "we gotta evaluate how plastic Connects Us All.<3" Like yes oBVIOUSLY, Susan, but that's not your closing remark. You gotta close with a call to action! Not something pensive and reflective. I get that she's trying to make people reflect on the situation, and in 2011 that was maybe the right move, but in 2022 it reads as kind of a diluted attempt to distance herself from the hard science of environmental toxicology/plastics.
3) biochemistry. I thought this was going to be more like the Silent Spring of the modern age, and instead, this was more of a historical analysis text. Which is fine! That has its place, but it was disappointing to see the narrative just spin off into accounts of company backstories and (honest to god) the thought process behind chair design. Where is the biochemical analysis of the plastic contaminants! It's Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, but the coverage of toxicity was entirely too brief and too unsupported. Give me the medical journals, the articles, the studies detailing each chemical's particular effect! 2011 was early in the game, but relevant studies were still out and gaining traction in 2008. Why wasn't there more about the particularities?
4) Epilogue: A Bridge. Again, I think this is an issue of time of publication. So, again, I disagree with Freinkel's approach here and her conclusion praising the ingenuity of humanity to make a bridge out of what would otherwise be waste. Seems great in theory, but let us recall that the materials are, in fact, literally toxic. I disagree with the approach that *builds* from plastic waste. The argument for this seems to largely be the idea that"the most sustainable building/creation is that which already exists," but that ASSUMES the foundation is chemically inert, which plastics are not. So yes, while it would be awesome to say we remade our world using the scraps of our wasteful past (full circle! literary greatness!), I think there's enough research out there now explaining why this is a bad idea. Personally, I think the focus should instead be on 1) stopping plastic production at the initial source (accountability factors) and 2) researching and enacting biodegradation strategies. This goes for terrestrial solutions and things like floating treatment wetlands. It's a losing game to try to build from the waste, as it only incentivizes more waste. That is neither a sustainable nor ecologically healthy strategy in the long run.
PT: Science books, architecture and sustainability, sustainable design, ecology, environmental sci, plastics
3.5 stars on Storygraph
WIL
1) chapter 3: chapter 3 is the content I wanted!! If I were to arrange this book and the topics of plastics coverage, I'd stick more with the content here. Manufacturing and effects. THAT'S what's most relevant.
2) fiNALLY. I'm just really glad I finally finished this. I started it back in, like, 2018. It took me 4 years but I DID IT.
3) a good start. I am really grateful that Freinkel opened the doors to more studies on plastics here. It's definitely a little behind the times now, but the existence of this book kicked off a lot of public awareness and, rightfully, outrage. I am glad that it exists in the public consciousness just enough to get the conversation started.
4) "Cast of Characters." At he very end of the book, there's a section titled "Cast of Charaters" that gives a brief description of all the discussed plastics, their uses, and common products made from each type. Absolutely LOVE that. Calling it "Cast of Characters" was a brilliant creative choice, and the descriptions themselves are IMMENSELY helpful in the reading process.
WIDL
1) What was chapter 7. I mean what even. Contradictions abound.
2) Closing, and I quote:
“Just as individual action is no substitute for the exercise of our collective political will, neither can we simply legislate our way to that sustainable, enriching future we know is possible. Remaking Plasticville into a place where our children and their children and their children can safely live will require us to confront assumptions about ourselves and what we need for fulfilling lives and satisfied minds. We don't need to reject material things but to rediscover that their value may reside less in the quantity of things we own and—as with Della's comb—more in the way our material possessions connect us to one another and to the planet that is the true source of all our wealth.”
C'mon, man. What was that? This book, this CONCEPT, doesn't warrant a soft ending. Plastic contamination is an incendiary topic, and Susan just took that fiery spirit and drove it into the ground a little bit. This is an immediate threat to the livelihood of EVERY single person on the planet, and she's closing it with "we gotta evaluate how plastic Connects Us All.<3" Like yes oBVIOUSLY, Susan, but that's not your closing remark. You gotta close with a call to action! Not something pensive and reflective. I get that she's trying to make people reflect on the situation, and in 2011 that was maybe the right move, but in 2022 it reads as kind of a diluted attempt to distance herself from the hard science of environmental toxicology/plastics.
3) biochemistry. I thought this was going to be more like the Silent Spring of the modern age, and instead, this was more of a historical analysis text. Which is fine! That has its place, but it was disappointing to see the narrative just spin off into accounts of company backstories and (honest to god) the thought process behind chair design. Where is the biochemical analysis of the plastic contaminants! It's Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, but the coverage of toxicity was entirely too brief and too unsupported. Give me the medical journals, the articles, the studies detailing each chemical's particular effect! 2011 was early in the game, but relevant studies were still out and gaining traction in 2008. Why wasn't there more about the particularities?
4) Epilogue: A Bridge. Again, I think this is an issue of time of publication. So, again, I disagree with Freinkel's approach here and her conclusion praising the ingenuity of humanity to make a bridge out of what would otherwise be waste. Seems great in theory, but let us recall that the materials are, in fact, literally toxic. I disagree with the approach that *builds* from plastic waste. The argument for this seems to largely be the idea that"the most sustainable building/creation is that which already exists," but that ASSUMES the foundation is chemically inert, which plastics are not. So yes, while it would be awesome to say we remade our world using the scraps of our wasteful past (full circle! literary greatness!), I think there's enough research out there now explaining why this is a bad idea. Personally, I think the focus should instead be on 1) stopping plastic production at the initial source (accountability factors) and 2) researching and enacting biodegradation strategies. This goes for terrestrial solutions and things like floating treatment wetlands. It's a losing game to try to build from the waste, as it only incentivizes more waste. That is neither a sustainable nor ecologically healthy strategy in the long run.