Straws are such a dumb bogeyman for the environmentally conscious movement just because they make for a good photo op when you see a maimed turtle. That paper straw came with food in a big plastic...
Straws are such a dumb bogeyman for the environmentally conscious movement just because they make for a good photo op when you see a maimed turtle.
That paper straw came with food in a big plastic bag and you put it in a big plastic cup to help you wash down food wrapped in a plastic wrapper. In the US, there is a better than 50% chance that you drove to the restaurant in a pickup truck or crossover. That restaurant gets food in big plastic bags. It goes on and on.
The entire process is extremy wasteful. Instead of changing the most inconsequential aspect of the process, maybe just don't go out to eat quite as often?
I can see from the perspective of environmental impacts that a small item like a straw could have an outsize impact on wildlife (like six-pack holders choking turtles and water birds). But trying...
I can see from the perspective of environmental impacts that a small item like a straw could have an outsize impact on wildlife (like six-pack holders choking turtles and water birds). But trying to sell it as ‘less plastic’ is bullshit because there is just. so. much. useless plastic out there.
Baby steps are important too though. New Jersey banned plastic shopping bags and we're better for it. And even that was a massive fight from people who acted like it was gonna be the end of the...
Baby steps are important too though. New Jersey banned plastic shopping bags and we're better for it. And even that was a massive fight from people who acted like it was gonna be the end of the world that they'd have to remember their reusables, buy new bags, or do without. It turns out after the ban, that most people just remember their reusables or do without bags.
I get that accessibility is a problem...but if someone is capable enough of going to a retail establishment they're capable enough to bring their own straws (even if they're disposable plastic).
We have to optimize the 90% (arbitrary percentage) 'default' use case for the most sustainable. We can and should accommodate special needs in some fashion, but the default should be whatever produces the least trash.
Hard disagree. The baby steps are utterly meaningless when we don't address the actual problems. Banning plastic bags and straws is doing actually nothing. Maybe it's even worse than doing nothing...
Hard disagree. The baby steps are utterly meaningless when we don't address the actual problems. Banning plastic bags and straws is doing actually nothing. Maybe it's even worse than doing nothing because it gives people the idea that we're solving a problem when we aren't.
Additionally, with respect to plastic bag bans specifically - the reusable bags are only more environmentally friendly if used repeatedly many times over. There's a good chance too many of them aren't seeing enough reuse and we've actually made our environmental problems worse by enforcing plastic bag bans (though I haven't checked any data on this to see if it's helped or worsened the situation).
Ultimately, this it all just theatre to make people feel better/like they're contributing to the solution because the actual solution requires making decisions unfavourable to the rich ruling class.
You can singlehandedly use reusable bags to shop instead of getting plastic bags each time. You can't singlehandedly dismantle capitalism and undo pollution. People can and should get involved in...
You can singlehandedly use reusable bags to shop instead of getting plastic bags each time. You can't singlehandedly dismantle capitalism and undo pollution. People can and should get involved in larger causes to help their community and the world, but it's perfectly understandable that once you get involved in a cause, you seek out minor ways to advance that cause in your daily life. It's not a one or the other situation at all.
Here's the thing though: When you have no other option to use your existing totes, do without, or pay $1/bag for replacements, that assumption no longer holds. People in New Jersey remember their...
But we also know that many people don’t use their totes with enough regularity to make up for the fact those totes use more material than plastic grocery bags.
Here's the thing though: When you have no other option to use your existing totes, do without, or pay $1/bag for replacements, that assumption no longer holds. People in New Jersey remember their bags a lot more now.
Small, palatable changes that cause a panic then aren't a big deal once done also reduce hinderance at larger changes. You don't teach a kid to swim by chucking them in the ocean when they turn 2. You teach them by building trust with small introductions first.
I keep seeing this in the comments, and I've tried researching any material that supports the idea but I am coming up with nothing. To me this seems like a just-so intuition that needs some data...
Like… getting people in water is a goal, so the bathtub isn't bad, it's just that people will be satisfied with that and not push for more.
I keep seeing this in the comments, and I've tried researching any material that supports the idea but I am coming up with nothing. To me this seems like a just-so intuition that needs some data to back it up, particularly when it doesn't jive with my own experience.
Seeing the reduction of one type of waste hasn't pacified the people in my social circle, it has only emboldened us to push for more.
Bingo. "Wow isn't it nice not seeing this trash anymore? Let's ban X now." Especially since these kinds of bans can be done locally, which is way easier than nationally.
Seeing the reduction of one type of waste hasn't pacified the people in my social circle, it has only emboldened us to push for more.
Bingo. "Wow isn't it nice not seeing this trash anymore? Let's ban X now."
Especially since these kinds of bans can be done locally, which is way easier than nationally.
I'm cynical enough to wonder why that was written. There are enough "thinktanks" that are really PR firms to astroturf issues that I'm not sure if I'm being bamboozled or if this is a case where...
I'm cynical enough to wonder why that was written. There are enough "thinktanks" that are really PR firms to astroturf issues that I'm not sure if I'm being bamboozled or if this is a case where "good" is being the enemy of "perfect"?
The article linked inside the article you linked claimed that a cotton tote is equivilant of 200 shopping bags on the enivronment. Isn't the problem with plastic is that it turns into microplastic which breaks down into even smaller pieces of plastic? I seem to remember reading that there isn't a single source of water/rainfall that has been collected anywhere in the world without microplastics in it. Wasn't there a study released recently that said something like most women have microplastics in their amniotic fluid? I haven't heard of any problems finding cotton fibers in amniotic fluid or rainfall.. Isn't it also a little too soon to discourage tote bags after the banning of plastic bags? Even if the "you need to use a tote 200 times" is correct, that's once a week for 4 years. Looking at the Wikipedia article I'm seeing many dates around the 4 year or less mark for state level bans.
I don't know, something about the line of thinking in those 2 articles just didn't sit well with me. It was almost like it was more focused on the negative like "well, single use plastics aren't as bad as you think. It's only like 10% of food impact on the environment. There are worse things out there! This isn't making any real difference.." The part where tthey add "Oh but you shouldn't stop!" seems like an afterthought, honestly.
Ten percent of impact is still 10%. We're not talking 1/10 of a %. To me there is too much "all or nothing" in movements/discussions anymore. Why can't we use reusable totes AND push to better controls for companies that produce plastic waste? Why can't we ban shopping bags AND push for better recycling? Why can't we use reusable straws AND research alternatives like better plast based plastics?
If something is greenER than what we have currently is it fair to say it isn't green enough?
As I've said, treating this change as a zero-sum game where you can only make minor changes like using reusable bags or push for major changes to the economy is wrong. If you want to help people...
As I've said, treating this change as a zero-sum game where you can only make minor changes like using reusable bags or push for major changes to the economy is wrong. If you want to help people band together for major change, you can use minor issues that people can relate to in their daily lives in order to create links and foster a shared interest in those bigger causes. I think it's unnecessarily cynical to assume that anything short of a full-scale abolition of capitalism will have a near-nonexistent effect on the environment. Based on the positive impact of plastic bag bans where they've already been put into place, they should be expanded for their own sake.
Let's flip that on the other side by assuming that while things consumers do individually have miniscule impact, in aggregate they are substantial. There is no state-driven effort to move people...
Let's flip that on the other side by assuming that while things consumers do individually have miniscule impact, in aggregate they are substantial.
There is no state-driven effort to move people off the consumption of beef, which is a major contributor to green house gas emissions. Over time with more people making choices to reduce meat consumption, many restaurants and food production companies saw the opportunity to gain their patronage by making plant-based alternatives. In the last ten years alone the culinary landscape has changed drastically when it comes to plant-based options.
I also think framing it as a zero-sum game of doing miniscule, individual changes or large scope, big changes is a false dilemma (and maybe damaging on the other side that it can introduce apathy). We should work towards both. While we shouldn't place responsibility on the individual because the issues are due to the structure of our economic system, changing individual mindsets and having them focus on ways of living that don't revolve around the use of single-use items can help people question other so-called dependencies in life.
This isn't a defense of companies or the status quo. I think there should be more driven effort to enact changes at the legislative level. But I also recognize that as an individual I have more control over my immediate actions. So I make lifestyle choices that are more sustainable, while educating others, petitioning my representatives to enact sustainable policies, and supporting candidates that more closely align with those goals.
I don't think this is an empirically well founded. At most they're annoyed that the straws suck (hehe) and move on with their lives. 90% of people don't really care all that much about anything....
They're doing what they've been asked to do by the corporations - "Just do this and save the environment!" and 90% of people are like "Awesome, these straws suck, but DONE - I have helped the environment! Go me!"
I don't think this is an empirically well founded. At most they're annoyed that the straws suck (hehe) and move on with their lives. 90% of people don't really care all that much about anything. The idea that it somehow "prevents" larger actions from happening seems to be rooted in an idea of there being a limited budget of something like wanting to do good that I don't subscribe to. Small changes build on themselves to create bigger changes and the momentum to continue. They don't just disappear as soon as you get a little win.
Please name a single big change that has come since these small changes were implemented. I'd love to hear about real meaningful changes that built on this "momentum" that you and others are...
Please name a single big change that has come since these small changes were implemented. I'd love to hear about real meaningful changes that built on this "momentum" that you and others are talking about.
DC introduced a 5-cent tax on plastic grocery bags with the funds earmarked to clean up the Anacostia river. Use of plastic grocery bags went down so much they they actually made barely any money...
DC introduced a 5-cent tax on plastic grocery bags with the funds earmarked to clean up the Anacostia river.
Use of plastic grocery bags went down so much they they actually made barely any money for the cleanup, but also so little plastic ended up in the river that clean-up became much easier.
The river is now safe to swim in (barring major rainstorms) for the first time in living memory.
Now to turn it back around. Name a single time small wins resulted in a collapse of support for further changes.
I'm not sure how reduction in plastic bag usage would make the river easier to clean unless it wasn't dirty to begin with and the concern was around plastic bags potentially ending up in the...
DC introduced a 5-cent tax on plastic grocery bags with the funds earmarked to clean up the Anacostia river.
Use of plastic grocery bags went down so much they they actually made barely any money for the cleanup, but also so little plastic ended up in the river that clean-up became much easier.
The river is now safe to swim in (barring major rainstorms) for the first time in living memory.
I'm not sure how reduction in plastic bag usage would make the river easier to clean unless it wasn't dirty to begin with and the concern was around plastic bags potentially ending up in the river? This doesn't really add up.
Regardless, this is still just another baby step - it's a single river. In fact, it's probably smaller step than the widespread plastic bag bans are themselves. I'm looking for small wins turning into meaningful, large changes - corporations changing their behaviour either voluntarily or because of government policy change. I don't see this happening anywhere.
Now to turn it back around. Name a single time small wins resulted in a collapse of support for further changes.
This isn't turning it back around. No one is claiming that small wins result in a collapse of support for further change. Only that some people might think the small win means they're doing their part and won't support other causes/push for change.
All you need to do is look at the current state of the environment and it's crystal clear that baby steps aren't accomplishing meaningful/lasting change. The world is in a progressively worse state day after day and year after year. If you think the plastic straw bans are good, that's fine. We're still fucked though because no one is doing anything meaningful and the responsibility is still being placed on the consumers rather than the corporations which are the true source of our environmental issues.
One of the ways plastic ends up in the Great Pacific Garbage patch is that single use plastics get littered, they float around until they end up in a river or stream, currents and eddies slowly...
I'm not sure how reduction in plastic bag usage would make the river easier to clean unless it wasn't dirty to begin with and the concern was around plastic bags potentially ending up in the river? This doesn't really add up.
One of the ways plastic ends up in the Great Pacific Garbage patch is that single use plastics get littered, they float around until they end up in a river or stream, currents and eddies slowly break them apart into microplastics, and then they find their way through the water cycle into the ocean and down into the water table that we drink.
So yes, plastics being in the river is one of the major concerns with the river. The plethora of plastic waste also captures lots of other runoff, absorbs toxic chemicals, concentrates them and deposit them in the silt rather than letting them drain out, and helps bunch up flotsam in ways that cause standing pools and disrupt the flow of the water that further prevents drainage. (It also creates "fatburgs" in sewage systems which is a whole separate thing.)
Regardless, this is still just another baby step - it's a single river.
It's my river. The idea that my river shouldn't be clean because the steps to fix it don't simultaneously fix every environmental issue on the planet is, frankly, insane. This seems more like the kind of argument an anti-environmental lobbyist would try to astroturf to stymie any changes that inconvenience the industry than an actual concern for the environment.
corporations changing their behaviour either voluntarily or because of government policy change.
I'd be curious to see what definition of "corporations changing their behavior" you are operating under that doesn't include a tax policy that literally forces corporations to cut back on a polluting behavior.
No one is claiming that small wins result in a collapse of support for further change.
If nobody is claiming this then why are we having this conversation? Some people think all kinds of absurd things, but unless that value of "some" is large enough to stymie support for further changes I don't see what the point is in caring.
All you need to do is look at the current state of the environment and it's crystal clear that baby steps aren't accomplishing meaningful/lasting change. The world is in a progressively worse state day after day and year after year. If you think the plastic straw bans are good, that's fine. We're still fucked though because no one is doing anything meaningful and the responsibility is still being placed on the consumers rather than the corporations which are the true source of our environmental issues.
The first half of this I think is more vibes than anything you'd be able to support with data. We're actually making large strides in renewable energy investment and development of technologies to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. The change in air and water quality since the creation of the EPA has been stark. When I was a kid in LA half the time we weren't even allowed to have recess outside because of the smog, that's basically not a thing anymore.
And in the case of single-use plastics specifically, the distinction between "consumers" and "corporations" is largely moot. The corporations are serving demands from consumers to have the convenience of disposable plastics. Any change is going to require us to come up with better ways of doing things that don't involve reliance on said plastics. This is just the reality of how the problem works. It isn't even meaningful or useful to draw a hard line between "consumers" and "corporations" because we all exist in an interconnected web. Corporations are legal fictions designed to manage control over capital. They exist to make money for their shareholders and to meet consumer demands. If you change corporations' behaviors, the stuff the corporations do to make stuff to sell is going to change, which is going to put the onus on consumers to change. If you have some model of the world where you can change how corporations do business without changing how consumers live their lives that just isn't a realistic model of how the world works.
From your source though: It seems this is specific to the GPGP, probably because it's quite remote and has a big circulating gyre around it acting as a barrier to stuff coming in and going out. I...
From your source though:
At a global level, emissions from rivers remain by far the largest source of plastic pollution into the oceans. However, specifically for the GPGP, this is not the case, and this confirms that the GPGP requires an approach not only involving cleanup and interception; this ‘other source’ of GPGP pollution – i.e., plastic originating from fishing activities – must also be tackled.
It seems this is specific to the GPGP, probably because it's quite remote and has a big circulating gyre around it acting as a barrier to stuff coming in and going out.
What's better than straws? Targeting subsidies to petroleum companies.
I simply don't see how these have anything at all to do with each other. You can do both, either, neither. There's just no relationship. And even if you target subsidies to petroleum companies, you're gonna need to make up the shortfall for all the consumers whose activities depend on the outputs of those companies. When gas gets more expensive does this not impact what consumers do? The consumer is at the end of the pipeline for everything.
Some people really let perfection be the enemy of good. Yeah, reducing plastic straws isn't as impactful as all the feel-good marketing would have you believe, but it's something. People shouldn't...
Some people really let perfection be the enemy of good.
Yeah, reducing plastic straws isn't as impactful as all the feel-good marketing would have you believe, but it's something. People shouldn't buy one and then feel like they've done their entire bit for the planet, but it's better than nothing.
But madbro has a point, there's a balance regarding how much something saves disposable plastic trash vs how much pollution it cost to create: there's a lot of deluded people wandering around thinking the reusable stuff is a net zero impact from the outset instead of over a lifetime of use. Buying reusable stuff and using it is good, but how many silicone straws wind up in landfills because they're moldy and hard to clean? (or start developing a weird gooey layer because some silicone is better formulated than others...)
That said, a decade ago I saw some titanium straws and bought them because they're pretty. Since then I've used them daily because I wound up really enjoying them, but I've learned since then that the process of making titanium objects is filled with so much waste that I'm left feeling a little like I've traded an evil for a lesser evil.
But it's a lesser evil, and with any luck, I can pass them onto the next generation. Unless some newfangled sugar-paper straw takes over the straw market and renders reusable straws some quaint novelty that grandma liked.
How do consumers know whether something is better or worse for the environment? It's impossible for most people to find the information, and when they've found it it's really hard to understand....
Exemplary
But it's a lesser evil,
How do consumers know whether something is better or worse for the environment? It's impossible for most people to find the information, and when they've found it it's really hard to understand.
Here's an example I like: should parents use disposable plastic nappies or reusable cloth nappies?
UK government did the research. They ended up with a 200 page document. Their conclusion? No difference. And figure 1 on page 6 shows just how detailed the decision is.
For the three nappy systems studied, there was no significant difference between any of the environmental impacts – that is, overall no system clearly had a better or worse environmental performance, although the life cycle stages that are the main source for these impacts are different for each system.
The conclusion from that was that reusable nappies produce more CO2, unless you do things like dry them outside all the time, wash them in a fuller load, and re-use them on your second child.
If plastic straws are a problem should we focus our attention on me (I use a straw maybe once per month), or on Coca Cola (who sell nearly 2 billion servings of their drinks every day)? Corporations have managed to off-load their responsibilities to the consumer and it's like some Jedi mind trick that we all fell for it. They create it, they sell it, they make huge profits from it, yet it's me and my one-straw-per-month habit that's killing turtles?
This is what I mean by switching out things doesn't necessarily equate to a net zero impact on the environment. And why those in the comments saying we shouldn't let small changes distract us from...
This is what I mean by switching out things doesn't necessarily equate to a net zero impact on the environment. And why those in the comments saying we shouldn't let small changes distract us from the bigger changes needed by corporations are right.
But still, reusable nappies are less likely to end up disintegrating into endlessly smaller bits of plastic fruitlessly filling up animals' stomachs. The water and energy needed to wash reusable things is frustratingly still an issue, but cotton and other natural fibers don't cause the same longterm damage as plastic nappies do. Reusable polyester...that's just more plastic with a greenwash.
IDK. It's super complicated on an individual level, which is why no one should be shamed for not being able to do things on a personal level when it comes to necessities. Doesn't mean we can't encourage those with the means to do so though, especially when it comes to non-essentials.
Meanwhile the corporations should indeed get most of our attention and energy. Though that doesn't seem to work all that well at this point, doesn't mean we should give up.
No, but if we don't force corporations to stop using plastic straws, there is a major aggregated impact on the environment from you, me, and millions of other consumers using them. I've seen...
Corporations have managed to off-load their responsibilities to the consumer and it's like some Jedi mind trick that we all fell for it. They create it, they sell it, they make huge profits from it, yet it's me and my one-straw-per-month habit that's killing turtles?
No, but if we don't force corporations to stop using plastic straws, there is a major aggregated impact on the environment from you, me, and millions of other consumers using them. I've seen multiple complaints in this thread and elsewhere about environmentalists focusing on individual consumption changes and ignoring larger issues, which I don't think is actually the case at all. It's like those who do adopt these reusable alternatives are trying to name and shame other people to get them to switch. At worst these trends are focused on getting people to buy the latest new reusable products, which is just another marketing tactic but not one that's doing harm in itself since the change is beneficial. Regardless, the onus of moving away from single-use plastic is and has always been pushed to corporations and the government to force them to make larger systemic changes. That way, consumers don't have to make the choice of carefully researching everything they buy or ignoring the potential issues (if they even have a choice in what they buy) since the most harmful options are no longer allowed.
I think what @madbro is getting at is to not be satisfied with these half-measures that may or may not actually be effective and concentrate energy on the big things. Not to say, of course, that...
I think what @madbro is getting at is to not be satisfied with these half-measures that may or may not actually be effective and concentrate energy on the big things. Not to say, of course, that you can't concentrate on two things at once. But I have to agree with some of the comments on this page that it seems like these 'baby steps' may have unintended consequences that may actually be more harmful in the long run. I have the same concerns with "reusable" plastic bags, since they're usually given out with maybe a paltry $0.10 cost, so they're used and wasted exactly like the old plastic bags, plus they're even worse for the environment when trashed.
There was political will to ban plastic bags and straws to begin with. They're putting the responsibility on the consumer and hoping it will be distracting enough to hide the fact that the real...
There was political will to ban plastic bags and straws to begin with. They're putting the responsibility on the consumer and hoping it will be distracting enough to hide the fact that the real problem is with the corporations. This is clearly working as they'd hoped if the responses in this thread are any indication. So yes, doing nothing is better than these political theatrics.
If you want to use reusable bags and straws, that's fine - more power to you. Just know that in doing so you're accomplishing almost nothing and the world is still completely and utterly fucked. The only way to change course is to tackle the actual cause and we really aren't even trying to do that.
I've expanded on my thoughts about this consumer choice issue upthread here. If this is just a way of venting, that's totally understandable and I'm right there with you. However, if you're...
I've expanded on my thoughts about this consumer choice issue upthread here.
If you want to use reusable bags and straws, that's fine - more power to you. Just know that in doing so you're accomplishing almost nothing and the world is still completely and utterly fucked.
If this is just a way of venting, that's totally understandable and I'm right there with you. However, if you're concerned that people are distracted by these minor changes, loudly despairing over the scale of this situation and shooting down sincere efforts to fix it won't inspire action either.
Stopping pollution and climate change is a task far beyond individual consumption choices, but I still think it's important to change my lifestyle in these minor ways because the impact on me is...
Stopping pollution and climate change is a task far beyond individual consumption choices, but I still think it's important to change my lifestyle in these minor ways because the impact on me is negligible and it has a benefit on the environment, however minuscule. Presumably many other people who make these more sustainable choices are also doing it because they think it'll help, not out of some absurd belief that it's literally saving the planet. If I'm being honest, a lot of this talk (not your comment specifically) seems intended to be demoralizing rather than helpful. Systemic change is badly needed, but individual change and "baby steps" don't take away from that even if they're sometimes over-hyped.
Here in NSW, australia we have a ban on: single-use plastic straws, stirrers, cutlery, plates, bowls (without lids) and cotton buds food ware and cups made from expanded polystyrene rinse-off...
rinse-off personal care products containing plastic microbeads.
This came 6 months after the official plastic ban, but a couple of years after the main supermarkets had stopped providing single use bags and we’d all got used to it.
I can’t say that I’ve noticed any problems with using cardboard containers. I’m sure these have their own issues - a lot of councils won’t accept cardboard that is dirtied with food for recycling - but it’s a very good initiative.
All this to say it’s not only possible but has already been done elsewhere.
Reusable bags definitely have to be seeing more use. I live in Ontario, where plastic bags have been kiboshed since Dec 2022 I think. I have a bin of reusable bags and honestly I still forget them...
Reusable bags definitely have to be seeing more use. I live in Ontario, where plastic bags have been kiboshed since Dec 2022 I think.
I have a bin of reusable bags and honestly I still forget them sometimes but I put a handful in my car so they're available. I don't see people buying reusable bags every time they're at the store and I don't do so myself. And sometimes I just don't bother with a bag at all if I don't truly need one.
I've bought a couple more reusable bags since the start of the year but I haven't thrown any out or anything.
The problem is single use plastic is ridiculously efficient in comparison to cotton bags when considering their entire manufacturing environmental cost, and the gap gets even more insane if you...
The problem is single use plastic is ridiculously efficient in comparison to cotton bags when considering their entire manufacturing environmental cost, and the gap gets even more insane if you use that single use bag for a 2nd function (like a bathroom trash bin liner).
The resources used in manufacturing them aren't the only problem. Plastic bags are a massive pollutant on beaches worldwide and basically never decompose. The fact that they can be reused once or...
The resources used in manufacturing them aren't the only problem. Plastic bags are a massive pollutant on beaches worldwide and basically never decompose. The fact that they can be reused once or twice (and usually aren't) before being tossed doesn't really help that.
Of course, but the problem is our replacements are worse. A new cotton tote bag accelerates global warming compared to a single use plastic bag. The absolute best would be to continue to use all...
Of course, but the problem is our replacements are worse. A new cotton tote bag accelerates global warming compared to a single use plastic bag. The absolute best would be to continue to use all the plastic bags you already have, or cotton totes, or whatever you have on hand. And if you need a new one for whatever reason, make it out of old or discarded fabric you already have on hand instead of having it made half way across the world and shipped to you.
I'm all for not polluting beaches with plastic bags. But aggressively telling people to switch to something they don't already have is not a solution. Furthermore, our entire approach to solving climate change needs to holistically address every facet of our culture. "Small wins" aren't wins, they're just deflections at best, and do more harm than good in most cases.
People seem to forget that the ol' "reduce, reuse, recycle" is the order of importance as well. Reduce what you consume, then reuse what you have, then recycle what you can't re-use.
No where in there is "manufacture new tote bags out of material you don't have on hand"
I fully agree that “reduce” and “reuse” are important too. However, I don’t think it’s realistic for most people to make their own bags by hand, so having reusable bags for sale is a good way to...
I fully agree that “reduce” and “reuse” are important too. However, I don’t think it’s realistic for most people to make their own bags by hand, so having reusable bags for sale is a good way to encourage sustainability. I also don’t think that this campaign of plastic bag bans is really all that aggressive, nor is it a major imposition on people’s lives. Once you get into the habit of bringing reusable bags, it’s not a problem to do so at all. The goal of plastic bag bans obviously isn’t to make people use reusable bags like they’re disposable, and I don’t see any point in arguing that it’s a serious concern unless there’s data showing a significant number of people do that.
It is less plastic though. And a fairly low utility use of it. I don’t understand the logic that less isn’t less unless it’s a lot less. It’s also incorrect to say everything came in plastic....
It is less plastic though. And a fairly low utility use of it. I don’t understand the logic that less isn’t less unless it’s a lot less.
It’s also incorrect to say everything came in plastic. Generally fast food comes packaged in cardboard. The cup for the drink is wax coated paper. The bag is paper. It’s actually not that much plastic and much of what’s there is being worked on being phased out.
My city has had a 5 cent plastic bag tax for about a decade and the general use of plastic bags has dropped like a rock since. We almost never see plastic bag litter here anymore.
When I got a job at a local supermarket deli, and seeing how much plastic already gets wasted before the food even touched your hands, made me think the whole straw thing is stupid. Granted in the...
When I got a job at a local supermarket deli, and seeing how much plastic already gets wasted before the food even touched your hands, made me think the whole straw thing is stupid. Granted in the end of the day any reduction in plastic use is good. But let's go after the actual monster.
Uh...maybe for grub hub, but just thinking about this 90% of the fastfood i've gotten is paper bag, cardboard cup (maybe there's a plastic liner?), and then plastic lid and straw, and no wrapper...
That paper straw came with food in a big plastic bag and you put it in a big plastic cup to help you wash down food wrapped in a plastic wrapper.
Uh...maybe for grub hub, but just thinking about this 90% of the fastfood i've gotten is paper bag, cardboard cup (maybe there's a plastic liner?), and then plastic lid and straw, and no wrapper on the food?
I'm mixed on how helpful targeting straws is, but if you're looking at things like fast food and restaurants (where you have a glass), yeah it's kinda the main plastic part.
Sure on the logistics side the cups came packaged in a plastic bag (many to one), and the food ingredients might be individually wrapped (a harder issue due to how helpful vacuum sealing is), but I can't recall the last time I had an experience like you described as a consumer?
AFAIK the paper cups are lined with wax. Aluminum cans are lined with a thin layer of plastic on the interior to prevent corrosion though. Likewise for canned fruit and vegetables or beans. I...
cardboard cup (maybe there's a plastic liner?)
AFAIK the paper cups are lined with wax. Aluminum cans are lined with a thin layer of plastic on the interior to prevent corrosion though. Likewise for canned fruit and vegetables or beans. I believe those copper moscow mule mugs are also often lined in plastic because you can get some toxic byproducts when you expose copper to acid (such as carbonated beverages).
Ok yeah. I was aware of the aluminum can lining so I wasn't sure if it was the same stuff in the cups. If it's wax though then the main plastic culprit for a lot of fast food/restaurants is going...
Ok yeah. I was aware of the aluminum can lining so I wasn't sure if it was the same stuff in the cups. If it's wax though then the main plastic culprit for a lot of fast food/restaurants is going to be the straw and the lid.
Yeah I wasn't sure if the can lining was wax or plastic. At a cursory search they don't really say, just referring to them as "coatings," probably for PR reasons. But they do specify it's "BPA...
Yeah I wasn't sure if the can lining was wax or plastic. At a cursory search they don't really say, just referring to them as "coatings," probably for PR reasons. But they do specify it's "BPA free" which makes me think it must be plastic.
That makes sense to me, as wax can dissolve if you have any fats in the mix and cans need to remain shelf stable for a long time, unlike fast food cups that we only expect to use for an hour or so.
Because one step at a time gets you further than not bothering and saying "just don't go out as often" which will have no effect. Most food joints I go to do mostly paper at this point (cup,...
Because one step at a time gets you further than not bothering and saying "just don't go out as often" which will have no effect.
Most food joints I go to do mostly paper at this point (cup, straw, containers, utensils, bag). The exceptions are usually local places that give you large portions of stuff like Chinese restaurants or falafel places which will often use tins w/ plastic lids or reusable plastic containers.
The infomercial-type fails were a bit much. Also, the big knock against metal straws is that you can't use them with hot beverages? Is there some hidden cohort of humanity out there drinking hot...
The infomercial-type fails were a bit much.
Also, the big knock against metal straws is that you can't use them with hot beverages? Is there some hidden cohort of humanity out there drinking hot beverages with a straw?
I get what you're saying but my grandmother ended up using straws to drink her coffee when she couldn't trust her hands anymore and needed to rest her cup on her chest to drink. The video also...
I get what you're saying but my grandmother ended up using straws to drink her coffee when she couldn't trust her hands anymore and needed to rest her cup on her chest to drink. The video also massively undersells silicone straws, which is what we used. No PFAS or BPA, soft and flexible, can be used at any temperature and dishwasher safe. On top of that they're inexpensive. They do require a little more suction but you get used to it. My 88 year old Grammy did fine with them.
...Me. I like to drink hot tea with my titanium straws. Tea is cooler at the bottom of the mug than at the surface. That objection struck me as weird, since any soup or drink hot enough to scald...
...Me. I like to drink hot tea with my titanium straws. Tea is cooler at the bottom of the mug than at the surface.
That objection struck me as weird, since any soup or drink hot enough to scald through a metal straw sure as hell is going to scald through (and maybe melt) a plastic straw.
It was all framed from the point of view of people with disabilities and that there isn't a single catchall alternative. All hard alternatives can be dangerous to people with muscle control...
It was all framed from the point of view of people with disabilities and that there isn't a single catchall alternative.
All hard alternatives can be dangerous to people with muscle control issues. They will hurt their mouths. People drink soup.
There's never a catchall alternative for most anything. You probably shouldn't use a plastic straw with coffee for the same reason you shouldn't microwave your food in plastic. Teaching people to...
There's never a catchall alternative for most anything. You probably shouldn't use a plastic straw with coffee for the same reason you shouldn't microwave your food in plastic.
Teaching people to provide their own alternatives in most cases (namely thinking retail here, not hospitals) is the correct path. When I busted my knee up, it wasn't the store's job to provide me with crutches if I didn't bring mine.
No it's not their job to provide crutches, but it is their job to have accessible entries and to have elevators or other accessibility tools inside. The onus on providing accessibility is not...
When I busted my knee up, it wasn't the store's job to provide me with crutches if I didn't bring mine.
No it's not their job to provide crutches, but it is their job to have accessible entries and to have elevators or other accessibility tools inside. The onus on providing accessibility is not solely on the individual.
I'm not sure why you repeatedly in this thread are suggesting that individuals bear most/all of the responsibility. Corporations need to be held accountable and need to be the driving force behind real, meaningful changes. They're the ones with the resources and reach to make a difference, not you and I.
Nobody is defending corporations here. Because as an average adult individual, you alone are responsible for taking care of yourself. If you need assistance, it should be available. But if you...
Nobody is defending corporations here.
I'm not sure why you repeatedly in this thread are suggesting that individuals bear most/all of the responsibility.
Because as an average adult individual, you alone are responsible for taking care of yourself. If you need assistance, it should be available. But if you need an accessible device it's not the job of everyone else to attain that device for you, it's your job. In the context of straws, it's perfectly reasonable to say "if you need a straw for accessible reasons, carry a pack of straws with you."
I'm willing to take it to the full extreme: Ban all disposable cups, and every place with running water must provide free water to everyone. Individuals will learn very quickly to carry their own beverage holder that suits all of their needs, without depending on some soulless corp to provide for them like a parent handing a sippy cup to a toddler.
After a few-month adjustment period...the concept of disposable cups at all will seem strange and abnormal.
Corporations are being told not to offer plastic straws. Individuals can bring their own plastic straws if they want to. When it comes to these consumer items, the corporations are serving...
Corporations are being told not to offer plastic straws. Individuals can bring their own plastic straws if they want to.
When it comes to these consumer items, the corporations are serving individuals' demands. If you're a company that sells plastic bags, what are you supposed to be "held accountable" for? Your job as a company is literally to make and sell plastic bags. If they're made to stop doing so, then it's individuals who have to find alternatives to plastic bags.
That said, the core of recycling works best by putting the onus for collection on the manufacturer of the item. That is actual accountability that I think @madbro is trying to push for...but it's...
That said, the core of recycling works best by putting the onus for collection on the manufacturer of the item. That is actual accountability that I think @madbro is trying to push for...but it's also an insanely big ask that will get numerous lawsuits launched at.
"You manufacture disposable plastic beverage cups? You must collect 80% of those beverage cups back by weight and fined 110% of retail value per cup for shortages"
They in turn will work out deals with their buyers and retail establishments to insure compliance or be driven out of existence.
I think that's workable for durable goods like electronics or cars. But for things that are fundamentally disposable I don't see how you can enforce that. It would make a lot more sense to just...
I think that's workable for durable goods like electronics or cars. But for things that are fundamentally disposable I don't see how you can enforce that. It would make a lot more sense to just tax them at point of sale and then use the money to run the recycling or clean-disposal/incineration programs. That way you get to socialize the returns to scale on that as well rather than burdening the theoretical Mom & Pop paper cup maker with needing to compete against ConglomoCo's Wholesale Paper Cup distribution LLC on having a working recycling program.
Applying that giant step puts a huge barrier to making disposable stuff. Forcing recollection would incentivize reuse. Enforcement would need done via random audits (or something like registered...
Applying that giant step puts a huge barrier to making disposable stuff. Forcing recollection would incentivize reuse. Enforcement would need done via random audits (or something like registered weigh-ins at recycling facilities).
Mom and Pop should get on the 'glass bottle collection/wash/reuse' game, that's kinda what I was thinking.
The reason recycling doesn't really 'work' right now is partially due to the onus on customers with little incentive. The (mostly phased out) programs that paid people per can would likely see a comeback when companies need to incentivize returns.
There's no mechanism to "force" it though. If it's just a bunch of unlabeled plastic cups how would you even decide who it belonged to? This would necessitate a huge bureaucracy to manage that you...
There's no mechanism to "force" it though. If it's just a bunch of unlabeled plastic cups how would you even decide who it belonged to? This would necessitate a huge bureaucracy to manage that you could just as easily achieve with the already existing bureaucracy that collects sales taxes.
I find it frustrating how little attention is given to the cancer causing PFAS chemicals in paper straws. In two weeks my country bans plastic straws outright. I cannot see this as anything other...
I find it frustrating how little attention is given to the cancer causing PFAS chemicals in paper straws. In two weeks my country bans plastic straws outright. I cannot see this as anything other than scapegoating and virtual signalling.
Transcript: https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=3XGIxUXDWqw The video shows how alternatives may not be real solutions for many of those in need. I see it as an example of how we shouldn't theorize...
The video shows how alternatives may not be real solutions for many of those in need. I see it as an example of how we shouldn't theorize solutions based only in our limited point of view or accept blindly that those in power did their due diligence and are not just in it for the optics.
I’ve been wondering for a while why disposable plastic straws went away almost overnight. Not in the sense of “why was that considered desirable?”, that part’s clear to me, but in the sense of...
I’ve been wondering for a while why disposable plastic straws went away almost overnight. Not in the sense of “why was that considered desirable?”, that part’s clear to me, but in the sense of “why did it actually happen, extremely quickly and pervasively, with this one specific item?”.
Plenty of things are terrible for the environment and don’t change; plenty of things are potential PR wins (or losses) for companies and don’t change; what’s special about the straw situation that caused tens if not hundreds of fast food places near me all to switch in the space of the same few weeks a couple of years back?
It probably comes down to it being both cheap and easy to switch. Ordering paper instead of plastic straws is just clicking a different button, and although I don’t have data on this (a quick...
It probably comes down to it being both cheap and easy to switch. Ordering paper instead of plastic straws is just clicking a different button, and although I don’t have data on this (a quick google turns up both that paper is much more and much less expensive than plastic) I’m assuming the cost was negligible otherwise fewer companies would have jumped on board.
I wonder how many places had a large stock of plastic straws which got thrown away in favour of paper, just for the image of it. Would be interesting to know!
I keep a metal collapsible silicon tip straw keychain in my car... I don't order take out often, if I do, I don't need a drink, if I do, I can just drink without a straw.. But those 2x a year I...
I keep a metal collapsible silicon tip straw keychain in my car...
I don't order take out often, if I do, I don't need a drink, if I do, I can just drink without a straw..
Straws are such a dumb bogeyman for the environmentally conscious movement just because they make for a good photo op when you see a maimed turtle.
That paper straw came with food in a big plastic bag and you put it in a big plastic cup to help you wash down food wrapped in a plastic wrapper. In the US, there is a better than 50% chance that you drove to the restaurant in a pickup truck or crossover. That restaurant gets food in big plastic bags. It goes on and on.
The entire process is extremy wasteful. Instead of changing the most inconsequential aspect of the process, maybe just don't go out to eat quite as often?
I can see from the perspective of environmental impacts that a small item like a straw could have an outsize impact on wildlife (like six-pack holders choking turtles and water birds). But trying to sell it as ‘less plastic’ is bullshit because there is just. so. much. useless plastic out there.
Baby steps are important too though. New Jersey banned plastic shopping bags and we're better for it. And even that was a massive fight from people who acted like it was gonna be the end of the world that they'd have to remember their reusables, buy new bags, or do without. It turns out after the ban, that most people just remember their reusables or do without bags.
I get that accessibility is a problem...but if someone is capable enough of going to a retail establishment they're capable enough to bring their own straws (even if they're disposable plastic).
We have to optimize the 90% (arbitrary percentage) 'default' use case for the most sustainable. We can and should accommodate special needs in some fashion, but the default should be whatever produces the least trash.
Hard disagree. The baby steps are utterly meaningless when we don't address the actual problems. Banning plastic bags and straws is doing actually nothing. Maybe it's even worse than doing nothing because it gives people the idea that we're solving a problem when we aren't.
Additionally, with respect to plastic bag bans specifically - the reusable bags are only more environmentally friendly if used repeatedly many times over. There's a good chance too many of them aren't seeing enough reuse and we've actually made our environmental problems worse by enforcing plastic bag bans (though I haven't checked any data on this to see if it's helped or worsened the situation).
Ultimately, this it all just theatre to make people feel better/like they're contributing to the solution because the actual solution requires making decisions unfavourable to the rich ruling class.
So... we should sit around and do nothing until there's political will to solve the big things?
You can singlehandedly use reusable bags to shop instead of getting plastic bags each time. You can't singlehandedly dismantle capitalism and undo pollution. People can and should get involved in larger causes to help their community and the world, but it's perfectly understandable that once you get involved in a cause, you seek out minor ways to advance that cause in your daily life. It's not a one or the other situation at all.
Here's the thing though: When you have no other option to use your existing totes, do without, or pay $1/bag for replacements, that assumption no longer holds. People in New Jersey remember their bags a lot more now.
Small, palatable changes that cause a panic then aren't a big deal once done also reduce hinderance at larger changes. You don't teach a kid to swim by chucking them in the ocean when they turn 2. You teach them by building trust with small introductions first.
I keep seeing this in the comments, and I've tried researching any material that supports the idea but I am coming up with nothing. To me this seems like a just-so intuition that needs some data to back it up, particularly when it doesn't jive with my own experience.
Seeing the reduction of one type of waste hasn't pacified the people in my social circle, it has only emboldened us to push for more.
Bingo. "Wow isn't it nice not seeing this trash anymore? Let's ban X now."
Especially since these kinds of bans can be done locally, which is way easier than nationally.
I'm cynical enough to wonder why that was written. There are enough "thinktanks" that are really PR firms to astroturf issues that I'm not sure if I'm being bamboozled or if this is a case where "good" is being the enemy of "perfect"?
The article linked inside the article you linked claimed that a cotton tote is equivilant of 200 shopping bags on the enivronment. Isn't the problem with plastic is that it turns into microplastic which breaks down into even smaller pieces of plastic? I seem to remember reading that there isn't a single source of water/rainfall that has been collected anywhere in the world without microplastics in it. Wasn't there a study released recently that said something like most women have microplastics in their amniotic fluid? I haven't heard of any problems finding cotton fibers in amniotic fluid or rainfall.. Isn't it also a little too soon to discourage tote bags after the banning of plastic bags? Even if the "you need to use a tote 200 times" is correct, that's once a week for 4 years. Looking at the Wikipedia article I'm seeing many dates around the 4 year or less mark for state level bans.
I don't know, something about the line of thinking in those 2 articles just didn't sit well with me. It was almost like it was more focused on the negative like "well, single use plastics aren't as bad as you think. It's only like 10% of food impact on the environment. There are worse things out there! This isn't making any real difference.." The part where tthey add "Oh but you shouldn't stop!" seems like an afterthought, honestly.
Ten percent of impact is still 10%. We're not talking 1/10 of a %. To me there is too much "all or nothing" in movements/discussions anymore. Why can't we use reusable totes AND push to better controls for companies that produce plastic waste? Why can't we ban shopping bags AND push for better recycling? Why can't we use reusable straws AND research alternatives like better plast based plastics?
If something is greenER than what we have currently is it fair to say it isn't green enough?
As I've said, treating this change as a zero-sum game where you can only make minor changes like using reusable bags or push for major changes to the economy is wrong. If you want to help people band together for major change, you can use minor issues that people can relate to in their daily lives in order to create links and foster a shared interest in those bigger causes. I think it's unnecessarily cynical to assume that anything short of a full-scale abolition of capitalism will have a near-nonexistent effect on the environment. Based on the positive impact of plastic bag bans where they've already been put into place, they should be expanded for their own sake.
Let's flip that on the other side by assuming that while things consumers do individually have miniscule impact, in aggregate they are substantial.
There is no state-driven effort to move people off the consumption of beef, which is a major contributor to green house gas emissions. Over time with more people making choices to reduce meat consumption, many restaurants and food production companies saw the opportunity to gain their patronage by making plant-based alternatives. In the last ten years alone the culinary landscape has changed drastically when it comes to plant-based options.
I also think framing it as a zero-sum game of doing miniscule, individual changes or large scope, big changes is a false dilemma (and maybe damaging on the other side that it can introduce apathy). We should work towards both. While we shouldn't place responsibility on the individual because the issues are due to the structure of our economic system, changing individual mindsets and having them focus on ways of living that don't revolve around the use of single-use items can help people question other so-called dependencies in life.
This isn't a defense of companies or the status quo. I think there should be more driven effort to enact changes at the legislative level. But I also recognize that as an individual I have more control over my immediate actions. So I make lifestyle choices that are more sustainable, while educating others, petitioning my representatives to enact sustainable policies, and supporting candidates that more closely align with those goals.
Taxing or removing single use plastics is how you solve use of single use plastics. How else do you solve it but to use less of it?
I don't think this is an empirically well founded. At most they're annoyed that the straws suck (hehe) and move on with their lives. 90% of people don't really care all that much about anything. The idea that it somehow "prevents" larger actions from happening seems to be rooted in an idea of there being a limited budget of something like wanting to do good that I don't subscribe to. Small changes build on themselves to create bigger changes and the momentum to continue. They don't just disappear as soon as you get a little win.
Please name a single big change that has come since these small changes were implemented. I'd love to hear about real meaningful changes that built on this "momentum" that you and others are talking about.
DC introduced a 5-cent tax on plastic grocery bags with the funds earmarked to clean up the Anacostia river.
Use of plastic grocery bags went down so much they they actually made barely any money for the cleanup, but also so little plastic ended up in the river that clean-up became much easier.
The river is now safe to swim in (barring major rainstorms) for the first time in living memory.
Now to turn it back around. Name a single time small wins resulted in a collapse of support for further changes.
I'm not sure how reduction in plastic bag usage would make the river easier to clean unless it wasn't dirty to begin with and the concern was around plastic bags potentially ending up in the river? This doesn't really add up.
Regardless, this is still just another baby step - it's a single river. In fact, it's probably smaller step than the widespread plastic bag bans are themselves. I'm looking for small wins turning into meaningful, large changes - corporations changing their behaviour either voluntarily or because of government policy change. I don't see this happening anywhere.
This isn't turning it back around. No one is claiming that small wins result in a collapse of support for further change. Only that some people might think the small win means they're doing their part and won't support other causes/push for change.
All you need to do is look at the current state of the environment and it's crystal clear that baby steps aren't accomplishing meaningful/lasting change. The world is in a progressively worse state day after day and year after year. If you think the plastic straw bans are good, that's fine. We're still fucked though because no one is doing anything meaningful and the responsibility is still being placed on the consumers rather than the corporations which are the true source of our environmental issues.
One of the ways plastic ends up in the Great Pacific Garbage patch is that single use plastics get littered, they float around until they end up in a river or stream, currents and eddies slowly break them apart into microplastics, and then they find their way through the water cycle into the ocean and down into the water table that we drink.
So yes, plastics being in the river is one of the major concerns with the river. The plethora of plastic waste also captures lots of other runoff, absorbs toxic chemicals, concentrates them and deposit them in the silt rather than letting them drain out, and helps bunch up flotsam in ways that cause standing pools and disrupt the flow of the water that further prevents drainage. (It also creates "fatburgs" in sewage systems which is a whole separate thing.)
It's my river. The idea that my river shouldn't be clean because the steps to fix it don't simultaneously fix every environmental issue on the planet is, frankly, insane. This seems more like the kind of argument an anti-environmental lobbyist would try to astroturf to stymie any changes that inconvenience the industry than an actual concern for the environment.
I'd be curious to see what definition of "corporations changing their behavior" you are operating under that doesn't include a tax policy that literally forces corporations to cut back on a polluting behavior.
If nobody is claiming this then why are we having this conversation? Some people think all kinds of absurd things, but unless that value of "some" is large enough to stymie support for further changes I don't see what the point is in caring.
The first half of this I think is more vibes than anything you'd be able to support with data. We're actually making large strides in renewable energy investment and development of technologies to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. The change in air and water quality since the creation of the EPA has been stark. When I was a kid in LA half the time we weren't even allowed to have recess outside because of the smog, that's basically not a thing anymore.
And in the case of single-use plastics specifically, the distinction between "consumers" and "corporations" is largely moot. The corporations are serving demands from consumers to have the convenience of disposable plastics. Any change is going to require us to come up with better ways of doing things that don't involve reliance on said plastics. This is just the reality of how the problem works. It isn't even meaningful or useful to draw a hard line between "consumers" and "corporations" because we all exist in an interconnected web. Corporations are legal fictions designed to manage control over capital. They exist to make money for their shareholders and to meet consumer demands. If you change corporations' behaviors, the stuff the corporations do to make stuff to sell is going to change, which is going to put the onus on consumers to change. If you have some model of the world where you can change how corporations do business without changing how consumers live their lives that just isn't a realistic model of how the world works.
From your source though:
It seems this is specific to the GPGP, probably because it's quite remote and has a big circulating gyre around it acting as a barrier to stuff coming in and going out.
I simply don't see how these have anything at all to do with each other. You can do both, either, neither. There's just no relationship. And even if you target subsidies to petroleum companies, you're gonna need to make up the shortfall for all the consumers whose activities depend on the outputs of those companies. When gas gets more expensive does this not impact what consumers do? The consumer is at the end of the pipeline for everything.
Some people really let perfection be the enemy of good.
Yeah, reducing plastic straws isn't as impactful as all the feel-good marketing would have you believe, but it's something. People shouldn't buy one and then feel like they've done their entire bit for the planet, but it's better than nothing.
But madbro has a point, there's a balance regarding how much something saves disposable plastic trash vs how much pollution it cost to create: there's a lot of deluded people wandering around thinking the reusable stuff is a net zero impact from the outset instead of over a lifetime of use. Buying reusable stuff and using it is good, but how many silicone straws wind up in landfills because they're moldy and hard to clean? (or start developing a weird gooey layer because some silicone is better formulated than others...)
That said, a decade ago I saw some titanium straws and bought them because they're pretty. Since then I've used them daily because I wound up really enjoying them, but I've learned since then that the process of making titanium objects is filled with so much waste that I'm left feeling a little like I've traded an evil for a lesser evil.
But it's a lesser evil, and with any luck, I can pass them onto the next generation. Unless some newfangled sugar-paper straw takes over the straw market and renders reusable straws some quaint novelty that grandma liked.
How do consumers know whether something is better or worse for the environment? It's impossible for most people to find the information, and when they've found it it's really hard to understand.
Here's an example I like: should parents use disposable plastic nappies or reusable cloth nappies?
UK government did the research. They ended up with a 200 page document. Their conclusion? No difference. And figure 1 on page 6 shows just how detailed the decision is.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290683/scho0505bjcw-e-e.pdf
Then a few years later government re-ran the analysis. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-updated-lifecycle-assessment-for-disposable-and-reusable-nappies
The conclusion from that was that reusable nappies produce more CO2, unless you do things like dry them outside all the time, wash them in a fuller load, and re-use them on your second child.
If plastic straws are a problem should we focus our attention on me (I use a straw maybe once per month), or on Coca Cola (who sell nearly 2 billion servings of their drinks every day)? Corporations have managed to off-load their responsibilities to the consumer and it's like some Jedi mind trick that we all fell for it. They create it, they sell it, they make huge profits from it, yet it's me and my one-straw-per-month habit that's killing turtles?
This is what I mean by switching out things doesn't necessarily equate to a net zero impact on the environment. And why those in the comments saying we shouldn't let small changes distract us from the bigger changes needed by corporations are right.
But still, reusable nappies are less likely to end up disintegrating into endlessly smaller bits of plastic fruitlessly filling up animals' stomachs. The water and energy needed to wash reusable things is frustratingly still an issue, but cotton and other natural fibers don't cause the same longterm damage as plastic nappies do. Reusable polyester...that's just more plastic with a greenwash.
IDK. It's super complicated on an individual level, which is why no one should be shamed for not being able to do things on a personal level when it comes to necessities. Doesn't mean we can't encourage those with the means to do so though, especially when it comes to non-essentials.
Meanwhile the corporations should indeed get most of our attention and energy. Though that doesn't seem to work all that well at this point, doesn't mean we should give up.
No, but if we don't force corporations to stop using plastic straws, there is a major aggregated impact on the environment from you, me, and millions of other consumers using them. I've seen multiple complaints in this thread and elsewhere about environmentalists focusing on individual consumption changes and ignoring larger issues, which I don't think is actually the case at all. It's like those who do adopt these reusable alternatives are trying to name and shame other people to get them to switch. At worst these trends are focused on getting people to buy the latest new reusable products, which is just another marketing tactic but not one that's doing harm in itself since the change is beneficial. Regardless, the onus of moving away from single-use plastic is and has always been pushed to corporations and the government to force them to make larger systemic changes. That way, consumers don't have to make the choice of carefully researching everything they buy or ignoring the potential issues (if they even have a choice in what they buy) since the most harmful options are no longer allowed.
I think what @madbro is getting at is to not be satisfied with these half-measures that may or may not actually be effective and concentrate energy on the big things. Not to say, of course, that you can't concentrate on two things at once. But I have to agree with some of the comments on this page that it seems like these 'baby steps' may have unintended consequences that may actually be more harmful in the long run. I have the same concerns with "reusable" plastic bags, since they're usually given out with maybe a paltry $0.10 cost, so they're used and wasted exactly like the old plastic bags, plus they're even worse for the environment when trashed.
There was political will to ban plastic bags and straws to begin with. They're putting the responsibility on the consumer and hoping it will be distracting enough to hide the fact that the real problem is with the corporations. This is clearly working as they'd hoped if the responses in this thread are any indication. So yes, doing nothing is better than these political theatrics.
If you want to use reusable bags and straws, that's fine - more power to you. Just know that in doing so you're accomplishing almost nothing and the world is still completely and utterly fucked. The only way to change course is to tackle the actual cause and we really aren't even trying to do that.
I've expanded on my thoughts about this consumer choice issue upthread here.
If this is just a way of venting, that's totally understandable and I'm right there with you. However, if you're concerned that people are distracted by these minor changes, loudly despairing over the scale of this situation and shooting down sincere efforts to fix it won't inspire action either.
Stopping pollution and climate change is a task far beyond individual consumption choices, but I still think it's important to change my lifestyle in these minor ways because the impact on me is negligible and it has a benefit on the environment, however minuscule. Presumably many other people who make these more sustainable choices are also doing it because they think it'll help, not out of some absurd belief that it's literally saving the planet. If I'm being honest, a lot of this talk (not your comment specifically) seems intended to be demoralizing rather than helpful. Systemic change is badly needed, but individual change and "baby steps" don't take away from that even if they're sometimes over-hyped.
Here in NSW, australia we have a ban on:
This came 6 months after the official plastic ban, but a couple of years after the main supermarkets had stopped providing single use bags and we’d all got used to it.
I can’t say that I’ve noticed any problems with using cardboard containers. I’m sure these have their own issues - a lot of councils won’t accept cardboard that is dirtied with food for recycling - but it’s a very good initiative.
All this to say it’s not only possible but has already been done elsewhere.
I don't agree with your hypothesis about how reusable products affect people's behavior. Do you have any stats backing this up?
Reusable bags definitely have to be seeing more use. I live in Ontario, where plastic bags have been kiboshed since Dec 2022 I think.
I have a bin of reusable bags and honestly I still forget them sometimes but I put a handful in my car so they're available. I don't see people buying reusable bags every time they're at the store and I don't do so myself. And sometimes I just don't bother with a bag at all if I don't truly need one.
I've bought a couple more reusable bags since the start of the year but I haven't thrown any out or anything.
The problem is single use plastic is ridiculously efficient in comparison to cotton bags when considering their entire manufacturing environmental cost, and the gap gets even more insane if you use that single use bag for a 2nd function (like a bathroom trash bin liner).
https://youtu.be/JvzvM9tf5s0
The resources used in manufacturing them aren't the only problem. Plastic bags are a massive pollutant on beaches worldwide and basically never decompose. The fact that they can be reused once or twice (and usually aren't) before being tossed doesn't really help that.
Of course, but the problem is our replacements are worse. A new cotton tote bag accelerates global warming compared to a single use plastic bag. The absolute best would be to continue to use all the plastic bags you already have, or cotton totes, or whatever you have on hand. And if you need a new one for whatever reason, make it out of old or discarded fabric you already have on hand instead of having it made half way across the world and shipped to you.
I'm all for not polluting beaches with plastic bags. But aggressively telling people to switch to something they don't already have is not a solution. Furthermore, our entire approach to solving climate change needs to holistically address every facet of our culture. "Small wins" aren't wins, they're just deflections at best, and do more harm than good in most cases.
People seem to forget that the ol' "reduce, reuse, recycle" is the order of importance as well. Reduce what you consume, then reuse what you have, then recycle what you can't re-use.
No where in there is "manufacture new tote bags out of material you don't have on hand"
I fully agree that “reduce” and “reuse” are important too. However, I don’t think it’s realistic for most people to make their own bags by hand, so having reusable bags for sale is a good way to encourage sustainability. I also don’t think that this campaign of plastic bag bans is really all that aggressive, nor is it a major imposition on people’s lives. Once you get into the habit of bringing reusable bags, it’s not a problem to do so at all. The goal of plastic bag bans obviously isn’t to make people use reusable bags like they’re disposable, and I don’t see any point in arguing that it’s a serious concern unless there’s data showing a significant number of people do that.
It is less plastic though. And a fairly low utility use of it. I don’t understand the logic that less isn’t less unless it’s a lot less.
It’s also incorrect to say everything came in plastic. Generally fast food comes packaged in cardboard. The cup for the drink is wax coated paper. The bag is paper. It’s actually not that much plastic and much of what’s there is being worked on being phased out.
My city has had a 5 cent plastic bag tax for about a decade and the general use of plastic bags has dropped like a rock since. We almost never see plastic bag litter here anymore.
When I got a job at a local supermarket deli, and seeing how much plastic already gets wasted before the food even touched your hands, made me think the whole straw thing is stupid. Granted in the end of the day any reduction in plastic use is good. But let's go after the actual monster.
Uh...maybe for grub hub, but just thinking about this 90% of the fastfood i've gotten is paper bag, cardboard cup (maybe there's a plastic liner?), and then plastic lid and straw, and no wrapper on the food?
I'm mixed on how helpful targeting straws is, but if you're looking at things like fast food and restaurants (where you have a glass), yeah it's kinda the main plastic part.
Sure on the logistics side the cups came packaged in a plastic bag (many to one), and the food ingredients might be individually wrapped (a harder issue due to how helpful vacuum sealing is), but I can't recall the last time I had an experience like you described as a consumer?
AFAIK the paper cups are lined with wax. Aluminum cans are lined with a thin layer of plastic on the interior to prevent corrosion though. Likewise for canned fruit and vegetables or beans. I believe those copper moscow mule mugs are also often lined in plastic because you can get some toxic byproducts when you expose copper to acid (such as carbonated beverages).
Ok yeah. I was aware of the aluminum can lining so I wasn't sure if it was the same stuff in the cups. If it's wax though then the main plastic culprit for a lot of fast food/restaurants is going to be the straw and the lid.
Yeah I wasn't sure if the can lining was wax or plastic. At a cursory search they don't really say, just referring to them as "coatings," probably for PR reasons. But they do specify it's "BPA free" which makes me think it must be plastic.
That makes sense to me, as wax can dissolve if you have any fats in the mix and cans need to remain shelf stable for a long time, unlike fast food cups that we only expect to use for an hour or so.
Because one step at a time gets you further than not bothering and saying "just don't go out as often" which will have no effect.
Most food joints I go to do mostly paper at this point (cup, straw, containers, utensils, bag). The exceptions are usually local places that give you large portions of stuff like Chinese restaurants or falafel places which will often use tins w/ plastic lids or reusable plastic containers.
The infomercial-type fails were a bit much.
Also, the big knock against metal straws is that you can't use them with hot beverages? Is there some hidden cohort of humanity out there drinking hot beverages with a straw?
I get what you're saying but my grandmother ended up using straws to drink her coffee when she couldn't trust her hands anymore and needed to rest her cup on her chest to drink. The video also massively undersells silicone straws, which is what we used. No PFAS or BPA, soft and flexible, can be used at any temperature and dishwasher safe. On top of that they're inexpensive. They do require a little more suction but you get used to it. My 88 year old Grammy did fine with them.
...Me. I like to drink hot tea with my titanium straws. Tea is cooler at the bottom of the mug than at the surface.
That objection struck me as weird, since any soup or drink hot enough to scald through a metal straw sure as hell is going to scald through (and maybe melt) a plastic straw.
It was all framed from the point of view of people with disabilities and that there isn't a single catchall alternative.
All hard alternatives can be dangerous to people with muscle control issues. They will hurt their mouths. People drink soup.
There's never a catchall alternative for most anything. You probably shouldn't use a plastic straw with coffee for the same reason you shouldn't microwave your food in plastic.
Teaching people to provide their own alternatives in most cases (namely thinking retail here, not hospitals) is the correct path. When I busted my knee up, it wasn't the store's job to provide me with crutches if I didn't bring mine.
No it's not their job to provide crutches, but it is their job to have accessible entries and to have elevators or other accessibility tools inside. The onus on providing accessibility is not solely on the individual.
I'm not sure why you repeatedly in this thread are suggesting that individuals bear most/all of the responsibility. Corporations need to be held accountable and need to be the driving force behind real, meaningful changes. They're the ones with the resources and reach to make a difference, not you and I.
Nobody is defending corporations here.
Because as an average adult individual, you alone are responsible for taking care of yourself. If you need assistance, it should be available. But if you need an accessible device it's not the job of everyone else to attain that device for you, it's your job. In the context of straws, it's perfectly reasonable to say "if you need a straw for accessible reasons, carry a pack of straws with you."
I'm willing to take it to the full extreme: Ban all disposable cups, and every place with running water must provide free water to everyone. Individuals will learn very quickly to carry their own beverage holder that suits all of their needs, without depending on some soulless corp to provide for them like a parent handing a sippy cup to a toddler.
After a few-month adjustment period...the concept of disposable cups at all will seem strange and abnormal.
Corporations are being told not to offer plastic straws. Individuals can bring their own plastic straws if they want to.
When it comes to these consumer items, the corporations are serving individuals' demands. If you're a company that sells plastic bags, what are you supposed to be "held accountable" for? Your job as a company is literally to make and sell plastic bags. If they're made to stop doing so, then it's individuals who have to find alternatives to plastic bags.
That said, the core of recycling works best by putting the onus for collection on the manufacturer of the item. That is actual accountability that I think @madbro is trying to push for...but it's also an insanely big ask that will get numerous lawsuits launched at.
"You manufacture disposable plastic beverage cups? You must collect 80% of those beverage cups back by weight and fined 110% of retail value per cup for shortages"
They in turn will work out deals with their buyers and retail establishments to insure compliance or be driven out of existence.
I think that's workable for durable goods like electronics or cars. But for things that are fundamentally disposable I don't see how you can enforce that. It would make a lot more sense to just tax them at point of sale and then use the money to run the recycling or clean-disposal/incineration programs. That way you get to socialize the returns to scale on that as well rather than burdening the theoretical Mom & Pop paper cup maker with needing to compete against ConglomoCo's Wholesale Paper Cup distribution LLC on having a working recycling program.
Applying that giant step puts a huge barrier to making disposable stuff. Forcing recollection would incentivize reuse. Enforcement would need done via random audits (or something like registered weigh-ins at recycling facilities).
Mom and Pop should get on the 'glass bottle collection/wash/reuse' game, that's kinda what I was thinking.
The reason recycling doesn't really 'work' right now is partially due to the onus on customers with little incentive. The (mostly phased out) programs that paid people per can would likely see a comeback when companies need to incentivize returns.
There's no mechanism to "force" it though. If it's just a bunch of unlabeled plastic cups how would you even decide who it belonged to? This would necessitate a huge bureaucracy to manage that you could just as easily achieve with the already existing bureaucracy that collects sales taxes.
I find it frustrating how little attention is given to the cancer causing PFAS chemicals in paper straws. In two weeks my country bans plastic straws outright. I cannot see this as anything other than scapegoating and virtual signalling.
Transcript: https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=3XGIxUXDWqw
The video shows how alternatives may not be real solutions for many of those in need. I see it as an example of how we shouldn't theorize solutions based only in our limited point of view or accept blindly that those in power did their due diligence and are not just in it for the optics.
I’ve been wondering for a while why disposable plastic straws went away almost overnight. Not in the sense of “why was that considered desirable?”, that part’s clear to me, but in the sense of “why did it actually happen, extremely quickly and pervasively, with this one specific item?”.
Plenty of things are terrible for the environment and don’t change; plenty of things are potential PR wins (or losses) for companies and don’t change; what’s special about the straw situation that caused tens if not hundreds of fast food places near me all to switch in the space of the same few weeks a couple of years back?
It probably comes down to it being both cheap and easy to switch. Ordering paper instead of plastic straws is just clicking a different button, and although I don’t have data on this (a quick google turns up both that paper is much more and much less expensive than plastic) I’m assuming the cost was negligible otherwise fewer companies would have jumped on board.
I wonder how many places had a large stock of plastic straws which got thrown away in favour of paper, just for the image of it. Would be interesting to know!
I hate how paper straws become useless in a few minutes, where is the promised pasta straws at?
I'm afraid that wheat flavored beverages aren't popular except in health food circles and in Japan.
Cornstarch straws! Half of America's beverages are HFCS anyway. :)
TIL Bavarian beer drinkers are a health food circle ;)
I keep a metal collapsible silicon tip straw keychain in my car...
I don't order take out often, if I do, I don't need a drink, if I do, I can just drink without a straw..
But those 2x a year I need one, I have one.