Canada aims to ban single-use plastics by 2021(nationalgeographic.com)
nationalgeographic.com
Canada aims to ban single-use plastics by 2021
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/canada-single-use-plastics-ban-2021/
135 comments
> There are 10 rivers that cause 90% of plastic pollution
Except, that's not true. The study you're referring to found that those 10 rivers account for 90% of plastic waste going into the ocean from rivers, not all sources[1]. Rivers contribute only 10% or so of the plastic found in the ocean. So not nothing, but far from 90% of all plastic pollution.
Also, probably worth pointing out that quite a bit of that plastic probably originated in the west and was shipped to developing nations to be processed cheaply[2]. Often that amounts to little more than having it burned or dumped into those rivers mentioned.
I personally agree that plastic, when properly stored in a well managed landfill is harmless. But the fact is, that's not happening for far too much waste. Even waste that's used and properly disposed of in developed countries.
[1] https://factcheck.afp.com/widely-cited-study-did-not-show-95...
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-plastic-polluti...
Except, that's not true. The study you're referring to found that those 10 rivers account for 90% of plastic waste going into the ocean from rivers, not all sources[1]. Rivers contribute only 10% or so of the plastic found in the ocean. So not nothing, but far from 90% of all plastic pollution.
Also, probably worth pointing out that quite a bit of that plastic probably originated in the west and was shipped to developing nations to be processed cheaply[2]. Often that amounts to little more than having it burned or dumped into those rivers mentioned.
I personally agree that plastic, when properly stored in a well managed landfill is harmless. But the fact is, that's not happening for far too much waste. Even waste that's used and properly disposed of in developed countries.
[1] https://factcheck.afp.com/widely-cited-study-did-not-show-95...
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-plastic-polluti...
It is not dumb. It is about setting an example.
We cannot fix everything everywhere, but we can move the needle. Maybe a youth living near one of those 10 rivers, reading about Canada doing it, will become a member of parliament or a minister and will do something about it. Or not. Maybe here in Canada out of necessity we come up with smart solutions to replaces single use plastics that can be copied all over the world. Or not.
But what we can do, we shall, and as a Canadian, I am fully behind this decision.
We cannot fix everything everywhere, but we can move the needle. Maybe a youth living near one of those 10 rivers, reading about Canada doing it, will become a member of parliament or a minister and will do something about it. Or not. Maybe here in Canada out of necessity we come up with smart solutions to replaces single use plastics that can be copied all over the world. Or not.
But what we can do, we shall, and as a Canadian, I am fully behind this decision.
>We cannot fix everything everywhere, but we can move the needle. Maybe a youth living near one of those 10 rivers, reading about Canada doing it, will become a member of parliament or a minister and will do something about it.
This kind of attitude only makes sense if it doesn't cost anything. Doubling our CO2 usage (assuming we switched to paper bags)[1], just so we can virtue signal to kids in third world countries is asinine.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
This kind of attitude only makes sense if it doesn't cost anything. Doubling our CO2 usage (assuming we switched to paper bags)[1], just so we can virtue signal to kids in third world countries is asinine.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Get a cloth bag instead of a paper bag and you'll get something that will out life the single-use bag and be more environmentally friendly after using it about 100 times.
Doubling CO2 usage is only true if things remain single-use.
Doubling CO2 usage is only true if things remain single-use.
Trees are a renewable resource, trees pull carbon during growth, paper is recyclable seems paper bags are pretty good.
Are you sure there isn't a cheaper way to get the same effect? Doing a giant useless action just to set an example to others for whom it's not so useless doesn't seem like the obvious first choice.
We’ve been setting an Example of basic garbage management practices for some time.
Instead of setting an example we could just pay for waste management programs in Asia and Africa and be done with it. Would be cheaper, faster and more convenient than the current ban all plastics movement.
> Plastic pollution in the ocean is a problem, but it’s not the western countries causing it. There are 10 rivers that cause 90% of plastic pollution, and they are in Africa and Asia.
> Plastic in a landfill harms nobody.
This demonstrably false. Plastics in landfills can leach into groundwater, for one. Two, a huge proportion of the plastic we use and dispose in much of the west end up in Asian countries because we can't be bothered to make sure it's recycled. Three, micro- and nano-plastic pollution is nearly ubiquitous now: we breathe it in and ingest it daily, with almost no understanding of the effects. It is very literally everywhere, from ambient air to the seafloor.
Expecting large public or private institutions to make a meaningful difference without anybody sacrificing anything is exactly the mindset that got us where we are today. Institutions have independent incentive structures and must be forced to work in our interest, otherwise they will not.
> Plastic in a landfill harms nobody.
This demonstrably false. Plastics in landfills can leach into groundwater, for one. Two, a huge proportion of the plastic we use and dispose in much of the west end up in Asian countries because we can't be bothered to make sure it's recycled. Three, micro- and nano-plastic pollution is nearly ubiquitous now: we breathe it in and ingest it daily, with almost no understanding of the effects. It is very literally everywhere, from ambient air to the seafloor.
Expecting large public or private institutions to make a meaningful difference without anybody sacrificing anything is exactly the mindset that got us where we are today. Institutions have independent incentive structures and must be forced to work in our interest, otherwise they will not.
Yes, it's a spell of idiotic faith that's somehow been cast over people. I've tried asking proponents of recycling about about this and the only answers I've managed to squeeze out of them are:
1) Landfills leach toxic chemicals into the water table.
2) Landfills are on scarce land which will run out oneday, making waste disposal more expensive.
3) It can be inconvenient to build over a landfill because you might hit a bale of plastic when drilling holes for your piles.
4) Plastic bags can blow away from landfills and end up in the sea.
5) Landfills may eventually erode into the sea.
1) Isn't true of all plastics or all landfills but nobody wants to encourage the use of the harmless ones. 2) and 3) are such small problems, it doesn't make sense for the whole world to pay whatever it costs to slow them (not even stop them). We'll never run out of land, just prime land in existing cities which is already mostly "lost" to development anyway. 4) is easily solved or a non-problem and probably even worse for recycling. 5) is just a response to a recent news event.
Nobody wants to consider if recycling or banning products costs more than the purely financial future landfill cost problem. I've tried asking someone about the relative costs when they gave me reason 2) and they just responded by saying that their conscience feels better knowing they're doing what's right.
Some of their ideas to solve it cause increased greenhouse gas emissions, like you mentioned with the energy cost. Many people even want to burn it!
1) Landfills leach toxic chemicals into the water table.
2) Landfills are on scarce land which will run out oneday, making waste disposal more expensive.
3) It can be inconvenient to build over a landfill because you might hit a bale of plastic when drilling holes for your piles.
4) Plastic bags can blow away from landfills and end up in the sea.
5) Landfills may eventually erode into the sea.
1) Isn't true of all plastics or all landfills but nobody wants to encourage the use of the harmless ones. 2) and 3) are such small problems, it doesn't make sense for the whole world to pay whatever it costs to slow them (not even stop them). We'll never run out of land, just prime land in existing cities which is already mostly "lost" to development anyway. 4) is easily solved or a non-problem and probably even worse for recycling. 5) is just a response to a recent news event.
Nobody wants to consider if recycling or banning products costs more than the purely financial future landfill cost problem. I've tried asking someone about the relative costs when they gave me reason 2) and they just responded by saying that their conscience feels better knowing they're doing what's right.
Some of their ideas to solve it cause increased greenhouse gas emissions, like you mentioned with the energy cost. Many people even want to burn it!
> 2) Landfills are on scarce land which will run out oneday, making waste disposal more expensive.
Case 2 is an interesting case, it's a startlingly widespread fear yet seems ridiculous when you think about it for more than a few seconds. Slate Star Codex concluded it's alarmism sparked in the 80s by the media's coverage of the Mobro 4000 trash barge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobro_4000
Point 5 ("5. More And More Trash Piling Up Until The Whole World Is Just A Giant Mountain Of Trash"): https://web.archive.org/web/20190102054648/https://slatestar...
Case 2 is an interesting case, it's a startlingly widespread fear yet seems ridiculous when you think about it for more than a few seconds. Slate Star Codex concluded it's alarmism sparked in the 80s by the media's coverage of the Mobro 4000 trash barge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobro_4000
Point 5 ("5. More And More Trash Piling Up Until The Whole World Is Just A Giant Mountain Of Trash"): https://web.archive.org/web/20190102054648/https://slatestar...
Oh, I've never heard of drowning in rubbish! With 5) I'm referring to geological effects causing landfill land to collapse and get washed away. That happened recently in New Zealand and a river ended up full of rubbish from a disused landfill.
Sorry, I mean Slate Star Codex's point 5 addresses your point 2. I communicated that poorly.
Incidentally a nice (rather amusing) example from pop culture of the "landfills are filling up and we'll soon drown in trash" meme is Futurama episode 'A Big Piece of Garbage'* (S01E08) It's essentially a parody of that NYC trash barge incident and the movie Armageddon.
Incidentally a nice (rather amusing) example from pop culture of the "landfills are filling up and we'll soon drown in trash" meme is Futurama episode 'A Big Piece of Garbage'* (S01E08) It's essentially a parody of that NYC trash barge incident and the movie Armageddon.
Which part of your point 5 link should I be looking at? Doesn't seem to be related.
Those polluting countries are making stuff that the West consumes, so if we want to stop them polluting we just have to stop buying all this stuff that requires pollution to make. So it is absolutely within our gift to put an end to it.
Go to Asian and see how much plastic is domestically used. It’s far more pervasive (in my experience) than the west. Everything goes into a plastic bag.
> Everything goes into a plastic bag.
This needs to be expanded upon. During my recent trip to Japan (mostly Tokyo, not sure if that's representative of the rest of the country), everything was packed in a plastic bag. Pretty much each individual item (when we were e.g. shopping for ready-made food), was already packed in plastic, then was put into individual plastic bags, and then all of those were again put into a plastic bag to carry. I probably used more plastic bags in a few days than I would have in a few months in the West (UK)!
This needs to be expanded upon. During my recent trip to Japan (mostly Tokyo, not sure if that's representative of the rest of the country), everything was packed in a plastic bag. Pretty much each individual item (when we were e.g. shopping for ready-made food), was already packed in plastic, then was put into individual plastic bags, and then all of those were again put into a plastic bag to carry. I probably used more plastic bags in a few days than I would have in a few months in the West (UK)!
No. It's consumer products like food packaging. Not industrial waste from producing export goods.
Unless you're saying you want to economically cripple them so they stop being able to afford packaged food or just die out entirely?
Unless you're saying you want to economically cripple them so they stop being able to afford packaged food or just die out entirely?
This. Thank you. Don't forget that there is no proof that plastic in oceans harms humans. On top of that, the infamous Great Pacific Garbage patch is actually made of fishing gear rather than of the despised plastic bottles.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/03/great-pacifi...
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/03/great-pacifi...
Hmm. I didn't know this and it's a very helpful to me. This means that a private entity could create a mild solution and solve this overnight. Especially since there are multiple organisms eating plastics currently and researchers have created a few breakthroughs.
The first country/company to develop properly biodegradable plastics with similar properties to existing ones will be very rich.
But the market won't create that solution unless regulations create the problem to be solved: no more single-use non-biodegradable plastics.
But the market won't create that solution unless regulations create the problem to be solved: no more single-use non-biodegradable plastics.
Taxation (or in this case, just internalizing the negative externalities) is almost always the better solution than outright bans.
> The worst part is that people somehow have this linked in thier mind with climate change, as in fixing plastic pollution is going to help with that.
It sometimes feels as though climate change has sucked all the air out of other aspects of environmentalism. If you want to get people to pay attention to something, you first reframe it in terms of climate change. Want to protest the deforestation of the Amazon? Don't bother mentioning habitat loss and extinctions, people no longer care about that; focus on how it will impact CO2 levels. If the matter cannot rationally be framed in that way, do it anyway. Littering causes climate change because if we admit it probably doesn't, people won't care about it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190102054648/https://slatestar...
It sometimes feels as though climate change has sucked all the air out of other aspects of environmentalism. If you want to get people to pay attention to something, you first reframe it in terms of climate change. Want to protest the deforestation of the Amazon? Don't bother mentioning habitat loss and extinctions, people no longer care about that; focus on how it will impact CO2 levels. If the matter cannot rationally be framed in that way, do it anyway. Littering causes climate change because if we admit it probably doesn't, people won't care about it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190102054648/https://slatestar...
There was a similar thread for Germany here recently, and I remember someone saying that most companies will just start using multi-use plastics instead of single-use ones... without reusing them. Is that really likely or am I not foolish to hope that companies will eventually just research and use more biodegradable materials?
The "biodegradable" plastics can still take a _long_ time to decompose if not put into a city compost collection bin. The city has to "biodegrade" them via a method different from what you would do at home (throw it into a heap). Wikipedia has a list of plastics that are approved for "home composting" here[0].
Plus, these plastics still take a lot of energy to produce.
I definitely think that multi-use plastics make the most sense, if we can build the supply chain to get there. Sort of like how old glass milk bottles worked: You left them out and they were collected by the milk man.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic#Home_com...
Plus, these plastics still take a lot of energy to produce.
I definitely think that multi-use plastics make the most sense, if we can build the supply chain to get there. Sort of like how old glass milk bottles worked: You left them out and they were collected by the milk man.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic#Home_com...
Plastic bags used to be sturdy enough to be multi-use, and I still have a collection of them that I reuse. I'm old enough that I remember when they were introduced, and how much better than paper they were, and definitely didn't think of them as disposable back then --- unlike paper ones.
I think the problem is ultimately the "disposable attitude" of most people, which drove the manufacturers to make them thinner and weaker until they're barely enough for a single use (and also for more profit, of course.) I see biodegradable in the same way as planned obolescence --- the manufacturers can both guarantee that people will keep consuming, while also exclaiming how environmentally friendly they are.
Perhaps most people just don't like reusing things?
I think the problem is ultimately the "disposable attitude" of most people, which drove the manufacturers to make them thinner and weaker until they're barely enough for a single use (and also for more profit, of course.) I see biodegradable in the same way as planned obolescence --- the manufacturers can both guarantee that people will keep consuming, while also exclaiming how environmentally friendly they are.
Perhaps most people just don't like reusing things?
The path of least resistance and cost will always be taken.
So if I can sell you a product in a multi-use container, pass the cost to you, and you decide to throw it away after a single use, that's what's going to happen.
If instead it's more affordable to use compostable plastics or non-plastics (e.g. aluminum), then that's what will be done.
My hunch is with low oil prices and the high cost to manufacture biodegradable plastics, the first path may unfortunately become popular (biodegradable plastics runs for roughly 10x standard plastic.)
So if I can sell you a product in a multi-use container, pass the cost to you, and you decide to throw it away after a single use, that's what's going to happen.
If instead it's more affordable to use compostable plastics or non-plastics (e.g. aluminum), then that's what will be done.
My hunch is with low oil prices and the high cost to manufacture biodegradable plastics, the first path may unfortunately become popular (biodegradable plastics runs for roughly 10x standard plastic.)
Perhaps a minimum pricetag then? E.g. a cup or a plate must cost at least $1.00
Here's the recent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23763265
This is what I see in California with the bag ban. People use multi use bags once, resulting in a net increase in plastic use.
This is a hard problem. A ban will not fix it and may have perverse effects like increasing usage and pollution.
What is so damn bad about paper? Paper is mostly renewable (or can be) and is very biodegradable. Why not just make better paper bags
This is a hard problem. A ban will not fix it and may have perverse effects like increasing usage and pollution.
What is so damn bad about paper? Paper is mostly renewable (or can be) and is very biodegradable. Why not just make better paper bags
they're not waterproof (or at least, lose structural integrity when wet), and they have worse climate impact than plastic bags.
Yes climate impact via co2 load is important. But persistent environmental pollutants is also important. That's the essential problem of plastic.
The ideal is a closed carbon loop, and the primary blocker here is the continued use of oil, coal, and gas.
The ideal is a closed carbon loop, and the primary blocker here is the continued use of oil, coal, and gas.
How do they have worse impact? I thought they're made of renewable lumber and compost better than plastic?
The numbers: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
>I thought they're made of renewable lumber and compost better than plastic?
All of which is irrelevant to climate impact. Taking oil out of the ground, turning it into plastic bags, then burying it is carbon neutral, if we ignore the energy required for processing. This is fair because it also takes energy to process pulp to make paper bags. Composting actually causes co2 to be released, so that's actually counterproductive.
>I thought they're made of renewable lumber and compost better than plastic?
All of which is irrelevant to climate impact. Taking oil out of the ground, turning it into plastic bags, then burying it is carbon neutral, if we ignore the energy required for processing. This is fair because it also takes energy to process pulp to make paper bags. Composting actually causes co2 to be released, so that's actually counterproductive.
Interesting side-note: here in Vancouver BC, we were full steam ahead on eliminating plastics (e.g. styrofoam take-out containers, plastic drinking straws, shopping bags, etc.) but that was seemingly all instantly reversed once social distancing started.
I can understand the reversal of charging for shopping bags to encourage bringing reusable bags: reusable bags are potentially a disease vector.
But what's with the reintroduction of plastic straws over paper, and the reintroduction of styrofoam over paper boxes? A temporary cost-reduction measure, allowing the using-up of old stock these businesses had laying around?
I can understand the reversal of charging for shopping bags to encourage bringing reusable bags: reusable bags are potentially a disease vector.
But what's with the reintroduction of plastic straws over paper, and the reintroduction of styrofoam over paper boxes? A temporary cost-reduction measure, allowing the using-up of old stock these businesses had laying around?
> I can understand the reversal of charging for shopping bags to encourage bringing reusable bags: reusable bags are potentially a disease vector.
I don't understand the rationale of not letting me bag my own groceries in my own bag. I'm not asking them to touch it, anymore than I ask them to touch my fabric jacket. Nor am I aware of any evidence of covid transmission through proximity to textile bags. The ban seems utterly senseless. I bought my bag years ago at Trader Joes but they no longer let me use it, so I no longer shop at Trader Joes. There are other grocery stores nearby that are being less unreasonable.
I don't understand the rationale of not letting me bag my own groceries in my own bag. I'm not asking them to touch it, anymore than I ask them to touch my fabric jacket. Nor am I aware of any evidence of covid transmission through proximity to textile bags. The ban seems utterly senseless. I bought my bag years ago at Trader Joes but they no longer let me use it, so I no longer shop at Trader Joes. There are other grocery stores nearby that are being less unreasonable.
The bagging is done on a counter or conveyer belt by laying your bag down and then packing it. That surface isn't sanitized before the next customers' food items and/or bag touches the exact same surface.
Also note how the vast majority of reusable bags get transported: We compress them down with our hands and stuff them somewhere. Your hands have been all over the bags (unlike most parts of your jacket).
Maybe researchers will determine that it isn't a risky practice after all, but given that we don't know yet it seems like a perfectly reasonable precaution.
Not everyone is out to get you. The ban is not senseless, and the stores implementing it are not being unreasonable. Have you considered the possibility that maybe you're the one being unreasonable?
Also note how the vast majority of reusable bags get transported: We compress them down with our hands and stuff them somewhere. Your hands have been all over the bags (unlike most parts of your jacket).
Maybe researchers will determine that it isn't a risky practice after all, but given that we don't know yet it seems like a perfectly reasonable precaution.
Not everyone is out to get you. The ban is not senseless, and the stores implementing it are not being unreasonable. Have you considered the possibility that maybe you're the one being unreasonable?
Considering the other stores near me having implemented this, I don't think I'm the one being unreasonable. Meanwhile the same store still has employees offering to bag groceries for people, which means two employees standing near you and touching your food instead of one. If these measures were anything other than theatre pandering to the fearful, they'd stop offering to bag groceries for people. And for that matter, they'd get rid of the guy standing at the door too, or put him behind some plexiglass and have him signal people with semaphores or something. As it is, they have everybody shopping there walking next to the door guy for no good reason.
> Not everyone is out to get you.
Obviously they're not "out to get me", but I appreciate the subtle insinuation that I'm the one who's paranoid.
> Not everyone is out to get you.
Obviously they're not "out to get me", but I appreciate the subtle insinuation that I'm the one who's paranoid.
I have no experience with the stores in your area or what they do or don't do. I was commenting on the bagging policy.
Do you have any on-topic arguments for why the bagging policy is unreasonable?
Do you have any on-topic arguments for why the bagging policy is unreasonable?
The bagging policy is ridiculous because it has about as much to do with safety as the TSA. It's theatre. That it's theatre is apparent from the fact that the store isn't operating with a skeleton crew (which would be a meaningful distancing measure.) If they haven't bothered to minimize the number of employees in close proximity to customers, why should I believe any of their other measures are rationally motivated?
Even if you think that context isn't relevant, the premise of covid spread through surface contamination is still dubious. And even if that risk were credible, I assert that banning reusable bags would still be a dubious measure. Instead of using a grocery bag touched only by myself, they'd have me using grocery bags that have been touched by employees. Employees who've also touched my food, which I touched before them. Food which was probably touched by other customers before me. If surface contamination is a serious concern, the entire premise of a self-service grocery store is fucked and they should stop letting customers inside the store (self-service grocery stores are a 20th century invention; alternative schemes exist. Notably, self-service grocery stores weren't common until years after the Spanish Flu...) Since they haven't done that, it's impossible for me to take their bag ban seriously.
Even if you think that context isn't relevant, the premise of covid spread through surface contamination is still dubious. And even if that risk were credible, I assert that banning reusable bags would still be a dubious measure. Instead of using a grocery bag touched only by myself, they'd have me using grocery bags that have been touched by employees. Employees who've also touched my food, which I touched before them. Food which was probably touched by other customers before me. If surface contamination is a serious concern, the entire premise of a self-service grocery store is fucked and they should stop letting customers inside the store (self-service grocery stores are a 20th century invention; alternative schemes exist. Notably, self-service grocery stores weren't common until years after the Spanish Flu...) Since they haven't done that, it's impossible for me to take their bag ban seriously.
Unlike clothing, bags touch a lot more things, and being textile means that contaminants are easily absorbed and more difficult to remove. That's the argument I've heard, in any case.
Likely major swings in demand combined with supply chains being affected. Change is tough during normal times, but toss in a global pandemic and...
Paper straws were never actually better for the environment.
I remember reading somewhere that some bottled product replaced plastic with glass, which weighs more, which led to an increase in trucks required, which led to more of a carbon footprint, which is also bad.
This is why a carbon tax makes a lot of sense. Increase the cost of doing the wrong thing and let the market decide.
And a recycling tax. Carbon isn’t the only externality we care about.
I wonder what prevents them from bottling locally? It's cheaper and better for the environment. It feels like industries can always circumvent these one off laws. They should think of a whole framework of laws.
My understanding is that bottling and container manufacturing are fairly localized. Each large city will usually have a set of bottling plants, to reduce transportation cost.
I think it is easy to underestimate how optimized production and distribution are.
I think it is easy to underestimate how optimized production and distribution are.
Budweiser brews their beer at 12 different regional anchor breweries to optimize distribution. At Ohio State, Natural Light is a local beer.
Orders of magnitude are important. Post consumer recycling involves extra transportation and thus greenhouse emissions. Except the energy savings can more than make up for this.
Can we all agree that plastic packaging has gotten ridiculous? If I buy toys for my kids they're 90% packaging, 10% toy... It's baffling. Who's the consumer demanding this?
I have a family member who works for IKEA and one reason that small objects need lots of big packaging is because of theft, simple as that.
It wastes space for them, adds costs, and so on but the reduction in thefts are so big that it's worth it.
It wastes space for them, adds costs, and so on but the reduction in thefts are so big that it's worth it.
That, and the packaging helps prevent shipping damage.
Those who have ordered something fragile and received it broken because it was underpackaged so much as to be nearly naked will know what I mean.
Those who have ordered something fragile and received it broken because it was underpackaged so much as to be nearly naked will know what I mean.
Choking regulation, presumably. Another example: I just ordered a medical cannabis cartridge from a dispensary. It's about the size of a pen cap, but has more packaging than my iPhone and the childproofing is so difficult that I resort to stabbing the box with a knife; it's borderline adult proof. There is so much waste and excess in packaging, and I think the highly regulated cannabis industry in the U.S. is the worst offender these days.
Or sugar that used to come in cardboard boxes for decades now coming in plastic bags. And so many glass jars replaced by plastic.
I've only ever seen sugar available in paper sacks, like flour. Except powdered (icing) and brown sugar, which so come in bags, probably because they're a lot more moisture sensitive.
I've always wondered why some products are only available in glass jars, like jam. While some things used to be only in glass jars, but is now commonly plastic bottles (apple sauce, tomato sauce).
Interestingly, in the past couple of years, plastic peanut butter jars seem to have switched to opaque brown plastic, when they used to be clear. Is that because it's difficult to make clear products from recycled plastic?
I've always wondered why some products are only available in glass jars, like jam. While some things used to be only in glass jars, but is now commonly plastic bottles (apple sauce, tomato sauce).
Interestingly, in the past couple of years, plastic peanut butter jars seem to have switched to opaque brown plastic, when they used to be clear. Is that because it's difficult to make clear products from recycled plastic?
I fail to see the harm in this. Who or what is harmed by an inert piece of plastic sitting safely in a landfill?
Edit: this isn’t rhetoric, but a legitimate inquiry.
Edit: this isn’t rhetoric, but a legitimate inquiry.
No one, but that plastic could have been better used and as much new plastic wouldn't have to be produced. Earth is experiencing death by a thousand cuts, lets make it a hundred cuts if we can.
If it's about wasting resources (oil) then isn't that already priced into plastics? When oil prices rise higher, these near-frivolous uses of plastics will naturally reduce. Using oil in itself doesn't kill the Earth. It does nothing useful under the ground. You're falling into the common trap anthropomorphizing the Earth and applying human-like feelings to it.
[deleted]
Aren't there many legitimate uses of single-use plastics? Like medical products? What will Canada replace them with?
By having nuanced legislation and regulation?
This isn't a formal declaration of rule making, or legislation, simply a declaration of intent from the Prime Minister. There's no formal weight behind this (except probably to start getting internal government bodies working on policy).
There's lot of time and room for sane (or dumb) rules to come out of this.
Medical (and similar) use exceptions are common. For example RoHS initially had a medical device exemption (and still has an implantable device exemption).
This isn't a formal declaration of rule making, or legislation, simply a declaration of intent from the Prime Minister. There's no formal weight behind this (except probably to start getting internal government bodies working on policy).
There's lot of time and room for sane (or dumb) rules to come out of this.
Medical (and similar) use exceptions are common. For example RoHS initially had a medical device exemption (and still has an implantable device exemption).
So the headline is just absolute bollocks and means nothing when you start to interrogate it? Oh ok.
Do you expect a headline to tell you the whole story?
Why not 'reduce use of single-use plastics'? Or 'ban some'? Really easy to make the headline more truthful.
Not really necessary. A reasonable person would take it exactly how it was intended: "Canada will ban all single use plastics (except where health or safety are at stake)." It's kind of, you know, implied.
Of course they're not going to require that hospitals re-use syringes and the like.
Of course they're not going to require that hospitals re-use syringes and the like.
> Trudeau did not specify the products to be banned, but said likely candidates include plastic bags, straws, cutlery, plates and stir sticks “where supported by scientific evidence and warranted.”
I don't think legitimate medical uses of single use plastics are at risk here, as long as no reasonable alternative exists.
I don't think legitimate medical uses of single use plastics are at risk here, as long as no reasonable alternative exists.
>likely candidates include plastic bags, straws, cutlery, plates and stir sticks “where supported by scientific evidence and warranted.”
speaking of, what is the scientific evidence like for banning single use plastics? eg. the uk and denmark government found that single use plastic bags aren't worse for the environment than paper bags.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
speaking of, what is the scientific evidence like for banning single use plastics? eg. the uk and denmark government found that single use plastic bags aren't worse for the environment than paper bags.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
But aren't they worse than reusable bags?
...assuming they get reused. If you're the forgetful person who buys bags every time, using reusable bags is probably worse than the environment. That's why banning bags aren't the right approach. Impose a surcharge/tax/minimum price on the bags. If you're not going to remember to bring reusable bags when single use bags cost 50 cents each, you're probably not going to remember to bring reusable bags when single use bags are banned and all you can buy are 50 cent reusable bags.
[deleted]
It's a law banning the use of single-use plastic for (a large number of) specific use-cases where it's unnecessary; not a law banning single-use plastics generally.
When this single-use plastics ban was in the news a year ago, there was a ton of exceptions to it.
It seems like in practice this will basically amount to a ban on plastic straws and grocery bags.
It seems like in practice this will basically amount to a ban on plastic straws and grocery bags.
I suspect there will be exemptions. But it is really amazing how much there is left over from medical waste.
I had a post-surgical “thing” (details spared for the squeamish) early in the year that took a daily use of supplies for a few months. Decades of recycling, bicycle commuting, and EV ownership seemed wiped away by the shear amount of waste generated each and every day. And I had time to come up with alternatives as I laid there with my restricted activity, and came up with no alternatives. I mean, can you even get corn starch alternatives sterile without watching them melt? :-)
So, yeah, I’m confident medical stuff will be on the exception list. At the same time, I know of folks that need continuing supplies for their care, such as wound care, but know none personally. Even my thing eventually ended.
So, yeah, I’m confident medical stuff will be on the exception list. At the same time, I know of folks that need continuing supplies for their care, such as wound care, but know none personally. Even my thing eventually ended.
But most people actively receive health care infrequently, compared to a daily or weekly cadence for consuming groceries or coffee or whatever. As a fraction of the plastic waste that a typical person generates, how much is medical?
One does have to watch that the solution isn't worse. Plastic packaging is cheap because it takes very little people, resources, and energy to make.
A lot of the issue is that we haven't been really using market approaches to deal with it. If the creators where financially a physically responsible for the proper recycling, they would be motivated to use less and make it cheaper to reuse. The current recycling makes the problem a municipal one, in many places, who are ill equipped to deal with it... then we end up shipping it elsewhere.
A lot of the issue is that we haven't been really using market approaches to deal with it. If the creators where financially a physically responsible for the proper recycling, they would be motivated to use less and make it cheaper to reuse. The current recycling makes the problem a municipal one, in many places, who are ill equipped to deal with it... then we end up shipping it elsewhere.
[deleted]
I still find it hilarious how we were going all in on "Ban All The Single Use Plastics!" over the past year, then the pandemic hit, and everyone pretty much threw the whole idea out the window.
Now reusable anything is seen as a disease vector, and banished.
Makes me wonder what'll happen when the pandemic situation finally winds down.
Makes me wonder what'll happen when the pandemic situation finally winds down.
I find it interesting that nobody seems to know that hemp polymers and hemp bioplastics are readily available, and exist.
https://hempplastic.com/products/
I've held hemp plastic packaging in my hands in Denver, it works well. If we'd start ramping up the industrial hemp production it is also one of the best things for the entire planet for carbon neutral and even net negative in the long term. Cannabis is the highest consuming agricultural crop of CO2 on the planet. It grows at such an accelerated rate highly balances photosynthesis and quickly grows; eating CO2 like monsters. Turn the flower into cannabinoid extracts and foods, seed into food products, and all hemp stalk and pithe is then turned into bioplastics and hempcrete and various other wood products, like paper.
https://hempplastic.com/products/
I've held hemp plastic packaging in my hands in Denver, it works well. If we'd start ramping up the industrial hemp production it is also one of the best things for the entire planet for carbon neutral and even net negative in the long term. Cannabis is the highest consuming agricultural crop of CO2 on the planet. It grows at such an accelerated rate highly balances photosynthesis and quickly grows; eating CO2 like monsters. Turn the flower into cannabinoid extracts and foods, seed into food products, and all hemp stalk and pithe is then turned into bioplastics and hempcrete and various other wood products, like paper.
When China, India, Indonesia and orhers do this we are making true progress.
Though not sure what would be the process to get this thru in United States?
Though not sure what would be the process to get this thru in United States?
Can we add cigarette filters to the list? If I had a penny for every ...
Removing ash trays from public life was one of the worst recent urban decisions we've made. People don't quit smoking because they can't find an ash tray, they just throw the butt on the ground and buy another pack, and no one cleans it up. Not too long ago, practically every building had one of those plastic post ash trays out front.
Ban single use paper and cotton?
If you collected each you might have a penny a piece if you could recycle into something people want like homemade face masks.
If you collected each you might have a penny a piece if you could recycle into something people want like homemade face masks.
Cigarette filters are the largest source of trash floating in the ocean and are usually not bio-degradable [1, 2]. They end up as micro plastics.
Banning them instead of plastic straws can be seen as vastly more effetive [3].
Edit:
It seems pretty useless as they essentially have no function (edit: to health), since the near-universal adoption of filters on cigarettes has not reduced harms to smokers and lung cancer rates have not declined [4]. And the color change is something that was added to make the filter to appear to be effective [5]:
> The tobacco industry determined that the illusion of filtration was more important than filtration itself. It added chemicals in the filter so that its colour becomes darker when exposed to smoke (it was invented in 1953 by Claude Teague working for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company). The industry wanted filters to be seen as effective, for marketing reasons, despite not making cigarettes any less unhealthy.
So trying to be rational here, they don't have any health benefits and are responsible for a large share of the microplastics in our ocean.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.de/international/new-study-shows...
[2]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/cigar...
[3]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigar...
[4]: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i10
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_filter#Colour_change
Edit:
It seems pretty useless as they essentially have no function (edit: to health), since the near-universal adoption of filters on cigarettes has not reduced harms to smokers and lung cancer rates have not declined [4]. And the color change is something that was added to make the filter to appear to be effective [5]:
> The tobacco industry determined that the illusion of filtration was more important than filtration itself. It added chemicals in the filter so that its colour becomes darker when exposed to smoke (it was invented in 1953 by Claude Teague working for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company). The industry wanted filters to be seen as effective, for marketing reasons, despite not making cigarettes any less unhealthy.
So trying to be rational here, they don't have any health benefits and are responsible for a large share of the microplastics in our ocean.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.de/international/new-study-shows...
[2]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/cigar...
[3]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigar...
[4]: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i10
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_filter#Colour_change
"they have no function". They limit and control the amount of smoke. Provides a more consistant experience. I read your #4 source as proof. It talks about how cigarette companies tried coming up with a filter to reduce death but stopped because the filters were reducing the taste/experience. That doesn't tell us filters have no use. Include that link it tells us that in the 50s cigarette companies offered filterless and filtered versions. Customers preferred the filtered versions. You made the mistake of thinking the only purpose of filters is less death. Filters prevent tabacco from fall out, better taste, more consistant smoke, nevermind you need somewhere to hold the cigarette as it burns and without a filter you throwaway more tabacco.
#5 Most cigarettes butts are not brown at least in my megacity. White is more popular.
Cigarette butts can take upto 10 years to breakdown at the most.
https://uhs.berkeley.edu/tobaccofacts
Single use plastics take 1,000 years.
One will breakdown in your pets lifetime the other will take a millennia.
We need to ban single plastic use. And perhaps dig a little deeper before making assuming associations (if cigarettes are bad the filters must be destorying the earth / meanwhile the coffee lids you get every morning is really the problem)
#5 Most cigarettes butts are not brown at least in my megacity. White is more popular.
Cigarette butts can take upto 10 years to breakdown at the most.
https://uhs.berkeley.edu/tobaccofacts
Single use plastics take 1,000 years.
One will breakdown in your pets lifetime the other will take a millennia.
We need to ban single plastic use. And perhaps dig a little deeper before making assuming associations (if cigarettes are bad the filters must be destorying the earth / meanwhile the coffee lids you get every morning is really the problem)
"4. Butt waste is not biodegradable: Filters are non-biodegradable, and while ultraviolet rays from the sun will eventually break them into smaller pieces, the toxic material never disappears."
Yes the break down but it seems they break down into smaller plastics or microplastics, which are being found in rain https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6496/1257
Yes the break down but it seems they break down into smaller plastics or microplastics, which are being found in rain https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6496/1257
> "they have no function". They limit and control the amount of smoke.
I edited my comment so be more precise. They don't seem to have a function to reduce health risks.
> #5 Most cigarettes butts are not brown at least in my megacity. White is more popular.
Well, the color change is about the change in color when used (not the initial color).
I edited my comment so be more precise. They don't seem to have a function to reduce health risks.
> #5 Most cigarettes butts are not brown at least in my megacity. White is more popular.
Well, the color change is about the change in color when used (not the initial color).
It's not cotton, it's Cellulose Acetate. Not very bio-degradable usually
10 years maximum.
https://uhs.berkeley.edu/tobaccofacts
Which is reasonanable. Styrofoam cup's are not.
How quick do other things take to breakdown?
Vegetables
5 days –1 month
Paper
2–5 months
Cotton T-shirt
6 months
Orange peels
6 months
Tree leaves
1 year
Wool socks
1–5 years
Plastic-coated paper milk cartons
5 years
Leather shoes
25–40 years
Nylon fabric
30–40 years
Tin cans
50–100 years
Aluminium cans
80–100 years
Glass bottles
1 million years
Styrofoam cup
500 years to forever
Plastic bags
500 years to forever
https://uhs.berkeley.edu/tobaccofacts
Which is reasonanable. Styrofoam cup's are not.
How quick do other things take to breakdown?
Vegetables
5 days –1 month
Paper
2–5 months
Cotton T-shirt
6 months
Orange peels
6 months
Tree leaves
1 year
Wool socks
1–5 years
Plastic-coated paper milk cartons
5 years
Leather shoes
25–40 years
Nylon fabric
30–40 years
Tin cans
50–100 years
Aluminium cans
80–100 years
Glass bottles
1 million years
Styrofoam cup
500 years to forever
Plastic bags
500 years to forever
Just because dog-shit breaks down fast, does not give even a single dog the right to drop it on my lawn.
You'd have a bunch of currency that isn't really in circulation anymore, if my understanding of the Canadian penny is correct!
The penny is still worth one cent. It is actively being removed from circulation and isn't given as change, but you can still freely spend any you still have.
They should force companies to use biodegradable filters.
Single use plastics are such a red-herring.
I remember flying Lufthansa, where the crew asked us to reuse plastic cups for water in the name of being eco-friendly.
The hilarious thing was that we were onboard a giant 747-8, that was 70% empty.
Obviously it's not an either/or situation, but that banning single-use plastics is anywhere near even the top 10 things that we could be doing is laughable. I doubt it would even make the top 100.
I remember flying Lufthansa, where the crew asked us to reuse plastic cups for water in the name of being eco-friendly.
The hilarious thing was that we were onboard a giant 747-8, that was 70% empty.
Obviously it's not an either/or situation, but that banning single-use plastics is anywhere near even the top 10 things that we could be doing is laughable. I doubt it would even make the top 100.
It's highly visible in people's daily lives so they pressure politicians into it. It's not meant to solve any actual environmental problem, just a pointless populist policy.
Is it possible that due to issues of politics and optics that serious scientists / engineers are unable to work on solutions like "hemp plastic"?
Admittedly as a layperson I am guilty of wondering whether it is just one of those crazy ideas the marijuana enthusiasts are pushing, or whether it has any legitimate potential.
Has this material been given any serious consideration?
Admittedly as a layperson I am guilty of wondering whether it is just one of those crazy ideas the marijuana enthusiasts are pushing, or whether it has any legitimate potential.
Has this material been given any serious consideration?
Is this "hemp plastic" like polyethylene made from hemp feedstock, or is it something like reformed cellulose? And what makes hemp different from corn or soybeans in this application?
There's active development and use of biomanufacturing of common chemicals because it has the potential to be much cheaper and less complicated than existing processes.
For example, fermenting sugar directly into ethylene at room temperature/atmospheric pressure using engineered yeast is simpler and safer than converting ethanol into ethylene in a multi step process involving high temperature and pressure, hydrogen feedstock, platinum catalyst, etc. Assuming you actually have bugs that can do the one step conversion.
But if this ethylene is polymerized into polyethylene and made into 6-pack rings, those are going to kick around for a thousand years in the ocean shedding microplastics and choking birds regardless of whether they were manufactured in a biological or "traditional" process.
Likewise, if the input to a biomanufacturing process is roundup-ready soy ("worst of the best"), that could be worse for the environment than a "traditional" catalytic cracking process fed by recycled plastic ("best of the worst")
There's active development and use of biomanufacturing of common chemicals because it has the potential to be much cheaper and less complicated than existing processes.
For example, fermenting sugar directly into ethylene at room temperature/atmospheric pressure using engineered yeast is simpler and safer than converting ethanol into ethylene in a multi step process involving high temperature and pressure, hydrogen feedstock, platinum catalyst, etc. Assuming you actually have bugs that can do the one step conversion.
But if this ethylene is polymerized into polyethylene and made into 6-pack rings, those are going to kick around for a thousand years in the ocean shedding microplastics and choking birds regardless of whether they were manufactured in a biological or "traditional" process.
Likewise, if the input to a biomanufacturing process is roundup-ready soy ("worst of the best"), that could be worse for the environment than a "traditional" catalytic cracking process fed by recycled plastic ("best of the worst")
Quite a bit of difference from other plants. Hemp grows a very large woody stalk and can grow 6+ feet tall and resemble a small Christmas tree-sized pine tree in one season. Cannabis produces oils/sap much like a pine tree and these oils are super conducive to polymers. Soybeans do not, are tiny, and don't suck CO2 from the air like an air purifier.
It's very real and very much already exists. I've met a few biochemists who are manufacturing it in the Denver, Colorado area and it absolutely blows my mind that we are not growing thousands of acres of industrial hemp for both controlling CO2 and for all it's bioplastic, wood, and material products it can be making. Stop growing cotton. Stop using crude oil based plastics, and all products of the plant can be used in extracts for foods, oils, and stalk/pithe/flour can be made into paper products and hempcrete.
I have only anecdotal sources claiming that hemp isnt a great alternative considering the land/water usage vs the product created, compared to say bamboo. Do you know anything about that?
Bamboo grows extremely slowly and can actually emit CO2 in hotter climates during the warmer season. Hemp grows extremely quickly and sucks down CO2 like a vacuum. Hemp doesn't require harsh chemical pesticides, and it doesn't require really high irrigation. It can fully replace cotton. While bamboo can be made into clothing (I do have a bamboo PirateBay T shirt) they just don't compare too well.
Which is funny because at most Canadian grocery stores they don't even offer or have paper bags. At least in Alberta.
What would be the point of offering paper bags, when they can instead sell you their high-margin reusable cloth bags (which are common in Canadian grocery stores)?
To provide a convenience to customers that didn't bring a reusable bag and don't want to spend a few bucks on a bag they'll never use again and has an environmental impact 1-2 orders of magnitude worse than a single use paper or plastic bag.
This:
> and has an environmental impact 1-2 orders of magnitude worse than a single use paper or plastic bag
presumes this:
> a bag they'll never use again
...right?
Which seems strange to me, given that people will really only buy the bag if they are planning to use it multiple times.
Measuring it as if it were a single-use bag, would be a bit like measuring the environmental impact of solar panels + batteries, as if they never generated any power (and thus never displaced any grid consumption of "spiky load" coal plants et al) and only existed as a cost of initial chemical construction.
> and has an environmental impact 1-2 orders of magnitude worse than a single use paper or plastic bag
presumes this:
> a bag they'll never use again
...right?
Which seems strange to me, given that people will really only buy the bag if they are planning to use it multiple times.
Measuring it as if it were a single-use bag, would be a bit like measuring the environmental impact of solar panels + batteries, as if they never generated any power (and thus never displaced any grid consumption of "spiky load" coal plants et al) and only existed as a cost of initial chemical construction.
Here in Gibraltar plastic bags have been banned for a while. You can buy more expensive reusable bags at the grocery store counter.
First it was pain. But it took only few months to adapt and now everyone are bringing bags to the store with then.
Fruit and veggie sections have paper bags, but also those sections offer canvas bags for the eco aware.
First it was pain. But it took only few months to adapt and now everyone are bringing bags to the store with then.
Fruit and veggie sections have paper bags, but also those sections offer canvas bags for the eco aware.
I’d presume that’s the cause of this legislation.
This is from over a year ago.
There's some more recent info in this article from January 30: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-canada-report-p...
There's some more recent info in this article from January 30: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-canada-report-p...
Great initiative, but these political edicts are not useful, and 2021 is too soon.
What we need is a structured approach, that analyses all of the kinds of use, how realistically dependant we are on all of them, probably some strategic alignment from gov. and a phased approach with more time.
Canadian ministers of industry are rife with any number of 'PowerPoint Programs' for this or that, that are again in the category of 'business sentiment' and often completely miss the mark.
I would really love to see the Minsters, or at very least the heads of their Bureaucracy - actually have an operational business background. We've established that our Ministers of Finance have to have 'credentials' - why on Earth we don't demand the same from our business related ministers is astonishing.
They could be identifying most of the use, talking a lot with the entities most affected, researching alternatives, lining up suppliers, poking in maybe in highly-specific areas, possibly with some truly progressive alternatives with intelligently focused investment, and at least proving some kind of 'phased transition framework'.
Much like when Sweden went from 'Left Lane' to 'Right Lane' driving, there needs to be plan.
A lot of business right now are facing truly existential calamity, to have a politician pull this out and say 'you have 6 months to change' is just not good.
I also feel that 'any rule can be hacked' and we're going to see all sorts of externalities from this, specifically glass.
Plastic is a really useful material, and that we don't want it in the Ocean's means we have to change, but not necessarily along he lines he's taking - in fact - the edict, were it followed to the tee, might not change many things other than in the minds of voters.
I would love to see a comprehensive plan for how we can tackled plastic waste, it will not come from the PM's office.
What we need is a structured approach, that analyses all of the kinds of use, how realistically dependant we are on all of them, probably some strategic alignment from gov. and a phased approach with more time.
Canadian ministers of industry are rife with any number of 'PowerPoint Programs' for this or that, that are again in the category of 'business sentiment' and often completely miss the mark.
I would really love to see the Minsters, or at very least the heads of their Bureaucracy - actually have an operational business background. We've established that our Ministers of Finance have to have 'credentials' - why on Earth we don't demand the same from our business related ministers is astonishing.
They could be identifying most of the use, talking a lot with the entities most affected, researching alternatives, lining up suppliers, poking in maybe in highly-specific areas, possibly with some truly progressive alternatives with intelligently focused investment, and at least proving some kind of 'phased transition framework'.
Much like when Sweden went from 'Left Lane' to 'Right Lane' driving, there needs to be plan.
A lot of business right now are facing truly existential calamity, to have a politician pull this out and say 'you have 6 months to change' is just not good.
I also feel that 'any rule can be hacked' and we're going to see all sorts of externalities from this, specifically glass.
Plastic is a really useful material, and that we don't want it in the Ocean's means we have to change, but not necessarily along he lines he's taking - in fact - the edict, were it followed to the tee, might not change many things other than in the minds of voters.
I would love to see a comprehensive plan for how we can tackled plastic waste, it will not come from the PM's office.
What justifies from keeping anyone to not implement the ban on single-use plastics right away? Is it just the loss in revenue and labor from the petrochemical industries?
Not having alternatives to replace them with?
Paper/jute bags and multi-use plastics have been in circulation for quite some time now.
>Paper/jute bags
not sure about "jute bags" (whatever that is), but paper bags have worse climate impact than plastic bags.
>and multi-use plastics have been in circulation for quite some time now.
Those don't really work if they're used for packaging, because the rely on the end-user to reuse it. If they don't they probably have worse environmental impact.
not sure about "jute bags" (whatever that is), but paper bags have worse climate impact than plastic bags.
>and multi-use plastics have been in circulation for quite some time now.
Those don't really work if they're used for packaging, because the rely on the end-user to reuse it. If they don't they probably have worse environmental impact.
It's what ropes are usually made of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jute
As we all recently discovered, it takes time for global supply chains to adjust to demand.
What do you replace a single-use plastic catheter with? Wash it and use it again?
A significant inquiry I have to this in general is what should we do for people for which single-use plastics are exceptionally necessary for their lives? For example, people with disabilities who cannot manage paper straws (due to their collapsing before a drink can be consumed) or metal straws (due to mental strain in keeping track of their cleaning)?
[deleted]
Have you ever used a paper straw? It takes ages for it to dissolve so for most people, event the disabled ones, it is not a problem.
No, they suck. They get soggy after a few minutes. I’d rather not use a straw at all.
Which brings me to my main point. The “paper straws” movement isn’t actually anti-climate-change or pro-ecology, but just virtue signalling. If it was real, they wouldn’t be advocating paper straws, they’d be advocating no straws at all! Hint: you don’t need a straw (the vast majority of people anyways).
Which brings me to my main point. The “paper straws” movement isn’t actually anti-climate-change or pro-ecology, but just virtue signalling. If it was real, they wouldn’t be advocating paper straws, they’d be advocating no straws at all! Hint: you don’t need a straw (the vast majority of people anyways).
Maybe the end goal of paper straw advocates really is that. If the only straws available are shitty ones, more people might prefer to go strawless.
Why do the majority of people need to use a straw anyway?
Paper straws can be a choking hazard for some.
I personally don't have a problem but I know people who take a very long time to drink stuff.
Ban plastic bags at grocery stores so I am forced to purchase thicker ones instead.
One way to reduce consumer plastic pollution could be decrease the use of small bottles.
If water came in 1l bottles instead of 20oz bottles people may not just forget about them after a sip. Plus, the volume add uses less plastic than the structural elements of 2 bottles.
If water came in 1l bottles instead of 20oz bottles people may not just forget about them after a sip. Plus, the volume add uses less plastic than the structural elements of 2 bottles.
Plastic pollution in the ocean is a problem, but it’s not the western countries causing it. There are 10 rivers that cause 90% of plastic pollution, and they are in Africa and Asia.
Plastic in a landfill harms nobody.
The worst part is that people somehow have this linked in thier mind with climate change, as in fixing plastic pollution is going to help with that.
Well if anything, it’s going to make it marginally worse because the replacements for single use plastics consume more energy.
Meanwhile this also has a pretty disproportionate amount of inconvenience for the public, continuing the “Environmental issues are about your personal sacrifice” message which is both unnessissary (companies can have a much Larger impact without you sacrificing anything) and counterproductive.
This is the politicians fallicy in action.