Plastic Straws Aren’t the Problem

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-07/plastic-straws-aren-t-the-problem

by rbanffy • 8 years ago

134 154 8 years ago

geofft• 8 years ago

The plastic straw ban seems like an entirely unforced error on the part of liberals: disability-rights folks on the left are rightly upset that the removal of plastic straws makes life worse for people who physically need them in order to drink, environmentalist folks on the left who have actually looked at the data have concluded that a plastic straw ban is at best useless and at worst more harmful (e.g., Starbucks' new sippy-cup top uses more plastic than the old top + the old straw put together), and the right is having a field day with "You'll take my plastic straw from my cold, dead hands" jokes and calling liberals stupid - and they're not entirely wrong.

Is there something people in California can do to convince Gov. Brown not to sign the bill? (Do governors' offices typically listen to phone calls?)

enraged_camel• 8 years ago

>e.g., Starbucks' new sippy-cup top uses more plastic than the old top + the old straw put together

This tells me you misunderstand the problem.

It’s not about the amount of plastic used, but rather the shape. Plastic straws are very conducive to getting stuck inside various cavities of wild animals, which eventually kills them.

gravypod• 8 years ago

Couldn't we make spiral straws?

WillPostForFood• 8 years ago

Can you quantify “very conducive to getting stuck inside various cavities of wild animals” with some data (not just one internet video).

Klathmon2• 8 years ago

Reusable plastic (or metal) straws are a thing, and those with disabilities can use them if needed, and so can everyone else if wanted. It only takes a handful of uses to be an overall reduction in plastic used and the stiffer harder plastic is safer for animals if it ends up near them.

And Starbucks claims the plastic used in their new lids is both safer for wildlife, and easier to recycle than the plastic used in straws.

I'm not saying that I think this is overall a good thing, I'm not in any kind of position to make that kind of conclusion, but you did leave those points out of your comment.

jwilk• 8 years ago

What's the difference between "normal" plastic straws and reusable ones?

mratzloff• 8 years ago

Considering that the American right in general wants to do absolutely nothing to help the planet or the living things on it (as demonstrated by the candidates that win elections), I think they've removed themselves from the conversation entirely.

chewbacha7• 8 years ago

The plastic straw boycott is not meant to fix the problem, that’s been acknowledged [0]. It’s to help drive a message and teach awareness. The hope being that people shift behaviors that impact other areas.

Everything helps at this point. Because something helps less shouldn’t mean we bash it. Collectively we should do more.

[0] https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17488336/starbucks-plastic-str...

Symmetry• 8 years ago

I know, for myself, that people focusing on silly thing to "raise awareness" of a bigger problem has in the past tricked me into thinking that the larger problem was overblown. Because of that and because our bandwidth for reaching people and people's patience with environmental messages is finite we really ought to concentrate on important topics rather than obsess over minutia.

windows_tips2• 8 years ago

I think this is a symptom of a drive towards "messaging", "narratives", and "stories" over logical analysis of verifiable facts in (allegedly) persuasive writing.

I wouldn't doubt that some behavioral modification experiments "found" that such "tactics" work to change peoples' beliefs and actions, but I think many have taken up the effort to try to optimize such experiments, despite unethical implementations (c.f. Facebook attempting to create negative emotions by manipulating timelines) and harmful ends (c.f. White House "science office" targeting specific individuals with behavioral modification emails soliciting them into taking on interest liability on a loan.

Unfortunately "narratives" and "messaging" and "stories" took on memetic qualities for quite awhile in a portion of the culture, so we may still have to deal with the consequences for a while yet.

imgabe• 8 years ago

Everything helps, but some things help more than others. We have limited resources so we need to focus them where the impact will be largest.

I also think it's counterproductive to make a big deal out of something that really isn't a big deal. It will leave people feeling disillusioned when they find out they were lied to, and they will be less likely to listen to anything else. It also gives opponents something to point at and say "Look, these people are full of crap".

Klathmon2• 8 years ago

But while it might not be the most impactful way to change, it is easy.

Not many people will have their lives made worse when banning plastic straws, and those who do can get reusable straws.

It's an easy win, and shouting that there are things that can be done that are more impactful doesn't matter, this can help, and it's easy to do on a wide scale.

throwaway765432• 8 years ago

I don't think it's true that "everything helps." I think many of these grandstanding initiatives are received with open mockery and I think they serve to undermine the credibility of the larger environmental effort.

Recently we have had some rather large political shifts which move the needle considerably further away from our ecological goals. If you look at what people are saying within these political circles you will see derisive phrases like "virtue signaling," referring to exactly this sort of thing.

When you "send a message" you take work which might be perceived as mutually beneficial and you turn it into a fight. You should expect the response to be the inverse: People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This is why there is a culture around "rolling coal." This is actually happening.

This is extremely bad policy and it hurts the environment.

reaperducer3• 8 years ago

People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year.

This was going on long before Trump. Even back into the 1960's and 70's when people made fun of the crying Indian TV commercials.

Focus on the actual problem. When you make it political, you immediately lose half of your audience. This is the trap most activism falls into.

ams61103• 8 years ago

I find myself sort of in that camp. I think rolling coal is stupid, but when I saw people wanting to ban straws, I just had to roll my eyes. I think the larger goals of environmental protection lose some credibility when obviously inconsequential stuff like that becomes the message of the day.

drb912• 8 years ago

If what you’re saying is true, it will be obvious. I haven’t seen any backlash as you describe yet.

It also seems like a different problem than single use plastic regulation.

noonespecial• 8 years ago

It's actually worse than just "virtue signaling". It sends a political hat-trick of bad to the right side of the political spectrum: It curtails real freedom, lectures condescendingly, and proportionally doesn't actually help.

The "straw laws" are tailor made for a backlash.

SamUK962• 8 years ago

To be honest, there is a virtue signalling aspect to all this, it's pretty obvious that companies exploit this to increase sales. In my very honest opinion, does anybody with a bit of sense really think the boardroom at $corp care about Gay Pride in any real and considerable way - other than to exploit customer's desire to show their virtue about it with flashy rainbow mugs?

I would be careful, since you quite quickly shot towards being bias, by disregarding any merit to the side that you very obviously disagree with. Just like how you said they deride, you just did exactly the same. How is the problem of devisiveness and the environment going to be solved like that?

Progress never comes from deriding IMHO.

jonnyscholes• 8 years ago

I've never heard of this phenomenon and find it interesting as someone who does advocate for such policies from time to time. I'd love to read some reasearch on the topic if you have any? (Genuinely interested not trolling).

sidlls• 8 years ago

The people you describe are going to intentionally destroy the environment anyway. They aren't reachable by reason and we shouldn't factor them into any initiatives unless necessary and then we should simply assume they're part of the problem to be worked around or blocked.

Theodores• 8 years ago

I drink out of the same cup every time without the use of a straw - imagine that. If they stopped selling straws tomorrow it could be years before I would notice.

However, I know people who prefer to drink fizzy sugar drinks that come in one-use containers. If there was some instant ban on plastic straws then these folk would not get as far as mid morning before wondering 'where have all the straws gone'.

It is through this latter group of people that my awareness of the plastic problem has been raised. I have even seen a friend buy glass straws (delivered in a huge box by Amazon) so the problem is being taken seriously by these sugary-beverage folk. The consumerist ethic isn't going to change for these folk, there is no question in their minds that straws are vital (think of the children), it is just a matter of recycling plastic straws responsibly rather than flushing them out to sea (as if they ever did, living 50 miles from the coast).

Really there should be prizes for the most futile campaigns that demand the smallest of lifestyle adjustments. However, sometimes, e.g. through the plastic straws conversation, you do get a wider discussion going.

I don't lecture my fish eating, fizzy beverage drinking friends on things, I would prefer to save my breath. They don't want to know how many decades it has been since I last used a plastic straw. I would be there all day if the full tirade on their consumerist life was given. Nothing would be achieved in doing so, nobody would change their lifestyle choices.

However, I have detected lifestyle choice changes and a lower propensity to use plastic amongst my consumerist friends in recent months so maybe we do actually need these low-lifestyle-change campaigns because they do lead people to ask the questions that can lead to modified behaviour.

asntbqjkwbucaa• 8 years ago

Nothing personal, but I find this kind of naive ideological sentiment to be one of the least endearing features of Hacker News. For whatever reason, a lot of technical people were sold on conservative ideas under the banner of libertarianism, and it permeates any sensible conversation you try to have.

The conservatives in the US are building concentration camps for children, yet people on this site want to lecture about how straw bans are "virtue signaling", or will cause toddlers to intentionally destroy things, or reduce freedom.

It's a straw. People are capable of getting over it. And to halt progress because some dude in a MAGA hat might make fun of straw bans or crying Indians is a terrible strategy.

Your liberty ends when your actions begin harming others. I'm not worried about a few trolls rolling coal. I'm worried about cynical libertarian rhetoric that gives political cover for destroying helpful regulations.

darpa_escapee• 8 years ago

You're missing the forest for the trees, you've bought the latest excuse given to reject environmental measures. These are the same people who look at the scientific evidence for climate change and actively deny it, and you're taking their reasoning against environmental legislation as if its being made in good faith.

Virtue signalling didn't cause anyone to oppose climate change and environmental legislation, it's post hoc reasoning that blames others for their existing apathy towards the environment.

Environmental activism shouldn't be held hostage at the whims of people who will find any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to oppose it.

7952• 8 years ago

Do you think we can really avoid making the environment a moral issue? Science has never been enough to pursuade people. That approach is not working. It is political and moral in exactly the same way as other contentious issues and that means that people will argue about it. I want people to virtue signal about the environment. That is better than indifference.

pq0ak2nnd• 8 years ago

So basically your argument is "people will laugh if we try to increase awareness."

Who are the people laughing? Trolls. Now your argument becomes "trolls will laugh if we try to increase awareness."

Then you go on to claim it just invites bullying that will make things worse.

So now we have, "trolls will bully us" as your argument for not raising awareness.

That's just pathetic.

dplgk• 8 years ago

This is so spot on that I'm leaving this comment saying it's spot on with no other additions to the conversation, down votes be damned.

notafraudster• 8 years ago

To address your first point -- I am sure it is the case that idiot bubble people on the internet who don't believe in climate change will use phrases like "virtue signalling". What is not supported is the claim that they would otherwise go along with environmental initiatives, if only the right ones were chosen. It may simply be the case that the class of people you are talking about are always going to drag their heels and oppose everything, and they simply choose the manner of how they'll yell about it based on what they're responding to.

Coal rollers aren't people who are responding to "nonsense laws" (in this case, apparently, ten-year regulatory plans to marginally improve emissions standards and fuel efficiency) -- they're just people who have been convinced climate change is a liberal hoax to destroy their way of life, lashing out angrily. They get no benefit other than a performative one by "rolling coal". Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one.

In general arguments like "virtue signalling" are a process argument. The words say "You can't possibly mean what you're saying", but the intent beneath them are "I don't agree with what you're saying, so you can't possibly mean what you're saying". They're not a reaction to the mode of argument being presented against them, they are the default mode of argument to show contempt.

Ditto for the exact same group of people bemoaning "identity politics" while having twitter bios that read "Conservatarian #TradLife Proud to be who I am #MAGA The only thing right of me is the wall" or whatever.

It may be the case that straw bans are, specifically, as a matter of policy, counterproductive. I don't think all laws which prescribe policy or all messages which lecture are, but it may be the case that straw bans are. I don't have a strong feeling either way. But when it comes to 4chan weirdos whose literal slogan is "Fuck their feelings", no, I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them.

reaperducer3• 8 years ago

Everything helps at this point. Because something helps less shouldn’t mean we bash it. Collectively we should do more.

While I don't disagree with your sentiment, the article makes an important point:

Plastic straws are 0.03% of the Great Garbage Patch problem.

Plastic fishing nets are 46% of the GGP problem.

The people pushing the plastic straw bans aren't raising awareness of the big problem (lost and abandoned fishing nets), they're just spreading the notion that plastic is evil.

It's a lazy, self-indulgent kind of activism that is about making the person feel better, not solving a problem.

You want to "raise awareness" of the real problem? Start putting up posters in the seafood departments of supermarkets showing a fishing net stuffed with 20 tons of rotting sea life that's still killing fish 15 years after it floated away from its boat.

brightball• 8 years ago

What would a better net be made out of? Hemp maybe?

cwyers• 8 years ago

I regret that I only have one upvote to give here. This is probably the most perfect, succinct statement of the problem.

stinos• 8 years ago

they're just spreading the notion that plastic is evil ... not solving a problem

Isn't there at least some possibility the former does help the bit with the problem? There's enough uninformed people out there. So while the straws itself aren't going to cut it, in general spreading awareness about plastic and waste in general might just get more people to be more careful.

Start putting up posters in the seafood departments of supermarkets showing a fishing net stuffed with 20 tons of rotting sea life that's still killing fish 15 years after it floated away from its boat

I'm not sure this would help more than other initiatives. Possibly, but still. In any case it is unfortunately quite non-realistic in this society.

chewbacha7• 8 years ago

Sounds like the straw ban got you to do some research and raised your awareness.

Seems to be working.

fucking_tragedy2• 8 years ago

You're just looking at the garbage patch as if it represents the entirety of the problem.

Straws are the 7th most collected item during beach clean ups, after plastic bags and before plastic & foam containers.

intended3• 8 years ago

But that doesn’t work

The communication problem is not solved by being exacting. How many people can tell you exactly what’s going on with an algorithm - and how many people will stop their work to listen ?

On the other hand, put picture of kittens or unusual scenarios...

Mass communication isn’t only about accuracy.

chewbacha7• 8 years ago

You want 24,000 metric tons of plastic straws to be in the Pacific Ocean then? Because even 0.03% of 8 million is still a lot of plastic straws.

Maybe we can dump them in your backyard then.

austincheney2• 8 years ago

Message not received.

Plastic particles are now becoming as common and widespread as bacteria. If they really want to push the message on this then they would outlaw use of plastics in consumer packaging and thereby emphasize use of cardboard and paperboard products. The wood fibers used to make paper and cardboard are not harmful to animals, biodegrade quickly, and are far more environmentally renewable.

ams61103• 8 years ago

Not sure if you remember but a few decades ago the message was the opposite. Paper and cardboard packaging, grocery bags, etc. were environmentally damaging, plastic was seen as far friendlier (no trees cut down), and much more recyclable.

exabrial• 8 years ago

Using the force of law under penalty of your money [fines] or time [courtroom, prison] is a terrible way to 'raise awareness'.

prepend2• 8 years ago

“Everything helps at this point.”

This is not true and is dangerous because some things (many things actually) hurt. The article calls out some (drawing attention away from fishing industry), but I think more people need to be aware of opportunity cost [0] because time is not infinite.

The idea of doing something is better than nothing is not an absolute rule and should not be followed when it results in campaigns like this one that have caused harm.

Many examples of stuff like Starbucks [1] replacing straws with more plastic.

Skipping a straw is a good activity with really minimal impact. Having a law to ban straws amplifies the effort for minimal impact and leads to other behaviors with worse impacts like increased wood use, etc. It also removes the ability for activities like restaurants simply using more recycling to offset their plastic use.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

[1] https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/starbucks-straw-ban-will-...

chewbacha7• 8 years ago

I didn’t know the stats around fishing nets.

I know this now because of the plastic straw conversation and ban. Thus the campaign IS actually spreading information and teaching.

rdtsc2• 8 years ago

It’s to help drive a message and teach awareness

I wish it was as easy. People then think "I went to Starbucks and didn't ask for a plastic straw my job is done. I saved the environment. No need to worry anymore". And they don't worry anymore.

Same with politicians "we passed a straw ordinance", our job is done. Pad that resume with another accomplishment.

It falls into the category of "busy work" and rituals. Like say municipalities, having people sort recycling into 5 different containers, then in the end dumping it all into one stream at the center or say just dumping it in the trash. But it's important to make people believe they're doing useful and important things, and this provides for that.

dingaling• 8 years ago

And they don't worry anymore.

Those same people can't do anything about the dumping of plastic fishing nets, so what else CAN they worry about? Only those things which they can directly change, no matter how small. Today it's straws, perhaps next will be plastic water bottles. Little nudges.

People are encouraged to turn-off lamps in rooms they aren't using. That's pretty insignificant compared to the energy consumption of aluminium smelters, but it's something everyone can do.

graeme3• 8 years ago

This can backfire though. Imagine this sequence:

1. Someone says “we must ban false straws to save the environment

2. A disinterested observer looks into it, and sees this is false

3. They turn against the messenger

In the best case of #3, they will merely think the messenger is stupid. In the worst case, they’ll start to become an anti-environmentalist and make the cognitive error that all environmental messages are lies.

Logically speaking, a poor argument in favour of something doesn’t mean that thing is false. But in terms of rhetorical persuasion, making a really bad argument is an excellent way to convince people of the opposite of an idea.

chewbacha7• 8 years ago

So, it’s a false message to save 24 thousand metric tons of plastic from the environment? That continuing to pollute and throw away single use plastics is actually the true message?

twentyseven• 8 years ago

  and make the cognitive error

That’s being charitable. Often, it’s not a cognitive error, but rather spite and retaliation. Hanlon’s razor really doesn’t work well in these situations.

People know damn well what they’re up to, and will redouble their efforts at the suggestion that something might be taken off their plate.

tomjen33• 8 years ago

The average person only has so much time to consider on environmental issues. Make them focus on plastic straws and they may well feel like they have done enough.

And those of us know knows how little those straws matters will simply mock the movement.

Fortunately everything doesn't have to be bleak: Efforts are underway to clean up the ocean https://www.theoceancleanup.com

Consultant32452• 8 years ago

It’s to help drive a message and teach awareness.

If that's true then, and I'm only speaking for myself, it's had the exact opposite effect. It makes me feel like if we're squabbling over straws then the real issues must have been dealt with already. Factually, of course I know there are real environmental issues. But when straws become the talking point, it makes me feel like the environment should be dismissed as an issue.

rayiner• 8 years ago

The problem is that it’s misleading. Our lifestyle in the western world is unsustainable with existing technology. We can’t fix the problem by “do[ing] more.” The gap between where we are and where we need to be is so large. To fix the problem through conservation we have to dramatically lower our standard of living. Not just “use paper straws,” “compost your trash,” and “buy an EV,” but “bike everywhere, get rid of your AC,” and “eat meat once a month if that.”

Spooky233• 8 years ago

It’s stupid and serves no purpose other than to sell paper straws, which have recently started reappearing on he market.

Doing something meaningful like demanding accountability for fishing nets and pushing consumer product companies to reduce packaging would be a much more productive approach.

chmaynard• 8 years ago

A more general article on plastic waste by the same author:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-25/how-to-so...

baxtr• 8 years ago

A good thread on this subject regarding the article you’ve linked to. I don’t think “it’s just eight countries”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17067350

Jaruzel• 8 years ago

Banning plastic straws may not directly reduce the plastic waste problem itself, but it HAS had a very high profile with almost all major media outlets talking about it.

Anything that keeps reminding people that we are destroying our home with use-once plastic is a good thing in my opinion. Today it's plastic straws and shopping bags, tomorrow hopefully it will be larger use-once plastic items and from there we may actually start making an impact.

narag• 8 years ago

Anything that keeps reminding people that we are destroying our home with use-once plastic is a good thing in my opinion.

That's just another form of "ends justify means". One very odd, but it is.

rbanffy• 8 years ago

all major media outlets talking about it.

The issue is that, when it's (easily) demonstrated it's an exaggeration, the credibility of all major media outlets gets questioned, and rightly so.

zepto• 8 years ago

Except that 50% of it is fishing nets, so this slow attrition won’t make an impact, even assuming people aren’t just fatigued after the straw issue.

wlll• 8 years ago

Just the other day I went to throw a plastic straw away and as I opened up the bin was faced with a load of un-recyclable plastic film, wrappers for fruit and veg and plastic punnets etc. The straw was a tiny fraction of the problem.

At that point it really felt like the focus on plastic straws was just a token gesture. Some small gesture to make people feel good about themselves and the people in power while the main problem, the tons of other plastic we use, isn't close to getting fixed.

trishmapow2• 8 years ago

estimated that lost and abandoned crab pots take in 1.25 million blue crabs each year

I can't even catch a single crab doing that on purpose. I think I'm doing it wrong.

cageface2• 8 years ago

Using surface samples and aerial surveys, the group determined that at least 46 percent of the plastic in the garbage patch by weight comes from a single product: fishing nets.

One more reason to stop eating seafood. It’s not like there’s going to be any left soon at current rates of overfishing anyway.

st262• 8 years ago

You could switch to longline-caught fish, which is a good thing for other reasons too.

cageface2• 8 years ago

That's a step in the right direction for sure but why not just cut it out of your diet entirely? There's nothing in fish you can't get from plant sources and with current ocean pollution levels even line caught fish are going to have a lot of heavy metals and PCBs in them.

michelledepeil2• 8 years ago

Surprise surprise, corporations (in this case commercial fishing) are doing major damage to the environment, and even after realizing that straws make up only 0.03% of the oceans plastic waste, the attention is still (even in this comment thread) pointed at the consumer.

The free market will not save the environment, regulatory action will.

syntaticSugar• 8 years ago

Will it tho? Or rather the free market won't? Isn't a majority of the push for more environmentally safe products a result of the market demand?

michelledepeil2• 8 years ago

Yes, you are correct that "a majority of the push for more environmentally safe products [is] a result of the market demand", but as we read in the parent article, environmentally safe products are not making a significant difference. This is a bit of an assumption, because the article only speaks of straws, and I'm extrapolating that to _all_ consumer goods. The article then goes on to highlight what _would_ make a significant difference: fishing net cleanup.

What I'm saying is that the significant mess made by commercial fishing should be cleaned up by commercial fishing - or prevented in the first place by regulating the practice.

If we look a little further down the line at consumer behaviour again, I will make the anecdotal assumption that the vast majority of consumers does not care in the least about the packaging of their products (or the number of plastic straw it comes with), as they are too busy budgeting their lives.

ghshephard• 8 years ago

Plastic Straws are irrelevant in the greater picture, and the global boycott has nothing to do with them - but the broader picture of responsible resource management. Reducing, Re-Using, Repurposing, Redirecting(compost, energy), and finally Recycling are habits which the straw ban is meant to strengthen.

No serious person thinks banning plastic straws, in and of itself, has any purpose.

remote_phone• 8 years ago

We should outlaw single use non recyclable plastic everywhere. If not across the US, at least in California. The idea that we just throw plastic into a landfill is simply stupid. Our descendants will look back on us and think we are on the level of apes to just throw stuff into landfills and believe it solves the problems.

slavik812• 8 years ago

What problems remain unresolved when plastic has been buried in a landfill?

dwd2• 8 years ago

At some point we will need a bacteria that can break down polypropylene/polyethylene chains. This will bring an end to plastics usefulness, but the alternative is going to be a continual buildup of inorganic molecules in the environment with unknown consequences.

tjtuck• 8 years ago

Plastic straws are a problem indeed. They are hard to sort out, end up in the drains, crumble and contaminates the land everywhere. Can't get rid of them soon enough.

intended3• 8 years ago

Ahahahha.

The pro plastic Astro turf begins, study this article for the major markers of FUD.

First, ensure that the data is debatable. Then use it as a stepping stone to shift the focus to something logically more sound, while ignoring one of the core premises of the system.

But wait! this doesn’t really do anything to make plastics more appealing!

Correct, which is why the final step is to push the blame and responsibility to someone else and to other shores.

Keep using these talking points till you have a group of people who think it’s reasonable, and use them as a staging ground for the next level of FUD.

you may think that the article is reasonable - and it is! It just makes minor errors or shifts focus, fairly to other places.

But the fact is that per capita plastic consumption in the West is much higher than developing nations.

China was the one who was taking everyone’s trash in the first place, which is why it got worse.

Not to mention, Third world countries will DEFINITELY do worse on recycling, because of how hard it is to get passably right.

And this does nothing about the current rate of trash dumping, or production! It just pushes the problem out to tomorrow.

I’d give the author the benefit of doubt, but this is a business journal.

saudioger• 8 years ago

Hey people are talking about trash, so that's better than nothing... but the big message people should be taking home is PICK UP TRASH AND SHAME OTHERS FOR LITTERING. It doesn't matter if you didn't leave it there, if you don't pick it up it's probably going to end up in the ocean.

The vast majority of plastic in the ocean is washed out through rivers and storm drains.

Much of this comes from countries with poor waste management... but the US is still an embarrassingly large source despite being in the first world. There's no excuse. We can not take waste management for granted.

coatmatter2• 8 years ago

Every time this topic surfaces in my various feeds, I do a Ctrl+F/Cmd+F// for car/motor/driv/vehicle. To date, I've found no articles that mention plastic and excessive motor vehicle use (often single-occupancy) in the same article.

I don't really understand why no one ever seems to make that final step in logic. How many plastic straws-worth of oil do we waste on private motor vehicle mileage each year?

gbear605• 8 years ago

This topic is primarily about the accumulation of physical waste (ie. garbage), not about the oil usage. Of course, the oil usage is a valid problem that needs to be solved, but that's not why people are caring about the straws.

coatmatter2• 8 years ago

I see the article highlighting the community's continual misplacing of priorities. This doesn't mean that I don't think plastic straws present any problems, but I believe most aren't thinking rationally about the cause of the problem (excessive consumption, etc).

A similar hysteria has recently been occuring with dumped bikes while the ongoing issue with motoring addiction goes on unaddressed: https://slate.com/business/2018/04/astounding-photos-capture...

To borrow what I believe is an unfair phrase, the article as I see it is about "bike-shedding".

Svoka• 8 years ago

Plastic straw isn't a problem. It's a movement to demonstrate how dependant we are on plastic, that even something trivial and mostly luxury & low impact item as a plastic straw is hard to get rid of. Whole point of stopping plastic straws is not to reduce plastic waste, because it's negligible comparing to, say, plastic bags, but to start a conversation and rise awareness of what materials are used where and how they are recycled.

Planet Money had excellent podcast with people who came up with whole "Ban Plastic Straw" idea.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/19/630589386/how-the-campaign-to...

michaelkeenan• 8 years ago

A problem with directing people toward ineffective solutions is that it may "use up" people's limited willingness to be pro-social. Scott Alexander described a few studies on this phenomenon at Less Wrong: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/r8stxYL29NF9w53am/doing-your...

Briefly: people manipulated into buying environmentally friendly products shared less of their money in a Dictator Game, and were more likely to lie for financial gain. (Beware that this is from 2009, i.e. pre-replication crisis, so the studies might warrant careful checking.)

Alexander: "If this is true, then anything that makes people feel moral without actually doing good is no longer a harmless distraction. All those biases that lead people to give time and money and thought to causes that don't really merit them waste not only time and money, but an exhaustible supply of moral fiber"

thinkingkong• 8 years ago

After reading the really good Donna Meadows essay on leverage points, perhaps we should have taxed straws when theyre purchased and used that as money to pay Fishermen to haul in unused / found nets.

stephenbez• 8 years ago

I view this like software performance optimization. First thing you do is profile the application.

Would anyone suggest spending a lot of effort to speed up the part of the program that is taking 0.03% of the time?

There definitely is environmental fatigue. I know someone that always unplugs her microwave when she leaves the house because she is concerned about phantom electricity usage. She feels like she is doing her part, but then ends up running the air conditioner all the time which uses way more.

torpfactory• 8 years ago

I mean, you'd probably be better off just not going to the bar/restaurant in the first place. Plastic pollution is sort-of orthogonal to greenhouse gas emissions, and orders of magnitude easier to solve.

A straw is like what 0.01 lb CO2e (CO2 equivalent). The trip to the bar creates something like 1 lb of CO2e pollution PER MILE if you drove a car. The math is pretty simple but I think most people just don't like being told their lifestyle has an impact and they ought to make changes for the good of the planet. I'm not sure if a straw ban is an effective way to create meaningful discussion about reducing impact. In any case, efforts to enact it probably represent and opportunity cost which might be better utilized pushing for something like (at the city level, at least) electric car charging stations at all city owned parking garages. Here are some other, unsolicited, out-in-left-field, "fun" ideas I have for reducing climate change.

- Create a Strava-like reward system for people who bike to work. Make it cool and adventurous to bike to work every day, NO MATTER WHAT!

- Have cities pay employers to have employees work from home some days of the week. Preferably on a coordinated schedule so that highway volumes are reduced as well. This would reduce the need for highway infrastructure and reduce GHG emissions at the same time.

- Subtly encourage people to just buy fewer things and travel less. Maybe you could accomplish this by setting up more community events (potlucks, movies in the park, recreational sports, etc). People wouldn't feel the need to buy stuff or get away so much if they were busy having fun closer to home.

This is kind of fun: Other people should put their "fun" ideas for reducing impact here, I'd love to see them!

clamprecht• 8 years ago

Why don't they apply Amdahl's law to this kind of problem?

Plastic Straws Aren’t the Problem

Related Stories