The video shows how alternatives may not be real solutions for many of those in need. I see it as an example of how we shouldn’t theorize solutions based only in our limited point of view or accept blindly that those in power did their due diligence and are not just in it for optics.
Some of the higher end restaurants where I live, are providing straws that are made of pasta or something. The do not degrade while in the drink like the paper ones do, but I am sure they are more expensive to make.
Straws account for a very minute amount of plastic waste but was selected because 1) one of the most often seen plastic refuse on beaches and 2) it was felt that it had the least impact on consumers daily lives and therefore easiest to live without.
Also they’re banned valid alternatives like bio plastics from PLA or PHA that would degrade much faster and be completely safe for people and other lifeforms. PHA biodegrades in less than 60 days in the ocean.
As stated: 1) they were top 10 most visible items found on beaches so it would have been a visible change that everyone could appreciate and 2) it was deemed low impact on individuals lifestyles so therefore easiest to mandate successfully. It was meant to be a gateway ban and work from there.
However as many have pointed out it leads to what’s called “greenwashing” which is a largely symbolic gesture that has little to no impact. For example the sippy lids used by Starbucks actually uses more plastic than a straw? And while people counter with the fact that the lids are recyclable and straws are not - please remember that the recycling rates of most countries is abhorrently low. McDonalds famously launched paper straws that also were not recyclable.
Meanwhile PHA straws could be the perfect solution because it behaves like plastic but biodegrades in under 60 days and is entirely not harmful to people or animals. Point is things are sometimes complicated and they need to be accessed carefully.
Their production process requires industrial equipment and/or intervention in order to produce the necessary components. So by virtue of it (the process) not occurring in nature the committee decided that it would not qualify for exemption. It would not be out of reason to make an exemption for it as they have done so in other instances. It just doesn’t have the same voice as other plastics/plastic alternatives have yet. But that’s particularly why it needs support to develop and gain viability. But right now it feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water
The criterion for acceptability is that it must be made by a natural process? Not that it must not generate slow-degrading waste? Why? I thought the whole problem was that plastic waste takes forever to degrade.
The aim was to limit and ban single use plastics. Which of course is aligned with but yet still different from finding a permanent solution. It’s also aimed at demonstrating progress. I understand not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good but plastic straws being banned without a viable solution and indirectly hindering development of a solution (in the case of PHA) isn’t a good step
Single-use plastic bags are banned in India but thicker plastic bags that could be seen as “reusable” are not. Now all the high-end stores give out thick plastic bags instead! Do they get reused? Maybe but they definitely still get thrown away the same.
Just banning things without having first worked on providing an alternative isn’t going to help anyone, the manufacturing equipment and personnel are still there, they’ll just come up with something else that is similar.
I think we should, at the very least, encourage businesses to require customers to request single-use plastic items other than the containers themselves. It would also be cool if more places let you bring in your own containers as well.
What I really like is when stores offer their opened cardboard boxes to customers instead of bags. We don’t always need single-use plastics for convenience/accessibility, I’ve been able to cut out a lot of my waste just by being mindful of what I do/don’t need to use instead of grabbing the first convenient-but-wasteful-overkill thing I see.
Banning plastic bags was a battle that went nowhere without a good alternative
What do you mean? By me in Denver, the 10¢ plastic bag fee had hiccups for a week until people remembered to bring their own. Some people still pay for plastic, some stores sell reusable bags by the checkouts for $1, and a lot of people bring their own.
Not in Brazil. Charging backfired really quickly and the solution was biodegradable plastic, which might mean just plastic that breaks down in plastic we can’t see.
Do the shops charge for the plastic bags? Here in the UK the charge for plastic bags has been wildly successful in reducing usage, with usage dropping by 97%: gov.uk/…/10p-bag-charge-turns-the-tide-on-plastic…
Same in Seattle and Tacoma. I ended up using paper bags a lot more which is nice. Paper bags are probably the alternative that people want but are too afraid they’ll rip. And they might, they are kind of weak. Subway had mostly paper bags but with little plastic around the handles for structural integrity. Allowing some plastics might be the solution. Reducing overall size.
I was living in Center Philly for a hot minute and I’d walk to Mom’s Organic Market, get handed paper bags, and hope the bags didn’t rip on the way back to the apartment; sometimes they broke, sometimes not.
Ultimately got a large backpack for when I didn’t feel like driving or catching a ride but larger grocery trips were always a pain. Either had to go to Whole Foods (gross) or take the turnpike over the bridge into Jersey and go to Costco.
Trying to exclusively walk/bike in some of these cities makes me wish for a robotic exoskeleton with big pockets.
Paper bags use 4 times more water and energy, and creates 5 times more solid waste but it doesn’t leave something in the Earth that has seeped into everything we’ve known. Paper bags are biodegradable, plastic bags are a huge contributor to microplastics. There are no perfect solutions in life. Paper bags contribute to climate change less than plastic bags and don’t contribute to microplastics. …service.gov.uk/…/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf is a study that shows paper bags become “environmentally friendly” in 3 usages and plastic bags in 4. But the issue is that a lot of paper bags don’t make it to 3 uses and break before. So, if you know you are going to use the bag exactly once and then toss it. The best bet for climate change and microplastics is paper bags.
Paper bags also potentially contribute more to acid rain due to the chemicals they use to treat paper and fertilize the trees. But acid rain isn’t a big issue currently. We did well to prevent that. So it’s a balance of evils. It’s like a bunch of world disaster sliders that when you move one, others adjust. A little more acid rain, a little less climate change, and microplastics.
There is no perfect solution here. Cotton reusable bags have to be used 131 times to be environmentally friendly and frankly. I’ve not found what other environmental effects cotton manufacturing has on the planet but I bet you it’s more than just energy and climate change related.
So overall this isn’t a complete picture, no one has that. I use paper bags because it seems like the best solution currently. Recycling paper is relatively easy and something that some people do in high school or middle school. Besides recycling them they are also biodegradable, they completely break down and don’t harm the environment. You can’t recycle plastic bags due to the type of plastic it is so they are directly a waste product that’s non-biodegradable and photodegrade over 1,000 years.
Add comment