[HN Gopher] An illustrated guide to plastic straws (2021) ___________________________________________________________________ An illustrated guide to plastic straws (2021) Author : worldvoyageur Score : 200 points Date : 2022-05-02 17:50 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (hwfo.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (hwfo.substack.com) | twobitshifter wrote: | I agree with the message, but some states, the type that ban | plastic straws, have made recycling a requirement. | | A message not touched on is reducing the amount of plastic that | we produce and consume should be a goal, but with attention paid | to the secondary effects. For example, if you don't wrap those | peppers in plastic they'll spoil and that may be worse for the | planet than shrink wrap. But what if you cover them in edible wax | instead? Whats the footprint of each decision? | | Sometimes plastic will win out and other times we are being | wasteful. In SE Asia, when you buy a single drink from the | convenience store, it comes within a plastic bag, and you always | get a straw. A plastic bag and plastic straw for a drink in a | plastic bottle. | cogman10 wrote: | > But what if you cover them in edible wax instead? Whats the | footprint of each decision? | | "states that ban plastic straws" generally use something | biodegradable instead. | | The policy, IMO, is pretty simple to figure out. The reason | plastic is used everywhere is because plastic is uber cheap. | Those peppers are wrapped in plastic because it adds less than | a penny per unit and gives them a much better shelf life. | | So, the simple solution isn't an outright ban of plastics, but | rather a plastic tax. And what's the easiest way to impose | that? Via a fossil fuel oil tax. | | This would allow companies producing these products to evaluate | their individual cost benefits of wrapping everything in | plastic. | | The rub is, this would have to be a global tax. Otherwise, | we'll just be outsourcing our pollution problems. You'd also | have to increase shipping taxes to a point where local | manufacturing is the better financial option so bad actor | companies don't simply manufacture in a nation with no oil tax. | | Unfortunately, I think anything else is just posturing that | will fall short. If businesses don't feel a squeeze, they won't | change behavior. And the only squeeze they feel is financial. | wildmanx wrote: | > Unfortunately, I think anything else is just posturing that | will fall short. | | No, please don't go that fundamentalist route. The "all or | nothing" approach won't lead us anywhere. Steady meaningful | steps is the key. Build awareness, tackle one problem at a | time, improve one aspect at a time, and you'll be able to | bring people with you, allow them to adjust, business to be | created, etc. | | You can't be perfect over night. If you try, it won't happen, | not today, not tomorrow, and not 10 or 30 years from now. If | you do it steadily step-by-step, you'll at least have a | chance. | cogman10 wrote: | It's not an all or nothing thing. But rather a "meaningful | vs unmeaningful" sort of thing. The smallest meaningful | thing we could do to impact waste production is a tax in | one city or nation. | | Meaningless things are things like banning plastic straws, | awareness things, or even to a large extent funding day | long excursions to the beach to pick up trash. Those are | things more similar to urinating into a hurricane. | | It's not a fundamentalist thing. Rather, it's an Amdahl's | law thing. The politically and socially popular actions | have almost no real effect on climate change or waste | production. The problem is we are mad at the wrong people. | We blame individuals for waste when the amount of waste an | individual produces is a TINY fraction of the waste | generated by corporations. Further, a lot of that waste for | a citizen is unavoidable. I can't help the fact that every | item of food I eat has been wrapped in plastic, bundled in | plastic, and then is shipped from halfway across the global | only for the grocery store or restaurant to unceremoniously | throw away that plastic garbage. | | Frankly, we won't reduce our climate impact through good | feeling programs and broken corporate promises. We NEED | laws that impose monetary losses on businesses for waste | production to change anything. | dylan604 wrote: | "Globally: One and only one solution exists to curbing the deluge | of oceanic plastics. The international community has to get the | Philippines and similar countries enough money to have proper | garbage collection." | | What would this look like? I'm guessing it's more than just | giving them a fleet of trucks and landfill equipment. | archarios wrote: | Ideally, we would have funding for chemical recycling of | plastics which would make a circular plastic economy. I don't | know if this is actually a viable solution at scale but it's | the dream. | barbazoo wrote: | I wonder if that would financially work out and not just make | it so expensive to ship our recycling over there to no longer | make sense, causing us to ship the stuff to the next cheap | country throwing it into the ocean again. | dylan604 wrote: | Eventually, you go through all of the countries like this | so that you have to deal with your own shit rather than | shipping of to someone else. This would be the ideal thing | would it not? | MarkLowenstein wrote: | It's a deceptive title, but it comes straight from the blog post. | It's not going to teach you about straws (thankfully...are straws | that interesting?). It tells you about the sources of plastic | waste in general and justifies the most efficacious solutions to | avoid plastic pollution. It is a short article focused on common | sense, appropriate pictures, and well-chosen data. | gumby wrote: | > thankfully...are straws that interesting? | | I clicked on the link _specifically_ because I thought it might | be about straws themselves. I agree straws don't sound that | interesting but I don't really know much about them and for all | I know there's something interesting about their manufacture, | perhaps the difference in sizes, or something else. | | OTOH I am already well aware of plastic pollution problem and | straws' relative place in it (both perceived and real). | northband wrote: | My family keeps our own compostable straws in the car. We | typically don't ask for straws, lids, bags, etc. There are cases | where you may forget, or can't avoid it, but overall it has | decreased our yearly plastic use. | LeanderK wrote: | > And banning straws is just plain stupid. | | Why? We don't have them anymore in germany. People move on and | new solutions get invented. | | Seeing a plastic straw is weird to me. | thfuran wrote: | I don't think it is especially stupid in and of itself but is | it an efficient use of government effort? | reactspa wrote: | Can someone please clarify for me why some communities in the | West Coast of USA banned plastic straws but not plastic "take- | away" cups (that are also used only once)? I want to understand | the logic that was used to do this. I've googled around for this, | and while people like pmarca mock it, I've never found the | original reasoning and logic for this action. | buildsjets wrote: | Plastic straws were banned because a video of a sea turtle with | a straw stuck in it's nostril went viral and the decision was | made based on emotions, not analysis. If it had been a plastic | cup stuck on it's head, they would have banned cups instead. | Too bad it didn't get a plastic tampon applicator stuck in it's | nose, because I sure see a ton of them washed up on the beach, | seems like a prime target to eliminate. | elliekelly wrote: | I have no answer but every time I get a cold drink at starbucks | and see the new "no straw" lid (that seems to use as much or | more plastic as the old lid + straw) I have the same question. | It seems more about the "no straw" trend than about actually | reducing plastic. | MerelyMortal wrote: | My pet theory is that the 'no plastic straw' movement was | started by someone as a sick joke to see how far people would | take a silly idea to feel like they are helping save the | environment. | haunter wrote: | Went to McDonald's today to get a milkshake, they only have paper | straws here since 2019 iirc. Anyways the milkshake itself doesn't | but I assume our saliva "softens" the paper straw so much that | after a couple of minutes I had to turn the straw around to use | the other end otherwise I just can't get the milkshake through | lol if that make sense. I'm thinking about getting 2 straws next | time. | hammock wrote: | PFAS "forever chemicals" were found in 36 out of 38 brands of | plant-based (like paper) straws tested: | https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Biodeg... | McNutty wrote: | Personally I just drink from the cup. I never use a straw when | drinking at home, I don't magically require one when not at | home. | MerelyMortal wrote: | Personally, part of the enjoyable expereince of drinking a | milkshake is drinking it through a straw. Drinking a | milkshake like a regular drink gives me no pleasure. | | I suppose if they ever went to paper straws where I live, i | would just have to order a personal metal reusable straw. | troyvit wrote: | Man I remember being a kid and drinking a McDonald's shake | through a straw. It was so frustrating. My cheeks would be | sucked in like a 60 year old actress with really bad | plastic surgery and even then I'd just get a little bit. | MerelyMortal wrote: | Jack In The Box had wide, strong, blue straws when I was | a kid, and they made drinking shakes easy. Now they have | regular, small, thin-walled straws that does the same | thing you're describing :-/ | adhesive_wombat wrote: | > I suppose if they ever went to paper straws where I live, | i would just have to order a personal metal reusable straw. | | I suppose that's the sound of the system working. | | Certainly I note use fewer plastic bags since they started | charging for them, though I have also thrown away quite a | few broken, much, much thicker, bags and bought a lot more | small bin bags since then. | | But neither the straw or bag are anywhere near a major | contributor to plastic use, though I can see plastic bags | certainly were a major litter source and are much less | often found in hedges now. | haunter wrote: | I'm just thinking about to keep a reusable metal straw | around. Cleaning is a pita, you need the special brush but | honestly it's still better than the paper straws. But maybe | it's just McDonald's? Maybe the other fast food joints use | something else, like a different kind of paper | aeternum wrote: | A a glance, it seems to make sense that burying straws/garbage in | a landfill is better than throwing it in the ocean but | chemically, plastic decomposes significantly faster when exposed | to UV/sunlight. It also seems as though ocean organisms are more | able to consume plastic & oil. | | It sounds crazy, but could it be that trash in the ocean is | actually a better option? | slavik81 wrote: | Why do we want it to decompose? It's made of carbon, so if it | sits underground in a place where it doesn't break down, isn't | that effectively sequestered carbon? Decomposing it into CO2 | and releasing it into the global carbon cycle seems counter- | productive. What's the actual benefit of doing that? | marcosdumay wrote: | There is basically no UV on most of the oceans volume. | | I don't know where we stand better chance of getting a plastic | consuming bacteria. (Do we even want that?) But the rate of | natural decomposition of plastic on the ocean or underground is | probably similar. | changoplatanero wrote: | if it is buried in a landfill is there less chance that it will | end up in the body of an animal and work it's way up the food | chain? | loudmax wrote: | Theoretically possible, but we should want a lot more data to | support that conclusion. There seems to be data that suggests | that at least certain types of plastics have a deleterious | effect on humans, and probably other animals as well. As long | as the ecological effects of plastic aren't completely | understood, it's probably better for it to wind up in landfills | than in the food chain. After all, plastics are derived from | petroleum which came from underground to begin with. | wildmanx wrote: | > And anything that goes into the landfill does not get into the | ocean. | | That's just not true. All plastic eventually ends up in the | ocean. The "it's all decomposed in 50 years" is a myth. | | There was a pretty convincing article about all of that here on | HN a while back. | mike_d wrote: | How would a plastic straw in a sealed landfill in Kansas ever | make it to the ocean? Have you ever been to a modern landfill? | | Plastics are not evil creatures that grow legs and night and | burrow out looking for the closest body of water. | quietbritishjim wrote: | What would 50 years matter? Fossils are found in ground that | are 10s of millions of years old. (I suspect the time until a | landfill is disturbed is likely to be somewhere between those | two extremes, but who knows.) | moralestapia wrote: | Weird, first it says, | | "[...] zero plastic thrown in a garbage can in the United States | enters the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre", in bold letters. | | But then later in the article, it admits that about 50% of US | plastics (it is unclear whether is all of them or only the ones | meant to be recycled) were shipped "to Indonesia and Vietnam, | which proceeded to improperly dump over 80% of it." | | So, it does go into the ocean in the end, whether the fault of | the US or any other country, the point is that your plastic straw | has a big chance of finding its way to the sea. | rexreed wrote: | These are both correct. Trash in a US garbage can usually ends | up in a landfill. Recycling is often sent overseas, where it | ends up in a different Gyre. Either way, a plastic straw | (according to the article) doesn't enter in the North Pacific | Subtropical Gyre if thrown into the trash or sent to recycling, | it ends up in a landfill if trash, or a different gyre if sent | overseas. Lesson learned: sometimes throwing stuff away is | better. And don't litter, it goes without saying. | dmd wrote: | I think you rather missed the point of the article. | animal_spirits wrote: | Garbage can -> landfill | | recycling can -> overseas countries -> ocean | janj wrote: | I thought it was pretty clear, if you put the straw in the | garbage can it will not enter the garbage patch, it goes to the | landfill. If you put it in the recycling bin it has a good | chance of entering the garbage patch. | McNutty wrote: | The point being made in the article is that plastic thrown into | _garbage_ cans in the US end up securely held in the sealed | landfills as described,while plastics sent for _recycling_ in | the US end up getting exported and ultimately improperly | dumped. | | The author is saying that you should put plastics in the | garbage rather than in the recycling. | mike_d wrote: | > your plastic straw has a big chance of finding its way to the | sea | | IF you put it in a recycling bin. Here is a quick breakdown: | | - Black bin (trash): Goes to a landfill where it is regulated | by the EPA and stored in containment and the off-gas is | harvested for energy | | - Blue bin (recycling): Gets shipped by boat across an ocean to | a third world country where it is dumped because that is the | most profitable thing to do and it is no longer subject to | regulatory oversight that it actually gets recycled | moralestapia wrote: | It's not that easy, | | Trash goes into what is called, waste transfer stations, see | [1], where there's an effort to salvage recyclables from | regular trash as well, what you do with the black/blue bins | is basically helping them do their work (and this is good). | | Let's say then, that all this plastic goes into the "plastic | that could be recycled" bin, of which we actually DO recycle | 3.1 million tons of it (as stated in the article) out of 35.7 | million tons (total). | | But then it goes to say "We used to send half of this to | China until they banned it [...]", and it is not clear either | this is half of the recycled chunk, or the total amount of | plastic that gets thrown away. It wouldn't make sense for it | to be the recycled chunk, as ... we are recycling it, right? | But then, it could, maybe, as it could be sent to those | countries for "recycling" and they then "improperly dump it" | (as also stated in the article). | | 1: https://www.dumpsters.com/blog/waste-management-transfer- | sta... | bhk wrote: | People are intercepting plastic from our waste stream and | re-directing it to other countries that dump it into the | ocean? Well I see your problem right there! | | The idea that we would not ban that and instead ban | drinking straws _because_ of that is even more absurd than | the nonsense that I _thought_ was in play. | jccooper wrote: | A lot of "recycling" gets diverted to landfill domestically, | too. How much depends, but lots of stuff is sorted out as | unrecyclable, unidentifiable, or just plain unprofitable. | Probably including most straws and other small items placed | in recycling. | function_seven wrote: | While true, I'd rather play it safe and put my plastic in | the trash bin. Helpful mnemonic: The _blue_ bin is _blue | like the ocean_ that plastic will end up in. | | :( | legitster wrote: | Right at the bottom of the article: | | > Locally: You must reduce the amount of plastic shipped | overseas by _putting it in the regular garbage instead of the | recycle bin_. | | The premise is that recycling creates pollution but landfills | do not. | saltdotac wrote: | That's why I disagree with the article's conclusion that | getting rid of plastic straws is "stupid". There are | alternatives, some better than others at their job of fluid | delivery to your face parts, but most doing a better job of not | polluting. | drewg123 wrote: | If you want to save the oceans, ban plastic fishing equipment, as | nets and other gear is the biggest plastic polluter in the | oceans: | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/dumped-f... | jjcm wrote: | What material would you recommend instead? | chillingeffect wrote: | Also: we don't need to eat seafood. | drewg123 wrote: | Hemp, or anything else non-toxic and biodegradable. | munificent wrote: | This article is a great example of how poor use of math can do | a disservice to the public. The article says: | | _> Lost and abandoned fishing gear which is deadly to marine | life makes up the majority of large plastic pollution in the | oceans_ | | This is one of those statistics that shouldn't even pass the | sniff test. Think about all of the millions of ways that humans | use plastic across every single industry, job, and area of | life. And yet somehow ghost gear is supposed to be greater than | _all of that put together?!_ Are fisheries just dumping a | hundred nets in the ocean for every one they use or something? | The number makes no sense. | | And, indeed, the report in question says no such thing. What it | _does_ say is: | | "12 million tonnes of plastic ends up in the ocean every year" | and "640,000 tonnes of ghost gear enters the ocean every year". | So that means ghost gear is only around 5% of the plastic that | ends up in the ocean per year. In fact the report itself states | that "Ghost gear is estimated to make up 10% of the plastic | waste in our oceans". | | Of course, that's not alarming enough, so it also goes on to | state that "[ghost gear] represents a much higher proportion of | large plastics found floating at the surface" and "over 85% of | the rubbish on the seafloor on seamounts and ocean ridges, and | in the Great Pacific Gyre." | | That sounds bad but... it should come as no surprise. Most | plastic that ends up in the ocean is trash. Land-based trash | plastic that is large or heavy enough to sink is less likely to | flow down rivers and end up in the middle of the ocean. It will | get broken up by trash processing, sink to the bottom of | rivers, or otherwise not make it all the way to the ocean | intact. So of course you'll see a disproportionate amount of | ghost gear when you look on the seafloor or at large items-- | ghost gear is large plastic that is deliberately designed to | sink in seawater and then is deliberately dragged out into the | middle of the ocean and thrown overboard. | | If your primary goal is to save animals, then Greenpeace's | focus on ghost gear makes sense. But if your goal is to reduce | the _overall_ amount of plastic ending up in the ocean (which | also saves animals), then ghost gear is only a relatively small | fraction of the problem. | drewg123 wrote: | It seems like the study folks are quoting is a peer reviewed | article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018 | -22939-w?fbclid=Iw... | | It states "Over three-quarters of the GPGP mass was carried | by debris larger than 5 cm and at least 46% was comprised of | fishing nets." | munificent wrote: | Ah, good catch! That does agree with the article, so maybe | that's where the claim comes from and not directly from the | Greenpeace article. | | There's still a difference between "quantity dumped _per | year_ " and "total amount measured right now". It seems | like ghost gear is not a large fraction of the plastic | entering the ocean, but it a large fraction of the | accumulated large pieces in the garbage patch. I presume | that's because fishing gear is designed to survive in the | ocean so takes longer to break down than other plastics. | verdverm wrote: | Here's a NOAA page on the topic | | https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plasti | cs-... | nine_k wrote: | Humans use metals in colossal quantities, but only a small | proportion of that, used to make weapons and ammo, is | responsible for the majority of human deaths induced by metal | items. | | Similarly, fishing gear is specifically produced to lure, | trap, catch, and ultimately kill marine life. One abandoned | fishing net _could_ be much more deadly than 10x of the same | plastic by weight in the form of plastic straws, spoons, and | cups. | | I don't know if it's indeed so, but I can easily see why it | _could_ be so. | McNutty wrote: | I think you've overlooked the keyword _large_ in the opening | statement | munificent wrote: | I did notice that but the linked report does not define | "large" at all as far as I can tell. | Melatonic wrote: | I do not understand why more restaurants do not have metal straws | | They already have silverware and a whole process for cleaning it | and whatnot. Why not just also invest in metal straws and re-use | ? It seems like it would be cheaper than even plastic straws long | term. And of course less waste. | telotortium wrote: | Many commercial dishwashers might be specialized for certain | dishes, so adding a straw washing machine would be a | significant expense. In addition, I've heard that many | commercial dishwashers require the dishes to be scrubbed | beforehand (see | https://www.webstaurantstore.com/guide/620/types-of- | commerci...), and straws are quite difficult to scrub. | | Given that most restaurants that go through a lot of straws | want to provide the option for takeout anyway (for which you | can't use metal straws), it makes sense that most restaurants | don't bother. | floren wrote: | I've been given a metal straw at a restaurant. My immediate | thought: how do I know this is clean on the inside? I can't see | in there, it could be full of mold. I just drank from the glass | instead, because I'm an able-bodied adult. | p1mrx wrote: | The Pasig River in Manila doesn't seem to look nearly as bad as | the author claims: | | https://www.google.com/maps/@14.5674227,121.0375559,3a,90y,7... | hk__2 wrote: | If you reverse-search the second image you can find a 2018 | article that gives a bit more detail [1]. It does describe the | Pasig River as "Manila's most important and heavily polluted | waterways". | | [1]: | https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-5806619/Manila... | Symbiote wrote: | That particular river was cleaned up in 2018: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_the_Pasig_Ri... | | There are plenty of (older?) pictures of it covered in plastic | online. I don't think there's any reason to doubt the author's | picture. | hk__2 wrote: | You can also see it on Google Street view as it has some | imagery from 2014. | rootsudo wrote: | It's still pretty bad, but it's a river, it depends where | you look - the image depicated is near Tondo or the mouth | where it enters Manila Bay. | legitster wrote: | Plastic gets a bad wrap. But it's a _pretty dang_ efficient | material. It takes so little energy and material to make | something very functional and resilient. I know that CO2 analyses | of the replacements to plastic bags and straws has not been very | kind to them. | | I find it commendable to encourage people to consumer less stuff, | but the war on plastic straws has been a huge step back - it's | done relatively little to actually help, but has imposed huge and | everyday annoyances on everyone. These should be the exact | opposite goals of environmental reforms when there are much lower | hanging fruits available. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | Plastics are cool materials but at the moment they're mostly | made from fossil fuels so you're funding some really bad people | by using them. | | They'll only use that money to convince gullible people that | climate change isn't happening, that every government | regulation will magically have exactly the opposite impact, | that solar and wind power are scams, that recycling is bad for | the planet and that science and democracy have been taken over | by idiot hippies that will kill us all because they stupidly | hate fossil fuels for no reason. | | That's a heavy price to pay. | tptacek wrote: | It is probably not reasonable to select materials with worse | ecological footprints than plastic purely out of concern for | what people in the plastics supply chain are going to say | about climate change. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | The whole point is that you don't know if its a worse | ecological footprint unless you count all the impacts. | | If that impact includes support for some of the worst | regimes on earth starting wars and undermining democracy | then I think you'll find there's been a recent shift in | public attitudes on this issue. | jholman wrote: | I'm confused. | | There are people with fossil fuels. They want to make money | from their access to fossil fuels. They will strive to do so, | and some of them will strive without concern for the | collective good. I think those things are clear. | | If fossil fuels are burned for energy, that contributes | directly to climate change. If those fossil fuels are | converted into plastics which are put in landfills, that | directly contributes less to climate change. I hope that all | of the above is uncontroversial. | | Where I get confused is this: | | Do you think that reducing demand for plastic will result in | less fossil fuels being burned? Do you think that reducing | demand for non-burning-uses of fossil fuels will result in so | much less production of fossil fuels that the overall price | of oil-for-burning will go up? | | I'm no economist, but your claim is the exact opposite of how | I thought it works. Can you explain? | munk-a wrote: | Fossil fuels are complex materials and the refining process | breaks crude up into several different compounds, these | compounds have different uses with the base materials for | most plastics being an, essentially, useless side effect of | fuel production. It's less a question of taking a barrel of | oil and turning it into a hunk of plastic or a can of fuel. | Both are produced in the most efficient processes. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | I'm not making a claim about the price of oil for burning | rising though. | | I'm saying the money spent on noncombusted fossil fuels | funds climate change denial just as much as the burned | stuff does. | | Is it the carbon that's the problem or the groups that have | prevented a carbon fee being enacted for decades that is | the problem? | roughly wrote: | I think the core problem is that there's a whole raft of things | that get bucketed under "environmentally friendly" - for | example: | | - CO2 - Lifespan of materials - Ecological impact of material | extraction/creation - Ecological impact of the materials | themselves - Energy cost of transport/etc. | | In this case, plastic is concerning because of the lifespan of | the materials and the ecological impact of the materials - it | may be energetically cheaper to produce & transport a plastic | bag as opposed to a paper bag, but presumably the paper bag | degrades faster and with fewer side effects. | Ma8ee wrote: | Plastic that is recycled or even incinerated to produce | energy is often better than the alternatives. There are many | environmental problems much bigger than plastic that ends up | in landfills. I always thought that the problems with straws | in particular was that a disproportionate amount ended up in | the oceans. But even then I still suspect that it just was a | way to distract people who care from the real problem of | climate change so that the oil companies can make more money | a bit longer. | | Edit: no, I didn't read the article before I commented. I did | now. I live in Sweden and put all our plastics in the recycle | bin (one specifically for plastics). They are building better | and bigger sorting and recycling facilities for plastic, but | I think about 80% still is incinerated. Which of course | releases greenhouse gases. But the plastic we throw away in a | week corresponds to less CO2 than one trip back and fourth to | work for my wife in our Prius. | pg314 wrote: | > but has imposed huge and everyday annoyances on everyone | | Not on everyone. I can't remember the last time I used a straw, | I manage to drink from a glass or a cup just fine. Is it really | a _huge_ annoyance for you? I understand that for some people | (e.g. people with Parkinson 's or a broken jaw) straws are a | necessity, but most people should be able to manage just fine | without them. | | It's true that there are bigger contributors to plastic | pollution, but it's hard to argue that plastic straws in the | oceans or nature are a good thing. | brian-armstrong wrote: | Nobody's forcing you to drink from a straw if you don't want | to. Chill. | munk-a wrote: | In a lot of transactions straws are handed out regardless | of the customer's desire - ditto for plastic cutlery with | takeout/delivery. | | For individual businesses the math is against conservatism. | Failing to deliver cutlery and getting massive complaints | (especially if they lead to politically charged boycotts) | is the second most expensive option - the most expensive | option is forcing customers to state their preference (and | baked in preferences like those submitted by UberEats are | small check boxes that users don't see and so restaurants | often ignore). The cheapest option is probably just to put | a straw jar somewhere on the counter, but then you'll tend | to get complaints from employees/franchise owners about | theft - while that theft is rare and inexpensive, it is | very visible. | Uehreka wrote: | >handed out regardless of the customer's desire | | This, but for paper receipts! It blows my mind that the | default everywhere I go is to print a receipt, then ask | me if I want it. I never do. I am not expensing these two | slices of pizza. I will not need to deduct this bottle of | shampoo when I file my taxes. | | And then the merchant prints a receipt for themself! As | if the computer that printed the receipt couldn't just | _save a record of the purchase to a database_! | | The miles and miles of receipts that probably get printed | and then thrown away probably adds up to something | nontrivial, it'd be such an easy win to only print | receipts on request. | cortesoft wrote: | We could play this game with almost every product... I am | sure there are many things that you use and like to use that | I never use, but it isn't fair for me to just say, "Well it | isn't important to me so that means it isn't important to | anyone". Almost every product we produce, people could | 'manage just fine' without... we can always just point to a | time before the thing was invented and say, "Look, people | managed just fine without computers... they aren't a | necessity, let's not waste resources making them" Unless a | product has outsized environmental costs relative to other | luxury items, I don't think we should get in the habit of | having governments pick and choose which items are | 'necessity' or 'luxury'. | | If we are concerned about plastic waste, let's put a general | tax on plastics to reduce their consumption across the board | and let the market decide how to do that reduction, instead | of picking and choosing which plastic products to ban. | | While I don't think people need to justify using straws, I | will go ahead and say straws are very important to me. I like | cold drinks with ice in them, but I have cold sensitive teeth | that hurt when I drink from a cup with ice and no straw. It | is way easier to drink in a car with a cup, lid, and straw. | | I simply prefer using a straw. Do you want to go through a | similar exercise where you justify every single one of your | consumption practices? | munk-a wrote: | If you've used them before - how do the sippy cups tend to | work for you? I've always been curious how they are for | folks with sensitive teeth. | frankfrankfrank wrote: | The straw event was not organic. | bonestamp2 wrote: | > the war on plastic straws has been a huge step back | | I always find it funny when they give me a huge plastic cup | with a plastic lid and then a paper straw. If straws are that | big of a problem, get sippy cup style lids and skip all straws. | dr_orpheus wrote: | Starbucks did this, and then people realized that the sippy | cup style lids were thicker (to maintain the structure of the | sippy part) and actually used more plastic than the old | straw/top combo. | | Starbucks said that the new plastic lids were more easily | recycled because they were larger than straws (which aren't | normally picked up by recycling machines) so it was still a | net positive. But this goes back to the articles point of | "its plastic, and its probably not going to get recycled | anyway" | | https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/23/starbucks-s. | .. | adhesive_wombat wrote: | > bad wrap | | Nice. | | Focusing on plastic bags and straws is such a transparent | "something just be done: this is a thing: it must be done" | response. | | 90% of the time, the plastic bag in question is filled with | products packed in plastic[1] and half the time, the straw is | stuck into a clear plastic cup to show off the frappuccino. | | [1]: Fruit and veg aside, why am I expected to buy a new spray | bottle for every half litre of kitchen cleaner, say? Why can't | I just buy one bottle and spray and then some kind of refill? | floren wrote: | > Fruit and veg aside, why am I expected to buy a new spray | bottle for every half litre of kitchen cleaner, say? Why | can't I just buy one bottle and spray and then some kind of | refill? | | There's a company (whose name escapes me at the moment) which | appears to be aiming for exactly this and is advertising all | over the streaming services I watch. Now, clearly their ads | aren't doing their job since I can't remember the name, but | it's out there. | | More prosaically, I've been using the same Dawn dish soap | bottle for months now because I bought a giant jug of dish | soap at Costco and just refill the little one as needed. I | assume it'll be less waste at the end... I just wish the big | jug was made out of glass or aluminum instead of plastic. | adhesive_wombat wrote: | Right, but the default position is just small packs in | disposable containers. As long as you have to make | substantial efforts to so otherwise, like finding a special | company or paying for Costco (and getting there, who lives | in walking or cycling distance of one?), it will remain | what 99.5% of people do. | | And it's not even an unreasonable position for those | people. Making an enormous effort to just find a bottle of | soap is not sustainable. | jopsen wrote: | > but the war on plastic straws has been a huge step back | | Yeah, the straw is a prime example of bike-shedding. | | So much talk and energy spent on something so unimportant. | | Everybody can have an opinion about straws. | | Worse it makes reasonable people argue against what is intended | to be regulation to save the environment. Thus, fracturing what | should otherwise be a strong public opinion that we can and | must protect the environment. | jnmandal wrote: | Yes, the US is a country that cannot process its own waste so it | ships it overseas just to be rid of it. The solution is not to | raise money and send it to the Philippines to build landfills. | The solution is to actually recycle plastic, build circular | supply chains, and use biodegradable materials as much as | possible. | | If humans are to stay on this planet, in the long term we cannot | just keep piling up garbage in landfills and building on top of | it. Eventually, in hundreds or thousands of years we will have to | remediate that land. Its going to be a lot better if we just make | our waste as recyclable as possible in the first place. | | The author is recommending a half measure based on the assumption | that the US cannot fix its own problems. They are also implying a | false equivalency: banning single use plastics is not the same as | recycling plastic. A more equivalent comparison might be the | tradeoffs between plastic bottles for soda, water, or oils and | glass or metal containers. It is also true that plastic straws | are a much smaller problem then other usages of plastic such as | bottles or event fishing gear and even bags. | | Yet there is nothing inherently wrong with reducing plastic | usage. Doing so is smart and will be important for the health and | well being of future generations -- human and nonhuman -- of life | on earth. | kube-system wrote: | Plastic recycling is simply not very practical in the current | day. Solving that problem is certainly something we should | strive for, but plastic isn't going anywhere any time soon. We | need something to do with it _today_ and the most | environmentally friendly thing to do is to landfill it. If at | some point in the future we have a good solution to recycle it, | we 'll know where to find it. But if we keep dumping it in the | ocean we'll probably cause other disasters before we'd ever run | out of empty space. | cortesoft wrote: | > If humans are to stay on this planet, in the long term we | cannot just keep piling up garbage in landfills and building on | top of it. Eventually, in hundreds or thousands of years we | will have to remediate that land. Its going to be a lot better | if we just make our waste as recyclable as possible in the | first place. | | Landfill space is not the issue at all. Landfills do not take | up that much physical space, and we have plenty of empty space | to use. | | The issue is around the greenhouse gases released creating all | of those disposable products and the resources going into their | production. | | If it was just landfill space, we would be totally fine. | thaumasiotes wrote: | Also... | | > Eventually, in hundreds or thousands of years we will have | to remediate that land. | | Over that time scale the land automatically remediates | itself. There's a hill in Rome made of a big pile of Roman | garbage. The hill is more useful than the pots were. | dvtrn wrote: | Boston as well, iirc. And parts of Chicago (a city that was | built ontop of an actual swamp) | robonerd wrote: | Related; In mid 19th century, Entire neighborhoods of | Chicago were lifted up on jackscrews to raise the street | above the swamp: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago | dvtrn wrote: | Yep! I love my city for a lot of reasons but stuff like | this are some of my favorite bits of Chicagoland trivia. | solveit wrote: | We were able to lift entire neighbourhoods in the 19th | century but now we can't even build houses... | thaumasiotes wrote: | We can still build them now. It's a question of whether | we're allowed. | bko wrote: | > If humans are to stay on this planet, in the long term we | cannot just keep piling up garbage in landfills and building on | top of it. Eventually, in hundreds or thousands of years we | will have to remediate that land. Its going to be a lot better | if we just make our waste as recyclable as possible in the | first place. | | From the article linked below: | | If you took all the trash that the United States would generate | in 100 years and piled it up in the shape of the Great Pyramid, | it would be about 32 times bigger. So the base of this trash | pyramid would be about 4.5 miles by 4.5 miles, and the pyramid | would rise almost 3 miles high. | | That's a big landfill but its just not true that its | unsustainable. That's ignoring all the advancements we'll make | over the 100 years to harvest that garbage or further increase | efficiency of landfills. | | https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc... | anamax wrote: | > So the base of this [100 years] trash pyramid would be | about 4.5 miles by 4.5 miles, and the pyramid would rise | almost 3 miles high. | | > That's a big landfill but its just not true that its | unsustainable. | | That is NOT a big landfill. That volume could be easily | hidden in all but a couple of US states. | | Moreover, it is a concentrated supply of many useful | materials. It might not be profitable to mine it today, but | if the "earth is running out of resources" people are | correct, it will be. (And, if they're not, generating trash | isn't a problem.) | bombcar wrote: | > The biggest mining operation on Earth can be found in | Germany. At the Garzweiler strip mine they remove the top | ground layer to extract lignite. The total mining surface | is a staggering 18,5 ml2 (48 km2) and several villages had | to be moved for the mining operation. | | The trash pyramid is 100 cubic kilometers, that could fit | in a few of the biggest open pit mines. | antisthenes wrote: | A Landfill would also generate a ton of usable energy in | the form of landfill gas, which can either be used for | heating, or concentrated/scrubbed and used as an equivalent | of natural gas. | alfor wrote: | I think we are not in a position to judge what is reasonable to | do over hundred or thousand of years with our current | technological progression. | | Plastics where not really a thing 100 years ago. At our current | progression I think we should avoid the big catastrophes | (Nuclear war), push for developpement of poor places(get more | genius) and advance technology as fast as we can. | | At this speed of advancement in less than 100 years I am sure | we will have figure out something for the plastic we have | generated meanwhile. | Syonyk wrote: | > _At this speed of advancement in less than 100 years I am | sure we will have figure out something for the plastic we | have generated meanwhile._ | | The problem is that today's plastic, in _far_ less than 100 | years, is reasonably likely to be finely divided into small | numbers of molecule sized chunks, and spread evenly | throughout the entire biological systems of the planet. We | find microplastic in ants in the middle of untouched | forestland, because it spreads so well on the wind. | | > _...and advance technology as fast as we can._ | | It's an interesting gamble, certainly - solving the problems | created by our current technological development path by | pushing further down that development path. | | It's just not one I expect to _work._ You don 't generally | solve problems by "doing more of what made them in the first | place." | playpause wrote: | Your implied plan (doing less of what made the problem in | the first place) seems like more of a stretch to me. It | would be nice, but I can't see many countries giving up | plastic. It's too useful. I think focusing international | collaboration efforts on better waste/pollution management | (eg getting more waste plastic into properly managed | landfills) seems a lot more plausible. | Syonyk wrote: | I may not have explicitly stated it in the parent | comment, but it's quite explicit other places. | | Either a system is sustainable or it's not. If it is, it | can continue forever. And, if it's not, _it won 't._ One | way or another, it won't, though you can pick the method | early on, and later, reality will force it on you. The | history of civilization collapse is the history of this | reality being forced on groups of people who thought it | didn't apply to them. | | Plastics in their current form won't exist as new | products in 1000 years (though the current stuff probably | won't have broken down entirely). Either something far | less vile and toxic to "all life" will have been found, | or, more likely, industrial civilization will have done | the usual "overshoot and collapse" thing, so we won't | have the technology to make them in their current form | then. | | None of that changes the fact that plastic are toxic to | life _now_ - and, so, we ought not be using nearly as | much of them. I don 't mind "durable plastics" quite as | much, but the bulk of it is single use, and splitting out | all our recycling, I'm regularly reminded of just how | much plastic one cannot avoid, even when trying to | minimize it. | | If the reality (which it probably is...) is that people | won't stop doing anything until the external reality we | live in forces their hand, the outcomes are almost always | far worse than if we decide to stop doing those things | earlier. | | Plastics are convenient, certainly. They're also a horrid | biotoxin that has, quite literally, blanketed the planet | in the form of microplastics. We have no idea what to do | with the stuff, and burying it only works for so long | (and if you're really careful to not let the bits and | pieces leech into groundwater). But, I mean, at least you | can get water without having to use a drinking fountain! | Syonyk wrote: | > _The solution is to actually recycle plastic, build circular | supply chains, and use biodegradable materials as much as | possible._ | | This assumes that: | | (1) Plastic can actually be recycled. Unlike a lot of other | materials, it degrades rather substantially every time you try, | and plastic quality coming out of recycling isn't generally | uniform enough to make anything more than the big, chunky | "recycled plastic toys and benches" you'll occasionally see. | More and more, it's evident that "plastic recycling" is a myth | mostly funded by plastic producers and crew, who wish to have | it be seen as "not the terror it actually is." Hard on profits, | you know, if people don't like your product. The Guardian has | done some great work on the truths behind plastic recycling, | and they're not pretty. That's _before_ you get into the | biological impacts of microplastics on "literally everything | on the planet that's alive." | | And, (2) that "biodegradable materials" actually do that in | realistic end of life conditions. They don't. People date | landfill digs by reading the headlines on the newspapers that | are "slightly yellowed compared to when they were buried." | | Treating plastic as the life-toxic sludge it is would be a far | better start. At least with metal recycling, we know it's | actually being put back into a smelter for recycling, and that | it uses far less energy than the original materials (though | "pure circular" with most metals is still a problem as they | just dilute the various alloys down with virgin metal enough to | make the additives not a problem in current systems). | | "Oh, it's fine, it's recycled!" leads to far more plastic use | than "No, we literally can't do anything with it, the best we | can do is go burn it to offset coal use" (which is what my | local area does with plastic, as it seems to have the best | impact for the least cost, and the burn temperature is | _probably_ hot enough to decompose all the nasties...). | balaji1 wrote: | > You must reduce the amount of plastic shipped overseas by | putting it in the regular garbage instead of the recycle bin. | | That's the reality. Why does the US/California make it seem | like recycling is a magic trick to save the planet? | Syonyk wrote: | > _Why does the US /California make it seem like recycling | is a magic trick to save the planet?_ | | Because it's the most profitable step of the Reduce, Reuse, | Recycle, [some people add other entries] chain, so it's in | their interests to pretend the other steps don't exist. | | If I buy a bottle of water packed in plastic and don't | worry about it because I assume it's recyclable and | therefore "of zero net impact" (also not true, but implied | by most of the standard recycling glossy brochures), I've | helped their profits. | | If I bring my own water with me, or use a water fountain or | something, I've not contributed to growing the profits of | all the companies in the chain of extracting oil from the | ground, processing it into various precursors, making it | into a cheap, flimsy plastic, pumping water out of the | ground to fill that bottle, trucking it across the roads | built of oil with fuel built of oil, and selling it to | someone, _then_ also the profits of dealing with the waste | plastic (trash, recycling, whatever)! | | Reduce (don't buy stuff in the first place) and Reuse | (finding ways to have things be not-single-use) just don't | have nearly the profit chain. | | Pay attention to just how much rhetoric about | climate/trash/etc boils down to, "We can consume our way | out of problems caused by overconsumption." There are no | shortage of companies happy to sell you "green" versions of | whatever you might have otherwise bought - but very few | people are willing to ask the question, "Should you have | bought it in the first place?" | osdoorp wrote: | "We can consume our way out of problems caused by | overconsumption." -- well said | robonerd wrote: | Many kinds of plastics can't be recycled at all, not even | downcycled. Thermoset plastics particularly, which includes | almost everything made out of fiberglass (glass fibers in | thermoset plastic matrix.) That stuff either gets thrown into | a landfill, or ground up and burnt. | Syonyk wrote: | That most of it burns is part of why "go burn it to offset | coal" came out so well in some of the lifecycle analysis | for end of life program I'm familiar with: | | https://www.hefty.com/sites/default/files/2021-01/Hefty- | Ener... | | Instead of having to pay to sort and process, you just | grind it up and mix it in with the coal (or heave the bags | in, I'm not sure as to the actual feed mechanism though I | keep meaning to see if I can get a tour). | | I'm not _actually_ in the program area, but I know where to | drop my bags of plastic to get them into the program (one | of the recycling companies in the area of the program | handles it, and I 'm over there often enough that I'll toss | a few of the bags in the back of the car if I'm going that | way). | munk-a wrote: | An alternative solution, that this article weirdly doesn't | touch on, is that the US could also shift policy to stop | exporting recycling material. It'd be nice to encourage | expanded recycling domestically but if that fails and if ~80% | of exported material is going to end up improperly dumped then | it'd be far more reasonable to just make sure it's _properly_ | dumped in the US. | | Make the export of detritus illegal, send the excess to dumps, | and if Americans deem this offensive then they can legislate | additional subsidies for domestic recycling (even potentially | becoming a net importer of detritus!). | barbazoo wrote: | > If you don't know the exact location where your plastic is | recycled, throw it in the regular garbage instead. | | Very interesting points they are raising. I reached out to | https://recyclebc.ca to find out more about my local recycling | org but from what I can find on their website almost all of the | end product ends up in BC, Canada or at least North America. Same | for the processing which seems to be local. I'll update with what | I can find out and correct me if I'm wrong but those people | saying everything gets shipped to Asia and dumped into the ocean | aren't right, at least not universally. Here in BC at least that | doesn't seem to be the case at all. If that's the case I'd really | like to know why other places in first world countries aren't | doing the same and I'd definitely consider the US a first world | country. | mattacular wrote: | Interesting but what exactly is the point of this and who is it | for? The continued focus on something as myopic as drinking | straws and proposed "solutions" to the straw problem that depend | on individual choices is actually insane given the point we are | at in the battle against climate catastrophe. | JoshGlazebrook wrote: | I don't think the answer is paper straws and I personally dislike | them. They turn slimy from your saliva and usually collapse on | themselves before you're done with using it. I normally end up | taking multiple just to replace them halfway through drinking. | | More companies could go in the direction Starbucks has gone, | switching their iced drink cups to "sippy cup" lids to eliminate | the need for straws while maintaining a lid all together. But | that begs the question, is the sippy cup top more plastic than | just a straw and the old lid? | | Or why not just use the compostable plastic straws that are | readily available rather than trying so hard to make your company | look "green" by saving the turtles from straws that never end up | in the ocean in the first place. | | Seriously, fuck paper straws. They're up there with coke | freestyle machines. Absolute trash. | telotortium wrote: | Compostable plastics like polylactic acid (PLA) don't decompose | at room temperature, but only in industrial composters at 60 C: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid#:~:text=degrad... | .. | floren wrote: | I recently went to a restaurant where the straws were literally | straw (or some similar plant stem). They looked nice, held up | fine, and had the pleasant taste I associate with wheat straw. | chrisdhal wrote: | I was with you until the freestyle machine part, they're | awesome. Seriously, what's wrong with them? It doesn't prevent | you from getting the regular things. | | I too, hate the paper straws. They are terrible. The "no | straws" campaign is just a feel good thing and really does | little. | JoshGlazebrook wrote: | I just find the consistency to be all over the place from | machine to machine. Regular coke never tastes like coke. It's | fine if you like adding lime/flavorings/etc but just getting | the standard flavor of something is just always off. | throwaway48375 wrote: | My only complaints about the freestyle machines are that they | are slower to use and sometimes at busy locations it can | create a bottleneck. The second is that it is harder to be | precise with the fill level because there is significant | latency on the dispense button. Overall I am ambivalent | towards them. | hammock wrote: | Did you read the article? | vel0city wrote: | Hey now, I like Freestyle machines. Where else am I going to | find Cherry Vanilla Coke Zero, Raspberry Peach Mellow Yellow, | and Fuze Lemon Tea all on the same fountain? | Fricken wrote: | I have a friend who is a quadruple amputee. For him straws are | pretty good. For the rest of us, the solution to plastic straws | is not straws. They aren't necessary. | | Of course, it's all bike shedding anyhow. The real problems are | big and complex and overwhelming, so we argue about straws | instead. | andjd wrote: | The author is conflating two separate issues. | | Their main point is at the end: | | > Banning plastic straws is stupid. | | They're probably right that throwing out plastic straws is better | than throwing them in the recycling, assuming that plastic straws | can't be efficiently recycled. That being said, many US recycling | utilities typically sort the recycling on shore, and plastics | that are too small to be efficiently identified and recycled | (such as straws and loose bottle caps) will just be sent to the | landfill regardless. How recycling is processed differs a lot | across the country, so it's hard to make generalizations. | | But that doesn't support their final conclusion about whether | plastic straws should be banned. The author doesn't give a | reason, but implicitly that they think paper straws suck, and | must suck. Which a lot of the ones today do. But it's an odd hill | to die on, given that basically all straws before 1960 were made | of paper. Their ire should probably be directed at the | establishments they frequent for buying cheap and terrible paper | straws instead of spending a bit more to get good quality paper | straws. Such companies probably want to get you pissed off by | paper straws to demand that your government remind the ban so | they can go back to using cheaper plastic straws. | legitster wrote: | > Their ire should probably be directed at the establishments | they frequent for buying cheap and terrible paper straws | instead of spending a bit more to get good quality paper straws | | In our area, biodegradable plastic straws were already a | popular option but the plastic ban included them. | playpause wrote: | > spending a bit more to get good quality paper straws | | I am yet to see one of these | anamax wrote: | > But it's an odd hill to die on, given that basically all | straws before 1960 were made of paper. | | The fact that all pre-1960 straws were paper does not imply | that paper straws, let alone paper straws today, do not suck. | munk-a wrote: | Ivory combs are pretty sweet apparently, they're a lot nicer | to use than wooden or plastic combs... I'm not seeing much | outrage over the fact that we're being forced not to use them | in the modern world. | | People adjust - paper straws are servicable for most | purposes, for things like bubble tea reusable straws are a | reasonable investment (if you're having it often). | anamax wrote: | > People adjust - paper straws are servicable for most | purposes | | What purposes are "most purposes"? They don't work for | shakes, they don't work for anything that takes more than a | minute, etc. | | Given a choice, people pick plastic straws. Who are you to | say that plastic straws aren't better? | munk-a wrote: | As I mentioned in a sibling comment (specifically talking | about bubble tea) metal straws are an excellent and, | generally, superior alternative. | | People don't pick plastic straws - companies pick plastic | straws and they stir up anti-environmental outrage to | reinforce their fiscally based decision. | the_lonely_road wrote: | Obligatory reminder of the lady who tripped and died by | impaling her eyeball on her metal straw. | thebean11 wrote: | > for things like bubble tea reusable straws are a | reasonable investment | | You're suggesting people bring their own straws to bubble | tea? That's very impractical. | munk-a wrote: | I don't see why - we've managed it fine and I've got a | terrible memory. I've got a messanger bag and usually | just keep a metal straw in it for whenever we want some. | | A fair number of people carry around reusable coffee | travel mugs and those are far more of a pain in terms of | size and weight. | | I'd clarify, I'm living in Canada so there might be some | cultural differences here. | mpalczewski wrote: | coffee is an everyday thing for many people. | | Bubble tea is a 1-4 times a year thing for me. I prefer | not to carry a bag. | | carrying around a straw is less practical than just not | having bubble tea. | munk-a wrote: | I think that's totally reasonable yea - reusable items | aren't environmentally sane for infrequent purchases - if | you drink coffee a few times a year it'd be silly to get | a travel mug, similar to bubble tea straws. So, on the | other hand, if the straw came with a 5cent disposal fee | it probably wouldn't significantly impact your purchase. | thebean11 wrote: | So you always have your messenger bag on you? Or you | always know ahead of time that you're going to bubble tea | and bring your messenger bag? | | What do you do after you use it? Do you wash it after use | or put it in your bag dirty to wash later? Not trying to | argue but surprised people actually go through the | trouble. | | > A fair number of people carry around reusable coffee | travel mugs | | Yeah but that's usually in order to carry coffee they | made at home. Not in case they decide to visit a coffee | shop during the day. | | I live in NYC and I'm not sure most people who are | getting bubble tea knew they were going to get bubble tea | when leaving their home. | munk-a wrote: | I indeed always have my messenger bag[1] on me - after | using it, assuming I'm not carrying the drink container | home with me (or to someplace I can easily rinse it) I'll | usually wrap it in a paper napkin - that's pretty rare | though, usually by the time I can dispose of the drinking | vessel I'm able to wash the straw out. | | Reusable bubble tea straws are also small enough that | they'll easily fit in most purses - the length might be a | bit too much for clutches but if your purse is big enough | for a phone chances are the bubble tea straw will fit | just fine. | | 1. Technically it's a bag of holding | https://gadgetsin.com/the-bag-of-holding-messenger- | bag.htm | ioseph wrote: | How is carrying a straw (even a heavy stainless steel | one) in any way shape or form impractical? | serf wrote: | I don't know why I have to explain this. | | It's not in any way/shape/form more practical to carry | more things with me when the alternative is that someone | hands me a disposable version of the thing at time of | purchase. | | Not everyone carries a bag with them -- and even if every | single person on earth had a bag it'd STILL be more | inconvenient for those people to waste cargo space in the | bag with a straw when the alternative of being given a | disposable one at time of purchase is available. | | I feel like there is a misunderstanding of the word | 'impractical' here. | | Carrying your own straws is a lot of things -- wise, | prepared, ethically-conscious, whatever -- it won't ever | be practical ( practical : of or concerned with the | actual doing or use of something rather than with theory | and ideas. ) until the much more convenient option of | being given a disposable straw at purchase time and | trashing it at the end of use is no longer available to | choose. | thebean11 wrote: | - You'd have to know you are getting bubble tea before | you leave your apartment (or always carry a metal straw) | | - It's deeper than most pockets, and can poke and | potentially hurt you when bending over, so you pretty | much need a bag (or use a shorter straw that will get | lost in your drink). | | - You need to somehow clean and dry it after use, and put | it back in your bag | seadan83 wrote: | The straw is not the main point of the article but to | demonstrate a larger point that plastics are better off in a | landfil (according to the article).. discussing straws in | specific (the title is clickbait), is missing the point ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-02 23:00 UTC)