Slashdot Mirror
Europe Plans Ban on Plastic Cutlery, Straws and More (cnn.com)
Europe is proposing a ban on single-use plastic items such as cutlery, straws and cotton buds in a bid to clean up the oceans. From a report: The European Commission wants to ban 10 items that make up 70% of all litter in EU waters and on beaches. The list also includes plastic plates and drink stirrers. The draft rules were unveiled Monday but need the approval of all EU member states and the European Parliament. It could take three or four years for the rules to come into force. The legislation is not just about banning plastic products. It also wants to make plastic producers bear the cost of waste management and cleanup efforts, and it proposes that EU states must collect 90% of single-use plastic bottles by 2025 through new recycling programs.
Please don't let this spread to the U.S. I have some problem that makes the touch of metal silverware on my teeth feel like scratching my fingernails on a chalkboard, and I need to request plastic utensils everywhere I go because of that.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Will this apply to flights as well? I thought that plastic utensils there were generally regarded as a safety feature, not just a cheap convenience.
It's considerably cleaner than plastic and would make all the quacks stop complaining about Bispheno A.
It just sinks to the bottom of the ocean and can turn back into sand through erosion.
So you do nothing, because others should get their act together first? Why not start with the man in the mirror?
Sig?
People just need to start being more responsible
And how would we achieve that ?
"Biodegradable" means that the chemicals in the product are released into the environment quickly. And paper and wood products are *loaded* with processing chemicals, paper being particularly egregious. Biodegradable plastic is even worse.
Conventional plastics degrade/release the chemicals very very slowly, causing very little actual chemical harm to the environment.
So what this would/will do is make things *look* better more quickly, while flooding the environment with chemicals that would never have been there otherwise.
This is great news. But Europe is already doing a lot to clean up and reduce its plastic use. This is most urgently needed pretty much everywhere else. In particular both in the US and in Asia. The sight of roadsides, fields and beaches littered with tons of plastic waste is ubiquitous in those places - and we all pay the price.
There is no reason for most of current plastic use other than externalizing disposal costs so that everyone bears those.
And Victoria continues to dump raw sewage into the ocean, as it has done for decades.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
Good to know that the govt has its priorities right and is focusing on banning plastic straws!
. . . seeing how this plays against the current British anti-knife campaign. No metal cutlery, no plastic cutlery. . .
In economy, you always start with the activity that has the highest marginal product. That way you maximize your output for a given amount of inputs. If you're serious about environment, you start with the worst offenders. Even if Europe paid for the cleaning up Asia or Africa, that would probably be still the most beneficial scenario.
Ezekiel 23:20
Most of the ocean junk is dumped in Asia, repression of Western consumers is a kind of religious sadomasochism
I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make a change
#DeleteChrome
If you really want to do the right thing by Mother Nature, ban disposable diapers.
#DeleteChrome
This will just result in every manufacturer posting a notice on the box saying "please think about the environment, wash and reuse this product."
I already recycle my plastic.
Cheap bulk stainless flatware is $0.50 a part or less. I can see this being just like shopping bags where you either show up with your own flatware or buy flatware when doing things like eating at food trucks. We would have flatware in our desks at the office and scattered in our cars. Another minor greening irritation.
Hold parents responsible for the behaviour of their children
So when I see a kid throw plastic crap in the park, I should call 911 so they can find his parents and write a ticket ?
The amount of waste generated per person in US and other developed nations is shocking and with countries like China and India fast catching up, similar lifestyle is not sustainable globally. Even with all the progress in recycling, lot of it slips out and ends up in our food chain.
The use of plastics especially for disposable items is irresponsible. I wish these were not so cheap and the real cost of disposal and ecological impact was factored in their price. Trying to convince the public for more environmentally responsible behaviour is an exercise in futility and people always take the easy way. Money is the only thing that seems to have real impact these days.
What you're describing doesn't make any sense. You're suggesting that problems shouldn't be tackled unless they're solved in only the most efficient way possible, and if they're not, then they shouldn't be solved at all. That's kinda' nutty.
I don't respond to AC's.
I can say with some confidence that it does not seem to be getting enforced in Vancouver at this time.
Also... plain paper straws don't work so well... unless you are finishing your drink fairly quickly, you can end up with pulp in your drink.
Wax on straws can mitigate this problem, but then you end up with something that is either not compostable because of the presence of oil products, making it essentially no different than plastic, or else you end up with a coating on the straw that will affect the taste of the liquids going through it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Okay, I get it, no throwaway items. But what about q-tips?
Are we supposed to reuse them? Or will they start making them of bamboo?
Genuine Q-tips are made with paper shafts, not plastic.
Parts of Europe still does loads of dumping of their garbage in the oceans.
Likewise, 5 nations are responsible for 60% of all garbage in the ocean.
It turns out that five countries are the leading contributors to this crisis. And all are in Asia. In a recent report, Ocean Conservancy claims that China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam are spewing out as much as 60 percent of the plastic waste that enters the world’s seas.
America stopped decades ago, so instead, we have had it going to China and other nations. That also needs to stop. ALL OF IT. Far better for America to recycle, bury, or burn it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ice. it's because the drinks are 90% ice instead of liquid, and it's annoying to drink from a glass full of ice.
I actually use a straw quite a bit at home. That said, it's not a disposable straw, it's a thick plastic that I wash and re-use.
This is the one part of the proposal that concerns me. I'm not worried that restaurants will make me eat with my fingers, I know that they'll just use reusable cutlery, but I am worried that they'll expect me to drink their 90% ice beverages without a straw rather than provide a reusable one.
Itâ(TM)s a steady job but I want to be a paperback writer.
Most cotton tip applicators already use a cardboard stick, I don't think there's an issue here.
oh jeez, using the Daily Mail as a trusted factual source is your problem.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
ask for a drink with less ice.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
This ban is something that has been happening all over the world in some shape or form. Personally, I have little problem with it. I'm actually happy to see when a restaurant or coffee shop has utensils that are biodegradable. It's a great move.
What I don't like, from the end of this article, is the other part of the EU proposal. Why should the manufacturers be responsible for preventing people from being jackasses and throwing their garbage wherever they please? There are so many analogies to make here, it's not worth it.
People ultimately need to be held responsible for proper disposal and/or recycling of materials and consumables they are consuming. The manufacturer in this case isn't building in some weird feature making it difficult to throw the stirring straw in a garbage can. People just need to start being more responsible and not thinking that someone else will clean up after them.
It's pretty basic. Currently manufacturers are not responsible for the costs of disposing of their products. They can make them as toxic and environmentally problematic as they want because they can offload the costs and problems their products cause after the end of their useful lives on the taxpayer and the environment. If you make manufacturers responsible for paying not only for development, marketing, sales and product support but also for disposal you motivate the manufacturers to come up with new and innovative methods to make their products as easily and cheaply recyclable as possible in order to maximise profits. It's just a way to leverage the inventiveness of private industry and the workings of the free market to solve a very serious problem that results form own activities of companies and I think it will work because industry tends to be good at coming up with clever ways of solving sticky problems if profits are at stake. Now, I'm sure that you, as libertarian, find this idea terribly unjust but the rest of us find it equally unjust that private profit making companies can drown us in plastic garbage, make us pay for the mess and not be in any way responsible for solving that problem. Unfortunately for the manufacturers Europe is a cluster of democracies and the people drowning in plastic garbage are in charge, not the industrialists. I'm pretty sure most Europeans will welcome this measure.
Why not start with the man in the mirror?
I know I'm asking him to change his ways ...
I do, constantly, but it's so easy to forget, and a real pain waiting while they go re-make it. That said, I also enjoy my drinks cold, very cold, so ice is the best way to accomplish that (and most restaurants offer free refills, so the decreased liquid volume isn't a huge issue for me.)
Reusable straws exist, and there's no reason they can't use them just as they use reusable cutlery. I just don't expect they actually will.
restaurants that have reusable utensils? This will hurt fast food, but I can't really think of a problem fast food solves that doesn't have better solutions. The biggest problem it solves is overworked people with 2-3 jobs who don't have time to cook/clean. Best solution there is a solid middle class that doesn't need 3 jobs per person to get by.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just take a minute and read what you typed. Just because you can't see the plastic floating on the surface doesn't make it magically non-polluting, taking that argument forwards would make it fine to dump barrels of nuclear waste in the mid-Atlantic provided they were weighted down with concrete.
If you can only do one activity at a time, this makes sense. But since that's not the case, your argument makes zero sense.
"Old man yells at systemd"
People ultimately need to be held responsible for proper disposal and/or recycling of materials and consumables they are consuming.
That's more expensive, more work, and less likely to be enforced. It makes sense to place the onus in a centralized place where it's actually enforceable. Companies are made to be held responsible for all kinds of things consumers do for this reason, and it makes sense if your only goal is to actually solve a problem and not wring your hands about how to evenly divide accountability or blame.
"Old man yells at systemd"
In order for the measures to work, you actually need to hold both the manufacturer and the consumer liable. It doesn't matter if the producer has a facility that can recycle their products with 95% yield, if the consumer throws it in the trash instead of the recycle bin it's still going to end up in a landfill.
GENERATION 667: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation
In economy, you always start with the activity that has the highest marginal product. That way you maximize your output for a given amount of inputs. If you're serious about environment, you start with the worst offenders.
That's a gross oversimplification, you always put R&D into progress, new products and markets. If you're just chasing the best ROI today the company often ends up crashing as the cash cow dies and they've done nothing to generate new business. Same with the environment, you try to kill brown coal plants but you also try to develop greener ways and see if they're feasible on a mass scale. And when it comes to environmental issues you often can't force foreign countries to do anything, you need laws and regulations not just money. A lot of the time shaming is a more effective strategy, like all these other countries are cleaning up their act, why are you the dirty slob polluting the oceans. And then, if they're serious about it maybe a little money too. But littering and dumping is a lot about culture, it's easy to throw trash overboard you need a little voice that says this is wrong, I should get it disposed properly.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Another vote opposing justice.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
"Tommy Robinson" is NOT a journalist by any stretch of the imagination, just an islamaphobe.
So, you're saying the trials never happened, and no girls were ever harmed?
If it happens, it needs to be reported.
Okay.... I had heard about this from elsewhere already and did not see mention of a specific start date where I had first heard of it. Good to know.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You have a wonderful life, if not having a straw is something to "worry" about. Restaurants can use paper straws. Problem solved. Go worry about something useful.
I don't respond to AC's.
I'd rather have them be washable. Metal forks/knives/spoons, give glasses that are reusable without straws. If it isn't clean enough to put my lips on, I'm not drinking out of it, straw or not.
I read recently that the vast majority of plastic come from rivers in Asia and Africa. Why do this in Europe?
Better question: Why not do this in Europe? God forbid the local environment gets a bit nicer. How horrible that would be.
In economy, you always start with the activity that has the highest marginal product.
You sound like one of those people who once read an economic theory and never actually had a look at how any of it applies in reality. You then apply your highly theoretical knowledge to a highly theoretical situation, and I guarantee sure as fuck that the drinking straw floating down in the lake near my house did not get tossed into some Asian river and then migrate around the world, grow legs and walk several hundred km inland as well.
As much as everyone likes to claim pollution is a global problem, most of its affects are actually very localised. Why should Europe lead the way in electric cars when China is spewing CO2 in the air? Well global warming aside I'm not breathing Chinese air (though occasionally we get Saharan dust).
Now as to your highest marginal product theory, do you not think there's some value over policy that covers 10% of the population of the planet just because a country with 14% of the population didn't do it first? If that's the case then you clearly haven't understood theoretical economics either.
Yep, "no ice please."
Because such things exist. Instead of an intrusive ban on a convenient and sometimes useful item.
My perception here is that the EU politicians seem to be all too happy to simply ban things all over the community, because the activists in Brussels don't like them and because they can.
Most drinks at a restaurant are refrigerated, so are at 4C/40F or so. Ice will only get that down to 1C/34F, not a hell of a difference. Also, most restaurants outside the US charge for refills.
What in the fuck does that even mean? You don't think that using less plastic is a good idea if you somehow get emails related to it?
I don't respond to AC's.
Who's declaring "problem solved"? That's some bizarre straw man argument you're making up, AC.
I don't respond to AC's.
It's a [joking] reference to GDPR and all the emails non-Europeans are getting about it.
And I don't have a problem with using plastic. But it should be disposed of properly or recycled.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What's a K-cup? (Seriously, yes, I know.) I just use an electric kettle and a Bodum press, makes better coffee than silly little Keurig machines. And is 100% washable, unlike the tiny passages in a drip machine, so there's no place for biofilm to grow.
I do not live in the US, but (non-alcoholic) drinks still generally include free refills. It does of course depend on what drink you order, however in most of the world at least water is not charged for as long as you don't order bottled water. Drinks also stop being 4C the instant they are poured as the air, and glassware in most restaurants is significantly above 4c, ice mitigates that.
Many US states have the same thing -- it's 5 or 10 cents per bottle, so the ratio to income is much lower than in Russia. Typically, people don't bother it, but the homeless/poor pick up bottles off the street to return in bulk.
It makes perfect senses. You're not taking into account opportunity cost. Money you spend tackling this problem, is money you don't have available to tackle other problems.
Given a multitude of problems, and limited resources (money) for tackling those problems, you maximize the reduction in problems by applying your resources most efficiently. By tackling the worst but easiest-to-fix problems first, even if that means leaving smaller but more-costly-to-fix problems unresolved.
Your way of thinking is why we waste billions of dollars trying to make air travel safer to prevent a few hundred deaths per year, while over a million people die in car accidents every year. Or why nuclear power is a pariah, when statistically it's the safest power source man has ever invented (yes, safer than renewables). You prioritize tackling the problem which has the greatest emotional impact (i.e. in proportion to news coverage), rather than the problem which will yield the greatest numerical decrease for the smallest expenditure.
Already have similar in some UK cities, Bristol for example
I've heard of parents being slapped with an asbo due to the behaviour of their children. I can't say I fully disapprove.
Or with wooden sticks. Those are better in another way too - there's no need for gluing on the cotton. The cotton shrinks on, gripping the stick firmly, and it won't come off.
But as otologists say, the only thing you should stick in your ear is your elbow.
... Only outlaws will have plastic knives! :)
Paul B.
You have a wonderful life if Slashdot comments are something to "worry" about.
It's much easier to police a few dozen manufacturers (given how mega conglomerates work it's not very many) than millions and millions of individuals.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Conventional plastics degrade/release the chemicals very very slowly, causing very little actual chemical harm to the environment.
Um, No.
Also, your definition of biodegradable
"Biodegradable" means that the chemicals in the product are released into the environment quickly.
seems a little too conveniently crafted for supporting your thesis.
I think this one is a bit more accurate
Making it heavier than water would actually make plastic pollution much less of a problem. Plastic things would sink to the bottom and stay pretty much motionless until they broke up into nothing.
The main problem with plastics now is how much the pieces disperse.
Sure, it's still not 'great', and it wouldn't be very pretty, but it would have less of an impact.
Correct, as I stated, I use a reusable straw at home all the time, My concern is that restaurants won't bother, which, for me, would reduce my enjoyment of the restaurant just a bit. Sure it's probably not a deal breaker, and others have pointed out the "first world problems" aspect, but that's doesn't mean I won't be a little annoyed, even if I can understand the context.
If there are consequences for manufacturers then there are incentives to change. E.g using glass bottles instead of plastic is penalty free. It becomes the better option and there is nothing to leach into your drink...
Currently offering products in glass bottles instead of plastic would build market share. People want to do something to reduce their contribution to plastic waste.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
It used to be an adult could chastise any child, and the parents would at least be understanding, if not supportive. Today's helicopter, hands-off parents, though, will sue you as soon as you so much look cross-eyed at a misbehaving child.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's pretty basic. Currently manufacturers are not responsible for the costs of disposing of their products.
They aren't the ones disposing of their products, so it seems reasonable that they aren't responsible for consumers who dispose of them inappropriately.
They can make them as toxic and environmentally problematic as they want
I think a spate of people dying from using toxic plastic forks would be noticed and something would be done. They notice toxic shellfish outbreaks, and toxic salad greens.
unjust but the rest of us find it equally unjust that private profit making companies can drown us in plastic garbage,
If you are drowning in plastic garbage, talk to your neighbors. They're the ones disposing of things incorrectly.
Always served in a plastic cup, with a plastic lid and a large plastic straw that is wrapped in what else? Plastic. (Unlike normal straws which come most often in a paper wrapper.
This is gonna kill the SanFrancisco Bay Area economy.
E.g using glass bottles instead of plastic is penalty free.
Other than the dangers to the public from broken glass where a plastic bottle would not have caused injury, maybe. The cost of shipping heavy glass instead of plastic is also a penalty.
Currently offering products in glass bottles instead of plastic would build market share. People want to do something to reduce their contribution to plastic waste.
People want convenience. That's why plastic bottles are so popular. Manufacturers would not use them if people didn't buy them. People can already buy glass instead of plastic if they choose; clearly they don't choose.
Just one example: people want the convenience of portable potable water. Thus, the thousands of brands and types of water in plastic bottles. Converting all those into glass bottles makes them a lot less convenient. They will break instead of bounce when dropped, they're heavier. They're bulkier. They're less convenient.
Now, you may not care about portable potable water being convenient, so you'll just toss off a flippant "so what?" as a response to all of that, but for the people who care it makes a difference.
As for wanting to do something about plastic waste, they already do. They expect the company that picks up their trash to deal with it. That's why they pay the trash company. The trash company can make 10 cents a bottle locally by pulling bottles from the trash stream -- the fact that they don't do it isn't my fault.
Massive inbreeding and an inferiority complex. As long as they have to compete economically with whites they'll retreat into crime, fundamentalist religion and raping white girls. The low IQ ones will pull the high IQ ones with them into the abyss with them, in times of crisis the fundamentalists always win in Islam.
I think the most likely future scenario is massive white flight to Eastern Europe, Canada, US, Oz, NZ ... followed by economic collapse in western Europe and an ISIS style hunt on the remaining whites not smart enough to escape in time.
I am saying no such thing and you should learn to read.
Ezekiel 23:20
You are the one making zero sense since any euro invested can only support that one activity you're talking about. You can't invest the same resource into multiple activities.
Ezekiel 23:20
You're of course viewing the broader issues, and I don't disagree with those, but I was talking specifically about the one problem of plastic pollution. But if you *do* decide "plastic pollution is on the list of things we have to deal with" (and not, for example, coal power plants or deforestation), then prioritizing Europe makes no sense. If you decide that your other ideas have to be pursued first, the problem I noted doesn't arise in the first place.
Ezekiel 23:20
https://www.treehugger.com/gre...
#DeleteFacebook
You sound like one of those people who once read an economic theory and never actually had a look at how any of it applies in reality.
You don't think it applies to the reality of the rest of the world polluting the globe with plastics twenty times more than Europe? That's not a "highly theoretical situation".
and I guarantee sure as fuck that the drinking straw floating down in the lake near my house did not get tossed into some Asian river and then migrate around the world, grow legs and walk several hundred km inland as well.
I never said that, but notice it doesn't even pollute the ocean. That makes it even easier for you to collect it. Hell, you might even collect enough straws to build yourself a physical strawman in addition to the metaphorical one you already have. ;-p
Ezekiel 23:20
Also the average EU citizen produces 31 kg of plastic waste [1] if they reduce it by 70% that would be 9.3 kg per year per person or in total 4185000 t instead of 13950000 t.
That's obviously preferable for a number of other reasons but has nothing to do with the amount or percentage of ocean pollution caused by this because this waste does not generally reach the sea in the first place.
Ezekiel 23:20
1) Most of the plastic in the oceans is from China, India and third world countries where rivers are often used for garbage disposal. Our concern for the environment is completely alien to some cultures.*
2) Straws can't be washed so they have to be disposable
3) Straws are small, there mass is negligible, same with plastic grocery bags. As a percentage of your yearly waste I doubt they make 0.5%
4) Be very suspicious of anyone pushing these bans. They are likely virtue signalling and care more about appearing to be doing something than actually doing it.
*To be fair though do to our significantly higher wealth and consumption means our damage to the environment is many times more.
all those people who litter.. start with fines, community service, or something.. as an added bonus places will look nicer without garbage all over the place.
so people just continue to throw their trash where ever they want. Seems like a losing battle to me. With their actions having no effect on the real problem, except maybe changing the nature of the trash everywhere, maybe what they are trying to do. I suppose if degrades faster that could have some effect. The piles might be smaller.
;)
Just my 2 cents
I'm not saying that none of them have a problem, just that a solution already exists and is already widespread. The remaining companies can easily adapt.
As of 2017, 60% of ocean plastic pollution was generated by China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka, in that order, with China vastly outdoing the others. No EU country is within the top 20, which would indicate a very minuscule amount of plastic waste leaking into the oceans. If European governments want to waste a massive amount of resources to worry about this, the pollution generated is going to be more overall, not less.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
> Why should the manufacturers be responsible for preventing people from being jackasses and throwing their garbage wherever they please?
Ultimately the producer of the product is the producer of the resulting waste.
Having a direct connection between the producer and the overall impact of the resulting waste would naturally cause the producer to manufacture in a way that lead to less waste.
Consider soda companies and the glass bottle to plastic bottle transition long ago.
And consider the impact of waste generation from that transition.
Who was responsible for the increase in waste generation. Of course the company and perhaps you may argue that it is the individual is responsible
But, with no burden on the producer, they have no incentive to create products that result in less waste. The burden to clean up the mess falls on the government and ultimately the taxpayer.
States like CA pay the consumer to recycle the bottle, because otherwise they have to pay to clean it up. It would make sense for a government to place at least some of that burden on the producer.
Otherwise, companies will only head towards the cheapest manufacturing process, and any resulting change in overall waste is simply and externality that is out of their concern.
There is absolutely no reason a spork couldn't be made out of recycled horse shit, pressed, steamed, sterilized, and be better in every way than a crappy plastic version. Somebody is thinking.
Clickety Click
I've had free refills in both Canadian and Australian restaurants. In Asia it's practically unheard of, and the few places that do offer it is specifically mentioned in the menu.
From what I'm reading here it seems Europe is stingy on the non-alcoholic drink front.
Why should the manufacturers be responsible for preventing people from being jackasses and throwing their garbage wherever they please?
Because the manufacturers are profiting from the supply of the garbage, but society has to pay to have it cleaned up, regardless of where it is thrown after use.
Another example of private profits and socialised costs.
They need to raise the deposit fee, it has not kept up with inflation at all (it was implemented what, 25 years ago?). I find it hard to justify washing and returning the bottles and cans for a nickel, and usually just toss them in my regular recycling (which I suspect just goes to landfill anyway). 20 cents per container should be good for the next 2 decades or so. They should also stop specifying based on what is inside the container - why is iced tea and powerade deposit-free while similar containers for soda and water have the fee?
As an aside, Quebec has fees that vary based on container (nickel for a small can, dime for a glass bottle, 20 cents for a large can).
Funny how most beers wines and spirits are sold in glass bottles or cans, the exception tends to be cheap cider.
Back when I was a lad the fizzy drinks bottles were glass with a deposit on them and the kids would bring them back and usually buy a few sweets with the money. Milk got delivered in glass bottles and you put the empty bottles out and they got taken back to the dairy cleaned and reused. It worked well.
These days the primary soft drink brands are essentially coca cola and pepsi and very profitable, shifting back to glass would probably make a small difference in costs per bottle.
If they shifted back to glass it would make a huge dent in the amount of plastic bottles being made and thrown away.
In Ireland you pay for your waste to be taken away but you can choose to recycle bottles and cans for free. often supermarkets host the bottle and can banks. When you think about it a lot of plastic is for the connivence of super markets. Your local butcher or green grocer would package in grease proof paper and paper bags.
At least this biodegrades.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I thought that was why the 18th birthday was such a big deal. Then, when I turned 18 (in 1977) nothing different happened. I guess my nerdiness is an incurable ailment.
YOU read what I typed: we're better off if plastic waste falling into the water stays near its source, identifying where it came from, rather than turning up anonymously in the ocean.
Reusable dining ware isn't really environment friendly.
In order to properly clean and sterilize stuff these days you have to use a lot of energy ( hotter than boiling water) and chemicals.
And paper straws that don't bend are not going to work for residents in bed.
Wrong target if you wanna reduce plastic waste. Plastic utensils are a minute portion of the problem, and probably a good exception.
If they were being realistic, they'd be targeting plastic wrappers, bottles, containers and *BAGS*, like trash bags, leaf bags, etc. These are your big ticket plastic waste items, not utensils.
It takes a special kind of stupid to single out utensils while leaving the big contributors unmentioned.
So where are the alternatives to plastic items? Especially in the food storage and trash bag departments. Do we really have anything in the pipeline to address these two huge contributors to plastic waste?
What about those 'to go' boxes almost every restaurant in America use, the plastic Styrofoam things?
Basically what I'm trying to point out is, if there is no alternatives to the plastics we're using NOW, they will continue to be used until alternatives are as good or better than what we have now, regardless of the waste impact. Humans don't think like that.
I must admit I'm entirely fucking bewildered by the number of people that seem to need to drink out of a straw.
At least there are now adult sippy cups available, and the branding on them is clever too - 'sports bottle' almost sounds mature.
I think they are plastic, but they are allegedly compostable. We toss the spoons and forks in with the composts.
Not sure all plastics need to be banned from cutlery. But I am not an expert
Now, you may not care about portable potable water being convenient, so you'll just toss off a flippant "so what?" as a response to all of that, but for the people who care it makes a difference.
No, I'll continue to use and re-use the metal bottles that I own.
It's not the 14th century any more, we've progressed past 'wineskin'.
While we're at it, can we find a decent replacement to the single-use dental floss applicator? I see those things in the gutter and on the street. I often wonder how they got there. Who is flossing their teeth at a bus stop, and why can't they just use their fingers and a roll of floss like everyone else?
It seems to me that a fundamental aspect is "take out" food. Plastic forks and straws used inside the restruant aren't the problem.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
Straws are common because of the common take away cup need the plastic top for its structural integrity. Mc Donnalds did quite a bit of research with Lily-Tulip (Ray Kroc's former boss) to develop what is currently used world wide. While they are thinner now than they used to be, they usually can hold their liquid in when tipped over if the lid is properly put on and not punctured with a straw. One of the early requirements was that glasses that were dropped from table height didn't cause too much of a mess.
Rather than futz with a k-cup reusable insert, I just use an espresso maker and put in the coffee of my choice. The one I have fits a full size mug and is inexpensive and quick.
We'll run the experiment and see, well not me ... but you maybe if you're young.
Some airlines have metal in Economy. Swiss, for example.
But transporting metal cutlery actually consumes more oil than the oil needed for making and transporting the plastic one.
-> Metal in less environmentally friendly on planes.
aaaaaaa
They aren't the ones disposing of their products, so it seems reasonable that they aren't responsible for consumers who dispose of them inappropriately.
If you are drowning in plastic garbage, talk to your neighbors. They're the ones disposing of things incorrectly.
Not really, no. The manufacturers are selling this stuff to humans. We know how humans behave. Wishing that humans behaved in some sort of ideal way isn't going to fix anything. Wishing that people simply human better than they do is the ultimate failing of both libertarianism and communism.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Of course you MAY be talking out your arse by regurgitating a bunch of scaremongering designed to stop you reusing bottles, and therefore spending more and more on them and contributing to the basic problem.
But hey, with all those MAYs, who can be sure.
One does not exclude the other. It is also a lot more effective. Thegoal is to reduce waste and the most convinient wau is to make the companies responsible.
And controling 100 manufacturors is a lot easier than checking 350MM peoplle.
In Europe companies are not as holy and fragile that they need protection from the things they do. People are.
What would otherwise happen? Nothing. Jere and there an individual might get a fine, but companies will push straws just to make money. The cleanup still needs to be done and suddenly everybody has to share the cost, except the companies who will now want straws in your cookies, because profit.
When they have to pay, thecompany will either realize that they need to calculate the waste disposal into their price. Now prices increase just because of that. Companies like lower prices, so they find ways to reduce waste.
So ot is better to have the party that makes the polution pay for the cleanup. And that still does not mean you can not punish others who litter as well.
Starting at the end is treating the symptoms. Starting at the cause is like treating the problem. And if the companies don't like it, they can stop making those products.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Mostly this is due to massive over-regulation.
In the old days it was OK for them to collect, wash, and reuse glass bottles for example.
Then, almost certainly due to lobbying by the glass makers, it was decided that simple industrial washing it hot serializing solutions was just not enough.
Somehow a bacterial could survive (ignoring the decades of evidence that they did not) and harm some poor soul! so regulations were put in place to
require full 'reprocessing' of glass (in effect crushing, purifying, melting, recasting) to make it 'food safe' again, and THAT killed reuse.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, that is how regulatory capture works, and companies pay WELL for such things to be put in place.
I burn all my plastic in a nice big pile bellowing lovely black smoke.
Saves it ending up in the oceans. I throw away nothing. Job done.
(Actually, I dont, and hate over packaging, and reuse everything I can, but just sayin..)
(and BTW, ANYONE who uses nespresso et.al for coffee should NOT be allowed to complain about plastics pollution..)
So, you are saying that anyone who supplies something to someone else should be responsible for their use of it 'because'?
Can I borrow your car?
You are contradicting yourself. If it doesn't generally reach the sea that means some of it does. If some of it does, reducing the amount of "it" will reduce the amount in the sea.
The EU has no authority over Africa, so the whole idea of the comment was misplaced.
Not everything is an economical problem.
Sig?
So, two quick questions (and their answers):
Why does the vast majority of plastic come from rivers in SE Asia? Well, as with most things, there are numerous reasons but a report published in 2015 calculated that "three quarters of plastic leakage from the 5 Asian countries comes from uncollected waste. The rest is waste that was gathered but ended up illegally dumped or put into sites too close to coasts or rivers." In other words lack of proper waste management, almost certainly caused by lack of legislation or failure to enforce legislation.
Where does a large proportion of the plastic that ends up in SE Asian rivers come from? The short answer is, frequently, it's other countries' waste: as an example the UK (prior to China largely banning imports of waste plastic) exported more waste plastic than it recycled domestically.
Since European countries are now having to be a little more 'involved' in dealing with their own waste, rather than simply exporting it, it makes sense to try to tackle the sources of waste. Legislation is one obvious route to doing this. Now, personally, since about 40% of plastic is used in packaging materials I'd have preferred they start with that, rather than plastic cutlery which can be washed and reused anyway, but I guess each step, no matter how small, is a step forward as long as we're headed in the right direction.
In politics, you clean up your own shit first, and only then start pointing fingers towards those with an even bigger shitpile.
Why should the manufacturers be responsible for preventing people from being jackasses and throwing their garbage wherever they please?
Because otherwise you don't close the circle. Make manufactures accountable for the waste and you may see a startling trend, like things built to last, or actual recycling done rather than recycling collected and then given to some other manufacturer because we couldn't be bothered.
Necessity is the mother of invention, ... or innovation. People by n large are very difficult to stop being jackarses, but watch how quickly things turn around when you affect the profits of those feeding the jackarseery.
They aren't the ones disposing of their products, so it seems reasonable that they aren't responsible for consumers who dispose of them inappropriately.
And by logical extension don't provide consumers with even the means creating a wonderful race to the bottom.
As of 2017, 60% of ocean plastic pollution was generated by China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka, in that order, with China vastly outdoing the others. No EU country is within the top 20, which would indicate a very minuscule amount of plastic waste leaking into the oceans. If European governments want to waste a massive amount of resources to worry about this, the pollution generated is going to be more overall, not less.
Cool story bro. But it's not Chinese plastic that ends up in European landfills, dumped out at European beaches, in European rivers. It's not all about the ocean believe it or not, and a population of 750million people is able to do quite a bit of their damage without blaming someone else.
What you call virtue signalling others call leading by example and doing right by their local environment. It'll be such a tragedy that the EU will have an affect on the 40% of waste not coming from the countries you list. Tragedy! /sarcasm
If European governments want to waste a massive amount of resources to worry about this, the pollution generated is going to be more overall, not less.
I take it you are Dutch? Because you must be smoking a lot of weed to come up with that conclusion.
I said "[it] has nothing to do with the amount or percentage of ocean pollution caused by this". That's not a contradiction, that should be bloody obvious. For starters, Sweden will be even more hungry for waste, hence the value of waste will increase, hence the flows to different sinks will change disproportionately.
Ezekiel 23:20
...but we've ALREADY cleaned up our act. As should be obvious to you if you look at the amount of generated sea plastic waste per capita. So how much more do we have to clean up our act before other countries notice if they haven't noticed by now?
Ezekiel 23:20
And who says anything about authority? Besides you, of course. (Note that you are technically wrong, though, by virtue of the existence of Melilla and Ceuta.)
Ezekiel 23:20
Perhaps, but environmental issues ARE an economical problem. They stand to hurt our economy in the future.
Ezekiel 23:20
We already did. That's the very reason why our plastic pollution is comparatively so low.
Ezekiel 23:20
Ice. it's because the drinks are 90% ice instead of liquid, and it's annoying to drink from a glass full of ice.
I actually use a straw quite a bit at home. That said, it's not a disposable straw, it's a thick plastic that I wash and re-use.
This is the one part of the proposal that concerns me. I'm not worried that restaurants will make me eat with my fingers, I know that they'll just use reusable cutlery, but I am worried that they'll expect me to drink their 90% ice beverages without a straw rather than provide a reusable one.
This wasn't a problem the last time I was in Europe because no one served ice unless you explicitly asked for it. And even then, they bring you a bowl of ice cubes with a spoon.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
So, you are saying that anyone who supplies something to someone else should be responsible for their use of it 'because'?
So you're saying we should adopt your model where no one is responsible for anything especially if they're turning a profit?
Did you say that? Who cares, if you're going to take extreme misreadings of my posts, why shouldn't I do the same?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Increasingly, not a lot of plastic garbage in the sea actually comes from the US and first world countries, not by design in any case. This is increasingly true due to waste incineration used more and more which destroys the plastic., A lot of plastic floating around the pacific probably is coming from the dirtier and more careless countries such as Mexico, China and other Asian countries. I live near the US coast and rarely do I ever see plastic garbage in the water.
What about cigarette butts? I see tones of those all over the place? Besides, if they ban plastic cups and straws, I wonder if this will drive the people dependent on fast food extinct? Another ecosystem bites the dust.
At most modern universities, and in many countries, we already have biodegradeable compostable utensils.
They're easy to use.
If you actually need a knife or fork, silverware works fine too: you just wash it.
They're only replacing the easily broken plastic garbage utensils with stronger ones that biodegrade. Many of us wash those and reuse them too, but you can literally toss them into the compost bin and they will be broken down over time, as opposed to plastic, which is forever.
And ever.
"But they're expensive!" say the luddites. So was plastic until it became mainstream. The invisible hand of the marketplace adapts to all inputs. Produce them at scale and they're not expensive.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Funny how most beers wines and spirits are sold in glass bottles or cans, the exception tends to be cheap cider.
I don' t know why that is funny.
I do know that the vast majority of consumers are not carrying heavy bottles of beer or wine around to stay hydrated. The market is different.
Back when I was a lad
Last week is not this week.
If they shifted back to glass it would make a huge dent in the amount of plastic bottles being made and thrown away.
If they shifted back to glass only there would also be a serious dent in sales. That's why they haven't done so. You claim it is all positives to do that, but the facts show otherwise. If it was such a win for the companies, they'd have switched back a long time ago. They'd be marketing as the environmentally friendly company. But there's some reason this doesn't happen, and the customers are the most likely culprit.
In Ireland you pay for your waste to be taken away but you can choose to recycle bottles and cans for free.
I don't live in Ireland. I pay for my trash to be dealt with. If I wanted to spend my time in a completely unproductive way, I could "recycle" my bottles and be paid for it, but not enough to make it worth my time. I'll let the trash company I PAY TO DEAL WITH TRASH deal with them.
When you think about it a lot of plastic is for the connivence of super markets.
I've thought about it and I do not see the same thing. By the way, the instruction to "think about it" is patently insulting. You think you're the only one who has ever thought about this?
And by logical extension don't provide consumers with even the means creating a wonderful race to the bottom.
Everything you can buy can be misused. Prohibit the sales of everything, because selling someone something just provides them a means of "creating a wonderful race to the bottom."
The US and EU combined contribute less than 3% of oceanic plastic waste. "Leading by example" is not sufficient if more resources are consumed and greater pollution is generated in the process, which will certainly be the case due to greater production, consumption, and transition costs; neither is "leading by example" by rich countries an an action seriously calculated to influence poor countries. A rise in wealth is both correlated with and causes an increase in environmentally concerned actions and policies; once people are no longer worried about food, shelter, etc., they will be more interested in their surrounding environs, and will hae the disposable income to attend to it. That the EU's proposed ban has no other virtue than virtue-signalling itself is made clear.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
The real problem is that /. thinks this post should be modded down as a troll. This is well-documented, and not just from those sources that /. doesn't like.
How about the actual research that produced all the articles? Is that a source worthy of being believed here?
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstr...
How about setting an example?
You missed the part where we're already doing that. According your child logic, we apparently have to solve all our problems completely before anyone else solves a single problem.
Ezekiel 23:20
Why not make the vast majority of plastic come from rivers in Europe? Yes, that would be horrible indeed.
Ezekiel 23:20
No there is a point here, ideally plastic doesn't make it to ocean, but when(not if) it does then sinking is better than swimming. Floating plastic stays in food-chain forever, stuff that sinks gets eventually covered in sediment and becomes a head scratcher for future geologists. Deep water also shields from UV degradation and reduces the micro-plastic problem and then there is the benefit that it doesn't float half way around the planet.
Not an ideal solution perhaps, but it would improve the situation.
if someone hurts themselves with sharp cutlery, there will be lawsuits.
Isn't this backwards? I thought dull knives were supposed to be more dangerous than sharp ones because you have to apply more force which can cause the blade to slip?
industry tends to be good at coming up with clever ways of solving sticky problems if profits are at stake
In most of the world, they already solved it. By buying the laws to not make it mandatory for industries to be responsible for recycling their product.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Others have given some reasons, here is one more :
Make-up industry is worth billions of dollars per year. Most of their product is not as smudge free as they want it to be.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Everything you can buy can be misused. Prohibit the sales of everything, because selling someone something just provides them a means of "creating a wonderful race to the bottom."
Misuse wasn't the point of my comment. Lack of ability to use correctly was. It's amazing how much recycling improves when you provide people with recycling facilities. It's even more amazing at how much better it gets when you put enforcement costs on the supplier. Have you been to venice? They once had a huge garbage problem due to disposable packaging, but there was only a few takeaway shops in the city centre. Venice is quite clean now many thanks to the government forcing McDondals Subway and Burger King to sponsor garbage bins and collection services for the mess their product ultimately makes. I mean it's just as easy to kick them out, they are really only preying on conviencence anyway.
It's even more amazing at how much recycling improves when you pass the newly enforced cost down to the consumer and reward them for good practices as is the case with many glass and plastic bottles in Europe.
Sounds unfair, maybe. Go live in a polluted river in China if you want fair and government regulation free life.
https://www.scientificamerican...
Island countries like the Philippines and Indonesia also tend to have issues with a lot of waste getting into the ocean quickly. In a landlocked country the odds of your properly disposed of plastic waste reaching the ocean are pretty slim.
The real answer for plastic disposal is "Waste to Energy". Plastic burns very well, you just need to burn it hot enough that it doesn't emit dioxins. What we need is a technological solution that can be mass produced and distributed across the developing world so people can collect and incinerate their plastic safely.
Consider the Snowball method for paying debt. From a financial aspect this is a bad idea, and debt with the highest APR should be tackled first instead of debts with the lowest balance (when not the same.) From a psychological aspect this is a wonderful idea: people feel overwhelmed by the far larger number so paying off the smaller one feels easier and, once it is paid off, the feedback of success makes it easier to tackle the next smallest one, etc. Eventually there's only the largest debt left, and since all of the others are paid off the person can put more money into that debt as well. This "snowballing" makes it more likely that the average person will actually pay off all of their debt than if they tried to use the better ("stacked") method (per research referenced in that Wiki page.)
Should we put most resources towards fixing the largest aspect of a problem first? Absolutely. But that is, unfortunately, not how humanity works.
No, what you're observing is garbage being dumped into streams and rivers from poor and remote villages in countries that don't have waste management.
It has NOTHING to do with plastic forks and straws used in advanced countries. Banning this is pure virtue-signalling, and will do nothing to reduce plastic in oceans
Boom! Very astute. One of the strangest things about the gyres of plastics is that the assumption is that it all comes from the USA. When in fact, we have a lot of recycling going on.
Because it is getting very difficult to open new landfills, most of us recycle as much as possible.
Where the more developed countries need to focus on is eliminating microspheres of plastic in skin care products. Those don't do anything but make the product feel "silky smooth".
Enter the "Friendly Floaties". In 1992, a container of some 28,000 rubber ducks washed overboard on a ship coming from Hong Kong, while traversing the Pacific Ocean. We've been tracking them ever since. Not surprisingly, they've shown up in the pacific, but have been tracked above the arctic circle and to the East Coast of USA, and even in Europe. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.