Slashdot Mirror


EU To Ban Plastic Plates, Cups, and Cutlery by 2021; Will Require Plastic Bottles Be Made of 25% Recycled Content By 2025 (fastcompany.com)

The European Union has decided to ban plastic consumer items including plates, cutlery and straws as of 2021 to help clean up oceans. The prohibition on single-use plastics approved by the European Parliament this week in Strasbourg, France, also applies to beverage cups, food containers and cotton bud sticks. A report adds: The new legislation also states that by 2025, plastic bottles should be made of 25 percent recycled content. The new legislation also sets an admirable target of recycling 90 percent of plastic bottles by 2029 -- as well as a goal of making them out of 30 percent recycled material by 2030. Parliament originally rolled out its plan at the end of 2018 and have now made good on the ambition directive.

261 comments

  1. good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to focus on the things that really matter

    1. Re:good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does matter. You do not.

    2. Re:good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This does matter. You do not.

      EU list:

      1) Ruin Internet - Check

      2) Ruin Driving - Check

      3) Ruin Dining - Check

      4) Convert to Islamic state - Check

      Oh wait, they ended daylight savings!

    3. Re:good job by calebb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Relative to cargo ships (emission equivalent of 50,000,000 cars) and maritime waste due to environmental policies of certain leading export countries, this is relatively unimportant.

      Instead, perhaps we could focus on reducing our practice of shipping raw materials via cargo ships to countries without environmental regulations or labor laws. Currently, these countries manufacture many of our goods at a much lower cost - by dumping waste into the ocean, employing children, and using components that are known by the state of California to cause cancer.

      Then they burn even more oil to ship the finished product back to our country.

      Here's an extremely understated introduction to the problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (all the statistics cited are from the International Maritime Organization, and are substantially lower than what is now (12 years ago) known: https://www.theguardian.com/en... )

    4. Re:good job by lgw · · Score: 1

      The shipping is not the issue. Large ships are astonishingly efficient per ton shipped. The rest of your rant makes sense though.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:good job by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Instead, perhaps we could focus on reducing our practice of shipping raw materials via cargo ships

      Why "instead"? Why not do both? The two actions would be independent, and in no way whatsoever are they alternatives.

    6. Re:good job by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      emission equivalent of 50,000,000 cars
      In sulfur, dust/soot, yes. CO2, nope!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re: good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason people wanted a brexit. EU is a dictator.

    8. Re:good job by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      In sulfur, dust/soot, yes. CO2, nope!

      ... and the sulfur, dust, and soot don't matter, because they quickly settle onto the surface of the ocean. The ocean already contains trillions of tons of sulfur. The amount added by cargo ships is negligible, and not harmful anyway. These pollutants are only harmful if you inhale them, or if they settle on leaves or exposed metal. Terrestrial sources are a problem, oceanic sources are not.

    9. Re:good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Currently, these countries manufacture many of our goods at a much lower cost - by dumping waste into the ocean, employing children, and using components that are known by the state of California to cause cancer.

      If we listened to California on what causes cancer we couldn't do anything, even breath.

    10. Re:good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how my plastic straws find their way in ocean. Glass straws are so much safer for kids.

    11. Re:good job by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Why focus on CO2? The main issue here is plastic pollution.

      Cargo ships create very little plastic pollution compared to disposable drinking straws.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So focus on China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. That's where the majority of the oceanic plastic comes from.

  2. Better mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Order all dishes and cutlery be made by manual labor. That'll be good for job creation too.

    1. Re:Better mandate by mpercy · · Score: 1

      And use the spoons to dig ditches. That'll create the hell of of some jobs.

    2. Re:Better mandate by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      And use the spoons to dig ditches. That'll create the hell of of some jobs.

      That is just silly. Metal spoons would work far better than plastic for digging ditches.

    3. Re:Better mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And use the spoons to dig ditches. That'll create the hell of of some jobs.

      That is just silly. Metal spoons would work far better than plastic for digging ditches.

      But if the spoons aren't breakable, how do they get their union-mandated three hours of work stoppage per day from broken implements?

  3. EU has lost its mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every country is about to turn into Paris riots.

  4. Re:Thats communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want my stuff made of new virgin plastic. I dont want dirty crap. God damn euro weenys. Always whining.

    WIth the number of desperate slashdotters out there, plastic bottles don't stay virgin very long.

  5. Money talks. They have to build the infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regional recycling centers that have recycling facilities at site, so they don't have to truck garbage all over the world to accomplish recycling. China is no longer taking it, other countries either. EU has to build these plants first.

    Start now. It's a jobs program. This is a need that until we get rid of plastic disposable products entirely, we all share. It has to go somewhere, you might as well have somewhere be local. 0-emissions plastic recycling plants are possible.

  6. Good, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consumer waste from developed countries makes up a very small percentage of plastic waste in the ocean. While it's still a good move on principle, the EU's decision isn't going to fix the problem.

    1. Re: Good, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a choice whether to do something or nothing

    2. Re:Good, but.... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I think the majority of plastic waste in the ocean is dumped off cruise ships and other boats... so if you want to ban something, maybe ban recreational boating?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Good, but.... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      Like limit discs and small toilets in California, where home use is only 11% of water use, it is, literally admittedly, about gaining participation by the populace for greater environmental controls in the future.

      Like that study whers they asked people if they could put giant signs in their yard, and they said no, but if they asked for a small sign, they could get buy in, and ramp up the sign size incrementally over months to the giant sign.

      This is literally the stated purpose of silly home rules in California that would only chop down a fraction of that 11%.

      I expect to be downmodded by the censorious.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:Good, but.... by lgw · · Score: 0

      The majority of plastic in the ocean is dumped off of garbage haulers. Large cities pay shippers to hauls their trash to someplace lower-rent for disposal, but since it's cheaper for the ship to dump its cargo the second no one is watching, that of course happens a lot. Littering in general is the next biggest cause. Far mor lazy people on beaches (or any place where storm water that falls on streets ends up in the ocean) than ships.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Good, but.... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Complete fabrication. It's well documented that approximately 90% of garbage is sourced from major Asian and African rivers.

      Since we're talking about EU policy, here's a citation from German national broadcaster on the topic:

      https://www.dw.com/en/almost-a...

    6. Re: Good, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a choice to do something that makes sense, or to just do loony things because it sounds nice. Repercussions be damned.

      This is insanity and driven by emotional bias.

    7. Re:Good, but.... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, fair point, I was talking about how western plastic gets into the water. As you point out, that's a tiny part of the problem to begin with.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re: Good, but.... by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Yes Minister - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    9. Re: Good, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing something just to do something is a waste our resources and embitters the people who have to pay for that smugness.

    10. Re:Good, but.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's well documented that approximately 90% of garbage is sourced from major Asian and African rivers.

      It's well documented in the headlines of news articles which didn't actually read the study. No the reality is that the amount of garbage entering the oceans through rivers is tiny. The amount of plastic waste is between 5-15% depending on the study.

      And when you go back to your news article that shows that 90% of plastic in the oceans goes through a couple of major rivers read carefully and you'll notice the quote is that 90% of garbage in the ocean *that comes from rivers* does so through only a couple of rivers in Asia and Africa.

      Journal articles, not news headlines. The former educate, the latter just make people stupid.

    11. Re:Good, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay - if someone starts others will follow - I have myself seen that in China the policy is also turning strongly against the pollution they are having (the Government even shut down a factory i was visiting for some weeks)

      So i think there is hope that with the European model others will follow - I don't think this will be any problem (similar that light has not become a problem in here with LED lights being very cheap right now thanks to EU legislation..)

      China i think will come soon after - you will be surprised what they can achieve in a short time.

      Giving good examples does not hurt at all. (Even if our problem is very small compared..)

      All good in this direction.

    12. Re:Good, but.... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the virtue signalling path. "If we are good, virtuous, self-flagellating idiots acting against their interests to purportedly benefit others, others will respect us and act like us".

      In reality, Chinese now have a derogatory word for people who act and think like this, which literally translates to "white leftie". Chinese do not care at all about pollution that isn't immediately impactful. That's why it's been such a challenge to get them to commit to anything at all on CO2. That's not the pollution Chinese care about at all, just like plastic pollution isn't something Chinese care about at all.

      All they care about is the immediate problems, like particulates in the air in major cities, which cause easily observable and directly linked health problems in a way that even an average Chinese, who thinks Western medicine is for weird freaks and rich socialites, can understand. The rest is handled like pretty much everything in China. Demonstrative facade to keep face, absolute irrelevance underneath.

      Here's a good video by a couple of Western expats living in major cities in China on the topic if you are still unconvinced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    13. Re:Good, but.... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I will continue to insist that me fucking you in the ass over your science denial in the original talk was a strictly one night stand, and no matter how desperate your stalking becomes, I will not be calling you back.

    14. Re:Good, but.... by lgw · · Score: 1

      How did I know who you were linking to before I clicked? They're out of China, BTW. I think one of them had a kid and didn't want him born in China's medical system.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Good, but.... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You clearly didn't, because you're still thinking I linked ADVChina because you didn't watch the video in its entirety.

    16. Re:Good, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just asked my Chinese wife about this post, and she confirmed there is a word that literally translates to "white leftie". She said they have an opposite term which literally translates to "red neck", which is an uneducated farmer type. I presume these ideas are adapted from the US terms.

      We watched your video together. The concept of "face" I knew, but the garbage situation I did not. I asked her why Chinese don't sort their trash and she said there is no enforcement. I said, "Sure, but if you don't sort the trash, then it's very hard to recycle, so people should just do it anyway". She then explained that for Chinese, as long as it isn't in their neighborhood anymore, then it isn't their problem. The dream is to live in a good neighborhood with high class people and the trash gets shipped to low class areas and it is then their problem. I explained that moving the trash around doesn't make the trash go away, it ends up in the environment. And she told me that Chinese simply don't think that far. Out of sight, out of mind. This of course pisses me off to no end as it means that in some round about way, they think the rest of the world are lower class than Chinese as it is the rest of the world who now has to try to clean up their mess.

      As your video shows about face, the only way to get them to change is to shame them. Again and again and again and until they do it. Their state control of the media is designed to stop that from happening, but people need to keep reporting what it is that they do. It is the only morality Chinese have.

    17. Re:Good, but.... by lgw · · Score: 1

      You linked SerpentZA. He and C-Milk are in Vietnam for the moment, gushing about how it's like China was when they fell in love with it. Yes, his buddy is in it, but what's your point?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:Good, but.... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This is a very strange question. What's my point? Did you fail to read my original post?

      Or do you think it magically changed over me debunking your silliness which you sorta-kinda admitted to in your last post?

    19. Re:Good, but.... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I think you have me confused with the AC you were arguing against. You certainly have me confused.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm old enough to remember that this move to plastic was driven by "good intentions" back in the 70s because all the products were destroying the trees because of the demand on paper, pulp and wood products. Plastic after all was RECYCLABLE... except nobody bothered and now that China won't do the recycling the governments don't care to spend the money on infrastructure when they can use it to pay off their political cronies at inflated rates.
    This emotionalist and irrational (yes, irrational) response to a problem could easily be handled by better pollution monitoring, regulation and better recycling. But that would require a government that actually did its job and not just run to ban things because it makes them feel better to assuage a 12 year old's shoddy science fair paper.

    1. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not hypocrisy at all, just lesser of two evils, especially when new trees can be planted until we develop a good biodegradable replacement to plastic. People learn, things change..

    2. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck trees. Use bamboo.

    3. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We didn't realize back then that plastics were slowly making their way into our food supply. Do you think that "better pollution monitoring, regulation and better recycling" is enough to fix that without also banning single-use plastics?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    4. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Things are different now. Back then sustainable forest management wasn't a thing, the trees were dying due to the acid rain and the wood usage used to be far more wasteful. Nowadays in the developed countries acid rain is a thing of the past, all forests are managed and thanks to the widespread usage of fibre boards and paper recycling the wood usage is far more efficient and nothing is wasted.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, paper is farmed. Not using paper to save trees is like not eating salad to save vegetables. It works, but it doesn't save forests, only farmland.

    6. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by supremebob · · Score: 1

      I'm curious... how practical are disposable utensils made of wood, anyway? I've never seen anyone using them in the US.

      Are they as bad as the paper straws that everyone seems to be switching to?

    7. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better, but flat - ok for forks and knives, not so good for spoons.
      It's too bad you can't make wooden straws - that'd be a far better alternative to those paper ones.

    9. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 1

      The problem with plastic is that it isn't biodegradable. No natural process can break it down. Plastic photodegrades and that can take hundreds of years. Small broken down pieces of plastic soak up poisonous chemicals and are eaten by animals and fish. And thus enter the entire food chain. Very many bird and fish are killed by plastic every year.

    10. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by agent_blue · · Score: 1

      Bamboo Chopsticks. They can replace forks, and if you're especially skilled, spoons.

    11. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the picture of the found "microplastics" - do those look like plastic plates, forks, knives or bottles? Even pieces of such?

      I wouldn't know because I don't often wait for plastics to crumble from age and then inspect the fragments under a microscope. Do you?

      [Plastic eating utensils] have structural integrity (compared to their paper alternatives)

      Why not use wooden utensils? 8 cents each won't bankrupt anybody.

      and generate LESS pollution than cutting down trees and/or cleaning glass bottles, washing dishes.

      Do you often find that telling the truth weakens your argument?

    12. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I'm curious... how practical are disposable utensils made of wood, anyway? I've never seen anyone using them in the US.

      I have seen them many times in the SF Bay Area. They work fine. Many are made from bamboo.

      The problem is cost. They are several times the cost of plastic.

    13. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU to ban X

      This should become a meme.

      EU to ban memes.

      EU to ban the wearing of damp socks

      EU to ban underpants with holes in them

      New regulations on tying your shoelaces.

    14. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not use wooden utensils?

      Because I don't want splinters lodged in my big fat face? From the picture it's pretty clear its cheaply made full of splinters worse even than reusing cheap frayed chopsticks.

      8 cents each won't bankrupt anybody.

      So proclaims a "have".

      (1 knife + 1 fork + 1 spoon) * 4 ppl * 30 days = 3.60/month which is twice as much as half the worlds population has to spend on food per day.

    15. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you often find that telling the truth weakens your argument?

      No. I do find that personal attacks instead of refuting the argument show I'm right. I notice you couldn't find a link like you did with more expensive wooden utensils (which isn't a refutation either as you'll still be tearing down trees and creating pollution which will now include pesticides that will make their way into the fish and soil, etc;)

    16. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, or, hear out my novel ideal: You could just fashion spoons and forks from bamboo.

      https://images-na.ssl-images-a...

      And while I'm sure that those bamboo knives and forks won't be very comfortable because of the thickness of their edge and tines they should work.

      And if you're adventurous, you could even wash and reuse them.

      I sure do that with all the bamboo spatulas (some with silicone heads) in my kitchen, which have lasted me longer than many of the crappy plastic ones.

    17. Re: Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to your local convenience store and buy one of those small cups of ice cream. There will be a wooden spoon under the lid or in a container nearby.

    18. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed.

    19. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Solandri · · Score: 1

      We didn't need to know plastics were making it into our food supply. We were already well aware of the problem because of trash strewn all over the landscape. I grew up in the 70s too and agree with OP. Who the hell thought replacing paper with plastic (which we already knew was extremely durable and took forever to degrade) for single use products was a good idea? I wouldn't place blame entirely upon the environmental movement though. The oil industry was probably involved too, advocating widespread adoption of plastics.

      Even today, I've eaten countless downvotes here for suggesting that we throw paper trash away instead of recycling them. When you throw paper away in a landfill, it's sequestering the carbon underground. Meaning new trees have to be cut down to make new paper, meaning loggers see more demand and have an incentive to plant lots more new trees. That increases the rate at which CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere (atmospheric CO2 becomes paper products, so there's a 1:1 correlation between paper thrown away in landfills and CO2 removed from the atmosphere).

      Encouraging people to recycle paper products means there's less demand for new paper, meaning fewer new trees are planted by loggers. Fewer trees means less CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere to be converted into cellulose. Meaning atmospheric CO2 levels increase faster. So recycling paper actually increases the rate of global warming. Remember, "renewable" means you can use it and it automatically replenishes itself. Trees are renewable. And in this particular case, increasing the renewal rate (by throwing away paper instead recycling it) is better for the environment.

      Think, people. Expand your reasoning beyond "recycling good, trash bad" caveman logic. Recycling is not a panacea. You can't just think of recycling on its own when deciding if it's good or bad. You have to compare it to the alternatives. And sometimes the alternative of throwing away things is better overall than recycling them.

    20. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I live in a liberal hotspot (Seattle) but I haven't seen a non-biodegradable plastic utensil in a couple of years. Everybody seems to use compostable plastics for single use items, and the city collects compostable waste in a separate bin. It's a solved problem aside from people in the rest of the country being ideologically opposed to problems being solved.

    21. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Don't be so hard on them. All they want is a government-enforced utopia. They know we're all to lazy and irresponsible to create a utopia on our own. Just do what the government tells you. It's all for your own good.

      And kiss all of your hard-won freedoms goodbye.

    22. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by aybiss · · Score: 1

      You haven't hard won anything, and you're nowhere near as free as your propaganda tells you.

      How's the self-created utopia going, by the way? Surely by now *most* people are happy? Can't be long for the rest, right?

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    23. Re: Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that is quite circular logic. You are basically saying that we should intentionally make paper a more scare resource so that we will plant more trees while missing the obvious fact that we will first cut down much more existing trees because it's easier.

      Not only that but as others have mentioned, old trees absorb more CO2 than new ones so even if your theory got us planting a ton of new trees it still won't help much for a long time.

      It simply makes more sense to recycle what we can, this applies to pretty much any resource.

    24. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can also be handled by what is being proposed. it's not "either or".

      You made a point about China and recycle for some reason. To my knowledge a significant volume of "recyclable stuff" developed countries collect actually got shipped to China for processing. Emotionalist eh?

    25. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a miserable git.

    26. Re: Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      old trees absorb more CO2 than new ones

      Yes but most of their carbon isn't permanently sequestered. Instead, the carbon is eventually returned to the atmosphere through respiration. To prevent that, the carbon needs to be made unavailable to animals. Burying it beyond the reach of animals would achieve that goal.

    27. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      That is actually really insightful.

      Comparing a planet with tonnes of non-recycled paper in landfills vs. one without comes out very much in favor for the former with regard to CO2 sequestration. Are there any downsides to this approach?

    28. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      Ordinary wood sucks because it's very unpleasant to slide your tongue or lips over it.

    29. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you would even suggest to use "single-use" utensils daily shows how American you are.
      Metal, washable utensils exist. I haven't used a single use fork, knife or spoon in years. It's quite easy really.

    30. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so called microplastics are dominantly from car tires... and transportation isnt going away anytime soon due our infrastructure choices of megacities...
      its not long ago 10 years when enviormentalist told us plastic bag lasts hundreds of years and bohoo fucks up everything in ecosystem... now they promote studies about microplastics and forget to say its from not plastic cuttlery,bags.. (also in fear of microplastics dont ever read what shampoo is nowadays) thought that emission is caught by water cleaning plants same applies for washing clothes...

      norwegians, danish and russians have all evaluated microplastics to be two orders of magnitude larger from car tires than other sources...

    31. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm old enough to remember that this move to plastic was driven by "good intentions" back in the 70s because all the products were destroying the trees because of the demand on paper, pulp and wood products.

      I never heard of a problem with trees dying due to paper products. This sounds more like a blatant lie (pants on fire category) in order to promote plastic products.

    32. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, obviously it takes up space, and carbon isn't the only thing it sequesters. Think: Pot ash, phosphorus, etc.

    33. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in this case, the right to put plastic in the ocean. Oh, I shall so miss my polluting adventures, where I would throw out plastic cup after plastic cup into the ocean...

      Oh wait, I don't do that. That would be stupid.

      Which hard-won freedom am I losing again?

    34. Re:Hypocrisy - and the trees die again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't banning dumping plastic in the ocean, you dribbling moron.

      They are banning plastic plates, cups and cutlery. Period.

  8. So they'll be handing out real steak knives at by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

    airport restaurants now? Cool.

    1. Re:So they'll be handing out real steak knives at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get wooden (beech) disposable cutlery, as well as bio-degradable cutlery, one would assume that is what will replace the banned plastic types.

    2. Re:So they'll be handing out real steak knives at by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      steak will be banned, and of course air travel too.

    3. Re:So they'll be handing out real steak knives at by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Go back to Russia, Ivan.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:So they'll be handing out real steak knives at by PPH · · Score: 1

      Fly first class. You get a real steak knife.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:So they'll be handing out real steak knives at by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I've been enjoying proper metal cutlery on economy flights for a decade now.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:So they'll be handing out real steak knives at by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      What crappy airport restaurants are you eating at that don't use real knives? Chili's and O'Charleys had them the last time I ate there. (last month and last year respectively)

  9. Straws by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    Well at least it makes a little more sense than banning just plastic straws like California? Not being able to get a plastic straw when drinking out of a plastic cup with a plastic lid is just silly. Especially when waxed paper cups work as a much better alternative to plastic than the stupid flimsy paper straws we're supposed to use instead.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Straws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attention moron : There are alternative materials they already make straws from, you're an idiot. And now back to your feckless consumer whoreism... go drink your leaded gasoline, Cletus.

    2. Re:Straws by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to believe there are. However what's currently being offered at restaurants are flimsy paper straws or nothing.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    3. Re:Straws by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 1

      Just a normal glass works well.

    4. Re:Straws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CA as a whole did no such thing, though many individual businesses did stop offering straws

  10. The Nanny State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor, poor, Euros. Powerless, impotent, pressed into doing the service of faceless bureaucrats.

    1. Re:The Nanny State by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      And yet they're happier than we are... funny about that! (Finland is the happiest country in the world.)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:The Nanny State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet they're happier than we are... funny about that! (Finland is the happiest country in the world.)

      Says who? Tourist pamphlets and politicians? They are so miserable they are importing people as they have even given up the will to reproduce.

    3. Re:The Nanny State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smile for Dear (EU) Leaders. Not a life I'd like to live I'm not told how to eat,shit, drink, drive, throw away my trash. Thank goodness for the freedoms we still have in the USA.

    4. Re:The Nanny State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How was our suicide rate again? Is it still just behind Hungary? Nevertheless, every new rule is based on past negligence or avoidable death. That is something not obvious for the many as the governments don't inform the citizenry when there have been victimization or death of private individuals.

    5. Re:The Nanny State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually looked this up after the news came out that Finland was the world's happiest country. Surprisingly enough, it's not terrible..if being about the same as the US and Japan is "not terrible" (I think one percent greater than the US, and maybe two percent fewer than Japan). Far better than Russia, at least.

    6. Re:The Nanny State by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      "Told how to drive"... you mean like on the Autobahn? Oh yeah, Americans have so much more freedom! Like the freedom to marry the person you love, that Pence is desperately hoping to take away from you, or the freedom to control your own body, that the Republicans are trying to stack the courts to take away from you!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:The Nanny State by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      2/3 of gun deaths in the United States are suicides... is it possible that restricting the availability of guns might save a few lives? Personally, I wish people that take their own lives wouldn't leave such a big mess for other people to clean up...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    8. Re:The Nanny State by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Russians don't need happiness; they have vodka!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  11. You must be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one is going to give you dangerous weapons and encourage knife crime. You will be given wooden knife-like objects and learn to like it.

  12. UK might have a point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing the stream of articles about what the EU is doing, maybe Brexit has a point after all. Do open borders and free trade have to come with this baggage?

    1. Re:UK might have a point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oi, I don't want to say nothin' bad but this used to be a nice neighborhood until all of them... immigrant folk started to come in. They come in and they open up restaurants and the like, and they is using plastic forks every time and they just throws them away. And the schools are full of their children. I don't like it.

  13. There are better ways, people learn over time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Clearcutting forests for disposable utensils is as dumb as making it from non-biodegradeable plastics that then wind up polluting the ecosystem (even inside our foods) for as long as human civilization lasts.

    The OP (Republican?) wants to pretend there is no benefit in learning from previous mistakes as time goes forward. That's their ideology in a nutshell.

    1. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      No, he covered it quite nicely with the observation it was about connected cronies.

      That is the guiding factor behind economy-crushing corruption for over half the world's population. They just have to hide it better in the west.

      Here's what will burst your noodle, as the Oracle might say. "If the regulation is mildly useful, so much the better."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone who owns a managed forest, I must point out that a) wood is a renewable resource and b) growing saplings fix a lot more CO2 from the atmosphere than mature trees do. So please, all the stuff you want to make out of wood and paper products - please do!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the Democrats, who are all pushing socialism this year. They certainly learned the lessons of the past.

    4. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scandinavia called, says you Republican faggots are last in literacy and education and health for a developed nation... Socialism pities your inbred issues and need for authoritarian obese faggots like Trump, lol.

    5. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ The OP (Republican?) wants to pretend there is no benefit in learning from previous mistakes as time goes forward. That's their ideology in a nutshell. QED, thanks for demonstrating GOP illiteracy.

    6. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      As someone who owns a managed forest,

      Do you really?

      I must point out that a) wood is a renewable resource

      So what are you doing to maintain the soil?

      and b) growing saplings fix a lot more CO2 from the atmosphere than mature trees do.

      What? No, it most certainly does not. Old trees store carbon more rapidly than young trees. (And while we're here, they don't absorb more CO2 as atmospheric CO2 concentration rises, either.

      I don't think you're managing a goddamned thing. You certainly don't know what you're talking about.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Interesting links.

      Increased carbon dioxide levels do increase plant growth for some plants grown in greenhouses. CHP generators are used for hot water and carbon dioxide production for heating and enhanced plant growth and the Power gets sold to the grid. The CHP runs during daylight hours, running on natural gas.

      On the positive side at least some chp's are used to help enable a greater percentage of Wind Energy to the grid, they can be started and stopped within a few minutes. Supply and Demand for the grid is a fairly delicate balance with all generators synced to each other.

      There is also a positive in that these locally sourced crops reduce imports and miles travelled to reach the consumer. On the downside often these crops are sealed in plastic sometimes in a protective atmosphere (which might be high in co2) limited oxygen helps slow decay giving a longer shelf life. Maybe the parts of the plant we don't eat might be used to create plant based plastics, although its possible they are used to feed livestock...

       

    8. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You don't need wood, you need a biodegradable fibre source and a binder. The most logical fibre, should be obvious to everyone, hemp, low water use and easy to grow and it only takes one season to produce the crop. You plant trees for timber and not for fibre due to slow growth, it requires a premium price, that timber but not fibre can provide.

      So hemp based product, bound with a biodegradable binder, that preserves, protects and binds the fibre but breaks down under UV light. Slow to break down in the dark but breaks down quickly in sunlight and of course it should float. It should also be digestible by most creatures, break down in their stomach, slowly admittedly to be of use but, over a day, definitely break down.

      Sold in light blocking cardboard cartons, they do not need to be as durable as the items themselves. Hemp fibre still preferable to wood pulp. If you can grow the tree, grow a tree that produces select grade high worth timber, not cheap fibre, hemp is far and away more efficient and will use less water.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Increased carbon dioxide levels do increase plant growth for some plants grown in greenhouses.

      Sure, it just doesn't increase tree growth. It doesn't help all plants you might grow in a greenhouse, either. And in order to use more CO2 you need more insolation, but you also need to keep temperatures below 100 degrees (or so) because plants shut their stoma around there to decrease moisture loss. If you use supplemental light, and coolers in the hot season, then you can do meaningful CO2 enrichment.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When forests burn down, which they invariably will at some point, how do they manage to keep all of their carbon sequestered? Historically, forests used to burn all the time until they were managed by humans, and still they burn out of control for days, weeks, and months, before they can be put out. What, they keep carbon soot sequestered indefinitely? Oh. No resource is perfect and without it's drawbacks.

    11. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree that wood is a renewable resource.

      In response to your last point, young forests planted after harvesting are actually a carbon source, due to soil disturbances and decomposing litter left on site. After 5-10 years this starts to turn around, except in the boreal zone when it can last for longer.

      And a single old tree sucks much, much more carbon out of the atmosphere on an annual basis than a single young tree, simply due to size. One old tree can assimilate the same amount of carbon found in a full medium size tree...every single year! I believe someone else gave the reference to the Nature paper that talks about this.

      If your forest is on carbon-poor soil, if you harvest the whole tree (including underground biomass), and if you are creating products which decompose extremely slowly, then you are probably creating a net sink with your managed forest. You are talking about rotation lengths on the order of a century, though, where the stem wood is used for solid furniture and construction. Not products like disposable forks!

    12. Re:There are better ways, people learn over time by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      b) growing saplings fix a lot more CO2 from the atmosphere than mature trees do.

      What?
      A growing sapling produces like a gram of wood a year. A mature tree continues too increase its growth rate as it ages, so can produce upwards of hundreds of pounds of wood.
      Where is the sapling storing all this carbon?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  14. Sure, just wait a few million years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plastic is not the problem. True.

    Not recycling is. Since it will mean not taking away the trash and not replenishing your stock. So soon you will sit in your own excrements, like a very VERY primitivr lifeform.

    So to get what you want, while still recycling, you need to put dead animals underground for a few million years.
    Who have been part of a food chain, whose lowest lifeforms eat plastic.

    Deal?

    1. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever actually seen a recycling bin that was sorted correctly? I haven't.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have, but that was in EU.

    3. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I have, but that was in EU.

      That is because they have a Garbage-Gestapo going around checking everyone's bins, and issuing fines.

      This, of course, raises the cost of already uneconomical recycling even more.

      It is better to just not use so much plastic crap in the first place.

    4. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, come to a Canadian province.

    5. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I have,, I have three in my yard, plus the "trash" bin.
      Glass containers 2 corners away. On top of that paper collections once a month roughly.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you ever actually seen a recycling bin that was sorted correctly? I haven't.

      I see you've never been to Japan.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    7. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, our house hold sorts between, encforced by the communal garbage organisation.

      Paper/carton
      Glass (colored)
      Glass (white)
      Metallic
      Plastic (hard)
      Paper (A4)
      Organic waste
      Rest - Waste

      We have two garbage bins with 8 compartments, that's more or less matching a four people family.
      We have fines that if the gestapo officer, in this case the one who drives the garbage truck, hence no extra cost, have the capacity to fine or take a poorly sorted container into custody. You can have it back with paying a fine. This has been put into place because of the 1-3% who don't sort at all.

      Everything else you can dump at the garbage sorting station. (TV:s, tires, toilets, fridges). Most free, if you've already sorted it into the right compartment.

      It's a beautiful system, that probably could be improved upon, but in o sense is it a gestapo system.

    8. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish they did in my particular corner of the EU. I live in a set of flats with shared bins, and I constantly see things like platic bags in the composting bin. I dumped some vegetable peels in it this morning and there was a fucking pillow in it, of all things.

    9. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +7 informative.

    10. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Most plastic is not truly recycled (i.e. turned into the same material that it was), it is downcycled (i.e. turned into lower-grade plastic). Downcycled plastic extends the life of the plastic and is a lot better than just sticking it in landfill / oceans, but it still eventually ends up there. Truly recycling plastic requires a lot of energy (more than creating new plastic from oil, even from plant oil) and so is difficult to make an economic case for.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why not pay unemployed people minimum wage to sort though your perceived social problem while at the same time fixing another ignored social problem?

    12. Re: Sure, just wait a few million years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but polluting the ocean is better than Japan. Diversity is our strength!

    13. Re: Sure, just wait a few million years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I am posting this from Tokyo, Japan. Japanese take recycling seriously.

    14. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by aybiss · · Score: 1

      Yeah but now that the EU has done that, the US will be all "COMMUNISM!" and push back by using even more plastic shit.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    15. Re:Sure, just wait a few million years. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I guess it's just an American problem then. Apparently most Americans aren't as anal retentive/OCD as I am; I find it kind of annoying, actually. But then I actually pick up some of the litter they throw on the ground, too.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  15. Ban ALL plastic? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here at Microsoft, we have BioWare. Apparently it's not just the name of a game, it's all the name of biodegradable "plastic" utensils, which we're told to dispose of in the compost bin. Other places are using a corn-derived plastic substitute that is biodegradable.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Ban ALL plastic? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      BioWare was the name of a game development studio, not a game :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Ban ALL plastic? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Here at Microsoft, we have BioWare. Apparently it's not just the name of a game, it's all the name of biodegradable "plastic" utensils, which we're told to dispose of in the compost bin. Other places are using a corn-derived plastic substitute that is biodegradable.

      Splutter ... splutter ... you can't just go and make plastic that isn't bad!

      Where would we get our moral superiority then????

    3. Re:Ban ALL plastic? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Here at Microsoft, we have BioWare. Apparently it's not just the name of a game, it's all the name of biodegradable "plastic" utensils, which we're told to dispose of in the compost bin. Other places are using a corn-derived plastic substitute that is biodegradable.

      A few small restaurants around here use the same kind of thing. I like the goal of the legislation (assuming that the ban doesn't cover those compostable/biodegradable substitutes), but I think 2021 is a bit too aggressive of a deadline to allow those substitutes to be available widely enough.

    4. Re:Ban ALL plastic? by PPH · · Score: 1

      So Microsoft will buy them, shut down the gaming division and have all the devs cranking out plastic sporks.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Ban ALL plastic? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Best thing is to avoid disposable utensils as far as possible.

      Japan used to use a hell of a lot of wooden disposable chopsticks. First they started using recycled wood where possible. Now they switched to reusable ones and just wash them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Ban ALL plastic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't they trust you with metal utensils? Surely it is better to have reusable metal utensils that will last many years, than single use compostable ones.

  16. Paper or plastic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was a kid I was told that paper bags were the root of all evil, and it was a great environmental achievement that grocery stores switched to using plastic.

    Now its all paper bags and straws again. If you wonder why there are skeptics, well, this kind of shit is why.

    Is this actually about the environment or is it just corporations cutting costs and patting themselves on the back afterwards?

    1. Re:Paper or plastic? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's called churn. Wait, the cycle will come around again in a generation or so.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  17. "ocean plastics" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do not originate from places affected by this ban. such a ban will essentially 'save' only a single cubic meter of the entire fucking ocean (1.5E18 cubic meters total), as virtually all the plastic bits in it originate from asia (china, india, etc).. not from 'the west' (europe, north america)

  18. Re:Thats communism by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I don't understand... how do you get your plastic to play Fortnite?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  19. Re:Fox News faggots have no mind to lose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is Bruno? The guy from Popeye?

  20. ^ Pigmolester David Lawrence McKenzie is upset, aw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe one of his porcine brides escaped? Pooooor red state babydick.

  21. Bamboo by nwaack · · Score: 2

    Can anyone tell me why these things aren't being mass produced with bamboo? There's so much we could make out of bamboo and it grows so readily in so many places, yet it's so underutilized.

    1. Re:Bamboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cost, most likely.

    2. Re:Bamboo by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's a matter of the labor involved in farming and processing bamboo. If it takes more labor, it's more-expensive. Expense flows downstream to the consumer, which means people are poorer (you use more labor to make things, thus all human labor makes fewer things, thus people cannot buy as much because they cannot trade their labor for as much because of the laws of physics).

    3. Re:Bamboo by fazig · · Score: 2

      I am not sure about mass production, but many of these things are already available. Things like (possible multiuse) bamboo plates and cutlery as well as disposable straws, bowls, and cups are easily available all the time here in Germany through Amazon and some times through supermarkets/discounters as well.
      I suppose the main problem people have with these is their price. Most bamboo products are more expensive than single use plastic equivalents.

    4. Re:Bamboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use bambo for lots of things in Minecraft!

    5. Re:Bamboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bamboo is also considered an invasive weed in many parts of the world, you can't just go planting it anywhere because of how quickly it can spread and grow out of control.

    6. Re:Bamboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just introduce pandas. They'll keep the bamboo in check.

    7. Re:Bamboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those freaks of evolution would probably not survive the climate and or native species.

    8. Re:Bamboo by Freischutz · · Score: 0

      Can anyone tell me why these things aren't being mass produced with bamboo? There's so much we could make out of bamboo and it grows so readily in so many places, yet it's so underutilized.

      Because the Trump administration and the Republican hawks in congress are afraid the bamboo may be spying for China?

    9. Re:Bamboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, your average US Republican does not know or does not want to know how things work outside of the US. And they like to shit on the EU on every occasion.
      However they do not have a lot of stakes in this, because most of these products do not come from the US.
      The big cui bono here lies with eastern countries like China and Russia, or more specifically Putin (who has stakes in those industries). Supplying almost one third of the EU's crude oil imports, Putin has a vested interest in the EU countries to continue buying his fossil fuels. A lot of those disposable plastic products also happen to be imports from China.

    10. Re:Bamboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can anyone tell me why these things aren't being mass produced with bamboo? There's so much we could make out of bamboo and it grows so readily in so many places, yet it's so underutilized.

      Because the Trump administration and the Republican hawks in congress are afraid the bamboo may be spying for China?

      And Obama did....?????

  22. You did choose, not to do something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. From all possible things, you knowingly chose one with one of the smallest amounts [A] of "doing something".
    2. There are well-known things where you can do much larger amounts [B] with the same effort/cost.
    3. So you delinerately chose, NOT to do [B-A=C] amount of "something".
    4. To use your own argument: It is better to do something [A+C=B], than to do nothing [A+0=A]. I other words: [B>A]
    QED

    1. Re:You did choose, not to do something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect from libtards? They don't want to do anything actually helpful. Just do some lip service (and make other people pay for it) just to make themselves feel better than everybody else.

  23. Important by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Because the Baltic is full of garbage.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  24. I think this is the way to do things by pgmrdlm · · Score: 0

    If it wasn't that plastic one time bags can be seen on every street corner. I would argue against this because my house always reuse's them at least once.
    Unlike the bigot pussies(liberal AC's), I do read suggestions from opposing parties with an open mind, and a lot of times I can see the merit in the idea. In this case, I fully support the new law.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    1. Re:I think this is the way to do things by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Here they banned plastic bags, except "reusable" ones that cost 10 cents each. But since this is a wealthy area, only about 1 in 10 bother with the inconvenience of bringing your own bags (and those who do invariably use their own cloth bags, not the reusable plastic ones*), so now the garbage and streets contain almost the same number of bags, and the bags are 3-5x thicker. Doesn't seem to be much benefit, especially since the people already inclined to go out of their way to recycle could already return most of them to the dedicated plastic bag collection bin at both our big supermarkets, since recycling is practical when you have an uncontaminated stream of all the same type of plastic bag.

      * - Our big supermarket here is Shoprite, who used to offer a small discount if you brought your own bags. Then they eliminated the discount, and that virtually eliminated the practice. Now that you can avoid the same amount in extra charges, it's mostly back to its previous level, but for the 90% that don't bring their own, the bags are 3-5x thicker, and like I was saying, those don't actually get reused. Just reinstating the discount would have been better for the environment, to the extent this matters anyway.

  25. Re:^ Pigmolester David Lawrence McKenzie is upset, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One angry libtard here.

  26. Efficient Regulation by 0101000001001010 · · Score: 1

    I agree in principle that we should not needlessly waste oil or produce trash. But an outright ban has a habit of giving you unforeseen consequences in corner cases. We have market-based regulations available that produce the desired outcome at a lower cost. Place a Pigouvian Tax on manufacturing these items. Bonus: you can marginally lower some other tax or decrease deficits.

    1. Re:Efficient Regulation by lgw · · Score: 1

      has a habit of giving you unforeseen consequences in corner cases.

      Worried about the real-world consequences of a feel-good measure? if you're not conservative already, you're well on your way.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Efficient Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These disposable products are mostly produced outside of the EU. Import tariffs may be an idea here, taxing production not so much.

      Another thing that is often conveniently forgotten when it comes to a fossil fuel phase-out in the EU is that the EU does not have access to a lot of mineral oil in the first place.
      Of course there's some oil available, but that is not enough to keep things running as they currently are.
      There's some more significant black coal and lignite deposits there, but turning those into plastics, oil, and gas isn't such a good solution either as it is very expensive.

      In order to change this the EU would have to acquire access through war, like other states do, and here I can tell you that most people in the EU are not keen on war, or continue like it has done in the past by making itself dependent on fossil fuel imports.
      All of which come from questionable places like the middle East, Russia, and of course the US (which should be counted as questionable these days).

    3. Re:Efficient Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Place a Pigouvian Tax on manufacturing these items. Bonus: you can marginally lower some other tax

      How cute, he thinks that a tax will actually get lowered.

    4. Re:Efficient Regulation by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      I agree in principle that we should not needlessly waste oil or produce trash. But an outright ban has a habit of giving you unforeseen consequences in corner cases. We have market-based regulations available that produce the desired outcome at a lower cost. Place a Pigouvian Tax on manufacturing these items. Bonus: you can marginally lower some other tax or decrease deficits.

      I just want this plastic crap eliminated the mechanism why which that is achieved is immaterial if it works. Going the banning route just forces innovators to find better alternative solutions that are easier to dispose or recycle. I have every confidence in industry's ability to come up with new and better tech if they are forced to.

    5. Re:Efficient Regulation by 0101000001001010 · · Score: 1

      has a habit of giving you unforeseen consequences in corner cases.

      Worried about the real-world consequences of a feel-good measure? if you're not conservative already, you're well on your way.

      You know, I used to consider myself a social liberal and economic conservative because of your point. But I have gone the other way. No I consider myself a fully blown liberal because they will at least recognize that a market failure needs fixing.

    6. Re:Efficient Regulation by lgw · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confusing conservatives with anarchists, or perhaps with DC politicians. Funny how the two overlap.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Efficient Regulation by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I agree in principle that we should not needlessly waste oil or produce trash. But an outright ban has a habit of giving you unforeseen consequences in corner cases.

      I'd be happy if they would just write laws in ways that avoid the easily foreseen consequences. Sometimes, I think the average politician lacks the foresight of a goat. Other times, I'm sure of it.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Efficient Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a systematic problem in democracies.
      Foresight is not a requirement.

      Ask yourself why a politician should even care about long term solutions.
      They are just as greedy as everyone else.
      They usually can only hold their office for so long.
      They also rarely can see through those long term plans that require decades to pay off.
      If they aren't kicked out of office due to term limits, people may have already voted them out because some other, seemingly more immediate political issue has come. Issues that happen to be supported by the political opposition, which also wants to roll back all the things the previous government has done. And you're back at square one.
      But of course this process is essential to our democracies, since we want to prevent autocratic tyrannies with it.
      So why would they care about solutions with foresight if they can present reactionary quick fixes for issues, that earn them lots of votes if they ride the fear mongering well enough, and have the people that come after them deal with possible consequences of their actions?

      This is the ugly side of democracy, where the illiterates make decisions that impact everyone else, because they are in the majority.
      And unfortunately if we look at human history, the alternatives to democracy worked out even worse.

      The only possible solution I see for this dilemma is to get the public educated enough to think for themselves. Voters need to able to recognize these myopic and often only superficial quick fix solution and vote for those politicians with sensible ideas for a change.
      So this will probably never happen.

    9. Re: Efficient Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wise post.

  27. Re:Fox News faggots have no mind to lose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be Bluto. He said Bruno.

  28. 90% Of Ocean Plastics Come From Asia And Africa by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    https://www.ufz.de/export/data...

    So this is going to have how much of an effect ? If you want to spend money to fix a problem fine but try and put it to use where it will actually do some good.

  29. Not exactly correct by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can still make "plastic" plates cups and cutlery that are derived from:

    seaweed (in fact the basic science for this has been known for a decade) - this composts naturally, and is usually coated with a thin film that is not water soluble, but will eventually biodegrade if exposed to sunlight (will take longer if kept in landfills)

    vegetable fibers (we've used these in entire countries, and at most major universities - anyplace that you see the compost bin says "university plates, utensils and food containers are compostable") - made in large scale, these are fairly close to the costs of plastic.

    The early ones from around the 1990s melted too fast, the 2000s were a bit better, but the 2020 version is fairly good - the only exception is if you leave it in your hot (not warm, hot) drink for more than an hour. Why are you taking up a seat for that long? Use a biodegradable ceramic or metal or glass container if you're taking that long, slacker!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  30. Re:what a waste by lgw · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Want to fix plastic in the oceans? Simply enforce litter laws, and actually monitor that that garbage hauler the city pays doesn't simply dump the trash as sea.

    But those measures would cost the government money. Why do that when you can instead cost your subjects freedom?

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  31. Wrong Problem - distraction by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    I'm Canadian, we are the worst polluters in the world. 23 tons per person of green house gas*. Trump's America is only 19 tons. My plastic plates and utensils waste might not even be an entire kg in a year. Also in most of the western world we don't use our rivers as garbage dumps. The great plastic patch in the pacific isn't because people are using plastic bags it's because people are just dumping shit in their rivers. So seriously what fucking problem are these greens trying to solve? You want to solve global warming, get Canadian's to live in cities that are walkable. A person in London, England will with the same income as me will produce nearly 1/3rd the green house gas as me because they don't drive everywhere and their house shares a few walls with their neighbours.

    *the Canadian government has elected not to count environmental sources in our green house gas emissions. Due to mind mindbogglingly stupid management of our forests where we planted a single species of inbred trees on clear cut land. We now have large areas of dead and rotting trees that are causing our forest to be net contributors to green house gas emissions.

    1. Re:Wrong Problem - distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure Canadians use 23 tons of greenhouse gas per capita because of how cold and how long the winter is, not because the cities are any more or less dense than some supposed ideal.

      Being in the middle of the continent around 45-50 degrees latitude is brutal on the energy usage heating and cooling, since you get the worst of both worlds: you get freezing cold long winters (-20C / -4F) and hot/humid summers (35C / 95F). Depending on how hardy you are you probably run either the furnace or the central air for anywhere between 6-10 months out of the year. Spring and fall last for two-three weeks tops.

    2. Re:Wrong Problem - distraction by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      No, that's because of tar sands and long commutes in low mpg trucks.

      You can fix both. You can't even make a profit on tar sands below $70, of course, so massive subsidies are part of the economy.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Wrong Problem - distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter how much canadians reduce their output of carbon and plastic, the government will bring in millions of immigrants from places where they don't produce any, so the total produced will rise as they start to consume like canadians.

    4. Re:Wrong Problem - distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Canadian, we are the worst polluters in the world. 23 tons per person of green house gas*. Trump's America is only 19 tons. My plastic plates and utensils waste might not even be an entire kg in a year. Also in most of the western world we don't use our rivers as garbage dumps. The great plastic patch in the pacific isn't because people are using plastic bags it's because people are just dumping shit in their rivers. So seriously what fucking problem are these greens trying to solve? You want to solve global warming, get Canadian's to live in cities that are walkable. A person in London, England will with the same income as me will produce nearly 1/3rd the green house gas as me because they don't drive everywhere and their house shares a few walls with their neighbours.

      *the Canadian government has elected not to count environmental sources in our green house gas emissions. Due to mind mindbogglingly stupid management of our forests where we planted a single species of inbred trees on clear cut land. We now have large areas of dead and rotting trees that are causing our forest to be net contributors to green house gas emissions.

      1) Don't throw plastic in the river - solved

      2) Walk around Edmonton in winter - you will see why people have cars.

  32. Re:what a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why so mad?

  33. So funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This will last about two years and then the rebellion will occur as people will be fed up with the shit that they have to put up with. No plastic. What are you going to use glass? Aluminum? Paper and kill more trees?

    This is the dumbest generation in the history of humanity. We are devolving by listening to the children who with their 25 years of life or 300 months or living believe that they are smarted when in fact they are the most ignorant. If you have to search the Internet you simply don't know shit. Yet, this generation feels that searching the Internet is an indication of being smart.

    1. Re:So funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Biodegradable materials have come a long way.

    2. Re:So funny. by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Paper and kill more trees?

      The science behind paper has improved tremendously in the past 40 years. Enough that paper is actually a sustainable renewable resource, when coupled with sustainably managed forests. And North America is full of sustainably managed forests - the trees we use for paper grow quickly, are replaced quickly (we often overplant, so one tree cut down will be replaced by more than one sapling later on).

      We've stopped using old growth forests for stuff like paper decades ago now.

      Everything made of paper includes some amount of recycled paper in it, and it composts well. And it degrades very quickly. Heck, we stopped having to deal with the nasty unbleached recycled paper decades ago too.

      About the only place that uses virgin fiber is toilet paper. And that stuff is basically degraded by the time it reaches the sewer treatment plant. But again, that's from trees in a sustainably manged forest so wipe away.

      40 years ago, you're right, paper was a killer - acid rain, deforestation, etc. But 30 years ago the industry started changing, and 20 years ago we've had sustainably managed forests (a rare collaboration between industry and environmentalists) and we've been good ever since. We still overplant trees for the purpose so there is always more trees than we need (good to plan for future , uh, growth)

    3. Re:So funny. by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      Good point about this "youthful" mindset polluting institutional decision making. I kind of wonder, if the government *must* intervene (which, arguably, they shouldn't, but that's my American mindset), why the only tool at their disposal seems to be *banning*? Why can't they do something like offer grants to incentivize inventing a better alternative to these polluting plastics? Or give tax breaks to restaurant chains that use non-plastic stuff? Or give tax breaks to companies who package things with materials comprising less than a pre-defined threshold of plastic?

      BTW, I just ate at a Boston Market (fast food chain in the US), and was surprised to see non-plastic utensils. Then, I looked more closely. The metal was actually cloudy from not being cleaned properly, with spots of some type of mystery substance, and kind of rough and sticky. I would have loved having some packaged one-time-use plasticware so I could avoid worrying about my dirty silverware. I would say this (possibility of germ-infested utensils) is likely one of many unintended consequences of moving away from one-time-use plastics.

    4. Re:So funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, we are trying to find ways of fighting climate change and hordes of gradstudents are aiming for high-tech ways of carbon sequestration. The easiest and cheapest technology to do that? Legislation to switch to paper products. Throw that waste in a landfill.

      Done. Carbon sequestered.

    5. Re:So funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People will have to use reusable containers made of glass, plastic, and other materials. In the past I welcomed taxing these items, but we have waited so long doing nothing. The companies producing this shit are responsable, but are not taken to cover damages, for example loss of biodiversity in the oceans. If we change the economy to make companies 100% responsible for their products, we do not need to ban nothing. But we are not there yet, and the ban is welcome now. Ruanda, a poor country of Africa, banned plastic bags. Why they are faster than first-world countries? It is a shame to not care for our environment and allow businesses to do everything and we all pay the price for it. We have research in economy how to fix the problems of neoliberalism with a better model, but politics is very slow to adapt it. I do not want to pay for trash, the companies producing it have to pay for it! There are many countries in latin america lacking an adecuate treatment of trash: no separation, and people throw trash in the streets. People go to a diner and ask for a styrofoam package although they eat there and not carry their lunch to home. Many people really are careless and have no idea of the damage they do to the environment. This has to stop, by regulation. Ban or high tax, this helps for now. For the future taking responsible the manufacturers for the whole product cycle will help in general.

    6. Re:So funny. by Phillip2 · · Score: 1

      We've just switched to using compostable, biodegradable materials, either plastic like materials for the knifes and forks, and paper based materials for the plates. They are different in feel, and touch. They last as well for the duration of the meal and they get the food into your mouth. It all works perfectly well.

      Is it window dressing? A little. It's drinking bottles are the real problem. But, still, it is better than nothing and big things are made of lots of small things.

  34. Re:Thats communism by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    I want my stuff made of new virgin plastic.

    There are several bioplastics made from starch or cellulose that are good substitutes for petro-plastics in many applications. The biggest drawback is cost. We need more R&D to bring the price down.

    Some of the starch-based plastics are edible. Where I work we bought a big box of bioplastic packing peanuts. We soon had an infestation of mice in our warehouse. They were munching down on the peanuts, and had chewed through the cardboard boxes they came in. That was over a year ago, and the warehouse still smells like mouse poop.

  35. deck chairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That Titanic orchestra is playing its ass off.

  36. Re:Thats communism by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    Drink the mountain dew, eat the bottle!
    Shades of Willy Wonka!

  37. Re:Thats communism by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Little known fact: not all tree knots are assholes!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  38. Re:what a waste by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Want to fix plastic in the oceans? Simply enforce litter laws

    Good luck. Nearly all the plastic in the Pacific come from Asian countries that have no cultural tradition of caring about things like litter. More than half of the plastic comes from a single country: China. And most of that enters the sea from a single river. That is why schemes to clean up the ocean are so misguided. It would make much more sense to just clean up the Changjiang (Yangtze) River.

  39. Beer and Wine by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 1

    Nothing better than a beer in a paper cup!

    --
    Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
    1. Re:Beer and Wine by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      How about a glass one?

    2. Re:Beer and Wine by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 1

      When you are in a festival, concert, hockey game, ... they give your beer in a plastic glass.

      --
      Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
    3. Re:Beer and Wine by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      How about ceramic then?

    4. Re:Beer and Wine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point being that they do this for security reasons.
      Drunk morons at the ball game or festival can't do that much damage with disposable plastic cups than with those made of hard materials that can shatter into sharp pieces.

      To me the obvious, intermediate solution would be to use plastic cups that are not as flimsy as disposable coups. Maybe made from a bit thicker plastic and from materials that can be cleaned. And then attach a refundable deposit to them.
      People will hate it in the beginning, because you need to attach a price tag is a significant enough incentive, which of course may make some beverages more than twice as expensive.
      For example here in Germany you pay an additional .25€ for most beverages. People hated it, but came to accept it.
      From personal observation I can tell that this method works wonders in Germany, where people either return their cans, plastic, and glass bottles, or still dump them somewhere to have the poor and homeless become garbage collectors and return them for the .25€ a piece.
      As a result littering has been reduced quite a bit. Although I can't really say much about recycling or down cycling. Just because that stuff is moved out of our sight, as in not littering the streets and cities any more, does not mean it gets re-processed properly.

  40. Re:what a waste by Luckyo · · Score: 2

    These measures do a grand total of about zero to plastic waste in oceans. About 90% of it comes from major Asian and African rivers. Most of the rest is from the various coastal nations on the same continents. Which in turn overwhelmingly come in large part from single use packaging of single portion perishables which don't even exist in wealthier countries. Packaging which notably in turn is responsible for massive reduction of human death and suffering from various poisonings due to perishables actually perishing due to bad packaging, or portions being bigger than single portion which means perishing due to lack of refrigeration.

    Essentially all plastic in EU is already either recycled or burned. What little ends up in waterways is usually the stuff that people from non-European cultures such as tourists just discard as they are used to. And numbers we're talking about are utterly irrelevant. This is not US with its "dirty plastics" issues, most EU states already recycle "clean" plastic and burn the "dirty" one. Those that don't will have to implement it shortly, as China no longer accepts dirty plastics as "recyclable".

    This is nothing but virtue signalling by politicians aimed at wealthy urbanites that will have no meaningful impact on plastic garbage problem in oceans, but will severely inconvenience a lot of poor people in EU, who actually rely on cheap packaging and cutlery to stay cheap, as they cannot afford more expensive packaging without taking a meaningful hit to their already low quality of life.

  41. "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Bill got caught lying 12-25 times repeatedly stating "Blood plasma is sterile" and then later that "The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens" and other absolute bullshit head-in-ass retard-level lies. You're not trustworthy.

    You are not a source of information that anyone should or even could trust, knowing your dishonest history. Sorry. That's what accountability means when you get caught lying repeatedly, over and over, even after directly corrected.

    You're nothing but a liar, Bill.

  42. Virtue signalling at it's best by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    Why doesn't th eUS and the EU simply ban anything made of plastic, and make it a capital crime to be caught using it?

    THis will without doubt, fuolly and certainly cure thed problem. Plastics will disappear from th eoceans overnight, never to plague thte world again.....

    Oh...hold on..... No it won't. Because the EU isn't the problem, and the USA isn't the problem.

    This won't remotely put a dent in the problem. Because the countries that are the problem don't give a damn other than being really happy that other countries are being blamed for what they are doing.

    Virtue signalling that accomplishes nothing. Billy said it best: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't th eUS and the EU simply ban anything made of plastic, and make it a capital crime to be caught using it?

      THis will without doubt, fuolly and certainly cure thed problem. Plastics will disappear from th eoceans overnight, never to plague thte world again.....

      Oh...hold on..... No it won't. Because the EU isn't the problem, and the USA isn't the problem.

      This won't remotely put a dent in the problem. Because the countries that are the problem don't give a damn other than being really happy that other countries are being blamed for what they are doing.

      Virtue signalling that accomplishes nothing. Billy said it best: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

      This won't do anything but punish the people that are not polluting.

      https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/07/26/asia-africa-cause-90-plastic-pollution-worlds-oceans-13233

    2. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by Phillip2 · · Score: 1

      "Virtue signalling that accomplishes nothing."

      Years ago, we used to have ring pulls. Now, we have ring pushes. No longer are cities and countries covered with ring pulls. No longer do you risk lacerations from ring pulls on the beach.

      Do we still have rubbish in our cities? Well, yes. Can you still get your feet cut on broken glass on the beach? Well, yes. But it is better than it was, and this is no nothing, it is a good thing.

      Getting rid of plastic cutlery is a small thing also. But, it is probably a good thing, unless it becomes an excuse for not doing other things. But, let's give it the benefit of the doubt. It is signalling virtue, because it is virtuous. Not very virtuous, but a little bit.

    3. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't America just shoot half the population. I mean that would have a bigger net positive impact on the environment than your suggestion so let's go with that.

      Oh...hold on..... No it won't. Because the EU isn't the problem, and the USA isn't the problem.

      Indians shit on the street. Which means it's okay for you to go an shit in the street. After all it's Indias fault. We all live on our own little earth and me throwing a plastic cup on the ground is okay because someone else did it too. waaaaahhhhh.

        I take it you're a Trump voter. No that wasn't a question.

    4. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "Virtue signalling that accomplishes nothing."

      Years ago, we used to have ring pulls. Now, we have ring pushes. No longer are cities and countries covered with ring pulls. No longer do you risk lacerations from ring pulls on the beach.

      Do we still have rubbish in our cities? Well, yes. Can you still get your feet cut on broken glass on the beach? Well, yes. But it is better than it was, and this is no nothing, it is a good thing.

      Getting rid of plastic cutlery is a small thing also. But, it is probably a good thing, unless it becomes an excuse for not doing other things. But, let's give it the benefit of the doubt. It is signalling virtue, because it is virtuous. Not very virtuous, but a little bit.

      Yes - the EU will tidy up their part of the globe, shuffling the papers around, insuring every glass is in place, making it so wonderful, and that everyone will feel sssooooo good, while China and Africa, will continut to do as they will, dumping huge amounts of plastic into th eworld's oceans. Then the hand wringers will wonder and come to the decision "We need to ban more!! We banned all of this plastic, and th eproblem hasn't gone away! Make all plastics illegal - you can't have plastic pollution if there are no plastics!"

      Perhaps I am the dumbest ass on the planet, but in troubleshooting a problem, I've always thought that you find the source of the problem, then you fix it. You can't fix a problem by not fixing the problem.

      You'll forgive me if I think that fixing a problem by blaming something that isn't a problem, then eliminating the not a problem, and not fixing it at all, is stupid, counterproductive, and plain weird.

      Buit if you all EU citizens want to pat yourself on the back that knowing that by disrupting industries and people's lifestyles will fix perhaps 1 percent of the problem, well then be virtuous and prosper.

      I can't even call this sarcasm, when it is a mere statement of truth.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The EU introduced RoHS that limited things like the use of leaded solder in consumer products. People would have moaned about "virtue signalling" but the term hadn't been invented back then.

      What actually happened is that the rest of the world basically adopted RoHS since it made more sense to build one product for every market than to make a special one for the EU. The lives of people everywhere were improved because the electronics they were buying had less lead and other hazardous substances in them, even though it was an EU rule. Your welcome.

      Same thing will happen again. The demand from the EU market for non-plastic disposable cutlery, containers and packaging will drive cost down and it will end up being used everywhere.

      The EU using it's vast market as a force for good is one of the best things about it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by aybiss · · Score: 1

      Yeah no, I think pretty much you're the dumbest ass on the planet. See what you do is, instead of just looking and seeing someone else isn't doing the right thing and going "well I"m not doing it either", you grow the fuck up and look to your own actions.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    7. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by aybiss · · Score: 1

      Ahhh yes. One of these days I will visit the Republic of Hot Scrags, where they make all the computers. [wistful sigh]

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    8. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The EU introduced RoHS that limited things like the use of leaded solder in consumer products. People would have moaned about "virtue signalling" but the term hadn't been invented back then.

      What actually happened is that the rest of the world basically adopted RoHS since it made more sense to build one product for every market than to make a special one for the EU.

      And yet, for critical systems, Tin lead or silver tin lead are still in use. The solders that don't contain lead have an issue with something called Tin Whiskers. And it affected a lot of electronics. Here's a listing of the EU's improvements with their new solder formulations https://nepp.nasa.gov/WHISKER/....

      The lives of people everywhere were improved because the electronics they were buying had less lead and other hazardous substances in them, even though it was an EU rule.

      Do you have the citations of solder creating health problems? It's a cool story bro, but responsible recycling is the answer, not creating more problems.

      Your welcome.

      I'll say thank you when the EU pays for all the damage they instigated. Now it isn't likely you are familiar with all of the problems caused by the switch away from leaded solder, including problems caused when someone tried to use lead free to repair solder joints on tin lead boards. But your example isn't really a good one.

      And now on my workbench, I have to keep several different compositions of solder, including 50/50 and the standby 63/37 tin/lead mixtures and hope I choose the right ones for whatever equipment I'm working onbecause you don't want mix. All the different metals mix together, and can create different melting points, brittle and other bad joints. In an interesting twist, the materials used as a substitute like antimony is considered an impurity - and it is toxic as well - symptoms similar to arsenic poisoning. I really do think it's a case of TANSTAAFL.

      Regardless, there is nothing wrong with being a spearhead of change. But change done to make you feel good is just like I said - virtue signaling, not fixing a problem.

      Recycling is the answer, not making something illegal. Tin/lead solder is till in use for mission critical electronics, and the EU banning plastic will not stop the people who are causing the problem. Good luck with that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yeah no, I think pretty much you're the dumbest ass on the planet. See what you do is, instead of just looking and seeing someone else isn't doing the right thing and going "well I"m not doing it either", you grow the fuck up and look to your own actions.

      There was a guy driving down the street one evening. He saw a man looking around under street light. He stopped and asked the guy what the problem was...

      "I lost my car keys".

      "Where's your car at"

      "Oh, about a thousand feet up the road. They fell out of my pocket up there."

      "Well why are you looking down here for them?

      The light down here is a lot better than up there!"

      You want to fix a problem, you fix it. You want to feel good about yourself, pretend you are fixing it while doing absolutely nothing.

      You want to fix the plastic in the ocean problem, go to where the problem is, not where it isn't. The "light" might be better in the EU, but you find the problem in Asia and Africa.

      You recycle. You first get the plastic out of the riverine environment. Concurrently, you educate people to stop dumping their plastic in the rivers. There's a hella lot of it, Recycle it. That will fix the problem, not banning it in the EU.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by aybiss · · Score: 1

      That depends what problem you think you're fixing. If you want to fix the trash problem in Asia and Africa, then sure, go there and fix that. If you want to fix the trash problem in the EU, then you fix it there.

      Again, all you're really saying is "but he did it more than me, miss!", like a fucking 5 year old.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    11. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      RoHS has exemptions for "critical systems", including aerospace.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      RoHS has exemptions for "critical systems", including aerospace.

      Yes. It was a painful process finding out why. But it all comes down to the replacements for plain old tin/lead solder being inferior. And not always less poisonous.

      Whereas at one time, the composition of solder was based on the conditions it was used for, politically based physics seldom beats reality. Removing lead from paints, water conduit and piping, and especially automotive use makes perfect sense. As well as all the other primitive uses. We've already come up with superior product replacements.

      I'm a little surprised that the EU hasn't banned Lead/acid batteries for automobile use.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      That depends what problem you think you're fixing. If you want to fix the trash problem in Asia and Africa, then sure, go there and fix that. If you want to fix the trash problem in the EU, then you fix it there.

      Again, all you're really saying is "but he did it more than me, miss!", like a fucking 5 year old.

      My, such a cogent argument. Here's the flaw. I promote recycling, not trashing. I keep writing that, but the guy (you) who can't post a reply without insults and profanity doesn't seem to be able to read.

      Recycling is not trashing. Trashing is throwing stuff away. Recycling is using it again. You are having imaginary arguments with me, and discarding what I write in order to fulfill some internet muscle anger management problem.

      Regardless there really isn't much point in discussing it with you, so good day sir.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reduction of helpful substances? :D

    15. Re:Virtue signalling at it's best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a fun story and all, but not really applicable.
      It's more like where your whole neighborhood is trashy and you clean up the tires from your front yard but someone has a pile in the yard next door. You can't clean his up because it's not your yard and he doesn't want you to, but you've made the neighborhood just a little bit better by cleaning yours up. Maybe your good example will be followed and maybe not, but to say it does nothing is a lie. We should fix what we control.
      I don't expect EU rules to fix USA pollution either, though it's funny that you should call it "virtue signalling" in a derogatory manner as if it does nothing, when the signalling itself is a communication! It signals!

  43. Lying Republicans are the problem. Kill em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^ Solve the problem, kill these lying GOP faggots one by one. The only solution Nazi Republican faggots understand is a bullet to their lying obese inbred faggot faces. No quarter, kill them all as God intended of lying faggots.

    Nobody will miss them.

  44. You know there is wood plastic, yes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is plastic that is made from wood. And paper gets soggy.

    Just use fucking re-usable cutlery. What's the fucking problem anyway? Nobody on the planet needs single-use cutlery.

  45. Re:what a waste by Whorhay · · Score: 2

    I don't know about the EU, as I don't live there, but here in the USA I see plenty of Joe Blow pieces of shit littering on a regular basis. The mayor of my city even ran on a campaign a few years back of enforcing litter laws and whatnot. When I tried to call and report littering that I had seen I got laughed off the phone line. Each offense is supposed to be a $500 fine, which you'd think the municipal government would be tripping over themselves to collect, but nope. Around here it definitely isn't an immigrant problem, it's a jackass problem.

  46. Big mistake!! by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Cutting brownies is impossible without plastic knives.

  47. I like it: Let's go US, our turn! by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    Yep, I love this idea. Plastic has creeped into everything. My mom recently told me when she was a kid, there were few fast food places, but you could stop by certain places with delis. The delis would give you a glass to go plate... I take it you'd recycle the glass later.

  48. Bovine excrement virue signaling by mattb47 · · Score: 1

    Plastic straws/knives/plates/etc. make up a tiny portion of plastic waste. Europe (and the US) make up a tiny portion of ocean plastic waste. Almost all is from Asia and Africa.

    So the net change to this is near zero. This is all virtue signaling and will have no real change to pollution.

    Meanwhile, it will inconvenience hundreds of millions of people.

    Absolute bovine excrement.

  49. Tires & Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ban all plastic based paint and synthetic rubber tires, those are a major source of plastic pollution.

  50. Re:"Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yep as "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar his point that plastic spoons are not as good as Metal spoons for digging ditches is irrelevant.

    you a knob mate.

  51. Don't stress by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    They banned plastic stuff in my part of California, and I have to tell you, nothing has changed except less wasted plastic. When you go to a restaurant or fast food, instead of dropping a straw in front of you that you ignore and ends up in the trash, you have to actually say, "I'll take a straw, please" (and the please is only required if you happened to have been raised right, which leaves out Trump voters, but to be honest, we leave out Trump voters generally here in California). It's absolutely no big deal and life goes on. So don't be such goddamn drama queens about it. You would think not automatically getting a straw is like being put in chains and forced to do manual labor for the collective. You'll live, you fat bastards, and you shouldn't be shoving that fast food down your neck anyway. Go home and cook yourself some vegetables.

    Anyway, the biodegradable paper straws are far superior for snorting coke. Less waste all around.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  52. Re:what a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would recommend that the countries doing something about it adapt the customs: Countries who do not have a regulation are penalized at the frontier. We really need another motivation for governments: If they do nothing, their economy suffers. We do not have time to wait for China. Let us charge them for doing nothing. This is compensation for the damages they do to the environment which is shared by the whole humanity.

  53. should ban kinder supprice eggs also! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should ban kinder supprice eggs also!
    they are so full of plastic and crap...

  54. Re:what a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that this is only a problem of third world countries. In Germany at least people talk when other people throw some trash in the streets. In Dominican Republic people do it all the time and ignore requests to stop it. There shall be a law but it does not seem to be enforced. This is a huge problem because of lack of education about the environment. People get sick because of this, but they do not know. I have been taught in school from grade 5, and a neighbor has gifted me a book about the destruction of the environment at age 9. It helps to talk to people, because if more of us do it, there will be a change.

  55. Blexit by markdavis · · Score: 1

    Then...

    Frexit
    Grexit
    Itexit
    Spexit

    etc...

  56. How about tick-walled waxed paper straws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would those not work great?

    IMHO, stanless steel straws would be a much better choice. Or safe glass ones for restaurants that have a higher class of clients who can be expected to not be retards and blame themselves if they are.

    Or bamboo ones. That would actually be great. They could even be made to last for many uses!

  57. Use glass by anarcobra · · Score: 1

    Use glass.
    It can be recycled infinitely, and if you want you can reuse the bottles and plates.

  58. Re:As someone who owns lying faggot Dunbal daily. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    All better now, AC? Got it off your chest? I don't have to prove anything to anyone. I am certainly not desperate enough to need to be believed to give up my anonymity - especially to the likes of you. You don't have to believe me. Your lack of belief doesn't make what I said any less true.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  59. AC snowflakes! by DogDude · · Score: 1

    This will last about two years and then the rebellion will occur as people will be fed up with the shit that they have to put up with.

    Oh, you delicate little AC snowflake you. Heaven forbid you have to use paper or glass or aluminum.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  60. Bullshit by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, it will inconvenience hundreds of millions of people.

    Well, that's certainly the most important thing, isn't it? "Convenience". You must be American. I've only heard Americans spouting, "I don't want to help save our environment because it will inconvenience me." Jesus Christ, that's a level of selfishness that you must be proud of.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Bullshit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ, that's a level of selfishness that you must be proud of.

      It's not uncommon, Americans are the only ones dumb/honest/narcissistic enough to admit to it in any significant number, though. But everyone loves convenience. It equates to time saved, and that time can then be spent in typical other ways, like navel-gazing or masturbation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  61. Re: what a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well said. It feels good to know there is at least one other rational person.

  62. Let's shout what we're gonna do, together 3..2..1. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOTHING! Yay!

    Bring on the excuses... It's too hard, too expensive, doesn't do enough, goes too far, inconveniences me personally, or, my favorite, doesn't matter anyway.

    May your children all die in a hot, resource scarce world...

  63. How will you throw USA-themed parties? by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Where will you get red Solo cups? Perhaps you can import them...

  64. Re:what a waste by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    And most of that enters the sea from a single river.

    *sigh*. Another person who read the headline rather than the report. I hate to break it to you but no where near that ... little ... plastic enters the oceans through rivers. Now do yourself a favour, find the news article with the headline you looked up and actually read the report behind it. Look at the conclusions, then look at the study (notice how it was a study of only plastic that goes into rivers), and then look at the references to find a link to how much plastic actually goes in the ocean through rivers.

    All the while remember, Indians shit on the street, then go outside and shit in your own street smug in the reality that it's India's fault.

  65. 2025 Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EU To Ban Plastic Plates, Cups, and Cutlery by 2021; Will Require Plastic Bottles Be Made of 25% Recycled Content By 2025

    EU Ravaged By Rapidly Spreading Diseases In Hospitals, Prisons, And Other Institutions Washing And Reusing Cutlery And Dishware

    The EU is second to none in the race for the Darwin Award.

    1. Re:2025 Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have always been reusing cutlery and dishware in hospitals in Europe. Maybe there are exceptions, but that has been the rule without issues.

      Geez, at times I'm surprised how morons like you are even able to breathe. I'd like to pretend that it's only trolling.

  66. Re:what a waste by Barsteward · · Score: 0

    Was that perhaps because the China took all the rubbish from western countries until quite recently?

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  67. Re:what a waste by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    That because related numbers in US while significantly worse than in most of EU, are also quite irrelevant, especially because if the trash annoys you, it's probably not in the waterways but on the streets. Which in turn means it's going to get cleaned off the streets and burned. So it's not going into the oceans.

  68. Has anyone asked the important question? by sabbede · · Score: 1
    That is, "Is this the cheapest way to deal with plastic waste?"

    What will be cheaper, the replacement for disposable dishes and cutlery plus the cost of transitioning to them, or cleaning up the trash?

    Have we considered that it might be cheaper to let it all gather in that one part of the Pacific where it all seems to be ending up anyhow, and just sweep it up?

    Maybe it isn't. Maybe it would be worse to do it that way regardless. I don't know, which is why the question needs to be asked and answered.

  69. Europe To Ban The EU By 2022 by maxbuzz · · Score: 0

    In 2025 the world bans bureaucracy

  70. Re:what a waste by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    The trash in the streets might get picked up by concerned citizens, the city certainly isn't sending round work crews except on the most heavily trafficked roads. Most of the time though it gets washed into the storm drainage system, which eventually flows to a river.

  71. Re:As someone who owns lying faggot Dunbal daily. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Your lack of belief doesn't make what I said any less true.

    You did that all on your own. What you said was false. Old growth sequesters more carbon than new growth. If only you knew what you were talking about, you might have something to add to this conversation, but you don't, so why not STFU?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  72. Wrong type of plastic product by stevent1965 · · Score: 1

    I work at a landfill. Plastic plates, cups and cutlery aren't even on the radar. Now, plastic bags, plastic wrap, and chip/crisps/cookie/biscuit bags...ban those if you really want to have a positive effect on the environment.

    1. Re:Wrong type of plastic product by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I work at a landfill. [...] plastic bags, plastic wrap, and chip/crisps/cookie/biscuit bags...ban those if you really want to have a positive effect on the environment.

      I've been wondering, what effect does compostable packaging have at your end? Any?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  73. Re:Thats communism by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    R&D isn't magic. You cannot create plastic from sunlight for free, using oil is the closest you will ever come.

    And I never really understood that type of environmentalism. Biofuel, bioplastics; Lets use 5 barrels of oil to produce some product out of plants, that we can currently create using 1 barrel of oil if we just chemically modify the oil.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.