Transcript: https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=3XGIxUXDWqw
The video shows how alternatives may not be real solutions for many of those in need. I see it as an example of how we shouldn’t theorize solutions based only in our limited point of view or accept blindly that those in power did their due diligence and are not just in it for optics.
Their production process requires industrial equipment and/or intervention in order to produce the necessary components. So by virtue of it (the process) not occurring in nature the committee decided that it would not qualify for exemption. It would not be out of reason to make an exemption for it as they have done so in other instances. It just doesn’t have the same voice as other plastics/plastic alternatives have yet. But that’s particularly why it needs support to develop and gain viability. But right now it feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water
The criterion for acceptability is that it must be made by a natural process? Not that it must not generate slow-degrading waste? Why? I thought the whole problem was that plastic waste takes forever to degrade.
You can read more about it here:
https://www.european-bioplastics.org/policy/single-use-plastics-directive/
The aim was to limit and ban single use plastics. Which of course is aligned with but yet still different from finding a permanent solution. It’s also aimed at demonstrating progress. I understand not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good but plastic straws being banned without a viable solution and indirectly hindering development of a solution (in the case of PHA) isn’t a good step