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.
Straws account for a very minute amount of plastic waste but was selected because 1) one of the most often seen plastic refuse on beaches and 2) it was felt that it had the least impact on consumers daily lives and therefore easiest to live without.
Also they’re banned valid alternatives like bio plastics from PLA or PHA that would degrade much faster and be completely safe for people and other lifeforms. PHA biodegrades in less than 60 days in the ocean.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 1•11 months ago
Why are they banned, then?
As stated: 1) they were top 10 most visible items found on beaches so it would have been a visible change that everyone could appreciate and 2) it was deemed low impact on individuals lifestyles so therefore easiest to mandate successfully. It was meant to be a gateway ban and work from there.
However as many have pointed out it leads to what’s called “greenwashing” which is a largely symbolic gesture that has little to no impact. For example the sippy lids used by Starbucks actually uses more plastic than a straw? And while people counter with the fact that the lids are recyclable and straws are not - please remember that the recycling rates of most countries is abhorrently low. McDonalds famously launched paper straws that also were not recyclable.
Meanwhile PHA straws could be the perfect solution because it behaves like plastic but biodegrades in under 60 days and is entirely not harmful to people or animals. Point is things are sometimes complicated and they need to be accessed carefully.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 2•11 months ago
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to ask why PLA/PHA straws are banned.
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
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 1•11 months ago
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
Some of the higher end restaurants where I live, are providing straws that are made of pasta or something. The do not degrade while in the drink like the paper ones do, but I am sure they are more expensive to make.