No more slurping through plastic straws in San Francisco - Sensationalist Headlines

As a frequent in SF, I think they should focus on the actual human shit and homeless problem plaguing the streets.

http://i63.tinypic.com/1530efo.gif

A syringe is probably about <6 grams in weight (taking a 10 pack on amazon converting its weight to a single syringe). Which means the syringe has probably just about as much plastic as a straw/lid combo at Starbucks at about 4 grams, and certainly more than a straw. Not to mention how biohazardous and dangerous this item tends to be And San Francisco hands out about 4.45 million syringes a year. Which equates out to one city putting out 30 tons of plastic from syringes alone per year (18 tons if you count returned syringes, tho I imagine they get tossed away, and alot still end up discarded on the streets). Which is quite a bit when you consider straws made up like 2000 tons per year for the whole country in my early numbers. Probably would be a double win if San Francisco could figure out how to reduce their drug problem and stop issuing out plastic syringes.

It's better than doing nothing and the benefits will add up over time. There is no reason not to ween ourselves off of single-use plastics as alternatives become viable. ...they were made photobiodegradable so that animals could escape from them. In any case, 6 pack rings aren't a major issues, roughly on the same level as straws. Do you really think the people pulling for plastic straw bans wouldn't prefer far more radical approaches to preventing pollution and generally promoting a healthier environment? Yeah I'm gonna need a citation for this one. how do you know how people feel? Ok but what specifically do you want to do, and why are these things mutually exclusive with banning plastic straws?

You're arguing with a Tudd alt, don't bother.

I also can't find any sources saying plastic straws are photodegradable. I'm having trouble finding how long exactly it takes them to decompose but it seems roughly the same as other plastics, on the order of hundreds of years.

It is actually close to nothing is a better way to phrase it. No, I actually totally think they would be for more radical measures. It just shows a lack of consistency and imo creeping policy that the debate is hyper-focused on just straws though. Also you know asking for a citation on how people feel is dubious at best. I think it is pretty demonstrable in this thread even that some people think this will make a difference despite the numbers showing negligible impact in the fraction of a fraction percentage range. Specifically it would be nice if people and media focused their efforts on domestic waste that had bigger impacts percentage-wise or atleast be consistent/honest and suggest banning all one-time use plastic items. That and if they could maybe just at least mention the actual major contributors of plastic waste since this seems pretty much neglected. But regardless the question isn't if it is mutually exclusive, that is a faulty premise I never presented, the issue this doesn't really do anything and isn't actually needed that much. I am all for alternatives being devised and used, but I am going to continually point out this is largely a feel-good measure at the moment and at the current scale.

what in the fuck did this come from exactly? Clean syringes are a great way to combat blood borne illnesses and they recycle the old syringes. Basically addicts come in, give old syringes, get new ones. But considering its "I can't believe it's not tudd ™" I can see where you pulled that comparison from (here's a hint, its called your ass).

On the other hand, momentum is a thing politically

Other than the ocean pollution, single use plastics are also a waste of petrochemicals, both in their manufacture and transport around the world. It's not just pollution. How does it show a lack of consistency, and how is the debate "hyper-focused" on straws? I think the reason you are seeing a lot of news articles about straws is because it is (or rather, should be) a relatively easy and straightfoward way to reduce reliance on single use plastics. There is very little downside (to the point of being negligable) and observable benefits. It's the difference between a small difference and no difference. Maybe try forming a more convincing argument for why people should oppose plastic bans instead of just assuming people are giving up their straws and then the fight. This is nonsensical. You say "people and media" should focus their efforts on domestic waste that had bigger impacts, then said "they could maybe just at least mention the actual major contributors of plastic waste that seems pretty much neglected". You said the same thing twice and didn't answer my question. What are the major sources of waste you want them to talk about? What does this have to do with China? Environmentalists are raising awareness about plastic straws and you are telling them to get stuffed. Your position makes no sense. It's not a feel good measure if it has an observably beneficial effect. As long as alternatives exist or are within reach, reducing use of single-use plastics is a net benefit. I'm grappling with why someone on the right who so thoroughly supports the Republican party and Donald Trump feels the need to chide environmentalists for not focusing on the things that matter, without even bothering to explain what those things are, besides some mention of China being a huge polluter. Which is bad, but I'm not sure what you think the beaucrats in charge of San Francisco can do about that.

This whole plastic straw debacle is such a non-issue. They contribute very little to the overall pollution and even if we lived in a world with no plastic straws, the environmental benefit would be almost unnoticeable. Like many have said, industry, mainly from Asia, is largely responsible for the pollution. If you want to see a real change to the environment then target who's responsible, not some silly little straws.

This isn't an either-or scenario, it doesn't matter if it's not much of the over all problem. It's still a big problem

idk man it does bring the issue of single-use plastics to people's minds and encourages people to change their consumption habits to be more eco-friendly. Which is part of the effort to tackle climate-change and environmental degradation. I think this is already proving its own success based on the fact that it requires fuck-all effort from the average person and people are talking about how their consumption habits have environmental consequences. Besides, the kind of cynicism that dictates that if you cannot fix the problem immediately then incremental solutions are worthless is completely counter-productive and only serves to reinforce the status-quo. Yeah, pollution from shipping and industry is a bigger issue but that shouldn't be an excuse to not make changes at a smaller level.

If you are going to make the same argument Tudd did 4 hours ago can you at least explain what you want American's to do about China's pollution. "China pollutes a lot and that is bad" is probably not a statement that is going to get pushback from many environmentalists calling for plastic straw bans but I'm struggling to see how it's relevant at all to the topic at hand.

How exactly is it that big of a problem? If the world eliminates plastic straws it will pretty much have no noticeable benefit. The phone and computer you're using probably have a higher environmental impact than your use of plastic straws. Don't quote me on this but I feel like if paper straws were the norm then there would be an increase in paper production meaning cutting down more trees, with machines that require fuel, transported to factories to be processed and then shipped out with more vehicles that use fuel. You pretty end up with the same environmental impact. The environmental impact of plastic straws is so minuscule that there is no need to care about it for right now. It's just masking the real contributors.

You are sort of talking past me here several times. You first point on tackling my "it is close to nothing" statement is just pointing out all one-time use plastics are bad in a range of ways. I can totally agree with that, but that doesn't tackle that straws are only about .02% of total waste getting into the ocean. How is it hyper-focused on straws and a lack of consistency? Because what other major plastic banning campaigns are in the mainstream news right now? This straw debate has seemingly popped up quite randomly considering how long straws and alternatives have existed. Also if you are going to continually stubbornly use "it is a small difference" and not level with me for a moment that something like this is not small, it is tiny, for its intended goal, then I am not sure were on same wavelength on its actual impact. So no matter what I am going to say you think that .02% of .9% US's waste going into the ocean is worth banning straws. Also I am not sure how I said the same thing twice. I said people should focus on perhaps banning plastic items that contribute more to the waste in the ocean per percentage base. I am not sure what items are on that list, but there is clearly stuff that uses more plastic than straws, and experts in the first link I posted mentioned how "hard" plastics are bigger problem since they don't Photodegrade. The second thing I pointed out is that there should be more effort to highlight on foreign plastic waste, and yes, I am telling them to bring awareness to the major contributors, not focusing their efforts on a place that is largely negligible in the grand scheme of things. And again "observable benefit" to you is apparently a .02% out of .9% difference which some might say is negligible.

So is the argument being made here that you can't complain about the environmental impact of things because you own a computer and a phone? Those numbers don't account for the full story. If your argument is that we should ban all one time use plastics and not just straws then I can't really see why you are splitting hairs so much and choosing this hill to fight on. Plastic bags were in the mainstream news a couple years ago when they were being banned or regulated in the US and the UK. Now it's straws. Welcome to progress. I know, it can be scary. I'd like you to level with everyone else who agrees that doing something is not the same as doing nothing. So like what, you think we need campaigns to tell people not to throw plastic trash bins into the ocean? Why not both? The point is calling it a "feel good measure" is meaningless rhetoric. If it has an effect then it's not just a feel good measure, even if that effect is small or hard to notice at first.

Tell that to the many many animals that die due to disposed straws

No, I'm saying that your phone and computer probably contributed more harm to the environment than some plastic straws. Why isn't everyone demanding phones and computers to be banned? Why are you so focused on something so little instead of looking at the bigger picture?There should be outrage at these industries, especially overseas, not this straw shit.

Dude, this isn't something WE fought for here. This isn't our campaign. Sure, the way OTHER products are manufactured needs to change, but so what? That can also be done. The only people in this thread going out of their way are the ones AGAINST this

Right so like I said, if I demand bans on plastic straws from my computer or my phone that makes me a hypocrite. That's the argument you are making. To answer your question, because phones and computers are not straws. They aren't simple single-use plastic utensils with clear alternatives that aren't even necessary for the vast majority of people. I don't know how about you ask the fuckin Republican party. Is this a real argument? Do you not think people are already outraged at polluting industries? Are you or Tudd going to answer my question about what you want people to do besides get outraged that can reasonably affect China's pollution?

Wow apparently people are incapable of doing two things at once because a city banning straws means that all the attention paid by NGOs, environmentalists, and activists is now specifically on straws to the exclusion of everything else they have been focusing on. give me a fucking break.

You are really all over the place on this one. I am not going to trip over myself to explain with numbers-wise this is negligible to you. Since quite clearly you are fine with thinking this was a worthy endeavor regardless if the number was somehow smaller than the one presented. Also the false dichotomies you keep suggesting that I present is making this conversation a tar pit rather than something constructive. You already know it isn't a matter of making a choice with what I am arguing, it is a matter of priorities to me. Also yes it is largely a feel good measure in the grand scheme of things. Accusing me of using phrases, and then you keep propping up the effect this will have by saying "small" or just that it will be "hard to notice." The answer is that it will be practically invisible to the actual effect on plastic in the ocean. And again if you want to make a difference, maybe activists should bring awareness to the major contributors and try to fund or prop up movements in those countries to change things there. Also it is kind of funny, cause I never use plastic straws or lids whenever I get the chance out of pure habit of liking an open container. So personal responsibility can help with this equation. Even it is just small.

I guess it's like a tech tree. Tudd and Programmer want to work on the research that allows you to go to war with China but we can't because these pricks in San Fransisco are going to down the Environmentalism branch.

Is there an acceptable amount?

So we should now ban something because it kills one animal? I mean you can just admit there is no good estimates on how many animals straws kill instead of continuing this charade.

Explain to me why saying "I think we should ban plastic straws" makes it a priority over everything else. They are, and they would probably have an easier time of it if Trump and the Republican party weren't currently controlling the government and installing shitheads like Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA. So you acknowledge that it makes a difference but oppose banning them. I'm at a total loss.

Because quite clearly the priority is to ban straws now and that is what is dominating the news in regards to plastics. It isn't the suggestion to ban straws that dominates, it is what the actual airtime is being focused on and the amount of it. Meanwhile nobody is actually talking about the issue at large except some of the sites I linked. Also maybe this issue of banning straws isn't really worth much and that is my point? Hence I could care less if the current administration ever tackled it. Oh sure, you have always been technically (in the tiniest sense) right that there is a difference, but I was kind of making fun of this notion you have that you won't acknowledge something negligible because you always use the term small instead.

If the argument was "Banning plastic straws is a good start but they are a negligible aspect of ocean pollution so we need to take more radical steps" then that would be one thing. That's not the argument you or Programmer are making though. Your argument is that it's a pointless exercise and we should do other things. You're completely missing my point. You are making the argument that banning plastic straws is pointless and that we need to focus on other things when you have vociferously defended and provided a platform for the political operatives who oppose pretty much all attempts to focus on those things. What? I'm trying to figure out why, if you acknowledge it makes a difference, you would oppose banning them.

it is painfully obvious that you two (Programmer and Daft Dud) are only giving lip service to environmental causes and don't actually give a shit. For you, the real problem is some nebulous outside force (read: Chinese factories) that you conveniently have no control over that will never require any personal effort to solve. Once it strays into having to do actually something (i.e: possibly change your consumption habits) then its bad and not doing enough and worthless because its not solving the real problem. C'mon dude, people have been fucking talking about environmental issues for over 50 years. Single-use plastics are an environmental disaster. Plastic straws only make up a small amount of that, sure, but their ban is representative of a larger movement towards changing the consumption habits of people away from single-use plastics.