4 ms·

Honest question: How many plastic straws do you have to save to offset the CO2 cost of building a steel straw? Also, are paper straws really better, CO2-wise?

by mbid 9y ago

4ndr3vv 9y ago
Full carbon costs are extremely hard to calculate, and kind of miss the point of this intervention. An better question is "What happens to different types of straws when they reach the end of their useful life".
bluGill 9y ago
Don't forget the cost of all the carbon burned to heat the water each time you wash the reusable straw. As the other poster said, this is very hard to calculate.
- greeneggs 9y ago
  Perhaps it is hard to calculate exactly, but it is fairly obvious that a reusable steel straw is going to have an environmental impact over one's lifetime that is orders of magnitude worse than using disposable plastic straws.
- cimmanom 9y ago
  If you're throwing it in the dishwasher with an otherwise already full load, you're not using any more energy to clean the straw than you would be to wash the rest of the dishes anyway.
goda90 9y ago
I think the meme of carbon footprint has gotten too deep. We need to address carbon at the power generation, deforestation, and transportation levels. At lower levels or carbon footprint, it's better to worry more about how waste is handled. If we're not reducing, reusing, and recycling, then we're probably adding more junk to the environment that still damages ecosystems.
- driverdan 9y ago
  > At lower levels or carbon footprint, it's better to worry more about how waste is handled. No it isn't. Most countries have plenty of land available for storing waste. So long as its stored properly the environmental impact is negligible. Carbon footprint is far more important.
  - goda90 9y ago
    But where does the larger carbon footprint of reusable, or biodegradable items come from vs the one time use plastic versions? Theres a good chance a lot of it comes from power generation. If we have plentiful clean energy, then higher energy costs to manufacture things in ways to reduce waste results in a net good. So focus on the carbon footprint of the big stuff, while simultaneously reducing physical waste.
dahart 9y ago
I don't know, but I think C02 isn't the primary concern. Petroleum usage and plastic waste are greater concerns. And if you're worried about the air, note that plastic manufacturing produces considerably more toxic gases than steel production. Considering how many vehicles and buildings are built with steel on this planet, I'd bet that the volume of steel needed to provide every person on earth with a steel straw once wouldn't even be noticed by the steel producers. Actually, I just took a few minutes to look a couple things up and did the math. The US today likely recycles more than 6M tons of steel every year (it was 5.8M and rising in 2014), and a ton of steel can produce around 40K straws, if I divide one ton by the weight of a steel straw I saw on Amazon. This means we could produce steel straws for all on earth with about 200K tons of recycled steel, or less than 4% of the steel we're recycling every year in the US alone. Note the steel industry and the EPA have somewhat different numbers for amount of recycling, it may be due to US vs global recycling, but I went with the EPA's which is more conservative. I don't know about Taiwan, but note that metal recycling in the US is currently twice the weight of metal recycling, and plastic is twice the weight of land filling compared to metal; in other words plastic is a much larger problem. https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/ https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/2014_smmfactsheet_508.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents... https://www.steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/Fact%20Sheets/50_Fun_Facts_About_Steel.pdf https://www.steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/Fact%20Sheets/50_Fu... With these things in mind, I'd personally be pretty surprised if a steel straw that lasts 10 years wasn't environmentally better (and by more than a little) on all scales than plastic straws for someone who drinks a soda with a straw every day for lunch.
- driverdan 9y ago
  > but I think C02 isn't the primary concern. Petroleum usage and plastic waste are greater concerns. CO2 is the primary concern. Storing waste is not a problem in most parts of the world. The amount of steel it would require isn't important. What's important is how much energy it takes to make that straw and the other environmental impacts of doing so. It takes magnitudes more energy to melt steel than it does to melt plastic. It would take years to offset the CO2 costs of a steel straw. You also need to factor in the energy and water it takes to clean the straw and the likelihood of damaging or losing it over that time. The best option is to stop using straws. They're completely unnecessary unless you have a physical disability.

Honest question: How many plastic straws do you have to save to offset the CO2 cost of building a steel straw? Also, are paper straws really better, CO2-wise?

by mbid 9y ago

Honest question: How many plastic straws do you have to save to offset the CO2 cost of building a steel straw? Also, are paper straws really better, CO2-wise?

4ndr3vv 9y ago

Full carbon costs are extremely hard to calculate, and kind of miss the point of this intervention. An better question is "What happens to different types of straws when they reach the end of their useful life".

bluGill 9y ago

Don't forget the cost of all the carbon burned to heat the water each time you wash the reusable straw. As the other poster said, this is very hard to calculate.

greeneggs 9y ago
Perhaps it is hard to calculate exactly, but it is fairly obvious that a reusable steel straw is going to have an environmental impact over one's lifetime that is orders of magnitude worse than using disposable plastic straws.
cimmanom 9y ago
If you're throwing it in the dishwasher with an otherwise already full load, you're not using any more energy to clean the straw than you would be to wash the rest of the dishes anyway.

goda90 9y ago

I think the meme of carbon footprint has gotten too deep. We need to address carbon at the power generation, deforestation, and transportation levels. At lower levels or carbon footprint, it's better to worry more about how waste is handled. If we're not reducing, reusing, and recycling, then we're probably adding more junk to the environment that still damages ecosystems.

driverdan 9y ago
> At lower levels or carbon footprint, it's better to worry more about how waste is handled. No it isn't. Most countries have plenty of land available for storing waste. So long as its stored properly the environmental impact is negligible. Carbon footprint is far more important.
- goda90 9y ago
  But where does the larger carbon footprint of reusable, or biodegradable items come from vs the one time use plastic versions? Theres a good chance a lot of it comes from power generation. If we have plentiful clean energy, then higher energy costs to manufacture things in ways to reduce waste results in a net good. So focus on the carbon footprint of the big stuff, while simultaneously reducing physical waste.

dahart 9y ago

I don't know, but I think C02 isn't the primary concern. Petroleum usage and plastic waste are greater concerns. And if you're worried about the air, note that plastic manufacturing produces considerably more toxic gases than steel production. Considering how many vehicles and buildings are built with steel on this planet, I'd bet that the volume of steel needed to provide every person on earth with a steel straw once wouldn't even be noticed by the steel producers. Actually, I just took a few minutes to look a couple things up and did the math. The US today likely recycles more than 6M tons of steel every year (it was 5.8M and rising in 2014), and a ton of steel can produce around 40K straws, if I divide one ton by the weight of a steel straw I saw on Amazon. This means we could produce steel straws for all on earth with about 200K tons of recycled steel, or less than 4% of the steel we're recycling every year in the US alone. Note the steel industry and the EPA have somewhat different numbers for amount of recycling, it may be due to US vs global recycling, but I went with the EPA's which is more conservative. I don't know about Taiwan, but note that metal recycling in the US is currently twice the weight of metal recycling, and plastic is twice the weight of land filling compared to metal; in other words plastic is a much larger problem. https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/ https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/2014_smmfactsheet_508.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents... https://www.steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/Fact%20Sheets/50_Fun_Facts_About_Steel.pdf https://www.steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/Fact%20Sheets/50_Fu... With these things in mind, I'd personally be pretty surprised if a steel straw that lasts 10 years wasn't environmentally better (and by more than a little) on all scales than plastic straws for someone who drinks a soda with a straw every day for lunch.

driverdan 9y ago
> but I think C02 isn't the primary concern. Petroleum usage and plastic waste are greater concerns. CO2 is the primary concern. Storing waste is not a problem in most parts of the world. The amount of steel it would require isn't important. What's important is how much energy it takes to make that straw and the other environmental impacts of doing so. It takes magnitudes more energy to melt steel than it does to melt plastic. It would take years to offset the CO2 costs of a steel straw. You also need to factor in the energy and water it takes to clean the straw and the likelihood of damaging or losing it over that time. The best option is to stop using straws. They're completely unnecessary unless you have a physical disability.