5 ms·

Just FYI, this is a link to a Reason article, which has a very specific partisan leaning. The mistake in this article is that the tops are recyclable plastic,

Just FYI, this is a link to a Reason article, which has a very specific partisan leaning. The mistake in this article is that the tops are recyclable plastic, and straws are not. While straws are 0.2-0.5g lighter, the plastic is worse.

ihuman 8y ago
How come straws aren't recyclable? Is that type of plastic unusable unusable in straws?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  My understanding is they're too small for most recycling facilities - they get sorted as contamination/debris.
hartator 8y ago
Cititation needed for myself, but most of current plastic straws, even if they don’t look it, are recyclable.
- ctrl-j 8y ago
  They absolutely are not recyclable[0] [1]. Almost all curbside programs and most commercial programs will treat straws as "contaminants". Plus they have additional problem of causing significant wildlife impact. [0] - https://livegreen.recyclebank.com/because-you-asked-what-s-so-bad-about-plastic-straws https://livegreen.recyclebank.com/because-you-asked-what-s-s... [1] - https://earth911.com/home/food-beverage/recycling-mystery-plastic-straws/ https://earth911.com/home/food-beverage/recycling-mystery-pl...
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Waste Management doesn't accept them, at least not here in Rochester NY. I checked.
sp332 8y ago
It also doesn't cite a source for its claim that most plastic in the oceans is microplastics, especially in the Garbage Patches. According to https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/great-pacific-garbage-patch-plastics-environment/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/great-pacific-ga... a majority of it is abandoned fishing gear. On the other hand, straws do pollute beaches. https://web.archive.org/web/20130813151717/http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/international-coastal-cleanup/top-10-items-found-1.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130813151717/http://www.oceanc... There are a couple of decent points in the article though they are buried at the end. Disabled people are going to be at even more of a disadvantage if straws are not available. And a real cleanup might depend more on helping other countries with their waste disposal systems than on anything we can do ourselves.
codesections 8y ago
It's hard to really call that a "mistake" in the article, since the article mentions it. It says: > The new lids are recyclable, while the plastic straws the company currently uses are not. > > This is cold comfort given the fact that even most of the stuff that is put in recycling bins > still winds up at the dump. The company did not address, nor did it dispute, that its transition > to strawless lids would increase its overall plastic consumption. Not expressing a view about whether those follow-up claims are correct, just noticing that this wasn't a mistake/oversight by the article.
- naravara 8y ago
  >Not expressing a view about whether those follow-up claims are correct, just noticing that this wasn't a mistake/oversight by the article. It actually sounds like the article writer came up with a juicy "gotcha" headline and wrote most of the article, happened upon some information that undercut their premise, but decided to sloppily hand wave it away so they could publish anyway.
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    How else would one write an article which people might try to refute with misconceptions? I'm trying to imagine a version of this story that would satisfy the critics.
    - daveFNbuck 8y ago
      I'd imagine that version of the story would have some statistics about how much of the recyclable plastic in current lids gets recycled and what the ratios of drink order sizes are for drinks that are getting the new lids. Then it would do the math and show the actual difference we should expect to see in how much non-recycled plastic Starbucks will generate.
      - tedunangst 8y ago
        That would be a good article. Though I think a similar evidentiary burden exists for Starbucks in order to claim a net reduction.
tedunangst 8y ago
Did the article not mention the lids are recyclable? The article I read did.
tvanantwerp 8y ago
I'm not sure there's a journalism outfit left without some degree of partisan bent.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  The size of that partisan (or in Reason's case, ideological more than partisan) bent varies enormously.
- naravara 8y ago
  Of the major outlets only Fox News has a clearly partisan bent. There are many ideological rags (Reason is Libertarian, Jacobin is Socialist, etc.) But the majority of major news sources are non-partisan and non-ideological to the point of giving undue weight to completely foolishness just because the foolishness benefits a certain party. They have systemic biases, owing to being staffed largely by elite educated urbanites with close proximity to power. That's different from being partisan. Where parties are concerned this bias tends to cut against them both in different ways.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    This is correct. A news outlet isn't partisan if it treats evolution and climate change as real things without "teaching the controversy," despite what fair and balanced Fox or unreasonable Reason would have you believe.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ihuman 8y ago

How come straws aren't recyclable? Is that type of plastic unusable unusable in straws?

ceejayoz 8y ago
My understanding is they're too small for most recycling facilities - they get sorted as contamination/debris.

hartator 8y ago

Cititation needed for myself, but most of current plastic straws, even if they don’t look it, are recyclable.

ctrl-j 8y ago
They absolutely are not recyclable[0] [1]. Almost all curbside programs and most commercial programs will treat straws as "contaminants". Plus they have additional problem of causing significant wildlife impact. [0] - https://livegreen.recyclebank.com/because-you-asked-what-s-so-bad-about-plastic-straws https://livegreen.recyclebank.com/because-you-asked-what-s-s... [1] - https://earth911.com/home/food-beverage/recycling-mystery-plastic-straws/ https://earth911.com/home/food-beverage/recycling-mystery-pl...
ceejayoz 8y ago
Waste Management doesn't accept them, at least not here in Rochester NY. I checked.

sp332 8y ago

It also doesn't cite a source for its claim that most plastic in the oceans is microplastics, especially in the Garbage Patches. According to https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/great-pacific-garbage-patch-plastics-environment/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/great-pacific-ga... a majority of it is abandoned fishing gear. On the other hand, straws do pollute beaches. https://web.archive.org/web/20130813151717/http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/international-coastal-cleanup/top-10-items-found-1.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130813151717/http://www.oceanc... There are a couple of decent points in the article though they are buried at the end. Disabled people are going to be at even more of a disadvantage if straws are not available. And a real cleanup might depend more on helping other countries with their waste disposal systems than on anything we can do ourselves.

codesections 8y ago

It's hard to really call that a "mistake" in the article, since the article mentions it. It says: > The new lids are recyclable, while the plastic straws the company currently uses are not. > > This is cold comfort given the fact that even most of the stuff that is put in recycling bins > still winds up at the dump. The company did not address, nor did it dispute, that its transition > to strawless lids would increase its overall plastic consumption. Not expressing a view about whether those follow-up claims are correct, just noticing that this wasn't a mistake/oversight by the article.

naravara 8y ago
>Not expressing a view about whether those follow-up claims are correct, just noticing that this wasn't a mistake/oversight by the article. It actually sounds like the article writer came up with a juicy "gotcha" headline and wrote most of the article, happened upon some information that undercut their premise, but decided to sloppily hand wave it away so they could publish anyway.
- tedunangst 8y ago
  How else would one write an article which people might try to refute with misconceptions? I'm trying to imagine a version of this story that would satisfy the critics.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    I'd imagine that version of the story would have some statistics about how much of the recyclable plastic in current lids gets recycled and what the ratios of drink order sizes are for drinks that are getting the new lids. Then it would do the math and show the actual difference we should expect to see in how much non-recycled plastic Starbucks will generate.
    - tedunangst 8y ago
      That would be a good article. Though I think a similar evidentiary burden exists for Starbucks in order to claim a net reduction.

tedunangst 8y ago

Did the article not mention the lids are recyclable? The article I read did.

tvanantwerp 8y ago

I'm not sure there's a journalism outfit left without some degree of partisan bent.

ceejayoz 8y ago
The size of that partisan (or in Reason's case, ideological more than partisan) bent varies enormously.
naravara 8y ago
Of the major outlets only Fox News has a clearly partisan bent. There are many ideological rags (Reason is Libertarian, Jacobin is Socialist, etc.) But the majority of major news sources are non-partisan and non-ideological to the point of giving undue weight to completely foolishness just because the foolishness benefits a certain party. They have systemic biases, owing to being staffed largely by elite educated urbanites with close proximity to power. That's different from being partisan. Where parties are concerned this bias tends to cut against them both in different ways.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  This is correct. A news outlet isn't partisan if it treats evolution and climate change as real things without "teaching the controversy," despite what fair and balanced Fox or unreasonable Reason would have you believe.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]