6 ms·
It's my understanding that the new 'sippy' lids are recyclable where as the straws are not. In the Lower Mainland (ie the Vancouver BC area including the Frase
by vhodges 8y ago
It's my understanding that the new 'sippy' lids are recyclable where as the straws are not. In the Lower Mainland (ie the Vancouver BC area including the Fraser Valley), the elimination of straws at most restaurants has been very quick and it's a bit strange to not get one!
I have somewhat sensitive teeth and kind of miss them, but I'll bring my own, probably reusable, if I start to feel strongly about it and right now you can get a straw if you ask for it (though I expect that will go away at some point).
Note also paper straws are a thing.
- darkstar999 8y agoThe article addressed it. Even if they get recycled, they mostly end up in the dump.
- lern_too_spel 8y agoThe article "addressed" it with a misleading statement. It said that much of what Californian residents put in the recycle bin isn't recycled. That's because they throw nonrecyclables (like used pizza boxes) into the bin along with their recyclables, and most waste management companies won't separate these items, choosing instead to discard the batch. This is the wrong evidence to give for two reasons: 1. Commercial waste management is different from residential waste management. 2. By removing nonrecyclable plastic straws, Starbucks removed a source of contamination for their plastic recyclables. Thus, the percentage of their plastic that is recycled would have gone up even more under the assumption that their commercial waste management company wasn't already filtering out straws. This is no small error. The author should have known to delve into this more because increasing recyclability was the whole reason Starbucks removed straws with a big hullabaloo. This is par for the course for the poorly named "Reason," which pushes a wishful thinking philosophy that unregulated markets solve all problems. https://reason.com/blog/2016/11/18/is-climate-change-already-solved https://reason.com/blog/2016/11/18/is-climate-change-already...
- hajile 8y agoEven if everything you say is true, the vast majority of starbucks customers either use the drive-through or leave the building with their cups. At that point, it's likely going in that residential recycling that you say is often thrown out wholesale. Instead of ditching the straw, they should switch to a cardboard straw that is biodegradable.
- lern_too_spel 8y agoThey leave the drivethrough and go to work, which also uses a commercial waste management company. In either case, the article's throwaway dismissal of the whole reason Starbucks removed disposable straws to begin with is lazy and misleading. A correct analysis would thoroughly analyze the recycling end.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoWhere I used to work, the garbage guy put it all in the same truck, going to the dump. I asked why. "They didn't raise my pay to go to the recycling center. They want me to do it 'after work' on my own time. Fuck that."
- lern_too_spel 8y agoDid you raise it with your employer? Your employer has a contract woth the waste management company for a particular service. If it is not providing that service, your employer can take its business elsewhere. If your past employer was in California, it could have been out of compliance with the state's mandatory commercial recycling law. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/ http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoIt was an employee of the company. No 'waste management service'.
- javiramos 8y agoWhy can't straws be made of recyclable or degradable plastic?
- ynniv 8y agoPhysics. From the article: Compostable straws cost six to seven times more than their plastic alternatives, don't keep for long, and fall apart when exposed to high heat Consider that the recycleable lid isn't immersed in hot coffee.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoCompostable is a different thing from recyclable.
- stephengillie 8y agoCompostable essentially means that "something eats it", at some point. Recyclable means it's easily converted back into a raw material. Thus, compostability implies non-toxicity.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoCompostability doesn't imply non-toxicity, as toxicity is relative to the organism. Something can be toxic to humans but not to the bacteria that break it down. There are plenty of things that are toxic to humans that are compostable. But what does toxicity have to do with what I said?
- overcast 8y agoSo why can't we have compostable straws that degrade in 5-10years rather than 5-10 months?
- bayesian_horse 8y agoBecause compostable materials taste terrible.