9 ms·

The plastic straw boycott is not meant to fix the problem, that’s been acknowledged [0]. It’s to help drive a message and teach awareness. The hope being that p

• Symmetry 8y ago
  I know, for myself, that people focusing on silly thing to "raise awareness" of a bigger problem has in the past tricked me into thinking that the larger problem was overblown. Because of that and because our bandwidth for reaching people and people's patience with environmental messages is finite we really ought to concentrate on important topics rather than obsess over minutia.
  • windows_tips 8y ago
    I think this is a symptom of a drive towards "messaging", "narratives", and "stories" over logical analysis of verifiable facts in (allegedly) persuasive writing. I wouldn't doubt that some behavioral modification experiments "found" that such "tactics" work to change peoples' beliefs and actions, but I think many have taken up the effort to try to optimize such experiments, despite unethical implementations (c.f. Facebook attempting to create negative emotions by manipulating timelines) and harmful ends (c.f. White House "science office" targeting specific individuals with behavioral modification emails soliciting them into taking on interest liability on a loan. Unfortunately "narratives" and "messaging" and "stories" took on memetic qualities for quite awhile in a portion of the culture, so we may still have to deal with the consequences for a while yet.
    • joejerryronnie 8y ago
      >I think this is a symptom of a drive towards "messaging", "narratives", and "stories" over logical analysis of verifiable facts in (allegedly) persuasive writing. Could this be a byproduct of the tools we use to communicate now? Social media is ideal for propagating bite sized, meme-like ideas and incentivizes a herd mentality. Older forms of communication may have been a better medium for long form articles and thought provoking discussion. Narratives, messaging, and stories have always played a big part but has social media effectively squeezed out the substance and all we're getting is the fluff?
      • windows_tips 8y ago
        Could be, maybe; but, it's definitely been a sought and taught objective as well.
• imgabe 8y ago
  Everything helps, but some things help more than others. We have limited resources so we need to focus them where the impact will be largest. I also think it's counterproductive to make a big deal out of something that really isn't a big deal. It will leave people feeling disillusioned when they find out they were lied to, and they will be less likely to listen to anything else. It also gives opponents something to point at and say "Look, these people are full of crap".
  • Klathmon 8y ago
    But while it might not be the most impactful way to change, it is easy. Not many people will have their lives made worse when banning plastic straws, and those who do can get reusable straws. It's an easy win, and shouting that there are things that can be done that are more impactful doesn't matter, this can help, and it's easy to do on a wide scale.
    • rblatz 8y ago
      It’s pointless, inconvienent, and will raise a larger backlash and actually causing net harm.
    • jstanley 8y ago
      > Not many people will have their lives made worse when banning plastic straws Conversely, nobody will have their life made better by a ban of plastic straws. So why ban them?
• throwaway76543 8y ago
  I don't think it's true that "everything helps." I think many of these grandstanding initiatives are received with open mockery and I think they serve to undermine the credibility of the larger environmental effort. Recently we have had some rather large political shifts which move the needle considerably further away from our ecological goals. If you look at what people are saying within these political circles you will see derisive phrases like "virtue signaling," referring to exactly this sort of thing. When you "send a message" you take work which might be perceived as mutually beneficial and you turn it into a fight. You should expect the response to be the inverse: People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This is why there is a culture around "rolling coal." This is actually happening. This is extremely bad policy and it hurts the environment.
  • reaperducer 8y ago
    People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This was going on long before Trump. Even back into the 1960's and 70's when people made fun of the crying Indian TV commercials. Focus on the actual problem. When you make it political, you immediately lose half of your audience. This is the trap most activism falls into.
    • marcelluspye 8y ago
      I don't think the poster was claiming Trump invented this phenomenon, but it is undeniably more visible because of recent political events. Being pro-environment has been a political stance for decades, so there's no longer away of not making it political.
  • ams6110 8y ago
    I find myself sort of in that camp. I think rolling coal is stupid, but when I saw people wanting to ban straws, I just had to roll my eyes. I think the larger goals of environmental protection lose some credibility when obviously inconsequential stuff like that becomes the message of the day.
• reaperducer 8y ago
  Everything helps at this point. Because something helps less shouldn’t mean we bash it. Collectively we should do more. While I don't disagree with your sentiment, the article makes an important point: Plastic straws are 0.03% of the Great Garbage Patch problem. Plastic fishing nets are 46% of the GGP problem. The people pushing the plastic straw bans aren't raising awareness of the big problem (lost and abandoned fishing nets), they're just spreading the notion that plastic is evil. It's a lazy, self-indulgent kind of activism that is about making the person feel better, not solving a problem. You want to "raise awareness" of the real problem? Start putting up posters in the seafood departments of supermarkets showing a fishing net stuffed with 20 tons of rotting sea life that's still killing fish 15 years after it floated away from its boat.
  • brightball 8y ago
    What would a better net be made out of? Hemp maybe?
    • reaperducer 8y ago
      I don't know much about fishing nets, but cotton seems plentiful, is biodegradable, and there are plenty of poor cotton farmers in need of increased demand for their product. If someone knows what fishing nets were made of before they were made of plastic, please chime in.
      • bluedino 8y ago
        Cotton also absorbs water. Most of the problem is that a billion pounds of fishing nets are left in the ocean every year, harming wildlife.
      • ams6110 8y ago
        They must have been made out of natural fibers originally, but I would imagine a big problem with that would be that they would absorb water and become very heavy.
      • KozmoNau7 8y ago
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• austincheney 8y ago
  Message not received. Plastic particles are now becoming as common and widespread as bacteria. If they really want to push the message on this then they would outlaw use of plastics in consumer packaging and thereby emphasize use of cardboard and paperboard products. The wood fibers used to make paper and cardboard are not harmful to animals, biodegrade quickly, and are far more environmentally renewable.
  • ams6110 8y ago
    Not sure if you remember but a few decades ago the message was the opposite. Paper and cardboard packaging, grocery bags, etc. were environmentally damaging, plastic was seen as far friendlier (no trees cut down), and much more recyclable.
    • SamUK96 8y ago
      To obtain plastic, you need oil, which often requires removal of entire swathes of the biosphere. Funny how just one step can fool people like that.
    • austincheney 8y ago
      Apparently recycability isn't the conversation or the problem, because if it were California wouldn't be trying to outlaw plastic straws.
    • dwd 8y ago
      Still true - paper is bad from a resource usage point of view where plastic is a pollutant. The problem is weighing up the macro and micro effects over short and long term time frames, and the only real solution is consume less. Plastics use less resources to produce, but pose a problem in that they will always stay plastic. Paper, cotton, etc use too much water and are often combined with plastic anyway to make them more durable, hygenic and increase shelf life of the packaging. There's one issue with reusable grocery bags no one seems to want to mention. You have to wash them! More water, detergent or worse spray them with potentially carcinogenic anti-bacterials.
• exabrial 8y ago
  Using the force of law under penalty of your money [fines] or time [courtroom, prison] is a terrible way to 'raise awareness'.
• prepend 8y ago
  “Everything helps at this point.” This is not true and is dangerous because some things (many things actually) hurt. The article calls out some (drawing attention away from fishing industry), but I think more people need to be aware of opportunity cost [0] because time is not infinite. The idea of doing something is better than nothing is not an absolute rule and should not be followed when it results in campaigns like this one that have caused harm. Many examples of stuff like Starbucks [1] replacing straws with more plastic. Skipping a straw is a good activity with really minimal impact. Having a law to ban straws amplifies the effort for minimal impact and leads to other behaviors with worse impacts like increased wood use, etc. It also removes the ability for activities like restaurants simply using more recycling to offset their plastic use. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost [1] https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/starbucks-straw-ban-will-see-the-company https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/starbucks-straw-ban-will-...
  • chewbacha 8y ago
    I didn’t know the stats around fishing nets. I know this now because of the plastic straw conversation and ban. Thus the campaign IS actually spreading information and teaching.
    • prepend 8y ago
      Butthe fishing net was in response to saying how the straw campaign is bullshit. It’s like punching me in the face and then pointing out how my visit to the doctor taught me how quitting smoking is good.
    • tedunangst 8y ago
      But did we need to ban straws to have this conversation? Couldn't the anti straw people have simply told you about the nets in the first place?
• rdtsc 8y ago
  > It’s to help drive a message and teach awareness I wish it was as easy. People then think "I went to Starbucks and didn't ask for a plastic straw my job is done. I saved the environment. No need to worry anymore". And they don't worry anymore. Same with politicians "we passed a straw ordinance", our job is done. Pad that resume with another accomplishment. It falls into the category of "busy work" and rituals. Like say municipalities, having people sort recycling into 5 different containers, then in the end dumping it all into one stream at the center or say just dumping it in the trash. But it's important to make people believe they're doing useful and important things, and this provides for that.
  • dingaling 8y ago
    > And they don't worry anymore. Those same people can't do anything about the dumping of plastic fishing nets, so what else CAN they worry about? Only those things which they can directly change, no matter how small. Today it's straws, perhaps next will be plastic water bottles. Little nudges. People are encouraged to turn-off lamps in rooms they aren't using. That's pretty insignificant compared to the energy consumption of aluminium smelters, but it's something everyone can do.
    • rdtsc 8y ago
      I was just being a bit pessimistic about human nature saying that every "little bit helps" idea might not be a given and it could have a negative effect as well. I hope I am wrong of course and people will be more engaged and care about the environment, but people's behavior is not intuitive and obvious sometimes.
• graeme 8y ago
  This can backfire though. Imagine this sequence: 1. Someone says “we must ban false straws to save the environment 2. A disinterested observer looks into it, and sees this is false 3. They turn against the messenger In the best case of #3, they will merely think the messenger is stupid. In the worst case, they’ll start to become an anti-environmentalist and make the cognitive error that all environmental messages are lies. Logically speaking, a poor argument in favour of something doesn’t mean that thing is false. But in terms of rhetorical persuasion, making a really bad argument is an excellent way to convince people of the opposite of an idea.
  • chewbacha 8y ago
    So, it’s a false message to save 24 thousand metric tons of plastic from the environment? That continuing to pollute and throw away single use plastics is actually the true message?
    • scarejunba 8y ago
      Haha. You think you're soooo clever arguing like this. You got him, didn't you?
      • chewbacha 8y ago
        Well, these all feel like straw men arguments. “Don’t tell people to not pollute because they will pollute more” :eye-roll: It’s like “don’t tell people to treat women with respect because then they will hurt women more” It’s a logical Fallacy and everyone arguing it should be ashamed.
        • mistermann 8y ago
          Do you care if there is some truth to it?
        • graeme 8y ago
          You‘re the one making a straw man argument. If you had read my comment at all charitably, you would have known I was referring to a larger problem than plastic straw waste. Obviously plastic straws create waste. [I dislike them personally and don’t use them] The issue is, though, if people paint straws as a vital cause of such problems as ocean garbage patches, then that sort of messaging can turn people away. If people research and find that most ocean garbage comes from a few rivers, and fishing nets, then they won’t trust people who say ”don‘t use straws, it pollutes the oceans [in a significant way]“.
• tomjen3 8y ago
  The average person only has so much time to consider on environmental issues. Make them focus on plastic straws and they may well feel like they have done enough. And those of us know knows how little those straws matters will simply mock the movement. Fortunately everything doesn't have to be bleak: Efforts are underway to clean up the ocean https://www.theoceancleanup.com https://www.theoceancleanup.com
• Consultant32452 8y ago
  >It’s to help drive a message and teach awareness. If that's true then, and I'm only speaking for myself, it's had the exact opposite effect. It makes me feel like if we're squabbling over straws then the real issues must have been dealt with already. Factually, of course I know there are real environmental issues. But when straws become the talking point, it makes me feel like the environment should be dismissed as an issue.
• rayiner 8y ago
  The problem is that it’s misleading. Our lifestyle in the western world is unsustainable with existing technology. We can’t fix the problem by “do[ing] more.” The gap between where we are and where we need to be is so large. To fix the problem through conservation we have to dramatically lower our standard of living. Not just “use paper straws,” “compost your trash,” and “buy an EV,” but “bike everywhere, get rid of your AC,” and “eat meat once a month if that.”
• Spooky23 8y ago
  It’s stupid and serves no purpose other than to sell paper straws, which have recently started reappearing on he market. Doing something meaningful like demanding accountability for fishing nets and pushing consumer product companies to reduce packaging would be a much more productive approach.