5 ms·

Because we give false measures and waste time and energy on things which are either insignificant or end up being detrimental. Frequently we end up with a solu

Because we give false measures and waste time and energy on things which are either insignificant or end up being detrimental. Frequently we end up with a solution which is even worse for the environment. For instance, we switched from single use plastic bags to multiple use plastic bags in new york. I spent $8 dollars on buying 4 multiuse polypropylenes bags, not a big deal, but 2 of the four bags are already beginning to rip after 5 or 6 uses. In order for the the reusable bags to be as environmentally friendly as the single use bags they need to be reused atleast a couple of hundred times. So my grocery shopping is now a couple of bucks more expensive for me (whatever) and environmentally less friendly. Straws are likely the same deal, plastic straws are probably more environmentally friendly than their metal straws.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago
I bought a reusable bag/container from Walmart for $20. I used it at least a hundred times over the course of a couple of years. It was in perfect condition when I switched cities and donated it to someone. Another smaller one for $15 was used twice a week for 3 years.
- jerf 7y ago
  Those bags require even more uses to be made of them before they break even vs. plastic bags, let alone end up being a benefit. I would find it hard to believe that on average they are a net gain. I think one of the problems is that people very much overestimate how big a problem "plastic bags at the grocery store are", because they're big, and white, and loud when they move around, and they're something so many people deal with. But they're also whisps of plastic nothingness. Save up all the bags you shop with, and see how long it takes for them to equal the mass, of, say, this: https://www.amazon.com//dp/B07HKV9339 https://www.amazon.com//dp/B07HKV9339 You're going to be saving for a long time... and you're going to be saving long past the point where your best efforts have squashed those bags into the same apparent volume. Plastic bags and straws aren't the problem. "Solving" the not-a-problem is burning people's limited give-a-damn on pointless wastes of time, and psychologically rewarding people for doing useless things to their own detriment that helps nobody.
  - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
    I think you and I are optimizing for different values. I don't know about yours, but I have two (among others): 1. Restructure society to become carbon neutral. 2. Restructure society to end throwaway culture. I understand that to some people 2 is a secondary value derived from 1. For me, both are independent primary values, not derived from any other deeper value, or from each other. I am fairly certain that, while local moves towards the two values sometimes seem in conflict, I think on the global scale, they are roughly in the same direction. So yes, I will buy cotton bags every half decade or so, so I don't use and throw away a minuscule volume of plastic bags, that are a symbol of the throwaway culture.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      We have to prioritize, though. #1 is more important than #2 at the moment.
    - jerf 7y ago
      Yes, that's true, I only care about actual damage to the environment. I do not care about curtailing actions that don't particularly harm it, and I would resist attempts to force people to curtail those actions just to make other people feel good. It is not clear to me if you are advocating for everyone to not use plastic bags. If you choose to do net very-slight harm to the environment to take a stand against some thing you find aesthetically displeasing, that's find by me, because we're talking negligible values on all sides here. No sarcasm; I truly have no objection. We all tend to spend much greater on things much sillier. And you're putting your skin in the game, at your expense. No sweat. If you are advocating that everybody should do so, that is at the very least questionable, though, and downright wrong at the government level. If the government is going to decide that environmental damage is a concern it has, which is fine, then at the very least they could use those powers to actually help the environment, rather than helping some particular people's sense of aesthetics, and their sense of aesthetics at other people's actions no less, while failing at their stated goals.
    - poulsbohemian 7y ago
      I like the way you phrased this in terms of incentives and optimization as I think you capture the conflict of this thread well.
- peterwoerner 7y ago
  The bags are an example, it's very recent thing so near the top of my mind. My point which I articulated poorly is that when we push environmental friendly things we should push for things which are more/actually effective, e.g. make sure you use your car for as long as possible, and build smaller, well insulated, energy efficient homes.
  - poulsbohemian 7y ago
    Porque no los dos?
gamblor956 7y ago
Straws are likely the same deal, plastic straws are probably more environmentally friendly than their metal straws. No, they're not. Full stop. It's not just the production of the straws that matters, it's their post-use effects. They can choke birds and fish, pierce stomachs or guts, and eventually become microplastics that get eaten by plankton and fish since the plastic doesn't degrade on a timeframe relevant to human or even generational lifespans.
- vntok 7y ago
  Are you aware that metal straws share all of those issues, notably that they do not degrade on human-relevant timeframes either? The difference is recycling them is a lot more costly than recycling plastics in terms of energy/heat needed.
  - b1ur 7y ago
    the purpose of a metal straw is not to be used once then thrown away. sure, if people began throwing away their metal straws after a single use it would be as bad as plastic straws, but that's not why people use metal straws.
    - prepend 7y ago
      That is the purpose, but you need to look at the outcome of what happens to them. Bioplastic straws are a superior solution.
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        No, they're not. Bioplastic straws are not any more biodegradable than regular straws. The "bio" part of bioplastic identifies the inputs for the plastic. Compostable straws can be made of bioplastics, but require high temperatures to biodegrade, meaning generally temperatures not found in nature (outside of volcanic areas).
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    I was not aware that metal straws turned into microplastics. This is new to me. I suppose the scientists behind these amazing devices will win Nobel prizes for this accomplishment. Sarcasm aside, metal straws don't float, and fish and birds don't try to eat them. And unless you have some fancy expensive metal straws, in a corrosive sea salt environment the ones generally available rust in a matter of years.
poulsbohemian 7y ago
I'm a little dumbfounded by this as well - I have reusable grocery bags going back at least fifteen years that are still very usable. The more recently acquired ones are even better and I fully intend to be using them for another 15 years - and none of them cost me more than a few dollars each and/or were given to me as freebies. This is for weekly shopping for a family of five plus 4 pets so it isn't like we are gentle on them either.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Planned obsolescence == Profit
organsnyder 7y ago
> Because we give false measures and waste time and energy on things which are either insignificant or end up being detrimental. My kids are so indoctrinated into these habits that my four-year-old asked me which trash bin to use for a tiny spec of crust from her eye (compost was the correct answer). These habits—even over a lifetime—will have a negligible impact. But I'm confident that my kids will factor environmental issues highly for decisions (such as voting) that actually do matter.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

I bought a reusable bag/container from Walmart for $20. I used it at least a hundred times over the course of a couple of years. It was in perfect condition when I switched cities and donated it to someone. Another smaller one for $15 was used twice a week for 3 years.

jerf 7y ago
Those bags require even more uses to be made of them before they break even vs. plastic bags, let alone end up being a benefit. I would find it hard to believe that on average they are a net gain. I think one of the problems is that people very much overestimate how big a problem "plastic bags at the grocery store are", because they're big, and white, and loud when they move around, and they're something so many people deal with. But they're also whisps of plastic nothingness. Save up all the bags you shop with, and see how long it takes for them to equal the mass, of, say, this: https://www.amazon.com//dp/B07HKV9339 https://www.amazon.com//dp/B07HKV9339 You're going to be saving for a long time... and you're going to be saving long past the point where your best efforts have squashed those bags into the same apparent volume. Plastic bags and straws aren't the problem. "Solving" the not-a-problem is burning people's limited give-a-damn on pointless wastes of time, and psychologically rewarding people for doing useless things to their own detriment that helps nobody.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  I think you and I are optimizing for different values. I don't know about yours, but I have two (among others): 1. Restructure society to become carbon neutral. 2. Restructure society to end throwaway culture. I understand that to some people 2 is a secondary value derived from 1. For me, both are independent primary values, not derived from any other deeper value, or from each other. I am fairly certain that, while local moves towards the two values sometimes seem in conflict, I think on the global scale, they are roughly in the same direction. So yes, I will buy cotton bags every half decade or so, so I don't use and throw away a minuscule volume of plastic bags, that are a symbol of the throwaway culture.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    We have to prioritize, though. #1 is more important than #2 at the moment.
  - jerf 7y ago
    Yes, that's true, I only care about actual damage to the environment. I do not care about curtailing actions that don't particularly harm it, and I would resist attempts to force people to curtail those actions just to make other people feel good. It is not clear to me if you are advocating for everyone to not use plastic bags. If you choose to do net very-slight harm to the environment to take a stand against some thing you find aesthetically displeasing, that's find by me, because we're talking negligible values on all sides here. No sarcasm; I truly have no objection. We all tend to spend much greater on things much sillier. And you're putting your skin in the game, at your expense. No sweat. If you are advocating that everybody should do so, that is at the very least questionable, though, and downright wrong at the government level. If the government is going to decide that environmental damage is a concern it has, which is fine, then at the very least they could use those powers to actually help the environment, rather than helping some particular people's sense of aesthetics, and their sense of aesthetics at other people's actions no less, while failing at their stated goals.
  - poulsbohemian 7y ago
    I like the way you phrased this in terms of incentives and optimization as I think you capture the conflict of this thread well.
peterwoerner 7y ago
The bags are an example, it's very recent thing so near the top of my mind. My point which I articulated poorly is that when we push environmental friendly things we should push for things which are more/actually effective, e.g. make sure you use your car for as long as possible, and build smaller, well insulated, energy efficient homes.
- poulsbohemian 7y ago
  Porque no los dos?

gamblor956 7y ago

Straws are likely the same deal, plastic straws are probably more environmentally friendly than their metal straws. No, they're not. Full stop. It's not just the production of the straws that matters, it's their post-use effects. They can choke birds and fish, pierce stomachs or guts, and eventually become microplastics that get eaten by plankton and fish since the plastic doesn't degrade on a timeframe relevant to human or even generational lifespans.

vntok 7y ago
Are you aware that metal straws share all of those issues, notably that they do not degrade on human-relevant timeframes either? The difference is recycling them is a lot more costly than recycling plastics in terms of energy/heat needed.
- b1ur 7y ago
  the purpose of a metal straw is not to be used once then thrown away. sure, if people began throwing away their metal straws after a single use it would be as bad as plastic straws, but that's not why people use metal straws.
  - prepend 7y ago
    That is the purpose, but you need to look at the outcome of what happens to them. Bioplastic straws are a superior solution.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      No, they're not. Bioplastic straws are not any more biodegradable than regular straws. The "bio" part of bioplastic identifies the inputs for the plastic. Compostable straws can be made of bioplastics, but require high temperatures to biodegrade, meaning generally temperatures not found in nature (outside of volcanic areas).
- gamblor956 7y ago
  I was not aware that metal straws turned into microplastics. This is new to me. I suppose the scientists behind these amazing devices will win Nobel prizes for this accomplishment. Sarcasm aside, metal straws don't float, and fish and birds don't try to eat them. And unless you have some fancy expensive metal straws, in a corrosive sea salt environment the ones generally available rust in a matter of years.

poulsbohemian 7y ago

I'm a little dumbfounded by this as well - I have reusable grocery bags going back at least fifteen years that are still very usable. The more recently acquired ones are even better and I fully intend to be using them for another 15 years - and none of them cost me more than a few dollars each and/or were given to me as freebies. This is for weekly shopping for a family of five plus 4 pets so it isn't like we are gentle on them either.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Planned obsolescence == Profit

organsnyder 7y ago

> Because we give false measures and waste time and energy on things which are either insignificant or end up being detrimental. My kids are so indoctrinated into these habits that my four-year-old asked me which trash bin to use for a tiny spec of crust from her eye (compost was the correct answer). These habits—even over a lifetime—will have a negligible impact. But I'm confident that my kids will factor environmental issues highly for decisions (such as voting) that actually do matter.