5 ms·

I can't imagine thinking that banning any wasteful products is a negative. Do you really need a straw? Bring your own if you do.

by qmmmur 5y ago

the_optimist 5y ago
Do you have an easy definition of what’s wasteful and what’s not wasteful? If you don’t, then what you are imagining is wholly arguable.
loldot_ 5y ago
The ban is not negative; pretending it has lead to a meaningful reduction in plastic ocean waste is. I think the reason most people are negative to the ban is that a great deal of resources has been spent on something that tries to solve a minuscule problem (0.03% of plastic waste) while at the same time inconveniencing people with disabilities for example. These resources could have been allocated to for instance a small financial reward for turning in broken/abandoned fishing nets.
- qmmmur 5y ago
  Sure but I feel like it's just low hanging fruit which is why is so foregrounded
  - creato 5y ago
    You're ignoring the costs of these bans. They are low hanging fruit, but they also have almost zero impact. At the same time, there is opportunity cost in political capital as well as resentment against environmental causes. It would be nice if that resentment at least came with some substantial improvement and not symbolic hollow victories.
    - qmmmur 5y ago
      Maybe we should just let it burn down if we're going to halt environmental progression on the basis that people will be too upset that they can't drink out of a small manufactures cylinder. Fuck me
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- wombatmobile 5y ago
  > a minuscule problem (0.03% of plastic waste) That's one metric. Are you sure it's the best way to understand this question? https://www.strawlessocean.org/faq https://www.strawlessocean.org/faq
throwawaylinux 5y ago
All you've done here is defined something to be "wasteful" if it has no positive value already, so by definition banning it is not a negative. The problem is that you haven't managed to argue why straws fall into that category. If people are using them, then almost by definition people are finding value from them, so you have to be more careful than that (not to mention the administrative cost of the ban, but let's ignore that here). Straws are a small enough thing that it's easy to be mindlessly dismissive by saying "bring your own", but that does not actually advance your side of the argument at all. You can see how absurd that argument is when applying it to other things -- why not ban wasteful drink bottles and cans? Just bring your own cup or bottle from home. Or ban the wasteful automobile, just walk or ride or catch a bus if you want to go somewhere. Or looking at it another way -- straws are such a minuscule part of the plastic pollution problem that banning them really doesn't matter right? If you can handwave away their small inconsequential value, then I can handwave away their small inconsequential impact.
- neolog 5y ago
  > defined something to be "wasteful" if it has no positive value already, so by definition banning it is not a negative not "by definition" really
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Yes really, by qmmmur's definition.
    - neolog 5y ago
      Banning something is different from it not existing.
- qmmmur 5y ago
  I mean yeah. In totally against banning single use cups and am totally pro public transport lol.
  - 5y ago
dshpala 5y ago
My problem with the straw ban is the ban itself. Why not give people a choice, incentivize different behavior? Just put paper straws next to plastic ones, with a feel-good message, and voila. There is a limit of things you can ban before people will get tired of banning, and then you won't be able to ban things that might fully deserve it. BTW, the world is running out of clean water, so how about we ban dishes in the restaurants to avoid wastefully washing them? Just bring your own, right?

I can't imagine thinking that banning any wasteful products is a negative. Do you really need a straw? Bring your own if you do.

by qmmmur 5y ago

I can't imagine thinking that banning any wasteful products is a negative. Do you really need a straw? Bring your own if you do.

the_optimist 5y ago

Do you have an easy definition of what’s wasteful and what’s not wasteful? If you don’t, then what you are imagining is wholly arguable.

loldot_ 5y ago

The ban is not negative; pretending it has lead to a meaningful reduction in plastic ocean waste is. I think the reason most people are negative to the ban is that a great deal of resources has been spent on something that tries to solve a minuscule problem (0.03% of plastic waste) while at the same time inconveniencing people with disabilities for example. These resources could have been allocated to for instance a small financial reward for turning in broken/abandoned fishing nets.

qmmmur 5y ago
Sure but I feel like it's just low hanging fruit which is why is so foregrounded
- creato 5y ago
  You're ignoring the costs of these bans. They are low hanging fruit, but they also have almost zero impact. At the same time, there is opportunity cost in political capital as well as resentment against environmental causes. It would be nice if that resentment at least came with some substantial improvement and not symbolic hollow victories.
  - qmmmur 5y ago
    Maybe we should just let it burn down if we're going to halt environmental progression on the basis that people will be too upset that they can't drink out of a small manufactures cylinder. Fuck me
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wombatmobile 5y ago
> a minuscule problem (0.03% of plastic waste) That's one metric. Are you sure it's the best way to understand this question? https://www.strawlessocean.org/faq https://www.strawlessocean.org/faq

throwawaylinux 5y ago

All you've done here is defined something to be "wasteful" if it has no positive value already, so by definition banning it is not a negative. The problem is that you haven't managed to argue why straws fall into that category. If people are using them, then almost by definition people are finding value from them, so you have to be more careful than that (not to mention the administrative cost of the ban, but let's ignore that here). Straws are a small enough thing that it's easy to be mindlessly dismissive by saying "bring your own", but that does not actually advance your side of the argument at all. You can see how absurd that argument is when applying it to other things -- why not ban wasteful drink bottles and cans? Just bring your own cup or bottle from home. Or ban the wasteful automobile, just walk or ride or catch a bus if you want to go somewhere. Or looking at it another way -- straws are such a minuscule part of the plastic pollution problem that banning them really doesn't matter right? If you can handwave away their small inconsequential value, then I can handwave away their small inconsequential impact.

neolog 5y ago
> defined something to be "wasteful" if it has no positive value already, so by definition banning it is not a negative not "by definition" really
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Yes really, by qmmmur's definition.
  - neolog 5y ago
    Banning something is different from it not existing.
qmmmur 5y ago
I mean yeah. In totally against banning single use cups and am totally pro public transport lol.
- 5y ago

dshpala 5y ago

My problem with the straw ban is the ban itself. Why not give people a choice, incentivize different behavior? Just put paper straws next to plastic ones, with a feel-good message, and voila. There is a limit of things you can ban before people will get tired of banning, and then you won't be able to ban things that might fully deserve it. BTW, the world is running out of clean water, so how about we ban dishes in the restaurants to avoid wastefully washing them? Just bring your own, right?