4 ms·

Yeah, the focus on straws is strange to me as that’s only a tiny part of the problem: every fast food wrapper, burger box, “disposable” soda or coffee cup has P

by bertil 3y ago

Yeah, the focus on straws is strange to me as that’s only a tiny part of the problem: every fast food wrapper, burger box, “disposable” soda or coffee cup has PFAS—maybe not the plastic lids, but those are clearly not things you want to dispose of either. The only exceptions are the old-school pizza boxes: that’s untreated cardboard, and they don’t handle the steam and grease for much longer than the delivery. I was very confused when the law banned plastic straws, and they interviewed people on the street holding ten times more PFAS in their coffee cups, arguing they did their part… The “solution” is non-disposable carriers. France is forcing McDonald’s and other fast food to change (but it’s mainly McD and small local actors there). I’m not sure why California and others haven’t pushed for those. There are solutions (disclaimer: I invested in a couple) using consignment, QR-code… It’s not super high-end tech, but it works. Start by mandating that coffee makers accept customers’ cups and the 20-penny discount that Starbucks does if you bring your own.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
The focus on straws comes from two angles: * the original environmental motivation was that they are strong, non-bio-degradable structures that pose threats to wildlife, similar to how the old 'can rings' got phased out. * anything that involves government regulation, especially government regulation of stuff that involves the fossil petrochemical industry has an immensely well funded push back against it. It's a slippery slope, once you ban straws the next thing you know you might actually deal with the main cause of climate change and we wouldn't want that now would we. > Their prohibition would, it was thought, reduce plastic waste getting into the environment. But to the degree that these bans led people to substitute paper for plastic, all they've done is swap out some minimal amount of plastic consumption for increased PFAS pollution. Hmm "minimal amount of plastic consumption" vs "increased PFAS pollution"? Why is one pollution and one consumption? Why is one "a minimal amount" and the other an "increase"? It's because this is effectively a PR outlet for fossil fuel corporations.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  >>>once you ban straws the next thing you know you might actually deal with the main cause of climate change and we wouldn't want that now would we. How are you going to deal with solar radiation, earth's position and orientation, the jet stream, and water vapor?
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    Can you cite a source that suggests those 5 things combined are a bigger impact than the real actual accepted by science singular main cause? I'm prepared to let it slide that you've named 5 different things as I think you're still factually incorrect even if I let you clump them together.
    - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
      This is a joke, right? You're saying the sun, the Milankovitch cycle, water vapor, and other natural processes have less of an impact on climate than humanity? Care to explain how? That's hilarious. LMAO!!!! The sun puts 4.4 x 1016 watts into Earth each year. How much does humanity put?
      - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
        You appear to have misread the part of my comment that you quoted. I said: > the main cause of climate change You for some reason thought I was talking about the "main cause of climate". What an odd misreading. But at least you're not making wildly inaccurate claims about climate change, just missing the point. You do believe in the accepted scientific consensus on climate change right? Now that we've established we're talking about climate change, and not just the climate.
        PM_me_your_math 3y ago
        The only system that causes climate change is the sun-earth-water heat dynamic. Everything else is just religious bleating and used-car salesmanship.

by bertil 3y ago

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

The focus on straws comes from two angles: * the original environmental motivation was that they are strong, non-bio-degradable structures that pose threats to wildlife, similar to how the old 'can rings' got phased out. * anything that involves government regulation, especially government regulation of stuff that involves the fossil petrochemical industry has an immensely well funded push back against it. It's a slippery slope, once you ban straws the next thing you know you might actually deal with the main cause of climate change and we wouldn't want that now would we. > Their prohibition would, it was thought, reduce plastic waste getting into the environment. But to the degree that these bans led people to substitute paper for plastic, all they've done is swap out some minimal amount of plastic consumption for increased PFAS pollution. Hmm "minimal amount of plastic consumption" vs "increased PFAS pollution"? Why is one pollution and one consumption? Why is one "a minimal amount" and the other an "increase"? It's because this is effectively a PR outlet for fossil fuel corporations.

PM_me_your_math 3y ago
>>>once you ban straws the next thing you know you might actually deal with the main cause of climate change and we wouldn't want that now would we. How are you going to deal with solar radiation, earth's position and orientation, the jet stream, and water vapor?
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Can you cite a source that suggests those 5 things combined are a bigger impact than the real actual accepted by science singular main cause? I'm prepared to let it slide that you've named 5 different things as I think you're still factually incorrect even if I let you clump them together.
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    This is a joke, right? You're saying the sun, the Milankovitch cycle, water vapor, and other natural processes have less of an impact on climate than humanity? Care to explain how? That's hilarious. LMAO!!!! The sun puts 4.4 x 1016 watts into Earth each year. How much does humanity put?
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      You appear to have misread the part of my comment that you quoted. I said: > the main cause of climate change You for some reason thought I was talking about the "main cause of climate". What an odd misreading. But at least you're not making wildly inaccurate claims about climate change, just missing the point. You do believe in the accepted scientific consensus on climate change right? Now that we've established we're talking about climate change, and not just the climate.
      - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
        The only system that causes climate change is the sun-earth-water heat dynamic. Everything else is just religious bleating and used-car salesmanship.