9 ms·

In addition to being counterproductive (as explained by others), there's another issue with these token environmental laws that add highly visible inconvenience

• Nifty3929 3y ago
  "they annoy people, leading to resentment and rejection of environmentalism as a whole" I hadn't thought about it that way before, but I think you're exactly right. I feel this in myself. I am pro-environment, or at least I want to be. But when I think about the actual effects of all these laws and regulations it just makes me mad and want to ignore or fight ALL environmental laws. I have to use a paper straw now? It just seems to go on and on.
  • latentcall 3y ago
    Do people really need straws so much they get annoyed if they are made of a different material? You can just not use a straw. Or if it’s life or death you have one, purchase a collapsible metal straw and bring it with you.
    • __salt 3y ago
      > You can just not use a straw. This thought process is the problem. Solutions must benefit all parties. Telling one party to go without and deal with it creates resentment.
      • johnnyanmac 3y ago
        >Solutions must benefit all parties. but solutions never benefit all parties. Laws tend to tell some group what not to do, so most laws will inconvinience someone. You just need to figure out who the law and targeting (and REALLY targeting, not just what PR says) and then follow the money from there.
        • __salt 3y ago
          Less energy would be used by creating straws that are both convenient and good for the environment, like agave fiber straws. Solutions can benefit all parties in any context (and the best ones do), but environmental protection is unique because the solution must benefit all parties. This is because, while some will sacrifice for the sake of the world, some will not. Convenience compels the lazy to change. No amount of coercion, or threat of force will change that.
      • p1mrx 3y ago
        Perhaps it would be more useful to unban plastic straws, and then ban unsolicited straws. It's rather tedious to take a straw out of a drink, dry it off, and find somewhere to put it.
        • latentcall 3y ago
          I can agree with this. Straws upon request makes more sense.
        • Wowfunhappy 3y ago
          This is, in fact, how I think we should have handled plastic bags. The plastic bags themselves are fine. But the customer should have to actually request one. I can't tell you how many times I bought one small item I intended to carry out of the store with me, and the cashier just automatically put it in a plastic bag. "Oh, I don't need a bag," I'd say. The cashier would then proceed to take the item out of the bag, and throw the bag away. (No animosity intended towards the cashiers, who have difficult jobs. But we should have a better process.)
      • 3y ago
    • chasebank 3y ago
      Do you really need an extra bedroom? Do you really need a car? Do you really need that extra pair of socks? Do you really need that coca-cola? Of course not. People obviously want it. Quite the slippery slope you're walking.
      • grecy 3y ago
        We are at a point in society where we can't simply keep doing what those before us did. We are killing the planet, and every plant and animal on it, including ourselves. Yes, life is about to get less convenient and we have to give up some luxuries. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it a fact.
        • chasebank 3y ago
          "We are at a point in society where we can't simply keep doing what those before us did." Sure we can. And we will. The choices of most of the world's population surely disagrees with this. "Yes, life is about to get less convenient and we have to give up some luxuries." I don't think that's the case, but we will see. For the record, ideologically, I'm on your side. Realistically, I just don't see a world where the majority of people change. The stop using the plastic straw argument applies to people who don't like straws. Tell the same anti-straw folks to stop traveling, stop having pets, no more children. You see where this goes - It just doesn't work.
          • grecy 3y ago
            There are laws against plastic straws and plastic bags. There are laws against chemicals that are known to cause environmental harm. There are laws against vehicles that pollute too much. Soon there will be laws against cars vehicles that pollute at all. All we have to do is make laws, and more and more of them are coming. Again, it doesn't matter what an individual wants.
            • JackSlateur 3y ago
              Your trust in laws is fascinating For humans, laws and rules are meant to be overstepped : this is how our species got so far : by considering rules, laws and traditions, and say "well, whatever, I will try it my way and see how it goes"
    • whartung 3y ago
      I pretty much loathe paper straws. Their texture is nails on chalkboard to me. I hate that they get soggy. I hate that they collapse in anything thick like a milkshake or smoothie. I will more likely go without than use a paper (even the modern paper) straws. And I don’t like going without. I like straws. I like their utility. I like the way they work in the car. They let me rate limit the beverage flow rather than something else, such as the ice dam at edge of the cup. I’m also a big fan of ice. The closest solution I’ve found are lids with small openings. Starbucks coffee lids are good examples, but they’re also “strawless” cup lids with a small lid over a hole. They’re not a replacement for straws, but they’re not awful like paper straws are. Some leak though. Puts them lower on the fun scale. Not a big fan of the stainless steel ones either to be honest.
    • msie 3y ago
      I am forever haunted by the death of a woman by a metal straw where it impaled her in the head when she accidentally fell in her home.
      • scoofy 3y ago
        As soon as I saw people were using metal straws as a replacement for plastic straws, I thought... that is a terrible, dumb idea. Yet people still buy them. It's pretty nuts. There are now perfectly functional composable straws, but people still need to compost them.
      • the_doctah 3y ago
        Impaled through the eye, my god.
      • PlunderBunny 3y ago
        The odds of something like that happening are so astronomically low that you’re better off spending your energy looking up for falling pianos.
      • billfor 3y ago
        Or the guy that died of a rare bacterial infection that he got from using his dirty metal straw he never cleaned /s
      • opan 3y ago
        There are also silicone and glass straws. Plus a metal straw with a bend in it may be safer than a straight one. I was expecting someone else to have mentioned silicone straws already, I'd heard of them before in other straw discussions. Had to do a search and make sure they really existed.
    • prepend 3y ago
      Do people really need the things they drink with straws? There’s two ways I generally think of this: 1) who knows what is actually essential. I can’t judge what others truly need and don’t know of an objective board who can. Is art necessary? Is coke necessary? Are luxury vehicles necessary? 2) people choose what’s needed by buying them and prioritizing their money toward it. So by existing and being purchased that’s proof enough of necessity. I’m sure as hell not carrying and keeping clean a collapsible metal straw on the off chance that I’ll want to drink a drink one day. It seems like the mental stress of that would outweigh the negative impact of a thousand plastic straws (not to mention the energy spent to create the collapsible metal straw in the first place). It’s important to keep in mind all the tradeoffs and not to create negative overall effects from the aim of improving only environmental effects.
    • thrownv7032g 3y ago
      The paper straws are awful products. They taste like paper and disintegrate quickly even though they are still covered in plastic. Wood utensils in comparison were an adjustment but they work fine. I have been avoiding lids and straws for two decades now, because they are wasteful, but when I have need of a straw and lid it's nice if they work.
    • RajT88 3y ago
      Paper straws are an improvement. Just not perfect. I cannot speak to cost, but wax, paper/cardboard performs well enough for just about any food related purpose. Not suitable for shakes? Make them thicker.
      • the_doctah 3y ago
        I've never met a single person who likes using a paper straw over a plastic one. They feel weird in your mouth, they get soggy, and they fall apart. I fail to see how adding more paper material would fix the issue.
        • RajT88 3y ago
          Plastic straws perform better than your average paper straw, no argument there. I think the talking point is a lot of people do not care that much and paper straws are good enough. Wax would help way more for most use cases, but the added material would help for thicker mediums. Waxed paper straws are a thing and are almost as good as plastic straws. I am not sure why they are not more common. Pretty rare actually.
          • MisterBastahrd 3y ago
            The reason we use plastic straws is because we've ALREADY used paper straws and consumers preferred the plastic ones. Especially now that all of our drink portion sizes are gigantic and straws tend to sit in drinks for hours.
            • RajT88 3y ago
              That and they are cheaper to produce. Now we're learning more and more that using plastic for everything is not just bad for the environment, but also bad for our health. Consumer sentiment is shifting accordingly. For the record, I'm in camp, "Don't care that much, whatever straws are fine". I'd be happy if as a society we could just get people not to litter like other developed countries manage to. I have a lot of junk which ends up in my front yard (people tossing garbage from passing cars) and my backyard (a river where all kinds of styrofoam, plastic cups, plastic bags, etc. all wash up). If all the junk was biodegradable it wouldn't hang around my yard and require me to pick it up (or I could at least toss it on the burn pile).
    • noqc 3y ago
      If you really want to get rid of plastics, stop recycling them and start burying them.
    • wkat4242 3y ago
      If you have sensitive teeth a straw is really needed with some drinks. And putting a collapsible one back in your pocket after it's sticky is a bit disingenious. I'd prefer focusing on better recycling than replacing by worse alternatives (eg PFAS coated paper)
      • opan 3y ago
        I would suggest either rinsing it in a bathroom somewhere, and/or carrying some sort of pouch or container you can stick it in so you don't dirty your pocket. Then you could clean it at home. In a pinch you could probably pour water from your water bottle on/through it outside if you carry a water bottle already. Could also wrap it in a handkerchief if you carry anything like that.
        • wkat4242 3y ago
          I don't normally carry any of that stuff to be honest. I don't usually even wear a coat. Just my phone, keys and sometimes a wallet. I live in Spain so 80% of the year I don't use a coat. And water I would just buy when I need it :) When I go hiking I do bring those things but then I don't come across places that sell iced drinks :)
        • boring_twenties 3y ago
          That sounds like a lot more effort than just avoiding places that give you shitty paper straws instead of proper plastic ones
    • ryandrake 3y ago
      It doesn't have to be a life-or-death issue in order to moderately annoy someone. In fact, straws are not a life-or-death issue, so it annoys people when they are treated as a life-or-death issue. And nobody has ever been annoyed into agreeing with a political view. Politicians should understand these kinds of regulations just create new opponents and entrench people already against you.
    • lazide 3y ago
      I never use straws. Straw bans irritate me because they’re such transparent bullshit - and so many people prop it up as actually real, useful, and ‘helping’. Similar to folks pushing homeopathy as real medicine and getting folks to nod along so they can sell it to even more suckers. The whole country seems to be devolving to scam artists selling increasingly ridiculous feel good scams to everyone to boost our numbers. I consider it yet another paper cut in the ongoing erosion of rational thought and pragmatic thinking in the public sphere. Straw bans alone? Not hurting anyone too bad. The overall direction is going to get a lot of people killed though.
    • Geisterde 3y ago
      Yes, it is annoying, and its not about the straw. Its 100% about vapid environmental policies that do nothing for the environment. -The soil quality is going to hell, is it the fault of nitrogen fertilizers? It probably doesnt help, but far worse is the over farming of corn, which is the direct result of farming subsidies that shouldnt exist. -The chemical train crash in east Palestine Ohio? Operating per EPA regs; a company that had actual liability for harm would never transport chemicals without insurance, and the insurance company would base the rate on everything you would want them too, like installed safety features, rail upkeep, and training; instead, they are off scot free because they are protected by the people who are supposed to regulate them, as is only natural. -We are decades behind in energy infastructure because of nuclear alarmism. -Flint was an inside job, the government poisoned the people there and said it was safe. -I almost forgot paper straws, which are also terrible for the environment and even worse for humans. -We always ignore the biggest polluter, the pentagon. I could go on all day. If the EPA set out a few basic guidelines like "hey, make sure people wear respirators!", "dont dump chemicals into the river!", no one would complain. Its just, that will never be the federal government of the united states.
    • inglor_cz 3y ago
      I almost never use straws, but I know elderly people who like straws because they reduce their risk of spilling whatever they are drinking. Metal straws are sturdy, but they get uncomfortably hot or cold depending on the drink.
  • david422 3y ago
    > the actual effects of all these laws and regulations it just makes me mad and want to ignore or fight ALL environmental laws Oh come on. How do you even make that jump?
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • aiisjustanif 3y ago
    All of that channels your emotions in a negative way. Carrying reusable bags and straws really isn’t that difficult let’s be honest, we carry around other things.
• subsubzero 3y ago
  Also these environmental laws come from a place of non-rigorous fanciful thinking, ie. the paper straw push was pushed by some hollywood celebrity and never took into account that paper straws are loaded with forever chemicals, and are useless with shakes or drinks that take a long time to finish. The gas stove bans are beyond absurd, the claims are that they cause asthma and lung problems but I bought a few air quality meters and ran my gas stove at full blast with no discernible degradation registered on these meters. In addition going full electric leads to a non-redundancy in heating and cooling which pushes a greater strain on the electric grid and if said grid fails(see california) people are completly without heat or cooling. Lastly they push enormous costs onto individuals for miniscule gains.
  • speakeron 3y ago
    I think the problem with gas stoves is the nitrogen dioxide they produce. Do you have a meter for that?
    • prepend 3y ago
      Yes, quite clearly it’s easy to measure nitrogen dioxide as well. A well ventilated stove has no problem with the nitrogen dioxide produced. So it’s an example of illogic to push for banning gas stoves rather than incentivizing proper ventilation.
  • pwnna 3y ago
    Comparing gas vs electric seems incorrect. Should be comparing with induction instead. It is way more energy efficient (altho not necessarily more cost efficient). It produces no combustion byproduct like gas (which your air quality meter may or may not be able to detect), and it is way faster and gives you better control. It also is safer without flames or leaks, and less likely to burn you. It is the way to cook in 2024 imo.
  • thexumaker 3y ago
    You mean Texas lol. 30 years in SF and there’s been a couple blackouts during the summer for a n hour or 2.
• scoofy 3y ago
  They annoy people that already don't really care, and want an excuse to be vocal about it. It takes effectively zero effort to keep a reusable bag around, and you don't even have to use it every time to have a sizable impact. The reason why these bans are effective is because people like me don't want a bag anyway, and before these bans were in effect, I didn't have a choice. And these things do not end up in the trash, in part, because they are so light weight. The same thing happened when they banned smoking. Normalizing not using a bag unless you need one will feel normal for the next generation, but never feel normal for us. When your concerns about environmentalism extend only to "unless it's inconvenient" then you're not actually concerned with environment, you're concern with feeling socially shamed. Look, I have plenty of concern about faux environmentalism bullshit, like recycling plastic, but plastic bag bans are not one of them, because there are myriad alternatives that exist.
  • prepend 3y ago
    > It takes effectively zero effort to keep a reusable bag around I’ve found it takes lots of effort. It’s a chore to keep track of and bring it back out to the car. I probably now have 10 reusable bags that I’ve bought because I keep forgetting them at home, or in the car when I wasn’t expecting to go to the store. It’s not a huge effort, but it’s definitely non-zero. Obviously, I should be smarter. But I’m not, sadly.
    • scoofy 3y ago
      It's obviously not a habit for you, and that's fine. My point is that it's not physically difficult to do. It's just something you need to remember to do. This is what I mean by the next generation just being habituated to the process. There are plenty of these types of "chores" we accept because they are something we see as worthwhile. Wearing a seat belt, brushing our teeth, stepping outside to smoke a cigarette, putting on headphones to use our phone on the bus, not using a phone in a theater, etc., etc., etc. When this is normalize, nobody will notice, but the 20 years of transition will be slightly annoying, but my point is that, during that 20 years... we're not even materially changing our behavior. The stores have paper or slightly denser plastic bags for you. The thing that drives me crazy about this whole debate is how trivial it is. It's effectively the least possible change we can make to substantially change the culture, and very same people seem to claim that it's both (1) not enough change to matter, and (2) so much change that it's harming environmentalism as a cause. The entire point of doing it this way is behavioral economics. If you make it slightly annoying, most people will eventually change their behavior. The fact that so many people hate such a small change so much is exactly why I point out that the people who care so much about a slight behavioral change don't actually care about environmentalism, is that most folks haven't even begun to gauge the level of cultural change we need to actually fight climate change. If you think being asked to generally keep a grocery bag in your car is too much to ask, just wait until you're "incentivized" to take an ebike to the grocery store... If that's something you can't stomach even if it destroys the climate, then you don't care about the climate.
• akira2501 3y ago
  > leading to resentment and rejection of environmentalism as a whole I think people like this because it explains why the "other side" doesn't just listen to their arguments and follow their prescriptions on how to live exactly. Meanwhile, these other people live _in_ the environment, and so they're obviously concerned about it at some level. My read is that "environmentalism" is used as a "bully plank" and people are rather tired of being manipulated for the ends of elites without any accountability for their policy failures and so generally tend to react quite negatively when it is naively brought into any conversation.
• barrkel 3y ago
  This is just not my experience. People don't complain and carrier bags as street rubbish, littering everything from urban trees to the countryside, just disappears. Charging is enough; bans aren't necessary, but sure, add them, no problem.
• IanCal 3y ago
  Just adding a cost to plastic bags here (UK) has cut down on the number of plastic bags I see caught in trees or bushes by an incredible amount.
• LouisSayers 3y ago
  In Australia, New Zealand in recent years we've moved to reduce plastic bags from supermarkets etc. I haven't actually heard anyone complain about it or get annoyed at some group of people - this whole concept of being annoyed at some group of e.g. environmentalists actually seems completely strange and alien. Yes, it takes a bit of getting used to, but now it's simply a habit to take a small folded up reusable bag most places when we head out (just incase we end up shopping), or to think ahead and grab some bags when we know we're going out for a shop. Really not a big deal.
  • prawn 3y ago
    Those thin plastic bags at checkout were phased out here in South Australia in 2009. I remember some resentment at first ("Now I have to buy bin bags!") but a few years later I don't think anyone cares. Anyone remotely prepared has reusable bags in their home/car, or collapsible bags in a handbag, and deliveries arrive in paper bags (which we then use as a bin under the sink). There are other single-use plastic phase outs in progress and the near-future also. Previously, plastic bags discarded roadside were a common sight, stuck in fences and trees.
  • alatkins 3y ago
    The number of people that I see taking their bags into the supermarket would be <10%. Many people, like me, just pay the 15c/bag tax each time for (heavier plastic) bags that just end up in landfill anyway.
    • mastazi 3y ago
      the 15c/bag ones are made of paper in most supermarkets around me (NSW).
    • LouisSayers 3y ago
      I just asked my Aunt who works on checkout, she reckons only about 20% of people remember to bring bags... Even so, the alternatives here in NZ are paper bags or more expensive polyester fabric bags.
    • lm28469 3y ago
• Supermancho 3y ago
  > add highly visible inconveniences with no actual benefit Like quitting smoking, the benefit is not immediately obvious or universally effective (eg quitting at 70), but the benefit is still there.
• SoftTalker 3y ago
  Also remember that plastic bags were introduced as being more environmentally friendly than paper (which comes from trees).
  • PlunderBunny 3y ago
    There are good questions to ask about the pollution involved in making paper bags but: 1. That has to be compared against the pollution involved in making plastic bags, not against nothing at all. 2. Paper bags can use recycled paper, so it’s not really (directly) from trees.
  • aiisjustanif 3y ago
    You do realize you are in Hacker News, where we believe science and evidence are ever changing things and that innovations do exist?
• lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  What is your evidence it has caused backlash, or that it hasn't actually had a benefit? The whole article claims the contrary: that it works. I do agree that some behaviors can be counterproductive, like those pests who blockade busy roads or glue themselves to paintings "for the environment". Not only do these privileged and spoiled punks unjustly impede people from living their lives and destroy culture (they seem to always glue themselves to things that still pass as art, never the banana duct taped to the wall), but they only foment antipathy toward anything environmental, harming legitimate concern, action, and legislation in the process. The social deficits and ineptness of these people is astounding.
  • yuliyp 3y ago
    The rest of this thread is some anecdotal evidence of a backlash, if nothing else.
• hackerlight 3y ago
  > no actual benefit (e.g. bag or straw bans)' Can you provide a source for plastic bag bans having "no actual benefit"? The article is saying the opposite.
• mrshadowgoose 3y ago
  Although this is also my impression based on personal observations over the years, I concur that it seems like a lot of activism in general is just a thin socially-acceptable wrapper around hating on other groups of people. Take carbon-neutrality for example. There's no shortage of people who will rage against flyers, car users, cruise takers, etc, etc as the cause of all carbon related ills in the world. And of course, the complainer's personal use of polluting energy is always objectively correct and morally just. And there are extreme examples like the "Tyre Extinguishers" group, which is clearly just a group of individuals who want to damage others' property under some thin veil of "doing good for the environment". I say all this as a person that actually does care about the environment, but have not fallen into the easy trap of thinking that hating on others is a solution. Meaningful central solutions are the answer. If one cares about carbon neutrality, I'd recommend advocating for across-the-board carbon taxation that is directly and honestly tied to the cost of fully and immediately offsetting a product/service's carbon footprint. And then it wouldn't matter one bit if someone wants to take several cruises a year, or drive an "unnecessarily" large car. But the social justification to hate on those people would evaporate, and that would make some other people sad.
  • vegetablepotpie 3y ago
    Can you say the same about cigarette smoking bans in restaurants? Just a socially acceptable way for people to hate smokers? Smoking or emitting carbon, or using plastic imposes negative externalities on other people. Second hand smoke causes lung cancer, carbon in the atmosphere leads to climate change, plastic in our environment can cause developmental and reproductive issues. There are reasons to oppose these things that do not include hating people. Some of the tactics may be ineffective or misguided, but this does not mean that everyone who cares about stopping harmful things hates a particular group of people. I like your idea of putting a price on carbon emissions. Many economists agree that it would be one of the most effective ways to eliminate emissions while allowing the economy to continue to grow [1]. Solutions are there, and they will be employed when the political will for it is built. [1] https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
    • 3y ago
• lm28469 3y ago
  > they annoy people, leading to resentment and rejection of environmentalism as a whole Sustainable lifestyles will be much more annoying than quitting plastic bags and straws. If this is the bar we can't overcome we're utterly fucked