A ban on something doesn’t blame the consumer? It simply stops one aspect of unnecessary plastic pollution which has a tiny positive effect.
Plastic bottles in Germany have a 25 cent deposit that you can earn back by returning them when they are empty. This has significantly reduced plastic pollution for plastic bottles which is a tiny but positive effect.
Certain colored plastics for plastic bottles are prohibited too because they are not recyclable. A tiny but positive step.
Once you have hundreds of such steps you have a significant positive leap. The government should ban disposable plastics altogether ideally now but every single ban is putting us a step closer to a world free from plastic.
Plastic straws weren’t banned due to the sheer volume of plastic, but because they are particularly hard to recycle and their shape makes them specially dangerous for wildlife.
In Germany, plastic waste is finally stagnating after rising for the last couple of years. Sadly plastic production and export is still continuing to rise. The only fortunate development is that German plastic waste exports have nearly been cut in halve since 2015.
I fully agree it’s insufficient.
But still, there is no doubt it would have been worse without those policies.
If harm reduction is all we have right now then I will fight tooth and nail against those seeking to abolish it.
Also, reactionary consumers are always against environmental protection, no matter how little progress there is. Try banning ultra fast fashion - a massive cause of pollution - and see how people would react.
D. I honestly don’t know what your point had to do with mine? Something about it be political? My point was that it’s simply a way for oil companies and heavy plastic users to reframe it as the every mans problem you know the people who can not stop it.
The fact that you can’t walk and chew gum because you lose focus makes me wonder of you need to stop to breath. It definitely seems you were oxygen deprived for extended periods of time.
That took me less than 10 minutes of digging. I’m sure if I spent another 10 minutes on it I could find five more studies.
This all of course is assuming that you are arguing in good faith. My guess is that you’re not considering you put out such a bold claim when there’s substantial evidence that that claim was inaccurate.
Don’t have any scientific reason other than concern over all of the micro plastics that are now in literally everything living, or the impact production of plastics has on the environment, or the fact that they aren’t biodegradable and just sit somewhere for ages.
You having concerns is not scientific research, scientists having concerns is not scientific research, ask a scientist they will tell you more research is needed, we simply don’t know because we don’t have enough studies it just feels bad or is concerning but there is reason to believe that it is nothing the simple fact is that plastic is inert and we have seen no I’ll effect.
I think you’d make a perfect subject for a study on the effects of microplastics on a persons ability to reason. Your dismissive and empty arguments in this thread would give ample evidence to support that a preference for drinking from plastic straws may in fact be harmful to a persons brain over prolonged exposure.
Get your head out of your ass. This is a gift to the oil industry and destroys the environment. There are new biodegradable straws that are 100% as good as plastic and won’t wind up embedded in sea life.
The new straws are %100 as good as my ass, and the gift to the oil companies was producing just as much plastic while tainting the consumers opinion on environmental conservation.
Eh, about as High priority as switching them out in the first place.
Reducing microplastics is a high priority. One that no one ever took seriously.
A. it’s not we don’t even have any scientific reason to think it’s bad for us.
B. The whole thing is a distraction from the real issues.
C. The total amount of plastic can’t go down until we reduce manufacturing.
D. It reframes environmental issues to the consumer the exact kind of marketing campaign companies have been using for years.
A ban on something doesn’t blame the consumer? It simply stops one aspect of unnecessary plastic pollution which has a tiny positive effect.
Plastic bottles in Germany have a 25 cent deposit that you can earn back by returning them when they are empty. This has significantly reduced plastic pollution for plastic bottles which is a tiny but positive effect.
Certain colored plastics for plastic bottles are prohibited too because they are not recyclable. A tiny but positive step.
Once you have hundreds of such steps you have a significant positive leap. The government should ban disposable plastics altogether ideally now but every single ban is putting us a step closer to a world free from plastic.
Except it objectively did not reduce plastic production and it soured the end consumers opinion on environmental conservation.
Plastic straws weren’t banned due to the sheer volume of plastic, but because they are particularly hard to recycle and their shape makes them specially dangerous for wildlife.
https://eurekarecycling.org/plastic-straws/
Of course people like to use fake arguments as the reason why they were banned to make it seem baseless.
In Germany, plastic waste is finally stagnating after rising for the last couple of years. Sadly plastic production and export is still continuing to rise. The only fortunate development is that German plastic waste exports have nearly been cut in halve since 2015.
I fully agree it’s insufficient.
But still, there is no doubt it would have been worse without those policies.
If harm reduction is all we have right now then I will fight tooth and nail against those seeking to abolish it.
Also, reactionary consumers are always against environmental protection, no matter how little progress there is. Try banning ultra fast fashion - a massive cause of pollution - and see how people would react.
Wow, where to begin…
A, we have plenty of evidence to support plastic being bad for humans, and the entire planet.
B, we can chew gum and walk.
C, what did you think not manufacturing plastic straws would do? Reduce manufacturing.
D, if you don’t make it political, then it’s not political. It’s just reducing plastic waste.
A. You have just made a positive assertion that is easily proven and presented no studies, I’m waiting.
B. we absolutely cannot walk and chew gum at the same time attention is the modern currency.
C. Removing plastic straws did not reduce plastic manufacturing and it wasn’t supposed to reduce the manufacturing of plastic.
D. I honestly don’t know what your point had to do with mine? Something about it be political? My point was that it’s simply a way for oil companies and heavy plastic users to reframe it as the every mans problem you know the people who can not stop it.
A, Jfc, it’s 2025. Use a search engine. Even use AI ffs, “why is plastic bad for humans and the environment?” Do you think the earth is flat, too?
B, you can’t, we can.
C, I guess if it’s not all or nothing, there’s no point eh?
D, yes, morons are very susceptible to “the war on <thing>” and make it their entire personality.
We need to use less disposable plastic products. Look at the ocean, it’s filling with our trash. Most of that is plastic.
The fact that you can’t walk and chew gum because you lose focus makes me wonder of you need to stop to breath. It definitely seems you were oxygen deprived for extended periods of time.
I don’t expect you to understand that.
A) https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/24/15/12308
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine
https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfae060/7673133?login=false
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2309822
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12013-024-01436-0
That took me less than 10 minutes of digging. I’m sure if I spent another 10 minutes on it I could find five more studies.
This all of course is assuming that you are arguing in good faith. My guess is that you’re not considering you put out such a bold claim when there’s substantial evidence that that claim was inaccurate.
Don’t have any scientific reason other than concern over all of the micro plastics that are now in literally everything living, or the impact production of plastics has on the environment, or the fact that they aren’t biodegradable and just sit somewhere for ages.
You having concerns is not scientific research, scientists having concerns is not scientific research, ask a scientist they will tell you more research is needed, we simply don’t know because we don’t have enough studies it just feels bad or is concerning but there is reason to believe that it is nothing the simple fact is that plastic is inert and we have seen no I’ll effect.
I think you’d make a perfect subject for a study on the effects of microplastics on a persons ability to reason. Your dismissive and empty arguments in this thread would give ample evidence to support that a preference for drinking from plastic straws may in fact be harmful to a persons brain over prolonged exposure.
Get your head out of your ass. This is a gift to the oil industry and destroys the environment. There are new biodegradable straws that are 100% as good as plastic and won’t wind up embedded in sea life.
The new straws are %100 as good as my ass, and the gift to the oil companies was producing just as much plastic while tainting the consumers opinion on environmental conservation.