Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AftyOfTheUK t1_j3m0ety wrote

Is this actually uplifting?

It doesn't appear anyone even attempted to quantify the damage they're claiming these things do. Lots of people will now be inconvenienced, and we don't even know if it's a good idea or not.

1

DaenerysMomODragons t1_j3m97pd wrote

I think back to when I was young and they banned paper bags from grocery stores because super thin plastic bags were said to be better for the environment. It seems like environmentalism is just cyclical. Give it 20-30 years and they'll be banning paper/wood straws/utensils, just wait.

Edit: Now that I think about it more, they could try to standardize people brining their own permanent utensils, and sell permanent utensils to those who forget them, just like how grocery stores now will sell you cloth bags.

4

DedicatedDdos t1_j3m9i6c wrote

Some googling gives me data from 2019 at around ~50kg per person per year for countries like the USA (53kg), Australia (59kg), UK (44kg). From here.

That's estimated single use plastics, not other trash.

Keeping in mind that the majority of plastics aren't recyclable and a lot of them don't even get to the garbage dumps.

And besides the rather small portion of people that actually need things like straws for medical reasons for which there are always exceptions provided, who exactly will get inconvenienced?

Edit; To add to this, we know reducing plastic use is good, any reduction is good, gotta start somewhere.

4

KlausVonChiliPowder t1_j3mra3g wrote

I'm poor and rely on the free plastic bags to both carry my food for the walk home, a large amount since I can only make it twice a month to the store, and then we use them again at home for trash lining/cat litter/etc.

The real problem is a lack of perspective from the upper-middle classes, believing everyone can shoulder the cost of this feel-good legislation that isn't going to have a significant impact on the environment considering how reliant we are on the stuff for nearly everything we own. Guess what. We're just going to have to buy the plastic bags now.

Give up your phone, TV, car, PlayStation, etc and then let's go after the 10 or so, super thin, poorly manufactured bags I use a month.

3

DedicatedDdos t1_j3nuekj wrote

Plastic bags aren't banned here so you're fine.

Nor am I advocating a complete ban on all plastics.

Nor is this a choice between you surviving financially and the world using less plastic.

Honestly, that's a whole other discussion on its own, from the fact that pollution is becoming an increasing cost to society through climate change, illnesses and whatnot, and addressing all that costs money, not addressing it even more. To how to make that transition affordable for everyone, if we even can etc... and that's a discussion I just don't fancy delving into atm.

When buying a roll of plastic bags breaks your bank there's another issue at play, and that too needs addressing. And we can do multiple things at the same time, but it too often gets bogged down by populist nonsense.

My main point is that we only get to live for a brief while and enjoy this planet, why make it shorter by polluting? And can we at least not leave the place behind cleanly? So the next poor sod that comes along at least has fresh air to breathe and some birds and trees to look at?

1

AftyOfTheUK t1_j3mc0or wrote

>Some googling gives me data from 2019 at around ~50kg per person per year for countries like the USA (53kg), Australia (59kg), UK (44kg). From here.
>
>That's estimated single use plastics, not other trash.

That's quantifying how much plastic is used. I asked for quantification of the damage/harm caused.

>To add to this, we know reducing plastic use is good

That's my entire point. We don't.

−1

DedicatedDdos t1_j3mff2m wrote

>That's my entire point. We don't.

Yes, we do.

knock yourself out I'd say, plenty of research on this subject.

I'll provide you with a single excerpt, again you're free to dive deeper into this.

>Plastic contains chemical additives, most of which remain unknown or understudied. Meanwhile, many of the chemicals additives for which scientific information is available are known to be toxic. A growing body of evidence points to the health risks posed by plastic additives. These include endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which are linked to infertility, obesity, diabetes, prostate or breast cancer, among others. Other health conditions linked to additives include reproductive, growth, and cognitive impairment and neurodevelopment disorders.

there's plenty of research that needs to be done still in this field if we want an accurate picture, but what we know already is pretty damning.

And that is only the health aspect of it. Like I said in my previous comment, most plastics aren't recyclable, so that's 50 kilo per person per year that gets tossed somewhere, anywhere, you're free to do the math on how much avoidable waste that is globally.

On that note, show me a fish, and I'll show you plastic.

1

AftyOfTheUK t1_j3mimyl wrote

>there's plenty of research that needs to be done still in this field

Doesn't appear to be any kind of quantification of damage, however. The size of the problem appears to be unknown, but we can conclude it's relatively small, otherwise it would be easier to detect and quantify.

>On that note, show me a fish, and I'll show you plastic.

Plastic that didn't make it to a landfill or incinerator, sure. But when properly disposed of, that's not an issue.

−1

Mannielf t1_j3m6z9t wrote

What are the potential benefits of keeping them / risks getting rid of them?

My knowledge on this is as basic as it comes, but getting rid of something that takes 100s of years to breakdown and replace them with stuff that doesn’t take 100s of years to breakdown seems like a good idea

3

AftyOfTheUK t1_j3mcf3d wrote

>What are the potential benefits of keeping them

As the people who are buying them? Various options exist, but some people still buy the plastic option - they obviously perceive benefits - maybe price, maybe functionality, maybe hygiene.

> getting rid of something that takes 100s of years to breakdown

In landfill, that doesn't matter, we're not running out of landfill space for sporks.

−1

Mannielf t1_j3mga9z wrote

I agree that various options should be available, but there’s always going to be a line. E.g. You can’t buy asbestos insulation anymore.

I disagree with ‘we aren’t running out of landfill space for sporks.’ Its not about having space for sporks now, it’s about the impact plastics have in the future. These are small steps, but when there’s a cleaner solution, it’s silly to use a more harmful option.

0

AftyOfTheUK t1_j3miyfu wrote

>E.g. You can’t buy asbestos insulation anymore.

This is a really good example, because asbestos insulation was directly linked to a huge number of deaths and chronic debilitating ilnesses.

We were able to get a rough quantification of the damage done to people's lives, and we decided to (mostly) get rid of asbestos because that damage was very high.

So I'm asking - what level of damage is being caused by plastics used within this country (the ones that can be controlled by legislation) - how much harm/damage is caused.

If it's a lot, we should get rid of it. If it's not, then we shouldn't be banning it.

>I disagree with ‘we aren’t running out of landfill space for sporks.’ Its not about having space for sporks now, it’s about the impact plastics have in the future.

What impact do you believe plastics disposed of in a landfill (or incinerator) will have on you in the future?

−1