• aeternum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      straws aren’t even the problem. The largest source of plastic in the ocean is fishing nets and discarded fishing equipment.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The interesting question becomes where these are coming from and why. Which countries?

        Straws may not be the problem, but I remember straws being washed up all over the beach.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m not sure what you are saying. Straws, like plastic carriers were a well-established product that could be beneficially regulated tp reduce plastic waste. Single-use vapes were a new product category that pretty much came out of nowhere and are now likely to be regulated. Do you want a general purpose ban on every single-use item containing plastic? Not a bad idea, but it would be a big, quite radical change to the way people lived their lives - no biros etc.

        • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          they chose the smallest thing they could do

          They initially chose a thing that would have marginal impact on consumers’ behaviour, yes. Starting in October 2023, people will no longer be able to buy plastic cutlery, plates, bowls, trays, balloon sticks, and other items.

          Which items would you nominate for an immediate ban in addition?

          Regarding consumers v producers - they literally just stopped producers selling this stuff. What do you mean?

            • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Stopping a producer selling it in a country is putting the onus on the producer.

              I don’t think the narrative of producer v consumer is particularly helpful. Any regulation that hits the producer will also hit the consumer.

              I’d be all for a ban on plastic bottles, but you need proper glass bottle deposit schemes in place first

                • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Whether a producer is prohibited from producing or selling has zero affect on the UK consumer. I agree that a ban on production would be good, but in the vast majority of cases these are overseas producers, so that can’t be legislated for.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              How much less talking about the consumers responsible is appropriate? Or do you think people shouldn’t talk about it at all?

        • aeternum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          why do you think the producers are producing these things? Because consumer demand. If we stopped purchasing these things, they wouldn’t produce them. They only produce them because that’s where the money is.

      • Maco1969@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Most of the world didn’t use single use plastics until the last fifty years, we could get rid of it all easily, we simply choose not to.

        • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Sure, we coudl go back to washing powder in boxes, using fountain pens, go back buying fruit loose from greengrocers, make our own yogurt, visit a creamery with a glass jar to buy cream, and get rid of most ready meals. I think “easily” is rather under-estimating the level of disruption it would cause the average person

          • Suspicious@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            Tbh I think you are overestimating the disruption, lots people do already buy washing powder in cardboard boxes(it’s also a better product BC you buy it in bigger volumes and you can measure out the exact right amount for your machine and water hardness), picking your fruit from a loose box in the supermarket and putting into your shopping cart in a paper bag or a bag you bring yourself is also super normal, why would you have to make your own yougert? Why would you need to go to a creamry for cream rather than use the supermarket glass bottle return scheme used for milk? I feel like I should note that there a lot of food-safe resins and waxes that can liquid-proof containers that aren’t actualy prohibitively expensive but a bit more expensive and currently less widely produced than plastics. But considering what we’re doing to the planet that sacrifice is negligable

            Yeah the pre-portioned and plated ready meals you buy from the fridge section would probably stop being thing, but there also food-bar things that serve a very similar product

            Obviously life would change a bit and it wouldn’t be painless but I really think people overestimate it and something absolutely has to change

            • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Yes. And for the most part, those are lined with a very thin plastic skin - which is what makes recycling difficult. I didn’t mention milk or juice because glass bottles would be the obvious answer.

    • FatLegTed
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Or even cares. As usual cheap Chinese tat (other third world tat markets are available) and its lapped up here without a thought.

    • Mane25
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      This whole government makes a whole lot more sense once you come to the realisation that they’re all mentally challenged in the literal sense. It wouldn’t surprise me if they couldn’t even conceptualise how the two things are related.

      • Uranium 🟩@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nah, that does a disservice to both mentally challenged people, and lets the Tories off for how cruel they really are

        • Mane25
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          You can still be cruel and mentally challenged.

          They got in to power because of privilege. Those with privilege and intelligence have long since abandoned the Tory party, so you’re just left with the bottom of the barrel; the privileged and dim - it’s no wonder this country is failing.

          It’s like that whole encryption thing they’re failing to push through; the fact that “this is an embarrassingly stupid and unworkable idea” never gets brought up just goes to show. They don’t even know what encryption is, it’s a joke.

          • Blake [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Dude, they aren’t lacking in intelligence, they’re educated and very capable people. They don’t give a shit about plastic pollution, they just want to try and reduce the impact of protesters. They don’t give a shit about how bad their encryption law would be for people and businesses because it would give them more power and a stronger chilling effect so they can suppress dissidents. They are not lacking in mental faculties whatsoever, they are playing you for a fool.

            • Mane25
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              I know they don’t care but they’re also not very intelligent. I thought that would be non-controversial. The capitalist class that put them there might be intelligent but not the politicians themselves.

              • Blake [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                No, you’re just wrong. Most politicians are of average intelligence or above. Do you have any sort of source which indicates otherwise? What would drive you to this? The argument that politicians are bad because they have an intellectual disability is extremely ableist.

                • Mane25
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  It’s not ablism to suggest someone might not have the mental capacity to do a job.

                  I thought it would be obvious just looking at the shallowness of their reasoning. Also, an evil genius would at least act in their own interests, whereas the Tories have been pretty self-destructive.

                  • Blake [he/him]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    They have acted very strongly in their own interests. Do you think they want to be in politics forever? They hang around for a few years to make their name, get the lobbyist money, do some favours for some corporations in exchange for lucrative benefits and board positions and head off into to sunset to count their stacks of cash.

                    Again, “the shallowness of their reasoning”, they’re very clearly lying about their reasons because they can’t come out and say “we want to ban encryption because we want to be able to spy on all of our own population at any time without a warrant”

                    It’s not ablism to suggest someone might not have the mental capacity to do a job.

                    Yes, it literally is. It’s like saying that women are too sensitive to be politicians. I would far rather have a trustworthy person who listens to working class people and has a good heart but who also has an intellectual disability to run the country than what we have right now. It would be far better.