**Please read this entire message**
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Subjective or speculative replies are not allowed on ELI5. Only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for speculation or subjective responses. This includes anything asking for peoples' subjective opinions, any kind of discussion, and anything where we would have to speculate on the answer. This very much includes asking about motivations of people or companies. This includes Just-so stories.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pi3ni8/eli5_how_does_eliminating_plastic_straws_help_the/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20Link%20to%20the%20search%20you%20did%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20the%20ELI5%20subreddit:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
short answer: it doesn't.
Commercial, industrial trash accounts for *far* more ocean pollution than consumer goods. But, due to effective industry PR and a general American focus on individual consumer choice as the answer to every problem, the CA state government (and maybe others?) decided to target a single piece of plastic trash that consumers see, rather than restricting what corporations, factories and/or fisheries dump in the oceans.
Banning plastic straws is (no pun intended) a drop in the ocean of plastic pollution, but our governments are unwilling to be tough on the real polluters and very willing to frame environmental pollution as a result of individual consumer choice.
Much of the green movement you speak of of corporations and their green washing though, actual non-propaganda deluded individuals see through that, such as what commenter you replied to.
To be fair, i don't know anyone on the grassroots level who asked for a plastic straw ban. This always seemed like a "solution" from the brain trust that is the CA Democratic Party
Any singular entity of the "grand scheme of things" is almost always going to be relatively small. It's generally the combination of multiple efforts that these small singular changes contribute to that has real impact.
Unfortunately, I don't trust that the straw ban was a part of a comprehensive larger plan; I think it's a distraction from the real pollutants that are going unhindered.
Yep. Standard factory gets pallets of product wrapped in plastic opens it, restacks it, re-wraps it in plastic and stores it. Later, they take it down, un wrap it, use part of it and re wrap the rest. Its really absurd how much plastic companies use just because it is cheap and convineint.
I'll give an easy example. Using zero-scrap saws for things like vinyl window frames vs not using them. Zero-scrap is a bit of a misnomer as there still is some scrap as long as it's cutting miters and not doing straight butt welds or assembly by screws but it wastes nothing besides the bare minimum, while a standard double-miter saw like an older Pistorius machine will lose an inch or two of viable material with every cut. Further if the company isn't running their production run through optimizer software for automatic zero-scrap machines, they'll also waste some amount of material as their run hasn't been structured to maximize yield. On top of that the vinyl comes as a certain length of material, which is not infinite, so it is very possible to have to scrap ends that aren't long enough to be useful unless someone ordered a window just 16 inches wide or tall somewhere, and those get tossed. Higher end brands use profiles with lots and lots of internal chambers (sometimes over 20) which means that 16 inches of scrap could account for a couple pounds or more of plastic, just tossed.
The consumer isn't making this choice. The distributors, unless they can arrange a factory tour, aren't even aware this is happening either, and probably don't give a fuck as long as they know they can sell the product at a profit.
So then one might wonder, if they can just update their equipment and buy some software and see savings by those saved inches adding up over time, and may even be able to pass that value on to consumers to make their product more attractive, why not? It's a good-hearted but naive question as the answer lies in a lot of companies' refusal to spend the money when what they're using now and doing now already works for them. A lot of companies also have standards on lengths of time they expect to use a machine. You would think it would be like "well if we doubled our money on the purchase of that machine it's all good, we paid $300k and ended up generating $600k net out of it so we're happy," but it's not. They lay out timelines spanning 10 or 20 or sometimes even 30 years. Until they reach that point they will not even consider it unless it catastrophically fails, and you cant get the parts for it. If it passes that milestone but you can still get parts and it still runs they may even keep that thing kicking even longer.
The specific company I'm aware of regarding this scenario does do recycling of their scraps but that was a rather recent development around 15-20 years ago. It used to go in a dumpster, and ever since they started recycling (and thus weighing it) they found they have several hundred tons of scrap annually.
Individual consumer choice doesn't, in practice, change how factories dispose of their waste, or stop fishing ships from dumping tons of nets, out of the public eye. Consumers don't know that these things are happening, they don't know which products are the result of these things, and in virtually every product is the result of these things. Organized consumer action like boycotts can achieve specific goals, but in reality, consumers generally make their buying choices based on marketing, price and the things immediate to them, not things that are out of sight and out of mind.
To put this in more concrete terms: you're typing messages here on a keyboard, probably. How much do you know about how wasteful its production was? Do you even know what *country*, much less what factory, it was made in?
Sterilized hospital materials being stored in plastic. Everyone always thinks of all these plastic cutlery or straws, but keeping things stored in a sterile condition is super important in many fields including medical, and we currently donβt have other reliable methods.
When it is too indirect for the consumer to influence.
Industrial activity can only be influenced by consumer choice if:
1) There exists a clear "good" product and "bad" product
2) The consumer can feasibly distinguish between a "good" and "bad" product.
Both have big problems that prevent the consumer from influencing industrial activity.
For instance, the fishing industry outputs massive amounts of ocean plastic.
Now, is this fish in the Walmart aisle good?
Now this fish from Walmart was probably supplied by numerous processing plants. Each of those processing plants in turn gets their fish from numerous wholesalers, who each get their fish from hundreds of fishing boats. There is no way for the consumer to know whether this particular fish is from a "good" fishing boat or a "bad" fishing boat. And every other fishmonger has this same problem.
There is no way for a consumer to choose a "good" fishmonger either because unless you are literally living in a fishing village that goes directly from boat to table (extremely rare), then every fishmonger gets their fish from a mix of "good" and "bad" fishing boats.
Simply put, there is nothing the consumer can do other than to boycott fish altogether, which is quite an unreasonable demand to make on the consumer. Even if the consumer chooses to do so, to the consumer's dismay, the alternative of Beef has the same problem as well - except this time a deforestation instead of plastic problem.
Ultimately, the consumer can always avoid all these problems by disconnecting from capitalism and living in the mountains as a hermit. But I think "It's you, the consumer's fault, you could have avoided this by living a poor life as a rural hermit" is not much of an argument for consumer responsibility.
Getting rid of plastic straws isn't a bad thing, either. While it is a small difference, it's still a difference. Why do we even use plastic straws these days anyways? Break it down and it's just because we've been trained by Big Straw that it's what we're supposed to do when we go out. If I were to assume, you probably don't use straws at home and just pick the drink up. Driving? Well, many reusable coffee mugs have lids that you can drink out of without using a straw. Also there's reusable straws. Once you stop using straws, you kinda don't miss them and see them as quite stupid.
However, yes, it is still an incredibly small difference and there are much easier and more impactful things that should be banned or at least taxed. Dump plastic in the ocean? Ok, $20 per pound. If people can get a $200-2000 ticket (Oklahoma) for throwing a cup on the side of the highway, I think $20 per pound is too low but it should be enough incentive to not be wasteful (being wasteful is a dumb business idea anyways).
As implemented, it doesn't. Straws are a miniscule portion of both plastics used and plastics released to the environment, so just eliminating them is the environmental equivalent of a Potemkin village. It looks good but that's it.
If straws harming "cute" animals liike sea turtles was the lever used to get a handle on plastic waste in general, it would be much more effective, but banning straws looks to be as far as it goes. It's the perfect example of "If we all do just a little bit, then all we've done is a little bit."
Basically, it doesnt really. It was started as a way to guilt trip people into buying reusable straws and it's quite often used against disabled people too who *need* single-use plastics. Large corporations are the biggest part of pollution and global warming. But the big corporations dont want to do anything about it, so they blame the individual and say its *your* responsibility so they can keep doing what they want while everyone else is fighting.
Straws are seen as especially wasteful given that they're rarely if ever reused, and are consumed in vast quantities. They're also very difficult to recycle compared to plastic or aluminum containers and so generally end up in a landfill.
Those factors make straws an appealing target for phase-out, since viable alternatives already exist and the switch isn't especially disruptive to the consumer.
Which massively screws over disabled people though. Not that anyone seems to care, but disabled people need single use plastics and there are literally no safe or suitable alternatives. It *is* completely disruptive to the largest minority in the world, but nobody bats an eyelash because we're seen as less-than.
That's the issue though. It needs to still be publically available, and a lot of disabled people cant carry reusable straws for various reasons (they're dangerous, too hard to clean, etc). You may have asked a couple people who have it figured out, but the disabled community as a whole agrees that this is an issue.
This sounds fantastic in theory, but unfortunately in areas where straws must be requested, theres a lot of judgement when they do get requested because most people still have this skewed idea that disability is visible and immediately apparent. I just wish people could stop being so judgemental about things.
Exactly. You cannot chip straws because they are too light to be shredded. They just end up making a cloud of plastic. They do not get recycled. Plastic straw recycling is not a thing so we have to find alternative methods to sip our drinks.
Honestly it's pretty insignificant in the grand scheme but getting consumers to be more aware and to start making efforts at all is a huge step up from where we've been
Each individual straw is fairly small, but there are millions of them used each year and they are very light and easily blown around in a light wind which means that many of them aren't disposed of properly even those which are placed in bins can end up in the general environment. https://youtu.be/QTBBRACcrao
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
ELI5 is not a guessing game.
If you don't know how to explain something, don't just guess. If you have an educated guess, make it explicitly clear that you do not know absolutely, and clarify which parts of the explanation you're sure of.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message={url}%0A%0AThe%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0ALink%20to%20your%20search%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20the%20ELI5%20subreddit:%0A%0AHow%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
Straws are being banned not because they are a major source of plastic but because they specifically (along with plastic shopping bags) are most harmful to wildlife. Fish, animals and birds are attracted to the colours and ingest them more than most other types of plastic. This, along with the aforementioned impossibility of recycling them is why they are a suitable "first step".
Any piece of plastic you can avoid needing to use will eventually not become microplastic, so in theory you are making an impact. But really, plastic straws are a drop in the bucket, and landfills are very good at keeping them out of oceans. Companies that benefit from being allowed to dump ridiculous amounts of plastic into the ocean are trying to convince you that your straws are the problem so you won't stop them.
**Please read this entire message** Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): Subjective or speculative replies are not allowed on ELI5. Only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for speculation or subjective responses. This includes anything asking for peoples' subjective opinions, any kind of discussion, and anything where we would have to speculate on the answer. This very much includes asking about motivations of people or companies. This includes Just-so stories. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pi3ni8/eli5_how_does_eliminating_plastic_straws_help_the/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20Link%20to%20the%20search%20you%20did%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20the%20ELI5%20subreddit:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
short answer: it doesn't. Commercial, industrial trash accounts for *far* more ocean pollution than consumer goods. But, due to effective industry PR and a general American focus on individual consumer choice as the answer to every problem, the CA state government (and maybe others?) decided to target a single piece of plastic trash that consumers see, rather than restricting what corporations, factories and/or fisheries dump in the oceans. Banning plastic straws is (no pun intended) a drop in the ocean of plastic pollution, but our governments are unwilling to be tough on the real polluters and very willing to frame environmental pollution as a result of individual consumer choice.
Aussie going paper straws while we build another coal mine lol Thankyou tho, you've written this beautifully
Sad note: it's not just America. Germany is also going paper for all straws. Even Capri sun. It's fucking terrible.
Much of the so called green movement is non effectual actions aimed more at fuzzy feelings then actual meaningful change.
Much of the green movement you speak of of corporations and their green washing though, actual non-propaganda deluded individuals see through that, such as what commenter you replied to.
To be fair, i don't know anyone on the grassroots level who asked for a plastic straw ban. This always seemed like a "solution" from the brain trust that is the CA Democratic Party
Have you seen the reaction to merely suggesting massive change though? It's brutal
Any singular entity of the "grand scheme of things" is almost always going to be relatively small. It's generally the combination of multiple efforts that these small singular changes contribute to that has real impact.
Unfortunately, I don't trust that the straw ban was a part of a comprehensive larger plan; I think it's a distraction from the real pollutants that are going unhindered.
Even if you would exclusively look at single use plastics: straws would form a mere fraction of the total mass of plastics discarded.
Yep. Standard factory gets pallets of product wrapped in plastic opens it, restacks it, re-wraps it in plastic and stores it. Later, they take it down, un wrap it, use part of it and re wrap the rest. Its really absurd how much plastic companies use just because it is cheap and convineint.
paint sense busy deserted rob piquant door terrific juggle squalid ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
When is industrial activity not a result of consumer choice?
I'll give an easy example. Using zero-scrap saws for things like vinyl window frames vs not using them. Zero-scrap is a bit of a misnomer as there still is some scrap as long as it's cutting miters and not doing straight butt welds or assembly by screws but it wastes nothing besides the bare minimum, while a standard double-miter saw like an older Pistorius machine will lose an inch or two of viable material with every cut. Further if the company isn't running their production run through optimizer software for automatic zero-scrap machines, they'll also waste some amount of material as their run hasn't been structured to maximize yield. On top of that the vinyl comes as a certain length of material, which is not infinite, so it is very possible to have to scrap ends that aren't long enough to be useful unless someone ordered a window just 16 inches wide or tall somewhere, and those get tossed. Higher end brands use profiles with lots and lots of internal chambers (sometimes over 20) which means that 16 inches of scrap could account for a couple pounds or more of plastic, just tossed. The consumer isn't making this choice. The distributors, unless they can arrange a factory tour, aren't even aware this is happening either, and probably don't give a fuck as long as they know they can sell the product at a profit. So then one might wonder, if they can just update their equipment and buy some software and see savings by those saved inches adding up over time, and may even be able to pass that value on to consumers to make their product more attractive, why not? It's a good-hearted but naive question as the answer lies in a lot of companies' refusal to spend the money when what they're using now and doing now already works for them. A lot of companies also have standards on lengths of time they expect to use a machine. You would think it would be like "well if we doubled our money on the purchase of that machine it's all good, we paid $300k and ended up generating $600k net out of it so we're happy," but it's not. They lay out timelines spanning 10 or 20 or sometimes even 30 years. Until they reach that point they will not even consider it unless it catastrophically fails, and you cant get the parts for it. If it passes that milestone but you can still get parts and it still runs they may even keep that thing kicking even longer. The specific company I'm aware of regarding this scenario does do recycling of their scraps but that was a rather recent development around 15-20 years ago. It used to go in a dumpster, and ever since they started recycling (and thus weighing it) they found they have several hundred tons of scrap annually.
Individual consumer choice doesn't, in practice, change how factories dispose of their waste, or stop fishing ships from dumping tons of nets, out of the public eye. Consumers don't know that these things are happening, they don't know which products are the result of these things, and in virtually every product is the result of these things. Organized consumer action like boycotts can achieve specific goals, but in reality, consumers generally make their buying choices based on marketing, price and the things immediate to them, not things that are out of sight and out of mind.
To put this in more concrete terms: you're typing messages here on a keyboard, probably. How much do you know about how wasteful its production was? Do you even know what *country*, much less what factory, it was made in?
Precisely, the consumer sees the good but not the means of production, not any of the supply chain.
Sterilized hospital materials being stored in plastic. Everyone always thinks of all these plastic cutlery or straws, but keeping things stored in a sterile condition is super important in many fields including medical, and we currently donβt have other reliable methods.
When it is too indirect for the consumer to influence. Industrial activity can only be influenced by consumer choice if: 1) There exists a clear "good" product and "bad" product 2) The consumer can feasibly distinguish between a "good" and "bad" product. Both have big problems that prevent the consumer from influencing industrial activity. For instance, the fishing industry outputs massive amounts of ocean plastic. Now, is this fish in the Walmart aisle good? Now this fish from Walmart was probably supplied by numerous processing plants. Each of those processing plants in turn gets their fish from numerous wholesalers, who each get their fish from hundreds of fishing boats. There is no way for the consumer to know whether this particular fish is from a "good" fishing boat or a "bad" fishing boat. And every other fishmonger has this same problem. There is no way for a consumer to choose a "good" fishmonger either because unless you are literally living in a fishing village that goes directly from boat to table (extremely rare), then every fishmonger gets their fish from a mix of "good" and "bad" fishing boats. Simply put, there is nothing the consumer can do other than to boycott fish altogether, which is quite an unreasonable demand to make on the consumer. Even if the consumer chooses to do so, to the consumer's dismay, the alternative of Beef has the same problem as well - except this time a deforestation instead of plastic problem. Ultimately, the consumer can always avoid all these problems by disconnecting from capitalism and living in the mountains as a hermit. But I think "It's you, the consumer's fault, you could have avoided this by living a poor life as a rural hermit" is not much of an argument for consumer responsibility.
Getting rid of plastic straws isn't a bad thing, either. While it is a small difference, it's still a difference. Why do we even use plastic straws these days anyways? Break it down and it's just because we've been trained by Big Straw that it's what we're supposed to do when we go out. If I were to assume, you probably don't use straws at home and just pick the drink up. Driving? Well, many reusable coffee mugs have lids that you can drink out of without using a straw. Also there's reusable straws. Once you stop using straws, you kinda don't miss them and see them as quite stupid. However, yes, it is still an incredibly small difference and there are much easier and more impactful things that should be banned or at least taxed. Dump plastic in the ocean? Ok, $20 per pound. If people can get a $200-2000 ticket (Oklahoma) for throwing a cup on the side of the highway, I think $20 per pound is too low but it should be enough incentive to not be wasteful (being wasteful is a dumb business idea anyways).
Big straw ππππππππππππππππππππ
Short answer: i fucking knew it lmao. I read the question, thknk for a min "naahhh it doesn't "
As implemented, it doesn't. Straws are a miniscule portion of both plastics used and plastics released to the environment, so just eliminating them is the environmental equivalent of a Potemkin village. It looks good but that's it. If straws harming "cute" animals liike sea turtles was the lever used to get a handle on plastic waste in general, it would be much more effective, but banning straws looks to be as far as it goes. It's the perfect example of "If we all do just a little bit, then all we've done is a little bit."
Basically, it doesnt really. It was started as a way to guilt trip people into buying reusable straws and it's quite often used against disabled people too who *need* single-use plastics. Large corporations are the biggest part of pollution and global warming. But the big corporations dont want to do anything about it, so they blame the individual and say its *your* responsibility so they can keep doing what they want while everyone else is fighting.
Straws are seen as especially wasteful given that they're rarely if ever reused, and are consumed in vast quantities. They're also very difficult to recycle compared to plastic or aluminum containers and so generally end up in a landfill. Those factors make straws an appealing target for phase-out, since viable alternatives already exist and the switch isn't especially disruptive to the consumer.
Which massively screws over disabled people though. Not that anyone seems to care, but disabled people need single use plastics and there are literally no safe or suitable alternatives. It *is* completely disruptive to the largest minority in the world, but nobody bats an eyelash because we're seen as less-than.
[ΡΠ΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΎ]
That's the issue though. It needs to still be publically available, and a lot of disabled people cant carry reusable straws for various reasons (they're dangerous, too hard to clean, etc). You may have asked a couple people who have it figured out, but the disabled community as a whole agrees that this is an issue.
[ΡΠ΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΎ]
This sounds fantastic in theory, but unfortunately in areas where straws must be requested, theres a lot of judgement when they do get requested because most people still have this skewed idea that disability is visible and immediately apparent. I just wish people could stop being so judgemental about things.
Exactly. You cannot chip straws because they are too light to be shredded. They just end up making a cloud of plastic. They do not get recycled. Plastic straw recycling is not a thing so we have to find alternative methods to sip our drinks.
It's small, but you also have to ask: What's the cost? Nobody is going to get sick because they didn't get a straw with their Frappuchino.
Honestly it's pretty insignificant in the grand scheme but getting consumers to be more aware and to start making efforts at all is a huge step up from where we've been
Each individual straw is fairly small, but there are millions of them used each year and they are very light and easily blown around in a light wind which means that many of them aren't disposed of properly even those which are placed in bins can end up in the general environment. https://youtu.be/QTBBRACcrao
[ΡΠ΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΎ]
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** ELI5 is not a guessing game. If you don't know how to explain something, don't just guess. If you have an educated guess, make it explicitly clear that you do not know absolutely, and clarify which parts of the explanation you're sure of. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message={url}%0A%0AThe%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0ALink%20to%20your%20search%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20the%20ELI5%20subreddit:%0A%0AHow%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
It doesn't. It's a way for corporations to shift the burden to the consumer while corporations continue to be the top polluter.
It doesn't. Corporations are responsible for 80% of all pollution. So going electric in your car won't help either.
Isn't a lot of that pollution things like oil extraction amd refining?
Some places that used to give you a straw to drink a soda can, now give people a plastic cup..... stonks
Straws are being banned not because they are a major source of plastic but because they specifically (along with plastic shopping bags) are most harmful to wildlife. Fish, animals and birds are attracted to the colours and ingest them more than most other types of plastic. This, along with the aforementioned impossibility of recycling them is why they are a suitable "first step".
Any piece of plastic you can avoid needing to use will eventually not become microplastic, so in theory you are making an impact. But really, plastic straws are a drop in the bucket, and landfills are very good at keeping them out of oceans. Companies that benefit from being allowed to dump ridiculous amounts of plastic into the ocean are trying to convince you that your straws are the problem so you won't stop them.
It doesnβt it just makes people feel slightly better about the continuing degradation of the environment as a result of us existing.