Hacker News Reader

Comment by mgbmtl | Hacker News Reader

This article is rather cranky and make two assumptions: 1) that plastic is often trashed, not recycled, and it assumes that we will never fix that. 2) exemptions will not be made for people with disabilities.

Also, would compostable straws be an option? (assuming they do not end up in the landfill, and only distributed on demand to reduce waste).

Fast food better fix itself, or we will end up demonizing the entire industry, for its abundance of litter all over the place and subsidizing the cleanup.

View on HN

> 1) that plastic is often trashed, not recycled, and it assumes that we will never fix that.

I'm sorry to say, but recycling plastic doesn't work all that well. I believe one problem is that straws couldn't be recycled (and I think these lids can?), but then the next problem is, who is going to recycle all this plastic [0] and what is the recycled product going to be? You can't make a new lid out of an old on, unfortunately.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17368168

It doesn't make much sense from a purely scientific point of view, however, banning straws, much like banning plastic bags, is an efficient way to raise awareness and minimize inconvenience, to encourage people to re-examine their habits. (and I say "ban", but where I'm from, we can still get one for 10 or 20 cents, depending on the type of bag, and there are many exemptions, such as for meat)

If we argue in favour of the status quo, which we know is broken too, waiting for a perfect solution, then absolutely nothing will change.

There are easy ways to fix the recycling crisis, but it also means changing some habits.

Even if they are trashed, does it even matter unless they make it into the ocean? It's not like any continent has a shortage on wasteland to build more landfills in.

to be honest, I would prefer we find more ways to reduce what is going to the land fill. I have to make a trip with my father soon and it is amazing what we have no alternative other than just dumping it all.

the chemical cocktail we are burying as a world is just amazing, all those cleaning chemicals, used oils, paints, and more. I know some regions tried incineration and I would like to think it is more environmentally friendly than simply burying it.

I mean, burning something can remove the problem locally, but then anyone that relies on air to breathe has to deal with whatever chemicals have been released.

I'm not trying to side on, "let's just bury everything", but as a thought experiment:

Would you rather be in a room where there's a plastic line trash can filled with a variety of trash, or in that same room, where that trash is currently on fire?

Think about it this way: If CO2 had a color and producing it by driving a car would lead to purple billowing smoke, cars wouldn't exist, I don't believe. But because it's invisible, we also think the problem is invisible. Sort of like burning trash.

At least with a landfill, we see, "Guh, that's just a big pile of trash! That's gross!"

Incineration releases all those chemicals into the environment immediately. Whereas in a landfill, decomposition can be minimised (for example by sealing all the waste in an oxygen free atmosphere)

Modern incinerators are in much higher temperture. When well managed -- by keeping the temperature right-- most of chemicals are broken down before emittion.

Landfill contaminate ground water. There are no good way to fix. Water-proof layers have problem with rain. Building a sewage system open another can of worms.

Sealing... I have no idea how can you seal this amount of land.

> Also, would compostable straws be an option? (assuming they do not end up in the landfill, and only distributed on demand to reduce waste).

There are no options that are suitable for disabled people.

I'd recommend following Lawrence Carter-Long (he manages the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund) on Facebook; he's made a number of public posts about it lately, and the comments on his posts tend to be very good.

Here's the text of one of his posts:

> FACT: A soggy paper straw increases the risk of choking. Most paper and silicone alternatives are not flexible, eliminating arguably the most important feature used by people with mobility disabilities. Metal, glass and bamboo straws present obvious dangers for people who have difficulty controlling their bite, as well as those with neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s. Some disabled folks use straws when drinking coffee or eating soup, yet most of the alternatives--including the leading biodegradable straw--are not suitable for drinks over 40°C/104°C. Furthermore, re-useable straws are not always hygienic or easy to clean in public places.

And here's a comment he made on another of his posts:

> 1. Glass straws can break. That's dangerous. For everyone.

> 2. Metal straws don't always adapt to temperature changes well. And can burn people.

> 3. At present, paper and biodegradable straws often break down faster than a lot of disabled folks can use 'em. A straw isn't much use when it is falling apart.

> 4. Reuseable straws are useful only if and when you can wash them right after using and if you have a way to store them. They also have to be easy for folks to carry with them every time they leave the house. Not possible for everyone.

> 5. What if you decide on the spur of the moment to go have a drink with friends after work but forgot your reusable straw that day? Doesn't leave a lot of room for spontaneity -- something non-disabled folks get to largely take for granted.

What does he say about biodegradable plastic straws? The company I work for enjoys signalling its ecological awareness, and so they offer disposable compostable plastic cups. They work for hot coffee just fine, so the material should be as good for straws.

I saw an ad for a reusable straw that folded up and attached to your keychain on instagram. It was still too large for a keychain in my opinion though.

> There are no options that are suitable for disabled people.

Here's an article from a disabled person, who breaks down the (as they say, mostly-online debate) of disabled people and reusable straws. They then test a variety of options:

https://themighty.com/2018/05/review-reusable-drinking-straw...

I really am not understanding the problem. If the goal is to reduce single-use plastic and waste, allowing disabled people to use whatever the hell the want/need to do normal everyday tasks isn't incompatible.

Just allow restaurants to have some straws for people who ask for them, and clearly have a right to use them (pass/amend a law if you have to).

Done.

In practice, whenever there is a special exemption for disabled people, it imposes costs on them. It's another obstacle to request accomodations, but also it incurs the risk of public shaming if someone decides that you don't deserve them: https://twitter.com/beth_vrabel/status/993691472766668801?la....

As with web accessibility, where possible, the best solution is to make the solution that is given to all the rest of us the same solution that disabled people are given. Sometimes we can't do that (e.g. special handicapped spots near the extrance to a building are valuable), but that shouldn't be our standard approach.

Then I don't know what you want to do: are we just going to live in a world where plastic straws need to exist?

In the long run, that doesn't work well for ANYONE.

Yeah, that sounds fine to me.

This would be a reasonable objection if plastic straws were going to drastically change our impact on the environment. If we were a near zero-emission, zero-waste society, and plastic straws were the last thing holding us back from sustainability on a thousand-millions of years time frame, then maybe we should force the issue.

But until then, making life harder for disabled people in order to make a tiny dent at the edges of the pollution our society creates is not worth it.

Then I would have to disagree with your point of view as marginal gains in a lot of different areas in all our lives (tiny dents, as you say) is how we're going to change things, barring a deus ex machina massive breakthrough in technology, which - I'm not going to hold my breath.

One could use the, "I'm not given up x, until y is reached" for almost anything that's a contemporary convenience or luxury. That's stymies most any progress.

If the problem is people's view on disabled people, then we need to change people's view. If right now, we can get rid of plastic, single-use straws, except for disabled people, then to me: that sounds like a very reasonable compromise to marginally remove new plastic from the environment.

There's a difference between asking everyone in society to give up something equally small (this was arguably true of the restrictions on incandescent bulbs that went into effect roughly ten years ago), and putting a disproportionate burden on people who are already disadvantaged and actively discriminated against.

My point isn't "never do anything small", it's "find something else to do that doesn't hurt people who really deserve better".

You're framing plastic straws as an inalienable right.

I'm saying we can live without them; we did before and for most of recorded human history.

This isn't an impossible problem to solve.

For much of human history, we let disabled people die, murdered them as children, or treated them like animals.

Any appeal to what we did for most of human history is worthless. The question is, given modern technology, how can we do best for all of us?

In addition, it also forces disabled people to out themselves in cases where their disability isn't particularly visible, which can be humiliating for people who don't want the whole world to know exactly how their body is malfunctioning.

For example, here's a comment on one of the posts on Lawrence Carter-Long's Facebook page:

> Not an answer to your question, but I wanted to report to you in case it's useful for your media appearances (and thank you for being our spokesperson!): Yesterday I was at an upscale restaurant, one of my favorites where I have dined countless times before. I ordered a ginger ale and they brought it in a glass with ice, no straw. I asked our server, politely of course, for a straw when she had a chance. She replied "Actually we are doing a no straw policy now. It's better for the earth" (or something along those lines). After a little bit more about eco stuff, during which I was just kind of in shock, she then added, "but if you want one, you can ask for it," which was said in quite an unfriendly voice although up until that point she had been a very smiley, friendly server. I replied "As a disabled person who needs a straw, I am going to request one." and then she brought one. But it was very uncomfortable and everyone at my table agreed that while we all supported having an "opt-in" policy, once I had asked for a straw, the policy should be to bring one rather than trying to basically "eco-shame" people out of asking. My disability, a genetic connective tissue disorder, was not visible to the waitress, but it means that when drinking from a glass, especially with ice, I have trouble swallowing without using a straw. Without a straw I am likely to choke, splutter, and/or spill my drink down my front. I felt humiliated and angry that I had to out myself as disabled in order to get the straw I asked for. Please feel free to use this story in your interviews if it's useful, and if not, thanks for listening to me vent!

> pass/amend a law if you have to

Are we going to need a handicap placard to get a straw with our drink ?

Perhaps coming up with the exact details of a complex law is the beyond the pale of a simple, half-implemented internet forum.

Making the process to concede special privilege to those with needs beyond others or those with certain disabilities in a dignified way seems like a righteous use of time to write correctly and fairly to me.

The article also mentions compostable straws.

...or we will end up demonizing the entire industry...

Probably the best thing that could happen for our health?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com