Everything helps at this point. Because something helps less shouldn’t mean we bash it. Collectively we should do more.
[0] https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17488336/starbucks-plastic-str...
Recently we have had some rather large political shifts which move the needle considerably further away from our ecological goals. If you look at what people are saying within these political circles you will see derisive phrases like "virtue signaling," referring to exactly this sort of thing.
When you "send a message" you take work which might be perceived as mutually beneficial and you turn it into a fight. You should expect the response to be the inverse: People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This is why there is a culture around "rolling coal." This is actually happening.
This is extremely bad policy and it hurts the environment.
This was going on long before Trump. Even back into the 1960's and 70's when people made fun of the crying Indian TV commercials.
Focus on the actual problem. When you make it political, you immediately lose half of your audience. This is the trap most activism falls into.
It also seems like a different problem than single use plastic regulation.
I'm reminded of the "save the trees" campaign of my youth that lead to the removal of paper bags from supermarkets (with massive marketing to convince the public plastic was just as good as paper) and 20-some-odd years later created "the plastic bag crisis". Now local supermarkets are making a big thing out of getting rid of plastic in favor of paper or (preferably) reusable bags.
> I'm reminded of the "save the trees" campaign of my youth that lead to the removal of paper bags from supermarkets (with massive marketing to convince the public plastic was just as good as paper)
You do understand that our understanding of the world evolves over time? That science progresses? Twenty years ago nobody really understood how dangerous plastics are and in the last twenty years plastic use has exploded. Now people are trying to do something about this. This is called progress. It's not an indication of some plot but rather the natural process of discovery and change that drives civilization forwards.
Sure you can but that's not the argument posed -- saying "the silent majority" is a mere illusion totally discounts that most people aren't a member of radical {left,right} leaning groups who make a bunch of noise and get the headlines. This kind of reasoning is basically "you're either with us or against us" and serves no useful purpose in reasonable debates.
> Twenty years ago nobody really understood how dangerous plastics are...
They totally did.
And people still do it.
This whole “this is how you get Trump” rhetorical maneuver deployed without a scintilla of evidence across a ton of issues is both lazy and tiresome.
The "straw laws" are tailor made for a backlash.
I'm realizing that positions like that, or this straw thing... the ideas are successful with groups because they're impractical and dumb. It's about exhibiting group fealty. I'm so devoted, I'll say things that any non-member thinks are ridiculous. It's like burning the boats behind you when you land on shore.
firstly this got me thinking of the interplay between MLK and Malcolm X.
Secondly, overton windows.
On the flip side, I've seen an op-ed in NYT or Washington Post (I don't recall) calling for the repeal of the second amendment - and I can't imagine how incredibly stupid the person making that must be. It will never happen and yet it plays exactly into the "Obama wants to take our guns"-type arguments. Of course, that author isn't actually stupid, they just aren't motivated by gun control legislation but rather by getting themselves attention.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/betsy-devos-g...
Repealing the second amendment does not mean banning firearms altogether. Writing a new amendment with better scope might be an option, or relying on congress to enact sensible limits might also be an option. But I do agree with you that such an amendment would be received as "[the left] wants to take our guns." That's the challenge of politics: you have to meet that criticism head-on and be clear about what sort of policies would get changed. This is no different from debating critics of socialized medicine who quickly throw up their hands and say "Death Panels!"
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens...
I know that the slightest thing gets misconstrued by the other side (regardless of what side) but you don't have to serve it to them on a silver platter!
Sorry.
I am a gun rights supporter, very extreme one as I believe all gun laws on the books today are clearly violations of the pain reading of the 2nd amendment, any federal gun laws would require the passage of a constitutional amendment.
I also support the idea that any teacher that has the desire to be armed for their own defense and the defense of others should be allowed to be under the law. No teacher should be forced to carry as a condition of their job however no teacher should be prevented from it by law either.
That is the "extreme" NRA position you believe no one thinks is a good idea, but in fact is widely supported in libertarian circles, as well as actual gun rights circles.
If you believe "no one" supports it then I would question if you exist in a echo chamber
For the 99.9% who don’t define themselves through group membership as whatever version of libertarian you are, and out ideology far above practicality it’s nuts. What you’re saying however does strongly proclaim your membership in that group, sort of like a communist carrying around a little red book. The fact that it turns off everyone else is a bonus proving your devotion.
I did not really proclaim my membership in either group I mention, I stated what the opinions of people in those groups are
This was done not "define myself through group membership" but to refute the position that "no one" or very few people support such a position.
HN has a echo problem, most people on this site lean in a single political direction, and share a singular political view, that of the Silicon Valley left..
The point of my comment was that the entire nation does not in fact share they view and to believe "no one" shares the "extreme views" of the NRA highlights nicely that echo chamber
I’m neither in SV, nor am I enough of dove to be “Left” in any reasonable measure. I object to the American characterization of politics as a binary “L/R” formulation. I’m hawkish on defense, anti-communist, anti-fascist, pro-gun, pro gun control, pro universal healthcare, I’m for calling people whatever pronoun they prefer and against being told to stop using gendered pronouns in general. I’m pro-Israel, but I’m not Islamophobic. Im pro-immigration, but not for 100% freedom of movement, and honestly I don’t entirely know what the balance should be. I accept that there are a lot of problems I don’t have good answers to.
I’m not part of anyone’s echo chamber, because sooner or later one of my views sees me excommunicated from either of the rigid American political poles. You seem to be arguing that such poles don’t exist, America has two parties with any power and has for decades and decades. Both parties are to the Right of most of Europe, even today, and both parties are incredibly similar to an outside view unless you talk about guns or abortion.
In my limited experience here, the most dominant ideologies seem to be some bastardized version of libertarianism, and whatever you call the desire to get rich and retire early. Left and Right don’t seem to enter into it as much as the desire for personal advancement, and a general sense that people here are so smart that given the right conditions they can solve anything, even if they don’t understand the problem.
> I am a gun rights supporter, very extreme one ...
> That is the "extreme" NRA position you believe no one thinks is a good idea ...
However The position the NRA has on teachers and self defense is not in fact an extreme one at all in gun rights circles
If you read an old copy of the American Rifleman (nra magazine), it was a very different agenda, mostly focused on hunting and skills. Problem is that hunting is a dying sport... and the gun industry could not and cannot survive in its old form.
Enter the rise of fringe politics and talk radio, where 24/7 paranoia has convinced a generation that they need to stockpile guns. The fact that people who are otherwise intelligent are advocating arming teachers and pushing concealed carry shows how effective this type of marketing is.
We want them to focus less on hunting and more on civil rights, I am not a hunter. I do not own guns for hunting. I want an organization that will stand of for my right to own a gun, not to hunt
Eventually, some group of people will decide to take up armed insurrection, and that will be the (tragic) end to the issue. The urban population doesn’t get any of the culture around guns at all, and their vision of freedom and independence just doesn’t line up with yours.
"Urban" aka liberal culture openly advocates surrendering all liberties for security and safety. Surrendering all libertarians to achieve "social justice". etc
From free speech, to the ability to engage is commerce the "urban" culture believes everything should be regulated, controlled, and approved by a central authority
>>Eventually, some group of people will decide to take up armed insurrection,
Unlikely, the most likely scenario is that the "urban" culture will attempt to use people with guns they employ to violently seize the guns from people they do not employ.
I would be careful, since you quite quickly shot towards being bias, by disregarding any merit to the side that you very obviously disagree with. Just like how you said they deride, you just did exactly the same. How is the problem of devisiveness and the environment going to be solved like that?
Progress never comes from deriding IMHO.
However, I know people who prefer to drink fizzy sugar drinks that come in one-use containers. If there was some instant ban on plastic straws then these folk would not get as far as mid morning before wondering 'where have all the straws gone'.
It is through this latter group of people that my awareness of the plastic problem has been raised. I have even seen a friend buy glass straws (delivered in a huge box by Amazon) so the problem is being taken seriously by these sugary-beverage folk. The consumerist ethic isn't going to change for these folk, there is no question in their minds that straws are vital (think of the children), it is just a matter of recycling plastic straws responsibly rather than flushing them out to sea (as if they ever did, living 50 miles from the coast).
Really there should be prizes for the most futile campaigns that demand the smallest of lifestyle adjustments. However, sometimes, e.g. through the plastic straws conversation, you do get a wider discussion going.
I don't lecture my fish eating, fizzy beverage drinking friends on things, I would prefer to save my breath. They don't want to know how many decades it has been since I last used a plastic straw. I would be there all day if the full tirade on their consumerist life was given. Nothing would be achieved in doing so, nobody would change their lifestyle choices.
However, I have detected lifestyle choice changes and a lower propensity to use plastic amongst my consumerist friends in recent months so maybe we do actually need these low-lifestyle-change campaigns because they do lead people to ask the questions that can lead to modified behaviour.
The conservatives in the US are building concentration camps for children, yet people on this site want to lecture about how straw bans are "virtue signaling", or will cause toddlers to intentionally destroy things, or reduce freedom.
It's a straw. People are capable of getting over it. And to halt progress because some dude in a MAGA hat might make fun of straw bans or crying Indians is a terrible strategy.
Your liberty ends when your actions begin harming others. I'm not worried about a few trolls rolling coal. I'm worried about cynical libertarian rhetoric that gives political cover for destroying helpful regulations.
Virtue signalling didn't cause anyone to oppose climate change and environmental legislation, it's post hoc reasoning that blames others for their existing apathy towards the environment.
Environmental activism shouldn't be held hostage at the whims of people who will find any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to oppose it.
No, and I don't see where the GP claims that. It's inherently moral.
We can avoid making the stability of our civilization a divisible issue. It takes some real work to push people against this, and stuff like forbidding people from using harmless stuff they are used to is part of that work.
Who are the people laughing? Trolls. Now your argument becomes "trolls will laugh if we try to increase awareness."
Then you go on to claim it just invites bullying that will make things worse.
So now we have, "trolls will bully us" as your argument for not raising awareness.
That's just pathetic.
Coal rollers aren't people who are responding to "nonsense laws" (in this case, apparently, ten-year regulatory plans to marginally improve emissions standards and fuel efficiency) -- they're just people who have been convinced climate change is a liberal hoax to destroy their way of life, lashing out angrily. They get no benefit other than a performative one by "rolling coal". Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one.
In general arguments like "virtue signalling" are a process argument. The words say "You can't possibly mean what you're saying", but the intent beneath them are "I don't agree with what you're saying, so you can't possibly mean what you're saying". They're not a reaction to the mode of argument being presented against them, they are the default mode of argument to show contempt.
Ditto for the exact same group of people bemoaning "identity politics" while having twitter bios that read "Conservatarian #TradLife Proud to be who I am #MAGA The only thing right of me is the wall" or whatever.
It may be the case that straw bans are, specifically, as a matter of policy, counterproductive. I don't think all laws which prescribe policy or all messages which lecture are, but it may be the case that straw bans are. I don't have a strong feeling either way. But when it comes to 4chan weirdos whose literal slogan is "Fuck their feelings", no, I'm not going to spend time making sure they don't feel as though I'm belittling them.
Not caring about your impact on voter's opinions, while caring about political issues seems counter productive. But whatever, you do you.
I am sick and tired of this attitude that people keep having. There are a great many environmental standpoints, and there are idiotic morons on either side. But what sometimes looks like the entire environmental movement has adopted this "with us or with the devil" attitude. And of course, these organisations push things like travel, with their videos images and activities which are hugely damaging to the climate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7igAHbqEyQ
Note the shoes ... note the glasses ... note the cellphones ... the T-shirts that are obviously created just for that one event and will probably be thrown out immediately ... note the freaking beverages ... all damaging to the environment. If your criticism against others is that they're hypocrites, you might want to look in the mirror a bit.
In fact, let's just describe a bit of reality here. There are 1000 people worldwide who have any decent knowledge of climate models. 1000 (and even that seems pretty high). That means that on either side of the debate, all but 1000 of them are BULLSHITTING. Incidentally, statistically, that means that there are far more environmentalists who don't know anything about what they're saying than denialists. So if that's really going to be your standard for stupid and unfair ... well that's just not going to reflect well on your side.
> Burning costly fuel to trigger the libs is the very definition of virtue signalling, except somehow worse because the virtue being signalled is a cruel and evil one.
Maybe ... just maybe ... they're just doing the same as the people they're protesting. You know, as a protest.
Imagine that.
And ... "cruel and evil" ? Hardly.
You're no longer allowed to use the words "cruel" or "evil", they are value judgements and mostly reflect a clear lack of tolerance on your part.
While I don't disagree with your sentiment, the article makes an important point:
Plastic straws are 0.03% of the Great Garbage Patch problem.
Plastic fishing nets are 46% of the GGP problem.
The people pushing the plastic straw bans aren't raising awareness of the big problem (lost and abandoned fishing nets), they're just spreading the notion that plastic is evil.
It's a lazy, self-indulgent kind of activism that is about making the person feel better, not solving a problem.
You want to "raise awareness" of the real problem? Start putting up posters in the seafood departments of supermarkets showing a fishing net stuffed with 20 tons of rotting sea life that's still killing fish 15 years after it floated away from its boat.
If someone knows what fishing nets were made of before they were made of plastic, please chime in.
Most of the problem is that a billion pounds of fishing nets are left in the ocean every year, harming wildlife.
Isn't there at least some possibility the former does help the bit with the problem? There's enough uninformed people out there. So while the straws itself aren't going to cut it, in general spreading awareness about plastic and waste in general might just get more people to be more careful.
Start putting up posters in the seafood departments of supermarkets showing a fishing net stuffed with 20 tons of rotting sea life that's still killing fish 15 years after it floated away from its boat
I'm not sure this would help more than other initiatives. Possibly, but still. In any case it is unfortunately quite non-realistic in this society.
I don't think so. These things eventually become public knowledge and the result may well be cynicism, apathy or things like climate change denial.
It's important to be honest, rational and effective or the only way to change anything will be scaremongering and bigotry.
Seems to be working.
Straws are the 7th most collected item during beach clean ups, after plastic bags and before plastic & foam containers.
All of this plastic discussion recently was due to China banning the importation of plastic from recycling systems in the West. People were made aware of how their plastic recycling was not really working out like they thought and actually was causing harm to other people. Banning plastic straws is like a little penance that we can do to get our psyches back in balance and close that small window that opened in our awareness onto the vast amount of consumption all of us do.
So, not even on this count are they relevant?
The communication problem is not solved by being exacting. How many people can tell you exactly what’s going on with an algorithm - and how many people will stop their work to listen ?
On the other hand, put picture of kittens or unusual scenarios...
Mass communication isn’t only about accuracy.
Maybe we can dump them in your backyard then.
I wouldn't doubt that some behavioral modification experiments "found" that such "tactics" work to change peoples' beliefs and actions, but I think many have taken up the effort to try to optimize such experiments, despite unethical implementations (c.f. Facebook attempting to create negative emotions by manipulating timelines) and harmful ends (c.f. White House "science office" targeting specific individuals with behavioral modification emails soliciting them into taking on interest liability on a loan.
Unfortunately "narratives" and "messaging" and "stories" took on memetic qualities for quite awhile in a portion of the culture, so we may still have to deal with the consequences for a while yet.
Could this be a byproduct of the tools we use to communicate now? Social media is ideal for propagating bite sized, meme-like ideas and incentivizes a herd mentality. Older forms of communication may have been a better medium for long form articles and thought provoking discussion.
Narratives, messaging, and stories have always played a big part but has social media effectively squeezed out the substance and all we're getting is the fluff?
This is not true and is dangerous because some things (many things actually) hurt. The article calls out some (drawing attention away from fishing industry), but I think more people need to be aware of opportunity cost [0] because time is not infinite.
The idea of doing something is better than nothing is not an absolute rule and should not be followed when it results in campaigns like this one that have caused harm.
Many examples of stuff like Starbucks [1] replacing straws with more plastic.
Skipping a straw is a good activity with really minimal impact. Having a law to ban straws amplifies the effort for minimal impact and leads to other behaviors with worse impacts like increased wood use, etc. It also removes the ability for activities like restaurants simply using more recycling to offset their plastic use.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
[1] https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/starbucks-straw-ban-will-...
I know this now because of the plastic straw conversation and ban. Thus the campaign IS actually spreading information and teaching.
It’s like punching me in the face and then pointing out how my visit to the doctor taught me how quitting smoking is good.
I also think it's counterproductive to make a big deal out of something that really isn't a big deal. It will leave people feeling disillusioned when they find out they were lied to, and they will be less likely to listen to anything else. It also gives opponents something to point at and say "Look, these people are full of crap".
Not many people will have their lives made worse when banning plastic straws, and those who do can get reusable straws.
It's an easy win, and shouting that there are things that can be done that are more impactful doesn't matter, this can help, and it's easy to do on a wide scale.
Conversely, nobody will have their life made better by a ban of plastic straws. So why ban them?
I wish it was as easy. People then think "I went to Starbucks and didn't ask for a plastic straw my job is done. I saved the environment. No need to worry anymore". And they don't worry anymore.
Same with politicians "we passed a straw ordinance", our job is done. Pad that resume with another accomplishment.
It falls into the category of "busy work" and rituals. Like say municipalities, having people sort recycling into 5 different containers, then in the end dumping it all into one stream at the center or say just dumping it in the trash. But it's important to make people believe they're doing useful and important things, and this provides for that.
Those same people can't do anything about the dumping of plastic fishing nets, so what else CAN they worry about? Only those things which they can directly change, no matter how small. Today it's straws, perhaps next will be plastic water bottles. Little nudges.
People are encouraged to turn-off lamps in rooms they aren't using. That's pretty insignificant compared to the energy consumption of aluminium smelters, but it's something everyone can do.
I hope I am wrong of course and people will be more engaged and care about the environment, but people's behavior is not intuitive and obvious sometimes.
If that's true then, and I'm only speaking for myself, it's had the exact opposite effect. It makes me feel like if we're squabbling over straws then the real issues must have been dealt with already. Factually, of course I know there are real environmental issues. But when straws become the talking point, it makes me feel like the environment should be dismissed as an issue.
1. Someone says “we must ban false straws to save the environment
2. A disinterested observer looks into it, and sees this is false
3. They turn against the messenger
In the best case of #3, they will merely think the messenger is stupid. In the worst case, they’ll start to become an anti-environmentalist and make the cognitive error that all environmental messages are lies.
Logically speaking, a poor argument in favour of something doesn’t mean that thing is false. But in terms of rhetorical persuasion, making a really bad argument is an excellent way to convince people of the opposite of an idea.
“Don’t tell people to not pollute because they will pollute more”
:eye-roll:
It’s like “don’t tell people to treat women with respect because then they will hurt women more”
It’s a logical Fallacy and everyone arguing it should be ashamed.
The issue is, though, if people paint straws as a vital cause of such problems as ocean garbage patches, then that sort of messaging can turn people away. If people research and find that most ocean garbage comes from a few rivers, and fishing nets, then they won’t trust people who say ”don‘t use straws, it pollutes the oceans [in a significant way]“.
and make the cognitive error
People know damn well what they’re up to, and will redouble their efforts at the suggestion that something might be taken off their plate.
And those of us know knows how little those straws matters will simply mock the movement.
Fortunately everything doesn't have to be bleak: Efforts are underway to clean up the ocean https://www.theoceancleanup.com
Doing something meaningful like demanding accountability for fishing nets and pushing consumer product companies to reduce packaging would be a much more productive approach.
Plastic particles are now becoming as common and widespread as bacteria. If they really want to push the message on this then they would outlaw use of plastics in consumer packaging and thereby emphasize use of cardboard and paperboard products. The wood fibers used to make paper and cardboard are not harmful to animals, biodegrade quickly, and are far more environmentally renewable.
Plastics use less resources to produce, but pose a problem in that they will always stay plastic. Paper, cotton, etc use too much water and are often combined with plastic anyway to make them more durable, hygenic and increase shelf life of the packaging.
There's one issue with reusable grocery bags no one seems to want to mention. You have to wash them! More water, detergent or worse spray them with potentially carcinogenic anti-bacterials.