What device? The ban itself? I seriously doubt it was made as a purity test with no social reward… it’s a pretty easy argument to understand as a stepping stone towards pollution concerns.
That's not actually a problem statement though right? That's just things that might be contributing to a problem. We have to first settle on what the problem is before we can start focusing on what the contribution is. I could be wrong but what I've heard communicated as the three main problems with plastics are greenhouse gas emissions in their construction, Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and PFAS.
Do straws or one time use cups/plates etc contribute to global greenhouse emissions? Seems doubtful as transportation and agriculture seems like the largest contributors and straws/plates/cups etc are a tiny fraction of the contribution for plastics themselves.
Do they contribute to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? IIRC that's the motivating scenario for the plastic straw ban and yet. And yet [1].
> the patch is mostly abandoned fishing gear
That's for the larger items. The majority of the plastics themselves is microscopic. And no, AFAIK it's not from land plastics that are leeching into the ocean & certainly not straws AFAIK.
Do they contribute to PFAS? Maybe but given the prevalence of PFAS everywhere I'm going to guess that it's in the noise compared to other sources (& as I've learned in this thread, getting rid of plastic straws has converted inert ones into PFAS emitters).
[1] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/great-paci...
I believe people picked up on this 9 year old’s proposition as a symbol for needless waste that stays around forever in large quantities. There are many simultaneous efforts to reduce plastic going on: some are trying alternative methods for producing it (bio plastics), some encourage the use of alternative materials (eg bamboo plates), others ban it outright (plastic bags in SF), and try to not have it offered by default (the origins of the straw bans).
I don’t see the flaw in doing all of the above simultaneously. The problem is real and obvious, and given how embedded plastic is in our lives, we need an “all of the above” approach to change.
I would accept that logic from a well meaning child, but not a serious adult.
The obvious questions to any reasonable person would be, how much does this actually help the environment, what alternatives are there, and what might be the consequences of doing this. Banning straws never even got close to having good answers to any of these, and yet you were a dumb greedy redneck who hated the environment for pointing it out.
It's clear where the value for this came from, and that was as a tool to bash political opponents with.
Do you really not examine costs and benefits when you think about what motivates people?