-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Canada PoliERA |OT| Two Years of Sunny Days? That’s Scheer Madness!
- Thread starter Caz
- Start date
- Status
Why can't disable people use biodegradable straws? Serious question, I don't get it.
Yeah, this is clearly treating symptoms rather than the root cause of any problems. Ban all carbon emitting road vehicles in the next 5 years? Now that would at least be an ambitious goal even if it doesn't address other core issues like urban sprawl and the design of cities.
Plastic waste causes its own unique set of problems. It's not something that will go away if we dramatically lower carbon emissions, which we obviously have to do.
We have to do both, as well as many other things.
The biggest reason is that they tend to break down before the person can finish their drink.
The problem is that replacing plastic with other materials is that there is still a cost to use plastic-alternatives, as that video Caz posted indicates. Logging and processing more paper products requires more carbon-expensive infrastructure.
lol wat... I'm a slow-ass drinker and while the straw softens a bit, it doesn't "break down"... :S
Only fast food paper straw I've tried was like 6 months ago from Subway and it sat in my drink for well over 30 minutes and was fine. I just don't like the taste of it compared to plastic and would rather remove the lid and drink straight from the cup..
I mean, depending on the type of disability, you could be trying to drink the same drink for a very long period of time. I suppose an option, if you don't want to burden people with disabilities with the need to carry their own straws, is to offer several straws at once. But then you're just creating a different waste problem aren't you?
I didn't say use paper straws. Paper straws are the worst of the currently available alternatives.
Everything has a cost, but we can't look at a dire problem and refuse to address is because it presents other challenges.
I know we can do two things at once, but I don't think anyone is really interested in addressing the big problems is the issue.
We can't even figure out how to do a fucking carbon tax, which is the most weak-sauce solution to the carbon emission problem that we've come up with as a society.
The wax lined cups are the worse because they are literally just garbage.
Okay, but we have to. If the people in charge aren't going to do what needs to be done, then we get different people. Which is why voting is so important. (As I'm sure everyone in this thread realizes. And why doing everything we have to in order to keep Cons from forming government is more important than ever.)
The single use plastic ban is good. It needs to be happen. It is one step of many.
someone really needs to explain better how getting rid of plastic straws is going to cause suffering in the disabled community. like if the straw gets soft pretty sure nobody will be mad if you ask for or take 2 straws. and for the non disabled maybe try drinking without a straw?
And I agree if the issue was just straws being propped up to solve a problem as we've seen with some corporations and jurisdictions, but it's not just straws being proposed, but single-use plastics, so the argument he presented is a lot less applicable. For example, he brings up how fish lures make up 10% of ocean waste, but that would be classified a single-use plastic.
So, again, lumping single-use plastic bans with bans on straws or using talking points against straw bans against bans on single-use plastics is ludicrous and needs to stop.
Cellulose wrapping that's compostable is a step, though with most cellulose sourced from trees, we'd need a better material to produce it from. Ultimately, programs that promote reuse throughout the chain of consumption are better. Loop looks intriguing for this reason, but I'd want to see the carbon footprint from it. All signs point to it being a better and more environmental solution.
For individuals with unreliable motor skills in their mouth, paper straws can be easily rendered unusable, as they don't hold up to biting. They also break down into an unusable state incredibly fast when used for hot beverages, which many of us would rarely to never consider. Metal, bamboo and glass must be cleaned and many people with disabilities lack the dexterity to properly clean them, which you absolutely should be doing, especially if you may possess a compromised immune system. There is also the risk that the more rigid structure of a reusable straw makes them a danger to puncture the inside of the mouth or esophagus if they slip or accidentally aspirate on it, in ways that can cause more damage than a plastic straw would be capable of.
I'm sure I'm missing something, though.
The nonsense that we should put a hold on a ban of single use plastics/products for the disabled makes no sense. New solutions will be created. Either exceptions to rules will be in place for disabled people or new products will be created due to a change in market conditions. It makes no sense to not take action on environmental pollution over the concerns of a small segment of the population that could easily be mitigated with their own solutions.
This is particularly rich considering Trudeau is often criticized for not being "BOLD" enough on his climate policies. This is something that needs to be done just as much as regulating carbon emissions.
This is particularly rich considering Trudeau is often criticized for not being "BOLD" enough on his climate policies. This is something that needs to be done just as much as regulating carbon emissions.
It's also impossible. In the next five years I mean.
That plastic ban is a great first step.
Last edited:
In addition to what other persons have said, I believe I read somewhere that some of the biodegradable alternatives which are sugar based basically melt in hot drinks.
That's the whole argument really. Is action on plastics in equal importance to regulating carbon emissions? I'd say no, at least, not at the moment.
My concern here is that dumping policies like a single use plastics ban in with climate actions into the same 'environment' bin dilutes and obfuscates the climate action focus.
Let's break down the time line here and talk about the politics:
A few days ago the NDP announced a bold (we're grading on a curve here) climate plan that advocated for eliminating fossil fuel subsidies for the industry, and to power Canada by carbon free electricity by 2030. They also suggested they'd ban single use plastics by 2022.
A few days later the Liberals come out and one up the NDP by saying they'll ban plastics by 2021. Take that NDP!
Now on the CBC just now they were discussing the new plastics ban. What about eliminating fossil fuel subsidies? Nope we're talking about this other thing now.
This is how the conversation gets distracted. Even within discussions of plastic pollution why are focusing on the consumer instead of industry? What about plastic fibres from the textile industry? That's wildly more significant. What about plastics from the global fishing industry, which is what actually dominates plastics in the ocean?
The fiddle around the edges stuff is good politics because it's a simple, universal, issue that people can understand. These small ball consumer oriented issues are usually not the most important ones however.
New Angus Reid poll data
Seems quite different than the last released polling data. Pretty surprised to see CON leading in QC which would be a first in a loooooooooong time.
Interesting to see that Bernier is the most popular for the 18-34 age group (Social media being a vector?).
There is also data between rural and big cities and the result is as you would expect.
This is also super interesting :
Seems quite different than the last released polling data. Pretty surprised to see CON leading in QC which would be a first in a loooooooooong time.
Interesting to see that Bernier is the most popular for the 18-34 age group (Social media being a vector?).
There is also data between rural and big cities and the result is as you would expect.
This is also super interesting :
Last edited:
It's a good thing no one in the disability community is calling for a hold on such a thing then, just exceptions and considerations for their needs. They're just as motivated to combat climate change as anyone, but not at the expense of their personal independence. Concessions have already been made on such bans, like on certain uses in the medical field, they're asking for one more so they can provide themselves with fluids without having to have/hire a caregiver.
The plastic life cycle will make up 17% of the world's total carbon budget (the amount of carbon emissions we are allowed without causing temperature increases) by 2050, which includes production, recycling initiatives, waste incineration, etc. 1.8 billion metric tons of CO2 were caused by the plastic lifecycle in 2015. 50% of all plastic production is for single-use items and on top of that, demand for plastics is rising, projected to increase by 22% in the next 5 years, or an increase to 2.2 billion metric tons or more of CO2 per year. We'd need to reduce our global carbon footprint by 18% just to break even on plastics production. That increase in plastic demand is likely driven primarily by single-use plastics, making single-use plastic the likely majority of plastic production worldwide within the next 5 years. Even with a 100% worldwide switch to renewable energy sources, our projected plastic production increases would still result in producing more CO2 emissions than we do now.
Data source for all the above information: ScienceDaily, citing a UC Santa Barbara study from the scientific journal Nature Climate Change
Wide-scope plastic bans ARE regulating carbon emissions, pretending otherwise is dangerous.
This IS focused on the industry, telling them they're not allowed to produce or use single-use plastics. This isn't aimed at us, what are you even saying right now?
Last edited:
I thought LPC and CPC were closer than that Angus poll...
Also, lmao, some guy is trying to drum up controversy with the straw ban, because it includes other items. Such as....
Women's Q-tips.
Have fun in your Q-tip-less dystopia, liberal women! Real men don't use Q-tips.
Also, lmao, some guy is trying to drum up controversy with the straw ban, because it includes other items. Such as....
Women's Q-tips.
Have fun in your Q-tip-less dystopia, liberal women! Real men don't use Q-tips.
I think the Liberals' timing on the Plastic Ban to be stupid during an election year
STFU and ban plastic AFTER the election
suburbanites suburbanites!
STFU and ban plastic AFTER the election
suburbanites suburbanites!
There's considerable disagreement among the polls now, which isn't all that unusual. That's why people tend to focus on averages.
Whether it's a good idea politically depends on how much being seen to take action on the environment is a good political strategy. I'd assume they're betting it is.
The funniest part is women calling him out on his obvious bullshit, because the actual Q-Tip brand doesn't use plastic currently, only the store-brand knockoffs do. They weren't having ANY of his nonsense.
It's basically a dare to conservatives: "try and come out against this when you can't vilify it as a tax and show your anti-environmental stripes, I fucking dare you."
Aside from it being the first step in good waste reduction policy, it's goading Scheer into being confrontational about something that even his own voter base likely wouldn't disagree with. This will hardly upset suburbanites like you believe it will, CBC Marketplace had a whole show showing how single-use plastic was actually an environmental issue that suburbanites seem ready to fight against, with them sending in tons of examples of over-packaged consumer goods that they personally found appalling and worthy of shaming.
And if Scheer opts not to come down on this, it's climate action that the Tories won't assail and MIGHT remain untouched if they take power. So it's really a win-win, either way.
Sigh. Back to my fretting lol.
Yep haha. The comments are great. "Are you sure you weren't trying to say tampons and just couldn't bring yourself to??"
CheckMATE.
Oh man, I missed that! LOL, I could almost believe that's true, too.
This is funny when his show, which is basically just House of Cards at this point, is about his character being the first elected Independent POTUS in history. lol
Good on Kiefer to clap back at Ford and Lisa MacLeod.
Incidentally she just hired Faith Goldy's brother in law and former Rebel employee as director of policy.
lol I saw that. why would you try to hot take keifer?Speaking of, Lisa MacLeod got ratio'd. Big time.
Right. I believe it too.
Give me Q-tips or give me death!
Also, haha at people trying to pick a fight with Keifer Sutherland.
CPC mother fuckers bought ad buys on ABC's Vermont affiliate WVNY 22 and aired anti-Trudeau ad "Never Ready" on American TV
*edit hahaha the Anti-Sheer ad just came up on WVNY 22
*edit hahaha the Anti-Sheer ad just came up on WVNY 22
Last edited:
What, did you seriously think you'd be able to get away from them? It's the pre-election season and there are zero resrictions. They know Canadians have access to, and watch American TV Channels en-masse.
Last edited:
LOLOLOL
They're using that Maclean's photo of Andy and Druggie in the anti-Smeer ads.
They're using that Maclean's photo of Andy and Druggie in the anti-Smeer ads.
Last edited:
It's because CityTV was broadcasting the game through simultaneous substitution. You were actually seeing CityTV ads.
It's single use plastics, and a lot of restaurants already use paper straws like A&W.
you guys are living in a bubble.
Suburbanites and rural people don't want to be told that they are coming to take away their cars and trucks.
This IMO is a total misstep to appease a few urbanites who are already in the bag.
Suburbanites and rural people don't want to be told that they are coming to take away their cars and trucks.
This IMO is a total misstep to appease a few urbanites who are already in the bag.
Let's be clear, it's well worth phasing out single use plastics. Thanks for posting this data that shows why we need to do this. I don't discount that this is a policy we need to pursue, but I am skeptical and weary of the weighting that it is being given in context with other climate issues we need to tackle. I question whether a single use plastics ban at this stage is the biggest bang for buck in the near term.
This quote from the article I think illustrates the tradeoffs.
In the first paragraph the study authors note that the biggest CO2 reductions in the plastics lifecycle would come from shifting our energy off of CO2 creating sources. In the second paragraph Suh notes that we of course still need to reduce plastics use in general.
So in the short term the biggest gain to reduce plastics related CO2 emissions is of course from shifting away from burning coal/oil and such to power our industry. This is something the NDP has proposed, but to my knowledge Liberals have not. This is why I'm uncomfortable with how this plastics ban policy is being rolled out. The Liberals are putting forward a policy that will help, but not in the most effective way.
It's early days yet, and so perhaps the Liberals will pull a 2015 and announce an environmental policy that exceeds the Green and NDP baseline, but until then, the Liberal handling of this plastics ban feels to me more like a political manoeuvre than genuine attempt to aggressively lower CO2 emissions.
Anyway, on the topic of plastic bans...
Yikes. Ice burn
- Status