I just hold my hands out and make a bowl with my hands. Works every time. Free refills too.
paper straws are quite literally a strawman project against environmental pollution. they do not actually solve environmental pollution while pretending they do …
its actually propaganda, a campaign by the oil/gas industry to avoid reducing thier own emissions or pollutions, thats why many countries arnt very keen on reducing it. they funded things like “how to reduce your carbon footprint, use less gas, or electricity” plus all those climate protesters you heard about defacing historic places, are funded by them.
i was watching some animal videos one day, and the presenter was promoting this “carbon footprint” company, and the commenters called it out that these companies are funded by the oil-gas industry, luckily the youtube channel listened and stopped promoting them.
Still waiting on straws made of dry pasta. Biodegradable, strong, edible if you really want
Could we do Twizzlers instead?
Is this real?
$140 USD for a box of pasta. You should buy a box and let us know. To be fair that gets you a few thousand straws but no matter how hungry I am I can’t eat that many pieces of noodle.
140 for how many pounds? you can get a 50 pack for like 6 bucks.
i kind of want to try them in both drinks and pasta. like, that would pick up so much vodka sauce i want it. but i have yet to try the rice pasta i don’t gag on. i’ll stick with my cannellonis, ravioles, linguines, bucatinis, and cavatappis. those five hit all the notes i need.
$140 = 2250 straws.
5c a straw feels expensive. I buy PLA straws at around 4c a straw. I don’t think pasta straws are all that better unless you compost. All straws are bad if you’re just chucking them in a bin at least from what i’ve heard.
Wouldn’t those significantly alter the taste of whatever they’re sitting in?
Also, fuck people with gluten allergy I guess 🤷
pretty much fuck em
Not if we line it with plastic
I’ve never seen the one on the right. I’m guessing this is an American thing?
Yes, corporations guilt tripped Americans to use shittier products while they spill their garbage in the water.
They went to styrofoam for a while, but that’s hated now, so they’ve gone to the clear plastic. I hate it, it sweats in the cup holder, a lot. And the ice melts, and the drink warms up much faster.
They have biodegradable styro, but people don’t understand the difference, so they get just as worked up over the good styrofoam as the bad. So they just pivot to the worst possible option, plastic.
So you see the salmonella in the watered down coke ?
deleted by creator
Everything looks like a lobster disintegrating when your only tool is a lobster reintegrator.
Jeff Bezzos:
Have you noticed the intense UV this summer? I think he legit ripped a hole in the ozone layer with that explosion.
Somebody contact the investigative journalists at the Washington Post!
Oh…wait…
So I’ve wanted to do this for a minute…
But how many paper straws would you have to use to offset one of these explosions? How long would it take to offset one of these explosions through straw use?
Writing this now I was surprised by the results…
Source for plastic v paper straw data
So apparently plastic straws are actually more carbon neutral than paper straws, but for the purposes of this analysis I’m going to carry it through to find out how long it takes to create equivalent emissions.
Paper straws:
Call it 1430 grams of emissions per straw (which is wild btw)
Plastic straws:
Call it 610 per plastic straw. Still wild for something which weighs less than a gram.
This is also from the thesis
So yeah… not great.
Gonna be using 825 tons of carbon dioxide emitted from Hank Green’s video.
I think Hank is working in US standard units here… which is also weird and annoying but whatever… We’re getting to units of rocket explosion per straw so it’s fine…
And I’m going to be using 500 million straws per day, which is cited in the thesis from a 2017 study and repeated elsewhere in other studies on this.
It’s not great but what even are we doing here…
I don’t know how we get a plastic straw versus compostable straw use rate (what proportion of straws are still plastic versus how many are now paper or some other alternatives)
But we get 820 additional grams of emissions for each straw swapped.
500 tons to grams is:
838238016
Divided by the difference in co2e foot print per straw…
838238016 / 820 is about 1022240, in other words, about a million.
So for about every million straws swapped from plastic to paper, one giant fiery rocket explosion of CO2 emissions occurs.
The US consumes straws at a convenient rate of 500 million a day, so if ALL of those straws were converted to paper, we’re setting off about 500 of those explosions per day.
This is just… Crazy bruh… 😭
Does that include the co2 generated by the incineration of each straw at the end of their life? Assuming you’re in a region that can incinerate trash instead of landfilling it.
I am not sure if that makes me feel better for the explosion or worse for the straws.
But that is awesome!
I was always given to understand that the straw thing was because plastic straws get out and fuck up wildlife, but that message seems to get buried in handwringing over climate change so often that I suspect bad actors are at play spreading all these memes.
Idk. It’s not at all clear to me why or what’s the point of these very performative acts.
There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife. It seemed to me something companies could “do” as a form of visual way of communicating that they were “doing something”, and it’s something that was done in sync, with no real consent of the consumer. It’s not like people were driving this. It was very much from the corporate side.
There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife.
Source: your ass?
Eighty of 135 (59%) species with studies reported in the literature between 1962 and 2012 had ingested plastic, and, within those studies, on average 29% of individuals had plastic in their gut.
That doesn’t really get to the impact of the plastic. Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood. It’s there, but mostly it just seems to be inert. There are thousands of problems we are creating that we know are causing widespread extinctions. I’m not opposed to reducing plastic use, but forcing a major inconvenience for dubious results burns a lot of goodwill. That’s why this is a popular wedge issue for the right, even though it mostly affects liberal coastal cities.
Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood
It blows my mind how you’re saying that like it makes it ok
Source: the about an hour of research I did on straws to write the response. I mean I read a fucking thesis on it and probably 4-5 articles. I mean the links in there you lazy fukkah
So maybe shove it up your ass.
Oh you editing now? Go find evidence that the transition from plastic straws to paper has had any measurable impacts on wildlife.
This image looks like right wing corpo propaganda to me. Not only does it divert the attention away from the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases, it is attacking a moderate leftist – who admittedly causes a relatively large amount of greenhouse gases.
But Taylor Swift is not making most of those flights on a personal basis. It’s to provide a service to fans. So in that sense we can regard the emissions as those of Taylor Swift the company. And in that sense they are much lower than many other companies who we often give a free pass.
So, yes hold the big emitters responsible, but let’s start with the 57 on the list and work our way down to Taylor Swift.
Bingo.
It invites hatred from a sizeable (though perhaps potentially less politically-aware) fan base that might otherwise be receptive.
Using someone as popular as Swift as a target for less-pop-culture-interested folks who are politically informed is clearly kicking the hornets’ nest to stir up in-fighting among the working class.
Next time use Bezos or one of the other folks who showed up in that “Dialog” secret society since they also use private jets in the same way someone like Swift does, but in addition are far worse in every other way and who also lobby with their billions towards worsening the world in every way imaginable.
Yeah, if you convinced Taylor Swift to stop using a private plane, it’s analogous to fast food companies switching to paper straws while keeping everything else plastic. It helps, but it’s just demanding a token solution instead of taking on the bigger problem.
the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases
That’s just nonsense.
- The top two providers in that list are the governments of USSR and China. They are not “megacorporations”
- It not a list of “emitters”. These entities are just “linked to” the emissions – i.e. they provided the fuel that someone else burned.
It’s completely ridiculous to say that it doesn’t matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.
Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There’s over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.
Definitely not nonsense. Perhaps you can try to read what is said if you make such a strong statement.
- It’s state-owned companies, not the entirety of the government. Why would they need to be treated differently?
- First: not all of them. For example, the vast majority of Chinese coal is also burned in China. And why not put the emissions created by the production of these oil giants on them? It’s their product causing the emissions after all. On top of that, they have been actively trying to obfuscate and manipulate the data on greenhouse gas emissions for the better part of a century now.
I never said you don’t need to look at your own emissions, but the difference can only really be made by taking on these major corps. Ignoring or trying to downplay that is what’s ridiculous.
And I agree with carbon taxes, but let’s make sure they hit corporations much much harder than individuals just trying to get by.
It’s nonsense because there’s no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).
- State “companies” should be treated differently because they have different structures, motivations, scope, and controls
- It is not useful to focus on oil conglomerates because they are basically interchangeable. What is the behavior change you want from them? To all stop existing? To raise prices to discourage use? To collude into providing some correct amount of their product?
How do you imagine one would “take on” a corporation? “Hey Exxon, you’re bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!”. If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.
It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.
So, holding companies responsible for the product they make and try to downplay the effects of isn’t right because there are more steps after them to create the emissions? While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products? Yeah that’s absolutely nonsense.
- Why? State companies are just as accountable. They’ve known about this since the 1960s. The goal is to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Time is of the essence, so we need to put our efforts where it matters the most.
- To all stop existing? No, as of yet they are still necessary for some chemical processes and back-up power generators for vital infrastructure like hospitals. But we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land. So they will need to drastically change their operations away from oil and gas. They can go into green hydrogen production or focus on EV charging stations. And yes, it helps to hit them where it makes a difference. Put emission taxes on every molecule of carbon they pump out of the earth. Because the only way it doesn’t end up in the air is to leave it there.
Your reductio ad absurdum is ridiculous. Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them? The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes. Countries can accelerate the transition to green energy through their state-owned energy companies. We can sanction countries who don’t do their part.
While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products
This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
State companies are just as accountable
My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land
This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them
What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.
100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
Nobody can fix the emissions of the past, and deterring the next coverup is the only thing we can do. But I do think some reparations are in order, especially to poorer nations who are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
Obviously, the change will have to come from the country’s government. But we can still sanction the countries and the oil companies.
how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.
vague inflammatory language
Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.
Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
What inaction? It will cost us all a lot of effort to move away from fossil fuels. You’re just protecting the worst offenders who have made the consumers the scapegoat for decades.
Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
Why would it have to be? I already said start at the top and work your way down.
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
A lot of people simply don’t care about their own personal responsibility, finger-wagging or hand-waving. They don’t care. It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem than go a snip off every twig individually. I mean, that conservative uncle of yours will never get no god damn ee-vee now will he?
There are no ethical billionaires
I didn’t say that. But we have to be pragmatic and focus our energy on the worst offenders, because that’s where the most gain comes from.
Why waste energy distinguish are you a level 4 or a level 5 offender. Our energy would be much better spend dealing with the root of the problem. That is a society allowing that level of accumulation of wealth. No matter if you are performing for your fans or flying to Epstein island.
And the root lies with keeping the oil inside the earth’s crust. Not with Taylor Swift performing through MS Teams.
I’m blown away every time anew how some people on lemmy, like you here, effortlessly cut through manipulation. Reflecting on the state of the internet it’s sadly delightful and refreshing.
If you make a snappy meme about it, I’ll start using it.
Didn’t make one, but I found this one:
Taylor swift is a leftist just like my racist boss has a black friend and is thus not racist.
I said moderate leftist, but you may have your own opinion about her
As i do every time somebody posts this article:
The headline is misleading. It’s not 57 “companies”. The original source speaks of “Entities”.
Number one on that List of 57? The former Soviet Union. Good luck holding them responsible. Next to several state controlled Actors like Gazprom (6th) or Saudi Armaco (3rd), some privat companies like ExxonMobile (5th), there are entities like Chinas Coal production from 1945 - 2004 (2nd) North Korea (57th) or Cinas Cement production (13th).
The list shows that oil companies cause a lot of emissions (but apparently not as much as the former soviet union). To absolutly nobodies suprise.
Next to holding them accountable for their emissions (and their lobbying, pro oil propaganda, etc) we need to find ways to reduce emissions in our lives. Those companies will only stop if their products is less and less needed.
Obviously you can’t do anything about the former Soviet Union –although Ukraine is doing a pretty good job– and China is doing a good job moving away from coal.
It doesn’t matter whether the results are surprising or not, we need to move away from the narrative created by oil companies that the end user is at fault. And you’re not helping either in that sense. Oil companies have been doing whatever they can do hide the truth about emissions, lie to the public through propaganda and sow doubt about climate research.
Of course end users need to change something too, but that’s far less easy than it sounds. Especially the USA people seem to have absolutely no idea what they’re doing driving around everywhere in big trucks, even for short distances.
It’s crazy how long that misrepresented study stays alive. The point wasn’t to find fault, it was to figure out how much comes from people in general. After all, nature does create it’s own green house gases.
By the logic of the study, the oil company that sold Swift her kerosene is 100% responsible for it. By that studies logic me, you and Swift are EQUALLY not responsible for ANY oil we use, ever. That’s obviously stupid.
Just a different way of interpretation. Of course the user and producer share some of the blame, but now it’s the other way around, now Taylor Swift gets the full blame.
And the point is that the oil companies have actively lied to their customers about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, even though they knew about it since the ‘50s.
So if I sell you a box, and I tell you it’s completely safe, but the box explodes and kills a bunch of people, who, in your mind, is responsible?
taylor swift’s private plane is a 1947 boeing b-47 stratojet?
girl’s got style.
wait, you’re to McDonald’s?
deleted by creator
Farm animals, fake meat is too expensive.
Always get a chuckle out of the conspiracy that mcdonalds uses fake meat. When the reality is so, so much worse.
Its all 100% real meat. McDonald’s just ruins it that hard.
deleted by creator
I can’t remember the last time I used either of those. Real glasses and cups exist, and don’t require straws.
Restaurants don’t allow you to bring your own glasses in though
Fair point. IIRC though the primary reason for banning plastic straws was not CO2 emissions but wildlife protection, as plastic straws are (or were) the single most frequently found foreign object in the stomachs of dead sea turtles.
I’ll take a PLA cup over a paper cup lined with PFAS, BPA, etc.
There should really be a law that people should be able to bring their own reusable drink cup for any drink.
But then they might get extra drink! Unconscionable!
if people knew just how little the typical fountain drink cost, cups and straws included, they would riot over the costs.
I have seen the amount of organizing a peaceful protest takes. I have seen how much the police charge to riot. Americans would never.
Yeah, I don’t know if it’s still true but years ago basically the cost for the cup and straw for the business was greater than the cost of the drink itself.
So if anything bringing my own container would save them a good chunk of the cost of a fountain drink.
yeah, last time i checked the cost of the water, syrup, cup and straw were like…20 cents (this is with their economy of scale, bulk buying, etc etc), for a big 64 ounce drink. admitted that was before trump ruined the economy, but i doubt they are still not making absolute bank on fountain sales.
I went to a fancy restaurant recently, the kind that charges $15 for a side salad and $30 for a plate of noodles, and the straw that broke the camels back for me was that she charged me $3 for every refill of the 12 oz of soda they give you.
I went to a diner recently and they had posted signs that they are going to start charging for refills after the 2nd one
charged refills of fountain drinks is just pure exploitative robbery.
Yeah like this is supposed to be an upscale restaurant but they’re acting like a beggar on the street. They even had the gall to charge the customer for the 3% credit card fee. I’m supposed to spend $70 a head but they can’t afford a $3 fee for the table. Unforgivable lol
I think larger merchants can negotiate lower swipe rates, but even 3% means they are getting more from the charge than the transaction costs them.
They won’t, the McD machines have preset settings to dispense an exact amount of drink every time, they don’t measure it by hand.
Plenty of places–many McD’s included–have the soda machienes out in the dining area for customers to self-serve, probaby because the fraction of time it takes for an employee to fill the drink cost more than the soda itself.
I know a thrifty fella who knows the specific refill policy of each of the 5 nearby McDonalds; there’s a lot of variation between stores.
Ppl have been mentioning the plastic in the paper cups but I haven’t seen anyone mention that large cups used to all be Styrofoam. Some places all the cups were Styrofoam. And that was god awful for the environment. They were amazing though. Getting a giant sweet tea in a cup that never sweated was phenomenal. Shame they suck so bad.
Paper cups used to be lined in wax. Plastic is technically unnecessary.
I remember biting the rim of a Styrofoam cup and leaving imprints of my teeth
I use a metal, glass lined, vacuum insulated cup. Awesome, doesn’t sweat, is reusable and recyclable. I’ve used it for about 8 years now, the 25 euros have been well spent.
I like the meme but I would like it more if it didn’t have a wojak in it
Corporations are bad and therefore I cannot make any changes myself!
I mean waxed paper cups aren’t super, they are likely better than plastic, but the wax is likely a fossils fuel byproduct
I believe they increasingly use PLA which is a bioplastic. But yeah it used to be, and in many cases likely still is, polyethylene which is an oil product.
PLA isn’t food safe though, and it’s only bio degradable in very specific circumstances, and that ““biodegradable”” status also means it puts off tons of micro plastics
I think you’re thinking of 3D printed PLA which indeed typically isn’t food safe. Industrially produced PLA can be food safe and it’s used in a lot of food packaging, disposable cutlery etc.
Gotcha TIL
PLA itself absolutely is food safe, and a significant plurality of plastic disposable forks and spoons are made from it these days.
bacteria and other cooties
👍
PLA is not compostable or anything of the sort. So honestly it’s more of a “this plastic could be recycled, given that it’s sorted out from the other plastic, and given financial viability”.
PLA very much is compostable, but only in composting facilities designed to handle bioplastics, which most aren’t (and also additives like pigments likely aren’t compostable).
Not nearly as compostable as PHA though!
Fair, I mean that it’s not compostable in home compost environments.
Yeah, unfortunately without some true dedication home composters do not have enough fuel (or material balance) to hit the temps required to compost PLA. It works great if you’ve got a hot composter, if you’re interested in the DIY side of things, but generally you need several households worth of input (or as in my area, a community garden with shared composting) to be able to reliably decompose PLA.
Yup, just looked it up from your comment because it made me realize that I had no idea what wax was actually made of.
Paraffin wax is a colorless solid derived from petroleum, coal, or oil shale, consisting of hydrocarbon molecules
Not if they use beeswax or some other natural resin
Hence the likely a fossil fuel byproduct. But let’s be real the cost associated with using beeswax would be unbelievable
unless you’re just a home manufacturer with a lot of bees looking for a way to use your extra bee products. but like how many of those are there
It is also a mixed material which makes it difficult to recycle
