I see another city is banning plastic straws------------how quaint

Your ego writes checks you body can't cash Lee.

Why not engage me directly?

You've highlighted a problem that needs to be addressed. We don't recycle enough plastics.

So how about we do something about that, rather than use more energy, more chemicals, and more natural resources, to supply alternatives that aren't recyclable, and are rarely biodegradable.

By the way, you should immediately stop using plastic lids on anything, like the non-recyclable, non-biodegradable Starbucks coffee cups. They are made with many of the same materials used to make straws. Don't see the enviro-wackos banning them do you?

 

That's something your state can do, of course. Straws began as real straw, then paper, then plastic, and now back to paper again (in some places, I guess). I used paper straws in elementary school. They were okay, I guess, but were useless with milk shakes.

I don't think it's going back to paper straws that people have a problem with, but rather it's just another example of using the power of the state to micromanage everything. The time has come to where I don't really care what reasons people give. If it means making another law, then the answer is no.

Sorry, but it's gotten to the point of insanity, so... just no. Want to protect snails? No! Want to save the... No! Want to do it for the children? No!

I don't care anymore, and I'm certainly not alone.

 

Well, yeah, tru dat. Instead of making cogent arguments of sufficient quality to convince and persuade people, they prefer the power trip of ramming it down people's throats with protests, fire and broken glass, and bureaucratic elitist rulings from on high.

It seems they are intoxicated with the most complex, most esoteric approaches they can possibly grab onto, then spread the gobblydygook by ramjet to all points of the compass, and expect that people have to like it.

So people tune them out. But they keep it up. Then people despise them.

 

While I'll readily agree there are problems, history has repeatedly proved the "It can't be done" maxim to be wrong. It's mostly a matter of motivation; specifically funding R&D. The US used to lead the world in R&D, but we've slackened as a nation for several reasons and are in danger of being passed by nations who are more motivated.

 

Which is why you should drink beer out of a bottle.

If those cups are so nasty, why are you drinking out of them, straw or not?

 

Actually, they're not. Almost no plastic can be turned back into the same plastic, which is what would have to happen to qualify as 100%. From an energy standpoint, only aluminum, steel, newspaper and corrugated cardboard are worth recycling. Glass is about break even, though it will keep the glass out of a landfill.

Plastic, food containers, egg cartons, milk cartons, random paper, cereal boxes -- that's all better off tossed. The recycling center will probably send plastic and random paper to a landfill, as it doesn't move at any price. If your city trash goes to an incinerator, as mine does, that stuff all gets turned into steam energy.

However, the issue here with straws is plastic pollution. Nobody disagrees the bans cost a little more. It's a cost/benefit analysis. People have decided less plastic pollution is worth more cost.

It doesn't affect me in one way, in that no adult male should use a straw, unless he's in a vehicle. That's a guy rule. It does affect me in that I pick up a lot of plastic straw garbage.

 

Never heard anyone sing 100 Cups of Beer.

 

Your thinking is too narrow. You should look up the word "recycle". There are many definitions but basically they are this: "convert into reusable material."

I'm amazed by the number of far Lefties who say "it can't be done" and just want to build bigger landfills or add to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Recycling plastic can be as easy as grinding it up and adding it to suitable building materials for things as mundane as sidewalks, roads, dikes, levees, etc.

As for burning it, adding to air pollution isn't a good solution. Sure, it can be filtered, then you have to recycle the filters....or will you say it can't be done? Just more for the landfill?

 

I heard an engineer say that no further progress can be made in mechanical, civil, chemical, or electrical engineering, but rather just better project applications of what is now fully known.

Granted, the vast part of these fields has been revealed and charted, but I hardly believe they have it all under their belt. The guy was my superior, me a peon and couldn't say a thing. But my thoughts were the guy had a bad tick bite or got old too soon.

 

Is that cost effective? Does it make the new materials better? Do you even care?

Remember, liberals are reason-based. We're not going to bank on vaporware techomiracles, or waste money on subsidizing inefficient recycling programs. At least this liberal doesn't want to do that. The free market works better at finding solutions than government trying to force research in a certain direction based on an ideology that plastic must be recycled.

There are always cost/benefit tradeoffs. Liberals examine costs and benefits for each situation, and choose the most practical solution, instead of blindly charting a course based entirely on wishful thinking.

So, what is the most practical solution? Not making the plastic in the first place.

 

Plastic is fairly new in the greater scheme of things. I'd imagine that quite a few of us were alive back when there was no plastic. It's easy enough to go back to what we did then, but is that practical? Not if you want to market your wares to commoners.

However, I wish you well in replacing plastic and still managing to make a profit.

 

There's an establishment called BJ which I hang out now and again. They sell a "tower" of their home brew beer which have a spigot to dispense the beer. It would be a good idea just to put my mouth below the spigot and "activate" it.

 

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

That much, is certain.

 

No need for me to have a useless and irrelevant paper under my belt.

 

Why shouldn’t adult men use straws? While would feel kind of silly using one in can or bottle(unless it frozen). When drinking out of a large cup filled with a sugary drink I don’t want it all over my mustache. Drinks with lids from fast food places could use tops designed to drink directly from the lid, like on many coffee cups.

While I think the bans are pretty silly. If the voters in those areas support it more power to them. Personally think would get better results increasing enforcement of existing littering and illegal dumping laws. If disposed of properly no trash should be gettint into the waterways anyway IMO.

 

Yes, I do care.

LOL. So now you're claiming you're not a liberal? WTFO?

Ahhh, and now we get to the basis of your "reason-based" claim nothing can be done: you want us to do nothing including shutting down all the factors and go out to hug a tree. Dude, how many of the world's 7+ billion people would die if we all went back to pre-industrialization and subsistence farming?...or do you not even care how many die in the quest for a "green" Earth without technology?

 

We'll see... As far as I can tell, democrats aren't exactly wowing "the people" with their arguments, which is why we have the man with the golden bog in the white house, instead of the shrill trailer park lush that the dems nominated.

 

I have not been keeping up with liberal insanity recently

What do the have against straws?

 

Supposedly, it's about saving sea turtles from turning them into nasal appendages. But honestly, does anybody really believe any lefty when they are trying to "argue" in favor of more government power over us peasants?

I truly don't think they have tried to be intellectually honest in decades now. It's just alls fair in love and war, and they're at war. They'd say that their uncle is their aunt if they thought it would give them just a squidgen more power.

 

Millions upon millions of research papers are in existence, stuffed in file cabinets and impinged on discs. Perhaps one or two a year might possibly have some significance, but probably none do.

 

The majority do not stand the test of time.

 

You're not making any sense. I'm always reason-based, liberals are reason-based, hence I'm a liberal. Do I need to explain that in smaller words?

As I never said or implied any such a thing, that's clearly your idea and your idea alone. So why do you hold it?

Look, if you want to live in a cave with a non-bathing partner named "Moonbeam" and and hug trees for Mother Gaia, feel free. We support whatever lifestyle you choose. Just stop trying to force us to join you. We liberals like electricity and indoor plumbing, so we're trying to preserve that way of life. In contrast, you'd leave the world shivering in the dark, after the fossil fuels ran out and there was nothing to replace them.

Rubbing your hands with glee at the body count you're going to rack up is ghoulish and unseemly.

Now, if you can find your courage, act like a liberal, and be intellectually honest. Address what I actually said, unless you can't, in which case just keep evading.

 

Thanks for the belly laugh.

 

these laws are not needed, scientist have created a enzyme that solves the problem, thus it will be a non-issue

"Plastic-eating enzyme accidentally created by scientists could help solve pollution crisis"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ste-bottles-bacteria-portsmouth-a8307371.html

 

Most of it comes from Asia and Africa. Of the top ten rivers spewing plastic into the ocean (and per studies they produce over 80% of the plastics) 8 are from Asia (mainly China), two from Africa. None from the Western Hemisphere, nor from Europe.

https://www.treehugger.com/ocean-co...ar-be-source-millions-tons-ocean-plastic.html