[agallant]

If it truly worked as a series of incremental improvements, and considered total carbon footprint (transportation costs etc.), then sure.

Those are two pretty big "ifs" - people can be inclined to satisfice and pat themselves on the back for having done some minor symbolic thing, and then not go deeper. And it's much easier to sacrifice plastic straws than question whether your "bucket list" should really have a ton of carbon intensive global travel.

[ehnto]

Straws were also banned because of their immediate impact on ocean life, the same reason we got rid of plastic ring 6 pack can holders. Animals get them lodged in their bodies.

[bzzzt]

Most ocean plastic comes from the western world and is exported to poorer countries where corrupt companies promise to 'deal' with it which means dumping it into the ocean. It's not the straws that are the problem, but the policy that makes it possible to export trash and look the other way.

[ssl-3]

The sum of this, I think, is that it would be better for the oceans if we landfilled plastics instead of sending them off to be not-recycled.

All we need is a seemingly copacetic catch phrase to bring the ocean-dumping not-recyclers into the light.

"Scamcycling"?

[ehnto]

Agreed except that not everywhere can landfill, so tightening up global trash agreements still makes sense.

[ehnto]

I wholeheartedly agree. I also don't see any problem with banning the straws in the first place, and I hope it is just the beginning of plastic items we ban.