Stainless steel straws for the win.
I prefer gravity straws. You just put the cup above your head and tilt the cup for the drink to pour in a straight line to your mouth.
I keep mine in the car
I don’t use straws at all, but this isn’t really the point. There are much more impactful ways to reduce your carbon footprint like biking, walking, public transport, but all this pales in comparison in the massive environmental pollutions that billionaires and corporations do to our waterways and air.
I like using straws, and stainless is a really pleasant straw experience ; you can slurp up really thick smoothies, for example.
I’m hyping stainless for the experience.
I feel like this is a whoosh. The environmental impact of our collective straw use is so insignificant compared to the effects of so many other things. The fact that people focus on straws is just evidence that the average person has no idea what to do, in order to decrease their environmental impact and will also complain about the mildest of inconveniences.
Think it’s moreso evidence that the propaganda machine works
Bruh didn’t you see above you that the chick can suck off a mean thick smoothie??
deleted by creator
Not only the billionaires, even the millionaires, and all the people taking the plane more than once a year. It is an ecological crime the pollution of air transport.
One plane flight a year? What if I want to return home the same year?
You don’t, wait the next year or don’t leave home.
But the foreign country only lets me stay for 3 months, and in any case I only get 4 weeks leave
The trick is to go a week before new year’s
Admittedly, I am one of those people taking a plane well over once a year, although I really rather wish I weren’t - I haven’t had a personal trip in over four years, it’s all onsite implementation.
T swift enters chat
fun fact. modern planes consume ~3-4l per 100 passengers per km or 3-4l per passenger per 100km.
efficient ICE cars consume ~6l per passenger per 100km.
add to that, that there’s basically no good alternative to fast very long distance or cross-continent transport
Is that planes that are packed to the gills or private planes that actually have space that people aren’t crammed into?
Also, 3-4/6 liters of what? ICE cars and modern planes aren’t burning the same fuel, so I’m not sure what this is intending to portray by directly comparing how much of each (in liters) that they burn (serious question, no snark)
Edit #2: ICE is a type of train in germany. I mistook “ICE cars” as meaning trains and was wondering how flying is supposed to be more efficient than trains. Hence my confusion.
OG comment (invalid, see Edit #2): Where are these numbers coming from?
I cannot find any source for the 3-4l/passenger/km claim. I cannot find any source for the claim that planes are more efficient. Nothing comes even near this claim.
https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/rail-and-waterborne-transport
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
Can you please provide a source?
Edit #1: I just want to add that my old combustion car (VW Up! / Seat Mii / Skoda Citigo) burned around 4.2l/100km. So I according to you, if I had another person with me, I’d beat both planes and trains with what stands uncontested as the most inefficient form of transport?
Since I just had this whole back and forth with someone else a few days ago, I have these handy. I’m not the parent, but he’s right. An individual car can be more fuel efficient with 3+ passengers but the average car trip is only 1.3 passengers. The most popular use of a car is commuting and that stands at 1.2 passengers per trip.
“A new report from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute shows that flying has become 74% more efficient per passenger since 1970 while driving gained only 17% efficiency per passenger. In fact, the average plane trip has been more fuel efficient than the average car trip since as far back as 2000, according to their calculations.”
http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2014-2_Abstract_English.pdf
“The main findings are that to make driving less energy intensive than flying, the fuel economy of the entire fleet of light-duty vehicles would have to improve from the current 21.5 mpg to at least 33.8 mpg, or vehicle load would have to increase from the current 1.38 persons to at least 2.3 persons.”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/
deleted by creator
I think you need to learn how to read, buddy.
The alternative is stop traveling such huge distances all the time.
Other than public transportation and filling up the cars with people, instead of having one vehicle per person.
Distances that require a flight are far too common here in the US at least, it’s kind of unavoidable
A lot of those flights could be replaced with high speed rail. Maybe not New York to LA, but a lot of people live in the cities in the northeast and travel between those cities would be very feasible at reasonable travel times with high speed rail.
Okay let me just lobby the government to build long distance high speed rail before I take my trips.
High speed rail makes more sense for sure, but it’s not available in most of the country. There’s only two stretches in the US, in the northeast corridor and surprisingly in Florida
I know how pitiful our rail networks are. I take Amtrak regularly. It’s faster to drive. It shouldn’t be, but it is. Obviously I’m not talking about today, but building improved rail infrastructure over the next decade is very realistic and a worthwhile investment. Unfortunately the investment Amtrak has gotten isn’t enough to modernize our rail network, and a lot of that money is being used to improve privately owned rail lines that Amtrak leases for their passenger service.
My point was that the US doesn’t have distances that are insurmountable that can only be traveled via plane. It’s an investment issue.
That would require investment in infrastructure, and our govt would rather get us into another 9 forever wars than do such a thing.
efficient ICE cars consume ~6l per passenger per 100km.
More like 6L per 100km, whatever the number of passengers, I suppose. So it’s usually still less than planes.
And there are better alternatives like trains or buses, which can be actually efficient for long distance travels (high speed trains, night travel. Works well from city centre to city centre)
There is also the additional issue of contrails which are a massive factor of greenhouse effect
This ICE car consumes 0.15-0.2l per passanger per 100km
What’s magical about that once-a-year limit? I find that quite a lot already.
Probably you right
Neptunian year maybe?
probably op gets on a plane once a year, so that’s an ok amount
asdfasfasfasdf
Oh yeah let’s go full authoritarian, that’s what leftism does best after all
What…? Are you responding to the wrong person?
Yeah gotta agree with you. I have to fly a good amount, both families live over 2000 miles away, it’s unavoidable. But I change what I can in society, I am switching to an EV, I pay extra on my electricity to pay for green sources, and I overall try to lower my carbon footprint.
As soon as they come out with an alternative fuel airline I’ll be flying on that as much as possible, but until there are alternatives I’m stuck flying.
Apple: We’re changing everyone’s charging schedules to make electricity 0.00001% greener.
Also Apple: Titanium, so pretty. Even though it’s dirtier to mine.
Again Apple: We’re making everything irrepairable.
sadfasfasdf
I disagree that this is a right wing talking point, but whether it is or not is irrelevant. If it’s a problem, it’s a problem. There is no “buying into it.”
It’s a genuine problem that billionaires create literally ONE MILLION times more carbon footprint than 90% of the people. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135446721/billionaires-carbon-dioxide-emissions
asdfasfsdaf
Don’t use a straw at all; it’s less waste and more convenient
You’re going to need another set of landing gear if your hull strength is going to survive the next grav jump buddy
100% convinced our decedents will look back in this age and laugh 2 things : domestic recycling as an attempt to save the the planet , and the fact that we did nothing unless there was a profit in it.
Also I don’t know about you, but my countries recycling relied on sending it all to China to burn.
dustsv hands yep my work here is done
Recycling is a lie to keep making plastic, nothing more
It’s for profit
the fact that we did nothing unless there was a profit in it.
who are “we”?
I’m not profiting, are you?
Those who already have all the money and power are, don’t even let the focus slip from them.first one yeah, second one not so much i don’t think
I remember reading a fun fact: A single day (it might have even been an hour but let’s err on the side of caution) of the bigger cruise ship engine use pumps out the same amount of pollution as all of the cars in Europe do combined for a while year.
Why on fuck do we bother with the small stuff when the big ones have such a huge weight on the problem.
One cruise ship has carbon emissions roughly equivalent to 12,000 cars. Maybe if you’re specifically looking at sulphur oxide pollution, since modern cars emit so little of it. But there’s a lot of other stuff coming out of tailpipes, sulphur oxide is just a single pollutant.
Ancestors?
It will probably be an alien species who will find a dead planet and wonder how and why so much toxic material was spread around the planet … and also wonder why there is an orbiting space station filled with gold, paper money and the greyed out decaying bodies of a humanoid species.
Lol decedents !
Brother, you’re close but the word is descendents lol
Brother, you’re so close, but the word is descendants!
Lol nerd!
/jk
I gotta quit whiskey before breakfast
*Laughs until crying because he can’t afford his own home, let alone afford to have and take care of children*
Lol … will it matter in the end anyways?
I goofed and I’ll take the fall … also the spelling is DESCENDANTS … thanks for pointing out my error
Humanity will survive the climate apocalypse. Life is incredible at adaptation. But our present society won’t survive and our descendents will curse us for sitting idle while their future was sacrificed for the sale of lethargy.
I have my doubts about humanity’s survival … I think life, some form of life will continue on but us walking bipeds will either have an extremely hard time, or we just won’t make it all.
ANY effective, long-term collective change REQUIRES that the large majority of people CHANGE THEIR CONSUMPTION HABBITS. While not great, the private plane stuff is exactly as pointless as the paper straws. Both are ways for everyone to point the finger at everyone else, and not have to change.
If the government implemented the “correct” laws tomorrow, but the populace doesn’t want to change their habits, they will vote in people that give them back their old, bad things.
If a company implemented to “correct” processes, but the consumers don’t want to pay the necessary price, they go bankrupt, and the company with the “incorrect, but cheap” processes wins.
ALL COLLECTIVE ACTION IS A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL CHANGE. There is no alternative!
Bollocks! If every private jet is grounded there’s no amount of paper straws that can match that impact.
There’s still individual changes that impact more than the collective ones!
This is why we are doomed.
You don’t solve this by just recycling harder - you solve this with legislative intervention to minimise packaging, ban private jets, retire fossil fuels, and stop massive food waste.
Pointing your finger at the masses and demanding they muster the will to change enough that entire supply chains are forced to retool entirely is naiive to the point of stupidity - people will go for cost and convenience just as predictably as companies will burn down the world for an extra dollar. The systemic change makes that shift quickly and (for the consumer) easy.
I can’t argue with that. There needs to be immediate change on all fronts.
This means that I wont suck on a paper straw while mr CEO flies in his private jet. Dead easy.
So far, there have mostly been changes that target the lives of people who already have a small CO2 footprint. I don’t even own a car for example.
The mere existence of private jets is an atrocity while the „lesser“ of us need to invest time and effort to change their ways.
https://greenisthenewblack.com/private-jets-are-uncool-environmentally/
Obviously, there are those of us who like to leave their v8 running while in the grocery store and they absolutely need to stop. No emptying the ashtray on the street or going to starbucks every day and get a one use cup every time. But still, I‘m done listening to people telling me I‘m not doing enough.
Where do these mushy straws reside? I’m not one to get fast food or go to restaurants very often but it’s always plastic.
Paper straws are everywhere where I live I’ve also seen sugar cane and pasta stir sticks.
In my area I can sometimes find these light blue colored ones that are super rigid, I think they’re made of agave? Regardless of the material, I think they’re actually just better than plastic for once.
A couppe years ago, there was a big craze around paper straws.
In California. I carry around a silicone straw all the time now because I want a straw that fucking works at being a straw.
Canada
Seattle
A lot of the new plastic straws are compostable where I live.
Yup, sugarcane plastic
change the first line to ‘happily using a non-plastic straw to help the environment’ then this meme will improve 1000x
Nobody is happy about this shit
Pasta straws in italy are pretty cool tho
It all depends on what you people want. Do you want lower carbon emissions? Literally change your whole life and consuming habits. Do you want less warm climate m industrialize as fuck to create giant satellite mirrors to stop light from reaching earth. And so on
“Airbus baluga” will now be stuck in my head to the tune of “baby baluga” all night, tyvm
Can we stfu about the straws? We get it, wah wah
I don’t really care but when Wendy’s got paper straws and then replace all the paper cups with thick plastic cups right after it’s clear company’s are doing it just to pretend they care about the environment.
boohoo i’m being forced to use a plastic straw after polluting too much
its not my fault its the billionaires who got rich off the industries i support
You’re talking about two different ways to screw the environment. One is the rampant plastics pandemic, the other is carbon emissions. Paper straws are meant to combat the first, not the second.
While that’s true, I think the complaint here is that the the law deliberately harms poor people only. Instead of banning individual plastic applications, we should be taxing literally all plastics and letting consumers decide what’s worth it. And if we are to take a case-by-case class warfare approach, we should be going after the excesses of the wealthy - like private jets.
It’s not that they’re the same thing, it’s that they both hurt the environment and are treated very differently.
Wait till they find out what plastic is made out of and how that impacts carbon emissions.
Downvote this man and his factual statement!!!
The popular comments are all about how recycling is a scam to allow plastic companies to continue creating plastics.
But mushy straws isn’t even about recycling. You’re literally removing a plastic that people use all the time. Sounds like a win no matter what.
My number one pet peeve:
hey here’s one some concession we can do to make the planet slightly better.
Most people in the US:
if it doesn’t t solve all of our problems 100% I’m not going to think about doing so. What it only makes life slightly better for us? Nope fuck that it means I have to be slightly inconvenienced for it, I’m not willing to do that. Come back when it’ll fix everything 100% and then I’ll find more excuses to why I don’t have to change.
