
Canada aims to ban single-use plastics by 2021 - chameleon_world
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/canada-single-use-plastics-ban-2021/
======
Negitivefrags
This movement is really dumb.

Plastic pollution in the ocean is a problem, but it’s not the western
countries causing it. There are 10 rivers that cause 90% of plastic pollution,
and they are in Africa and Asia.

Plastic in a landfill harms nobody.

The worst part is that people somehow have this linked in thier mind with
climate change, as in fixing plastic pollution is going to help with that.

Well if anything, it’s going to make it marginally worse because the
replacements for single use plastics consume more energy.

Meanwhile this also has a pretty disproportionate amount of inconvenience for
the public, continuing the “Environmental issues are about your personal
sacrifice” message which is both unnessissary (companies can have a much
Larger impact without you sacrificing anything) and counterproductive.

This is the politicians fallicy in action.

~~~
mynegation
It is not dumb. It is about setting an example.

We cannot fix everything everywhere, but we can move the needle. Maybe a youth
living near one of those 10 rivers, reading about Canada doing it, will become
a member of parliament or a minister and will do something about it. Or not.
Maybe here in Canada out of necessity we come up with smart solutions to
replaces single use plastics that can be copied all over the world. Or not.

But what we can do, we shall, and as a Canadian, I am fully behind this
decision.

~~~
gruez
>We cannot fix everything everywhere, but we can move the needle. Maybe a
youth living near one of those 10 rivers, reading about Canada doing it, will
become a member of parliament or a minister and will do something about it.

This kind of attitude only makes sense if it doesn't cost anything. Doubling
our CO2 usage (assuming we switched to paper bags)[1], just so we can virtue
signal to kids in third world countries is asinine.

[1]
[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-
e-e.pdf#page=7)

~~~
zaarn
Get a cloth bag instead of a paper bag and you'll get something that will out
life the single-use bag and be more environmentally friendly after using it
about 100 times.

Doubling CO2 usage is only true if things remain single-use.

------
BelleOfTheBall
There was a similar thread for Germany here recently, and I remember someone
saying that most companies will just start using multi-use plastics instead of
single-use ones... without reusing them. Is that really likely or am I not
foolish to hope that companies will eventually just research and use more
biodegradable materials?

~~~
api
This is what I see in California with the bag ban. People use multi use bags
once, resulting in a net increase in plastic use.

This is a hard problem. A ban will not fix it and may have perverse effects
like increasing usage and pollution.

What is so damn bad about paper? Paper is mostly renewable (or can be) and is
very biodegradable. Why not just make better paper bags

~~~
gruez
they're not waterproof (or at least, lose structural integrity when wet), and
they have worse climate impact than plastic bags.

~~~
Asooka
How do they have worse impact? I thought they're made of renewable lumber and
compost better than plastic?

~~~
gruez
The numbers:
[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-
e-e.pdf#page=7)

>I thought they're made of renewable lumber and compost better than plastic?

All of which is irrelevant to climate impact. Taking oil out of the ground,
turning it into plastic bags, then burying it is carbon neutral, if we ignore
the energy required for processing. This is fair because it also takes energy
to process pulp to make paper bags. Composting actually causes co2 to be
released, so that's actually counterproductive.

------
derefr
Interesting side-note: here in Vancouver BC, we were full steam ahead on
eliminating plastics (e.g. styrofoam take-out containers, plastic drinking
straws, shopping bags, etc.) but that was seemingly all instantly reversed
once social distancing started.

I can understand the reversal of charging for shopping bags to encourage
bringing reusable bags: reusable bags are potentially a disease vector.

But what's with the reintroduction of plastic straws over paper, and the
reintroduction of styrofoam over paper boxes? A temporary cost-reduction
measure, allowing the using-up of old stock these businesses had laying
around?

~~~
catalogia
> _I can understand the reversal of charging for shopping bags to encourage
> bringing reusable bags: reusable bags are potentially a disease vector._

I don't understand the rationale of not letting me bag my own groceries in my
own bag. I'm not asking them to touch it, anymore than I ask them to touch my
fabric jacket. Nor am I aware of any evidence of covid transmission through
proximity to textile bags. The ban seems utterly senseless. I bought my bag
years ago at Trader Joes but they no longer let me use it, so I no longer shop
at Trader Joes. There are other grocery stores nearby that are being less
unreasonable.

~~~
mthoms
The bagging is done on a counter or conveyer belt by laying your bag down and
then packing it. That surface isn't sanitized before the next customers' food
items and/or bag touches the exact same surface.

Also note how the vast majority of reusable bags get transported: We compress
them down with our hands and stuff them somewhere. Your hands have been _all
over_ the bags (unlike most parts of your jacket).

Maybe researchers will determine that it isn't a risky practice after all, but
given that we don't know yet it seems like a perfectly reasonable precaution.

Not everyone is out to get you. The ban is not senseless, and the stores
implementing it are not being unreasonable. Have you considered the
possibility that maybe you're the one being unreasonable?

~~~
catalogia
Considering the other stores near me having implemented this, I don't think
I'm the one being unreasonable. Meanwhile the same store still has employees
offering to bag groceries for people, which means two employees standing near
you and touching your food instead of one. If these measures were anything
other than theatre pandering to the fearful, they'd stop offering to bag
groceries for people. And for that matter, they'd get rid of the guy standing
at the door too, or put him behind some plexiglass and have him signal people
with semaphores or something. As it is, they have everybody shopping there
walking next to the door guy for no good reason.

> _Not everyone is out to get you._

Obviously they're not "out to get me", but I appreciate the subtle insinuation
that I'm the one who's paranoid.

~~~
mthoms
I have no experience with the stores in your area or what they do or don't do.
I was commenting on the _bagging policy_.

Do you have any on-topic arguments for why the _bagging policy_ is
unreasonable?

~~~
catalogia
The bagging policy is ridiculous because it has about as much to do with
safety as the TSA. It's theatre. That it's theatre is apparent from the fact
that the store isn't operating with a skeleton crew (which would be a
meaningful distancing measure.) If they haven't bothered to minimize the
number of employees in close proximity to customers, why should I believe
_any_ of their other measures are rationally motivated?

Even if you think that context isn't relevant, the premise of covid spread
through surface contamination is still dubious. And even if that risk were
credible, I assert that banning reusable bags would _still_ be a dubious
measure. Instead of using a grocery bag touched only by myself, they'd have me
using grocery bags that have been touched by employees. Employees who've also
touched my food, which I touched before them. Food which was probably touched
by other customers before me. _If_ surface contamination is a serious concern,
the entire premise of a self-service grocery store is fucked and they should
stop letting customers inside the store (self-service grocery stores are a
20th century invention; alternative schemes exist. Notably, self-service
grocery stores weren't common until years after the Spanish Flu...) Since they
haven't done that, it's impossible for me to take their bag ban seriously.

------
fareesh
I remember reading somewhere that some bottled product replaced plastic with
glass, which weighs more, which led to an increase in trucks required, which
led to more of a carbon footprint, which is also bad.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
This is why a carbon tax makes a lot of sense. Increase the cost of doing the
wrong thing and let the market decide.

~~~
therealdrag0
And a recycling tax. Carbon isn’t the only externality we care about.

------
rapind
Can we all agree that plastic packaging has gotten ridiculous? If I buy toys
for my kids they're 90% packaging, 10% toy... It's baffling. Who's the
consumer demanding this?

~~~
spankalee
Or sugar that used to come in cardboard boxes for decades now coming in
plastic bags. And so many glass jars replaced by plastic.

~~~
sneak
I fail to see the harm in this. Who or what is harmed by an inert piece of
plastic sitting safely in a landfill?

Edit: this isn’t rhetoric, but a legitimate inquiry.

~~~
asdff
No one, but that plastic could have been better used and as much new plastic
wouldn't have to be produced. Earth is experiencing death by a thousand cuts,
lets make it a hundred cuts if we can.

~~~
lopmotr
If it's about wasting resources (oil) then isn't that already priced into
plastics? When oil prices rise higher, these near-frivolous uses of plastics
will naturally reduce. Using oil in itself doesn't kill the Earth. It does
nothing useful under the ground. You're falling into the common trap
anthropomorphizing the Earth and applying human-like feelings to it.

------
chrisseaton
Aren't there many legitimate uses of single-use plastics? Like medical
products? What will Canada replace them with?

~~~
beached_whale
I suspect there will be exemptions. But it is really amazing how much there is
left over from medical waste.

~~~
abeppu
But most people actively receive health care infrequently, compared to a daily
or weekly cadence for consuming groceries or coffee or whatever. As a fraction
of the plastic waste that a typical person generates, how much is medical?

~~~
beached_whale
One does have to watch that the solution isn't worse. Plastic packaging is
cheap because it takes very little people, resources, and energy to make.

A lot of the issue is that we haven't been really using market approaches to
deal with it. If the creators where financially a physically responsible for
the proper recycling, they would be motivated to use less and make it cheaper
to reuse. The current recycling makes the problem a municipal one, in many
places, who are ill equipped to deal with it... then we end up shipping it
elsewhere.

------
octorian
I still find it hilarious how we were going all in on "Ban All The Single Use
Plastics!" over the past year, then the pandemic hit, and everyone pretty much
threw the whole idea out the window. Now reusable anything is seen as a
disease vector, and banished.

Makes me wonder what'll happen when the pandemic situation finally winds down.

------
BTCOG
I find it interesting that nobody seems to know that hemp polymers and hemp
bioplastics are readily available, and exist.

[https://hempplastic.com/products/](https://hempplastic.com/products/)

I've held hemp plastic packaging in my hands in Denver, it works well. If we'd
start ramping up the industrial hemp production it is also one of the best
things for the entire planet for carbon neutral and even net negative in the
long term. Cannabis is the highest consuming agricultural crop of CO2 on the
planet. It grows at such an accelerated rate highly balances photosynthesis
and quickly grows; eating CO2 like monsters. Turn the flower into cannabinoid
extracts and foods, seed into food products, and all hemp stalk and pithe is
then turned into bioplastics and hempcrete and various other wood products,
like paper.

------
miohtama
When China, India, Indonesia and orhers do this we are making true progress.

Though not sure what would be the process to get this thru in United States?

------
minerjoe
Can we add cigarette filters to the list? If I had a penny for every ...

~~~
wolco
Ban single use paper and cotton?

If you collected each you might have a penny a piece if you could recycle into
something people want like homemade face masks.

~~~
nikeee
Cigarette filters are the largest source of trash floating in the ocean and
are usually not bio-degradable [1, 2]. They end up as micro plastics. Banning
them instead of plastic straws can be seen as vastly more effetive [3].

Edit:

It seems pretty useless as they essentially have no function (edit: to
health), since the near-universal adoption of filters on cigarettes has not
reduced harms to smokers and lung cancer rates have not declined [4]. And the
color change is something that was added to make the filter to appear to be
effective [5]:

> The tobacco industry determined that the illusion of filtration was more
> important than filtration itself. It added chemicals in the filter so that
> its colour becomes darker when exposed to smoke (it was invented in 1953 by
> Claude Teague working for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company). The industry
> wanted filters to be seen as effective, for marketing reasons, despite not
> making cigarettes any less unhealthy.

So trying to be rational here, they don't have any health benefits and are
responsible for a large share of the microplastics in our ocean.

[1]: [https://www.businessinsider.de/international/new-study-
shows...](https://www.businessinsider.de/international/new-study-shows-
cigarettes-are-single-largest-source-of-ocean-trash-2018-9/)

[2]:
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/cigar...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/cigarettes-
story-of-plastic/)

[3]: [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-
cigar...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigarette-
butts-are-single-greatest-source-ocean-n903661)

[4]:
[https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i10](https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i10)

[5]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_filter#Colour_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_filter#Colour_change)

~~~
wolco
"they have no function". They limit and control the amount of smoke. Provides
a more consistant experience. I read your #4 source as proof. It talks about
how cigarette companies tried coming up with a filter to reduce death but
stopped because the filters were reducing the taste/experience. That doesn't
tell us filters have no use. Include that link it tells us that in the 50s
cigarette companies offered filterless and filtered versions. Customers
preferred the filtered versions. You made the mistake of thinking the only
purpose of filters is less death. Filters prevent tabacco from fall out,
better taste, more consistant smoke, nevermind you need somewhere to hold the
cigarette as it burns and without a filter you throwaway more tabacco.

#5 Most cigarettes butts are not brown at least in my megacity. White is more
popular.

Cigarette butts can take upto 10 years to breakdown at the most.

[https://uhs.berkeley.edu/tobaccofacts](https://uhs.berkeley.edu/tobaccofacts)

Single use plastics take 1,000 years.

One will breakdown in your pets lifetime the other will take a millennia.

We need to ban single plastic use. And perhaps dig a little deeper before
making assuming associations (if cigarettes are bad the filters must be
destorying the earth / meanwhile the coffee lids you get every morning is
really the problem)

~~~
chameleon_world
"4\. Butt waste is not biodegradable: Filters are non-biodegradable, and while
ultraviolet rays from the sun will eventually break them into smaller pieces,
the toxic material never disappears."

Yes the break down but it seems they break down into smaller plastics or
microplastics, which are being found in rain
[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6496/1257](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6496/1257)

------
antisthenes
Single use plastics are such a red-herring.

I remember flying Lufthansa, where the crew asked us to reuse plastic cups for
water in the name of being eco-friendly.

The hilarious thing was that we were onboard a giant 747-8, that was 70%
empty.

Obviously it's not an either/or situation, but that banning single-use
plastics is anywhere near even the top 10 things that we could be doing is
laughable. I doubt it would even make the top 100.

~~~
lopmotr
It's highly visible in people's daily lives so they pressure politicians into
it. It's not meant to solve any actual environmental problem, just a pointless
populist policy.

------
fareesh
Is it possible that due to issues of politics and optics that serious
scientists / engineers are unable to work on solutions like "hemp plastic"?

Admittedly as a layperson I am guilty of wondering whether it is just one of
those crazy ideas the marijuana enthusiasts are pushing, or whether it has any
legitimate potential.

Has this material been given any serious consideration?

~~~
xkcd-sucks
Is this "hemp plastic" like polyethylene made from hemp feedstock, or is it
something like reformed cellulose? And what makes hemp different from corn or
soybeans in this application?

There's active development and use of biomanufacturing of common chemicals
because it has the potential to be much cheaper and less complicated than
existing processes.

For example, fermenting sugar directly into ethylene at room
temperature/atmospheric pressure using engineered yeast is simpler and safer
than converting ethanol into ethylene in a multi step process involving high
temperature and pressure, hydrogen feedstock, platinum catalyst, etc. Assuming
you actually have bugs that can do the one step conversion.

But if this ethylene is polymerized into polyethylene and made into 6-pack
rings, those are going to kick around for a thousand years in the ocean
shedding microplastics and choking birds regardless of whether they were
manufactured in a biological or "traditional" process.

Likewise, if the input to a biomanufacturing process is roundup-ready soy
("worst of the best"), that could be worse for the environment than a
"traditional" catalytic cracking process fed by recycled plastic ("best of the
worst")

~~~
BTCOG
Quite a bit of difference from other plants. Hemp grows a very large woody
stalk and can grow 6+ feet tall and resemble a small Christmas tree-sized pine
tree in one season. Cannabis produces oils/sap much like a pine tree and these
oils are super conducive to polymers. Soybeans do not, are tiny, and don't
suck CO2 from the air like an air purifier.

------
seanmccann
Which is funny because at most Canadian grocery stores they don't even offer
or have paper bags. At least in Alberta.

~~~
derefr
What would be the point of offering paper bags, when they can instead sell you
their high-margin reusable cloth bags (which _are_ common in Canadian grocery
stores)?

~~~
seanmccann
To provide a convenience to customers that didn't bring a reusable bag and
don't want to spend a few bucks on a bag they'll never use again and has an
environmental impact 1-2 orders of magnitude worse than a single use paper or
plastic bag.

~~~
derefr
This:

> and has an environmental impact 1-2 orders of magnitude worse than a single
> use paper or plastic bag

 _presumes_ this:

> a bag they'll never use again

...right?

Which seems strange to me, given that people will really only buy the bag if
they _are_ planning to use it multiple times.

Measuring it as if it _were_ a single-use bag, would be a bit like measuring
the environmental impact of solar panels + batteries, as if they never
generated any power (and thus never displaced any grid consumption of "spiky
load" coal plants et al) and _only_ existed as a cost of initial chemical
construction.

------
Deimorz
This is from over a year ago.

There's some more recent info in this article from January 30:
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-canada-
report-p...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-canada-report-
plastics-ban-1.5445611)

------
jariel
Great initiative, but these political edicts are not useful, and 2021 is too
soon.

What we need is a structured approach, that analyses all of the kinds of use,
how realistically dependant we are on all of them, probably some strategic
alignment from gov. and a phased approach with more time.

Canadian ministers of industry are rife with any number of 'PowerPoint
Programs' for this or that, that are again in the category of 'business
sentiment' and often completely miss the mark.

I would really love to see the Minsters, or at very least the heads of their
Bureaucracy - actually have an operational business background. We've
established that our Ministers of Finance have to have 'credentials' \- why on
Earth we don't demand the same from our business related ministers is
astonishing.

They could be identifying most of the use, talking a lot with the entities
most affected, researching alternatives, lining up suppliers, poking in maybe
in highly-specific areas, possibly with some truly progressive alternatives
with intelligently focused investment, and at least proving some kind of
'phased transition framework'.

Much like when Sweden went from 'Left Lane' to 'Right Lane' driving, there
needs to be plan.

A lot of business right now are facing truly existential calamity, to have a
politician pull this out and say 'you have 6 months to change' is just not
good.

I also feel that 'any rule can be hacked' and we're going to see all sorts of
externalities from this, specifically glass.

Plastic is a really useful material, and that we don't want it in the Ocean's
means we have to change, but not necessarily along he lines he's taking - in
fact - the edict, were it followed to the tee, might not change many things
other than in the minds of voters.

I would love to see a comprehensive plan for how we can tackled plastic waste,
it will not come from the PM's office.

------
aritraghosh007
What justifies from keeping anyone to not implement the ban on single-use
plastics right away? Is it just the loss in revenue and labor from the
petrochemical industries?

~~~
chrisseaton
Not having alternatives to replace them with?

~~~
aritraghosh007
Paper/jute bags and multi-use plastics have been in circulation for quite some
time now.

~~~
gruez
>Paper/jute bags

not sure about "jute bags" (whatever that is), but paper bags have worse
climate impact than plastic bags.

>and multi-use plastics have been in circulation for quite some time now.

Those don't really work if they're used for packaging, because the rely on the
end-user to reuse it. If they don't they probably have worse environmental
impact.

~~~
chrisseaton
It's what ropes are usually made of.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jute)

------
TeaDrunk
A significant inquiry I have to this in general is what should we do for
people for which single-use plastics are exceptionally necessary for their
lives? For example, people with disabilities who cannot manage paper straws
(due to their collapsing before a drink can be consumed) or metal straws (due
to mental strain in keeping track of their cleaning)?

~~~
asutekku
Have you ever used a paper straw? It takes ages for it to dissolve so for most
people, event the disabled ones, it is not a problem.

~~~
tomp
No, they suck. They get soggy after a few minutes. I’d rather not use a straw
at all.

Which brings me to my main point. The “paper straws” movement isn’t actually
anti-climate-change or pro-ecology, but just virtue signalling. If it was
real, they wouldn’t be advocating paper straws, they’d be advocating no straws
at all! Hint: _you don’t need a straw_ (the vast majority of people anyways).

~~~
jogjayr
Maybe the end goal of paper straw advocates really is that. If the only straws
available are shitty ones, more people might prefer to go strawless.

------
catsdanxe
Ban plastic bags at grocery stores so I am forced to purchase thicker ones
instead.

------
smileysteve
One way to reduce consumer plastic pollution could be decrease the use of
small bottles.

If water came in 1l bottles instead of 20oz bottles people may not just forget
about them after a sip. Plus, the volume add uses less plastic than the
structural elements of 2 bottles.

