That scene shocked and horrified me more than all the sexism, racism, and homophobia combined.
Edit: saw the other comments, looks like I wasn't the only one affected by that scene.
Compare to say Cherry Blossom watching in Japan where a large park will be entirely covered in people but when it's over they will have all cleaned it up.
It's a cultural issue. I have no idea how to influence western cultures to care as much. I've see similar things in most European countries (trashing places).
One example I keep seeing is people who buy a pack of cigarettes, rip off the plastic film covering and just drop it on the floor. It sends me into a silent rage every time.
Most smokers I know will carefully separate their trash and walk hundreds of meters to put everything in the right bin... and yet dispose of their cigarettes all over the place. To my shame I have to admit I was one of those people. Somehow the inconsistency just didn't cross my mind. So many other thoughts took precedence. I'm not saying that this is an excuse, mind.
I do understand the anger and frustration, but I think it's both fairer and more productive to assume that people are not doing these things to intentionally cause harm, and that they might well be upstanding citizens in other areas of life.
I don't fathom how you don't/didn't notice, it's like throwing bubblegum wrappers on the ground, yeah its small, but when you smoke packs of cigarettes in the same spot it adds up, not to mention more of a hassle to clean up by others like picking up confetti off the ground. I'm glad you realized it, but I can't imagine how people are utterly clueless about it being a problem (I just assumed all smokers were a-holes because they didn't care).
The net-net is that people rationalize their actions using whatever means necessary.
I say this as the weird guy random walking the parking lot, picking up trash and transporting it to the wastebin.
The single mom in your example may have had little parenting because her mom was working 3 jobs perhaps.
Anyone else remember the "don't litter" public service announcement on TV with a crying Indian?
If this is the case, it would be interesting to find out whether there is some correlation between wealth inequality and rates of littering.
I'd posted in our local facebook community page, and 2 other interesting stories came up.
1. someone posted they'd seen something similar a few weeks earlier. They'd confronted the person, and the other person pulled a gun out and threatened them. I do not know if the original person involved police after that. While it might sound far-fetched to some, I live in the rural south of the US.
2. someone else posted a similar story, and had taken a picture of the person dumping trash in public and posted it to the facebook group. that poster was harassed online, with many people complaining that they were "violating the other person's privacy" by posting their picture online without consent.
I get truly demoralized at time by living in this area (we're planning a move, but possibly not far enough away).
That's the problem. Get out of there ASAP. It has no redeeming qualities. Best move of my life.
Unless you have deep roots there and you want to take on the monumental task of actually making your own part of it a better place. Maybe join the city council of a town near a place like Atlanta or Tuscaloosa, and try to spread their civilization a little further into the wilderness.
Though they also make sure to make huuuuge trash cans for the events so that it's not a major pain to throw stuff away. Most people don't want to litter, after all.
The main reason for the cleanliness afterwards are all the extra staff during those periods that go through and pick this stuff up.
I have never been to a festival where these were not full of rubbish to overflowing.
Japanese society is rooted in Confuscianism, with an emphasis on social harmony. I don't know how we change or improve our cultural technology in the West to move away from ideas like "protect yourself", "look out for number one".
The Japanese also make their school children clean their own school. I think there's obvious value in teaching children to take care of their environment / community. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2001/11/30/lifestyle/kids-g...
I don't see the problem here. Afterwards cleaners come and clean the square, streets, whatever. It's part of the game.
On normal days, people here keep the cities, parks and streets rather clean.
You're just making excuses for the lazy and inconsiderate.
You think this is a game??
Was perplexed more than anything.
I see aluminum cans in the garbage bin daily. I can't fathom the logic.
I like the example of pesticides. The are some really nasty pesticides that aren't banned by law, but there are industry groups that work to reduce and effectively ban the ones that cause birth defects and obvious toxic effects. If you look at a list of pesticides India has banned and compare it to a list that the USA banned the difference and a few more are effectively banned by this group. Nothing is stopping someone from making these pesticides at home and using them on their garden but its like UL for pesticides, no one buys in large quantity without these guys approval.
I think they do this seemingly altruistic thing largely because trust makes for better customers.
I am not trying to that everything will work out in some kind of pure capitalist ideal utopia, because I think it clearly won't. Rather I think some industries have enough decent people in them that they can find good ways to increase profit and increase long term good will.
People here make is sound like the ESRB was the only thing stopping video games being legislated out of existence. When the game industry chose to do it, they did it to attempt to make it easy to wholesale games correctly so walmart could confidentally buy games and not mix in porn and sex stores could readily get get all the AO games they wanted, this certainly prevented a few embarrassing situations with porn being mixed in with kid toys.
The video game industry could have done something else; a purely selfish and stupidly self motivated industry might have sued the government, hired lobbyists, or made illegal back room deals some other way like it seems apparent. Big Pharma, Big Sugar, the "Military Industrial Complex", Big Oil and countless other Big whatever get accused of this all the time and often with decent evidence.
I think this more than anything, plus no company wants to be associated with negativity (I mean, birth defects, obviously ... but also less serious stuff like street litter)
edit: panic to picnic
And a reddit thread about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2aj23u/in_an...
Despite all the signs I still have seen people pick up their dogs poop before they pick up their own trash. I literally watched an invidial drop a Twix wrapper while picking up their dogs poop (the fine for not picking up your dog is actually less but there are more signs and I guess stronger culture awareness).
There are signs all over the place not to dump goddam bread into the river or use aggressive fertilizer as this increases runoff and messes up the aquatic wild life.
It's ironic that people will pick up their dog shit because by the middle of summer the swan,geese,duck population is so high from bread dumping that there is bird shit all over the places (walk way). Some of the geese and swans have excrement that is very comparable to the largest dogs.
Time to roll out the "Crying Indian Ad" for another generation.
Unless you're visiting from another state, it's YOUR OWN property; you are the public.
1) Public spaces are your property as well, so you should feel even worse about trashing your own space.
2) Public spaces are yours, after all, and you can do whatever you want with your own property.
Downvoters most likely assumed that you intended the latter.
#1 was what I meant, and it's how I was hearing it in my head in my own voice when I typed it!! :)
Why do people not feel bad about trashing their own public spaces? I don't want to go all "leave it to beaver", but is there no pride in your environment at all?
It'd be nice if we could find a way to extend that type of system to other types of waste, but that gets more difficult.
No, they really don't. Having spent enough time in states that do and states that don't, I can tell you that having a deposit system encourages some bad behavior and doesn't really solve the problem.
1. It encourages scavenger people that dig through recycling and garbage making a mess of things in order to find large bottles with a deposit. On face value you think, 'yay, we get free sanitation workers cleaning up the city'. The reality is, they find the most efficient way to dig through and don't care about throwing disposable trash all over to get the loot.
2. Hoarding. I've seen people's kitchens and basements filled with cans because they want to do it all in one shot or for some special occasion. It makes a mess and is super annoying. You like fruit flies? This is how you get fruit flies.
3. It's inefficient. People who have the means will still not care about collecting the deposit because it's a PITA to go down to the store with the empties. The only people who get excited about it are the same people who think a tax refund is actually a gift from the government..
While it might solve some of the above problems, you won't find much luck making deposits $1/bottle or something in the US because it's only going to make life more of a pain for the poor. It's not a workable solution.
A few years ago the government suggested taxing plastic bags to gain revenue, but it was discarded since the environmental organizations concluded it would be bad for the environment (as more people would throw garbage directly into thrash cans/buy thrash bags).
That said my knowledge of African politics is limited to a few news articles a week so I can't form a meaningful opinion about how well or badly countries there are run except in really obvious cases like Zimbabwe.
The policies are not really the problem actually, especially when they are, as you say, beneficial. In a perfect world where media coverage respects basic ethical rules of journalism, there shouldn't be any issue really. Unfortunately, in the case of Rwanda, I tend to see the magnifying glass systematically being put on 'favorable' PR-stuff like that, vs constitutional reform, mysterious disappearances of political dissidents of the regime (sometimes abroad), open support to militias in Congo.
e.g: I wonder what someone on the receiving end of bullets in the Kivu region would think of the hagiographic article of the guardian.
Ultimately, the survival of most of this kind of regime depends heavily on the way they are perceived globally, undoubtedly, the Rwandan regime beautifully manufactures its image.
Smugglers work on the dark side of Rwanda’s plastic bag ban
The first and the second quote do not mean the same thing, not even close.
"A massive 60%t of the plastic waste in the oceans is said to have come from India, according to the Times of India."
The TOI reads - "Banning disposable plastic is a huge step for the capital and the country because India is among the top four biggest plastic polluters in the world, responsible for around 60% of the 8.8 million tons of plastic that is dumped into the world’s oceans every year."
As an Indian, I see a lot of journalists stuck in a colonial era. They go out of their way to tarnish and stereotype the great unwashed. They manage to turn even positive news to mock and heckle the less developed world.
But this article has taken it to great heights. The TOI isn't exactly known for journalistic integrity and often conveniently pulls statistics from their backside. But to misquote the devil, this article has certainly hit the lowest level.
I second this. We should just ban TOI links on hacker news.
Then, after searching around, the articles  and reports  that I found all put Indonesia (not India) in the top 5 polluters in the world. They refer to an authoritative source from Science , but I'm not able to access this due to the paywall.
I'm sure I'm doing something wrong. Surely the Times of India hasn't confused "Indonesia" for "India", right?
 PDF! http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/marine-debris/mckin...
From the Times of India (TOI) article that it refers to - "India is among the four largest contributor who in total contribute 60%". Which considering a journalist's honesty definitely means India is the fourth largest contributor, which would mean India at most contributes 15% of the waste.
That is a long way from the 60% claimed. Considering the reputation of TOI, even the milder claim is quite suspect.
The tax could cover the cost to clean up the litter. That would create jobs in three ways: 1) plastic clean-up jobs, 2) businesses and economic activity that desperately need disposable plastic can still possibly survive, and ) jobs making disposable plastic.
Anyways, it's a lot better than taxing things we all agree we want more of. Like jobs.
The same goes with how the govt. keeps adding tax on tobacco and its products every year. Forcing people to stop smoking by not allowing them to buy despite allowing it to be sold in open market is just one way of violating ones freedom to choose. I do not support nor encourage smoking but I do not like the idea of forcing people to stop smoking by making it expensive, tobacco industry brings a lot of revenue to the govt, the govt just doesn't want to stop it so they enforce such taxes so the govt. earns the same but the intake by people is reduced. This isn't a win-win by any means. People will still die of cancer no matter how moderately they smoke. The problem isn't solved here its just reduced by probably 10% but the revenue from it is still 100%.
I think I agree with vidyesh, taxes are for money not for changing social behavior.
We don't have to idly speculate this, the phenomenon is called elasticity of demand in economics, and not only are there good estimates of elasticity for various products, there's a rich set of ideas that have been developed around elasticity, including what happens when you tax goods of various elasticities.
I highly recommend looking into the details yourself (any intro micro economics textbook will cover it), but the upshot is that cigarettes judged to have relatively inelastic demand, which is basically what you had said. This means that a tax on the product will not reduce the equilibrium quantity consumed by very much. A corollary is that the majority of the tax burden will fall on the consumers of cigarettes. I'm not sure why you said "most of the money goes to the tobacco companies"-- with all tax levels the revenue goes to the government.
I did take some form of economics in school but it's not something I really had a heavy interest in but I understand how it's useful.
A ban just means everyone feels the same level of pain as the poor--so net, more pain--without the gains of tax revenue.
> The problem isn't solved here its just reduced by probably 10%
A tax is about internalizing the negative externalities. If we price in the cost of cancer (and the hyperbolic discounting of my cancer being way of in the future), and I still decide it's worth it to me, then let me smoke in exchange for funding public health initiatives that will fully offset the societal cost.
One of my favourite examples of this concept is marijuana laws in Colorado. 1 BB in gov rev, 200 MM in tax rev alone. Less spent on law enforcement. Less crime due to a black market. Less innocents in jail that are spending tax dollars instead of producing them. Everyone wins except the DEA and prison system.
edit, source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/marijuana-tax-revenue-hit-2...
Your theory is correct, but you're not taking into account that, in Delhi, it's far easier (read: cheaper) to enforce a ban on the sale/use than it is to ensure tax compliance.
Delhi proper is twice the population of Colorado, and the metro area has four times the population of Colorado. Combine that with a relatively porous implementation of laws, and it's just way easier to go for a complete ban.
I don't want to believe it, but unfortunately I think you are correct. Too many times utopian policies are made unrealistic by human nature.
Agreed. But a less cynical way of thinking about it: Just think of it as a second-order model, with an additional equilibrium factor to consider. What is the cost of complying with the policy, traded off against the risk and expense of getting caught?
That's not actually a factor unique to Delhi; it just happens that the risk of getting caught and the expected expense is a lot less than the expected risk/cost of getting caught for not paying Colorado sales and excise taxes on marijuana.
 which can include social engineering or bribery
I think that has clear, pragmatic value. That's the perspective which exists in academic economics. However, I feel that there has to be some point where we just have had enough and say, people need to stop being so awful? Or, at the end of the other side of the spectrum, perhaps we should live in a world where everyone is legally selling each other their organs--there's a balance in there somewhere where we need to have a certain faith in humanity.
Enforcement of a ban will likely come through a fine, which will have the same effect. Think of the ban as a very large excise tax. Plus, the ban only applies to certain plastics, not all plastics - you could tax those at a reasonable rate for revenue.
Secondly, you don't really need to pay people to do cleanup. The very poor in India already rummage for plastic material and recycle that as a means of income. The problem is that, before the ban, the amount of material disposed was too high. Once you stop the inflow of new trash, cleaning up the rest is pretty tractable.
Air pollution is huge right now. And sad to say, people pooping in streets and rivers is still a major problem.
To me, plastic remnants are a very minor issue in comparison.
Banning disposable plastic and non biodegradable detergents would go a great way in letting microbes and plants do their job in cleaning up the environment.
With plastics not clogging up the rivers and chemicals not killing all river life, the rivers would definitely run much cleaner. This move was incidentally meant to curb air pollution, so clean rivers or oceans are an added benefit.
Wastewater should be treated. And at least if you concentrate all the waste into one place, you greatly reduce the spread of infectious diseases spread by untreated waste.
Also, your children tend not to be stunted. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-wijesekera/why-are-indi...
don't forget corpses
Good protein feed for the fish, birds, crocodiles. Instead of taking up real estate.
We bury people for a reason. Or we burn them, or leave them on the land to get eaten by animals, away from water supplies. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial)
The difference between what you're proposing is the difference between composting an animal corpse and then using it to fertilize your crops, or just grinding it up and spraying it all over your tomatoes.
The illegal burning of waste was said to have been contributing to air pollution, which is a major problem in India.
Yes, washing glass is quite a bit more economical than glass recycling. We do the whole glass deposit thing in Germany where I grew up.
(The deposit is actually pretty clever: if you are rich enough not to care, you can just leave your bottle anywhere, and someone else with more time but less money will pick it up sooner or later.)
Water logging is a big issue in Mumbai and perhaps there this policy was useful.
Delhi's air pollution is not because of Delhi but because of surrounding areas. Nothing can be done there.
I was surprised to learn Delhi did not have such a ban so far
It is not enforced though. I'm living in Bangalore and shopkeepers still give me plastic bags all the time. Banning something, or passing a law is only half the battle; enforcing them is the real issue. And you cannot enforce the laws because corruption is so wide and rampant in India that nothing can be done about it, or so it feels.
Plastics are just convenient and cheap, if the environmental costs are not considered.
I have normally seen steel plates/spoon used by street vendors. Not very hygienic as they just rinse in water after use.
I think using dried leaves saves the trouble of having to pick them off the tree because they just fall to the ground, but I'm a city boy and wouldn't know for sure. Might have to ask my father! :)
This is one more of those things which we as current generation kids have grown into.
When I was a kid traditional muslim marriages used glass tumblers in marriage lunches. Which used be rinsed in a common drum by guy who would have barely bathed in a month. I remember we barely used to fall ill in those days. We used to play in mud, eat mangoes plucked from trees, spun out glass sharpened thread for kites, play marbles, eat tamarind from trees and drink from the municipal tap in the playground.
We mixed with dirt and infection is a way our immune systems were trained well.
Today apparently people can't walk across the street without catching cold.
As a anecdote, only recently I visited a house warming ceremony they were only rinsing plates(not washing) after each batch finished eating. To make it worse, people were washing their hands post lunch at the same place they were rinsing. The cafeteria lunch eating sterile programmer in me refused to even eat there. But every other person who was there, including my own family had no problems at all.
Its just a frame of mind.
Immunity to natural infections is different. In places like Delhi or Mumbai a lot of water sources are polluted by some serious chemical toxins like mercury, arsenic and what not.
I think there's been a noticable difference due to this rule. Including change in people's behavior (in using plastic bags)
How are they going to enforce a rule regarding plastic bags?
The rich will continue to do whatever they want.
The middle-classes will continue to do whatever they can get away with.
The poor will continue to be shit on and abused.
About 20 years ago they banned smoking in public in Delhi (I was there when they did it).
All that this ordinance did was to give the police yet another angle to harass people. More corruption. More bribes.
How exactly do concerned citizens raise their voice in India? I once saw a stray dog that had been run over by a car licking its wounds, waiting to die. After which it would lay there on the road-side until it had been eaten by birds and insects. I wanted to raise awareness of my various concerns about this. How should I have gone about it? Genuinely interested in learning from you.
An aside: the stoic, pious strength I saw on the dog's face as it licked itself, knowing it was dying, was one of the most powerful things I've ever seen.
In general, much the same as other countries. Call/write/meet with your municipal corporation member/MLA/MP (though it's doubtful you'll get an audience unless you have an in). Call/write/meet with the opposition party members, if it's something that can make the party in power look bad. Post on social media. If it's newsworthy, there's a very noisy (and competitive) print and TV media willing to listen to you. I'm not saying all these are effective options, but they _are_ options.
> I wanted to raise awareness of my various concerns about this. How should I have gone about it? Genuinely interested in learning from you.
You could've tried to take it to a vet. My friends and I did this once with a kitten that got run over. It died before we made it unfortunately. Ofc, there's probably a greater risk of being bitten by a panicky dog that's in pain, than with a kitten (my friend got bitten).
So one would think, with plastic, just fine the people giving/selling the plastic bags. If you give/sell a non degradable plastic bag it has to carry a return deposit of $25 per bag or you get fined, as a shop, $200k. Plastic bags will be gone in no time flat. Far easier to enforce and too rich, also for the rich. Good for companies and the world as they can sell paper bags and biodegradable bags.
There are starving, thirsty people in every major city in the US.
This has nothing to do with enforcing ban on plastics.
Near my home, people are so deeply into this phenomenon they won't contribute a signature to a list, for a letter of request to fix sanitation, or roads, or a street light. I've even been told by the local Municipal engineer why is that its always me who raises these issues, and if its really so important why don't others speak up. Things came down to a point, when I had to take precautions to fix things for myself. It turns out larger sanitation broke down in a year or two, then all of a sudden my neighbors wanted me to spend all my time working taking off from work to work for them while they relax at home.
We call this 'Chalta hai' attitude in India. Which basically translates to 'works fine for now'.
Chalta hai attitude is because a person cannot make any change - in government, family or society - without putting their lives at risk. This is equivalent to asking someone in the US to make changes when it comes to healthcare sector or electoral funding.
Once you have fought enough battles and lost you grow weary of anyone trying to bring about a change. This is the same resignation seen in the parent's comment about nothing in India changing - they have absolutely no way to make any impact and they have resigned
That still has nothing to do with police's ability or willingness to enforce ban on plastics.
Simple things like not throwing trash on streets, or starting early for office(to avoid driving rashly on roads), or voting in elections, or ensuring you have tree outside your home. Most things are completely harmless.
What risk are you taking by not throwing garbage on streets?
In fact this is the very thing 'Chalta hai' stands for. People make excuses for why they can't, instead of looking for reasons for why they can.
>>Once you have fought enough battles and lost you grow weary of anyone trying to bring about a change.
Most people I've met around my home are like want to sit down and relax when somebody else works for them.
Easy way to describe these people is they are 'lazy'.
Let's call them what they are, instead of making it look like they are moving mountains to make things happen, and the real culprit is some threat or risk from society.
"The ban took effect on the first day of 2017."
What are the vendors doing? Is water being sold in glass bottles with a deposit scheme for redemption now?
"Returnable bottles all the rage
You may remember a time when you went to the grocery store and bought returnable glass bottles of Coca-Cola, Sprite, or the mostly forgotten Tab brand. After you finished with the bottles you returned them to the store for a deposit refund. In the United States, the last of the 6.5 ounce returnable bottles were finished during October 2012 at a bottling facility in Minnesota. In Latin America the returnable bottles continue and contribute greatly to Coca-Cola FEMSA's top line growth in every geographic region. In Mexico, returnable packages grew 5%. Affordability and the desire to reduce environmental impact increased consumer appeal. Latin Americans, specifically Mexicans, faced with a shrinking pocketbook remain keen on ways to save money. Coca-Cola FEMSA wants to invest more in returnables to appease consumers' increasingly frugal nature."
I'm of the opinion that beverages actually taste better from bottles, thats part of the magic of the "Mexican Coke"(along with using real sugar as opposed to corn syrup.)
In Himachal Pradesh, the plastic bag ban had resulted in a cottage industry forming where discarded newspapers were folded/glued into shopping bags. I'd like to see this same thing happen in the US. A friend imported a palette of these bags to Florida, and he was able to sell them to vendors and make a small profit. This tells me they might be viable here commercially.
As they say, reduce > re-use > recycle.
They should ban the burning of plastic, not plastic itself. And enforce it.
Leaf blowers used to be exclusively crappy two-stroke engines that would make a huge racket. Now at least there's a lot of electric competition.
Fuel prices go up, solar prices go down, it's inevitable those two will cross and you'll be burning money by using a two stroke bike.
Reducing plastic waste is a step in the right direction and should not be dismissed just because there are other problems that may be harder to fix right now.
That's not what a prejudice is. It's also not what he said. Maybe if people wouldn't be so hypersensitive we could address the problems a country might be facing. India has many issues.
So what if he points that out, while we're discussing a different issue? It's part of having a conversation.
In general, a relatively small percentage of older vehicles produce a huge proportion of auto emissions. If governments can enforce regular emissions tests and pull the offending vehicles off the road, it makes an enormous difference to air quality.
In addition to the obvious enforcement problems in Delhi itself, Delhi is only a small part of the National Capital Region, meaning tons of plastic will flow in from Haryana and UP even if Delhi does manage to clean up its act.
It absolutely amazing how many more groceries you can put in a reusable bag over a plastic or paper bags. So at the bare minimum it is an optimization (less trips from car to kitchen).
When I bring this up with people I get unbelievable false rationalization like: I reuse the bags for trash or the reusable bags take 100x to make over plastic bags.
Plastic grocery bags have knack of flying into lakes, rivers and streams. I have saved many turtles and fish a long the Charles river that are caught in these bags. I have never seen a kitchen trash bag or a reusable bag in the river.
Many grocery stores even give a discount if you use reusable bags not to mention reusable bags are extremely cheap (I don't think I have ever paid more than $2).
I have four of them -- they also stack inside of each other, so only take up the space of one. I know several people that refuse to use them and keep getting multiple single-use bags and paying another £2.50 or so every time they go shopping. It boggles the mind!
I am very supportive of these types programs, even if hard to enforce.
Nothing practically happens because:
a. Police has better things to do than round up people and shops carrying plastic bags. They may probably take a bribe from the shop to turn a blind eye.
b. There's no really low cost and convenient alternative in many cases - in spite of a lot of shops in India using recycled newspapers for packaging.
Home delivery which is widespread among the richer classes is at least partially helpful since shops bring things in their own bags. However most of India is not rich
Seattle has a plastic bag ban and you can use paper bags or just bring you own reusable bags.
Bottled water in developed nations is typically less regulated (and has a lower quality) than tap water. This doesn't apply to India of course, but maybe this will force Delhi to seriously fix their municipal water supply to world standards. Even if it doesn't, most homes and restaurants have water filters, and people can simply carry reusable bottles even plastic ones (the disposable variety are what's banned).
I'm sure plastic will always have to be used for certain things, but if we can limit the amount that's great.
They need to have anti-litter regulation, awareness campaigns, and enforcement.
No so many years ago paper bags were common and what I used. Paper is great, it's biodegradable, renewable, and convenient.
There are many other priorities to focus on which can have a far bigger impact.
What about all the plastic containers the food originally came in?
(In response to the obvious counterargument; the configuration space of "a plastic bag mixed in with a bunch of random junk" is actually probably larger than the configuration space for a road with a dozen other cars on it, and so is the action space of a reasonably dextrous claw/arm greater than that of a car. AI is full of easy-sounding things that are really difficult.)
We have a plastic bag ban where I live and it's great.
Also the title says "literally all disposable plastic" then in the article it says applies to cups, bags, cutlery.
The reason I mention this is that it may be directing action to local vendors, but not necessarily regional/national drink vendors.
- skip to point #23 on page 63 for the thing about banning plastic:
"We further direct that the use of disposable plastic glasses is prohibited in entire NCT, Delhi at hotels, restaurants and public as well as private functions. The NCT, Delhi shall take appropriate steps against storage, sale and use of such plastic material at above places and it shall stand prohibited w.e.f. 01st of January, 2017."
Note that this still mentions more about plastic cups, not bottles.
"Delhi has banned disposable plastic"
Not all of India. Just Delhi.