Disabled people
If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.
Receiving too many notifications? Adjust your notification settings.

The Plastic Straw Ban & How It Harms Disabled People

shonalouiseshonalouise Member Posts: 15 Courageous
I've been working on a blog post about the plastic straw ban for several months now and it's finally live! It was suggested to me that I share it on here, hope some of you find it helpful! I'm looking forward to just sending people this link when I get questions now!

http://www.shonalouise.com/2018/11/the-plastic-straw-ban-how-it-harms.html

Shona
UK Disability and Lifestyle Blogger
Marfan Syndrome Advocate
www.shonalouise.com
@shonalouiseblog

Replies

  • newbornnewborn Member Posts: 655 Pioneering
    Is it totally impossible for straw users to carry their own, preferably re usable, and/or preferably  non plastic?


  • vysvadervysvader Member Posts: 133 Courageous
    edited November 2018
    Well, a re-usable straw looks like the best option either way, but the ban has left a bit implicit effect. According to any facts, 60-90% of the plastic materials come into the oceans just from a few rivers in south-east Asia because the private sector purposely throws the rubbish into the rivers and, perhaps, they didn't have to prohibit the straws in the inner country. Yet still, the sands of the inner land, waters, and even food are contaminated but the straw ban is more like a gesture to brainwash than a real effort. The straws are hard to recycle so it's reasonable that we finish with it but the reason, it's not such transparent. It reminds me of when we started to be using biofuels and deforested central Africa... In fact, the biofuel was just the economically better option. This is exactly the same because of the cost of the waste storage since the straw is impossible to separate and recycle. The paper is quickly destroyed by bacterias what decreases the storage costs and paper can be even cheaper than the plastic.
    You can feel free to get in touch 
  • newbornnewborn Member Posts: 655 Pioneering
    Hard to name a purported eco scheme which was not perverted into a scam, inluding heating those empty Irish barns.

    Stop The Children would be the biggest single step.   Twenty years of no - child, or only-one, only in extraordinary exceptions, would benefit children, adults, and the planet. 

    Women don't, won't, return to churning out children, in cases where the alternatives are realistic and attractive.     China and Western countries find the population explosion slows, by choice, after 20 years' true choice of a full and interesting, profitable enjoyable life, with government and society treating them as fully human, not mere walking reproductive organs.




  • vysvadervysvader Member Posts: 133 Courageous
    edited November 2018
    There's already someone who thinks like you, who brought some stats-based evidence. (all the World Bank, UN comes with the same stats like Gates).

     Just, when I see the ongoing eco campaigns with the main focus on projects such as Golden Rice and high-productive GM crops able to decrease the deforestation trends (a bigger harvest per square meter = fewer square meters of fields), GM trees capable of foresting the deserts like the Sahara (in the total death places), and oil fields in the Arctic (in the Moon land where's almost nothing alive, whereas none minds the oil fields in rainforests and oceans in troops) and nothing else where should be really placed the focus then I quickly lost my interest.   

    Best regards
    You can feel free to get in touch 
Sign in or join us to comment.