I’m so angry about this.
Thousands of disabled people's lives, which are already hard, are being made harder for literally no environmental benefit, because people who claim to advocate for the environment prefer crass rules of thumb to proper analysis https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54366461

I can’t believe that in 2020 someone from @ClientEarth is happy to say plastic straws are “some of the most pointless plastics out there”.

They have obviously never watched a person take 30 minutes to drink a cup of coffee through a straw because that’s the only way they can.

Even if they don’t know any affected disabled people, there is no way someone advocating about this issue could not have heard about the views of those affected. They’ve made the choice to dismiss other people’s lived experience because they believe the cause is more important.

And what cause? In a country that in 20 years hasn’t increased petrol tax, increased aviation tax by only £3 a passenger, blocked on-shore wind power for four years and is unable to build new nuclear plants, the government gets a ‘green headline’ by screwing disabled people.

The moral panic about plastics is like a grotesque caricature of the global fight against climate change. Every molecule of CO2 emitted, anywhere in the world, ends up contributing to climate change. Every plastic straw that gets used does not end up in the belly of a sea turtle.

It’s staggering that intelligent environmentally engaged people are not able to see that obvious distinction. Plastics pollution in the sea is a problem, but it is one that can most quickly be solved by fixing waste disposal infrastractureure in costal communities that lack it.

It has an almost zero chance of being impacted by a ban on plastic straws in the UK, which has comprehensive waste collection and processing (+ a mainly inland population). The most probable route for a straw from the UK to end up in the sea is being exported to be ‘recycled’.

Why was it exported to be ‘recycled’? Again because some people claiming to advocate for the environment insisted on using a rule of thumb, rather than proper analysis, and decided to mandate plastics recycling even though it’s not really possible for most plastics.

A plastic straw used here in Hackney and disposed of in the regular waste stream is incinerated to provide heat and power to the people of Edmonton, with a carbon intensity only 33% higher than if natural gas had been used.

At a time when we are still burning lots of natural gas (and sometimes even coal, see @myGridGB), once you factor in the carbon footprint of the alternatives (cleaning a reusable one or making one out of card that biodegrades) it’s likely to have a lower life-cycle footprint.

It’s completely insane that many people see plastics pollution as a problem with similar scale and dynamics as climate change.

Complex trade offs are required to solve both problems but they are almost never helped by activism based on crude rules of thumb.

We have the tools to do proper analysis of the environmental impact of design and lifestyle changes, why not use them to inform activism and policy?

We're much more likely to maximise environmental impact whilst minimising negative impacts on people's lives by doing that.

To anticipate a response. Having to justify why you need something to someone every time you need it (and not knowing if they will have it) make your life harder than if it's just always there. Again that should be obvious to anyone who's thought about it.