Canada aims to ban single-use plastics by 2021 (opens in new tab)

> There are 10 rivers that cause 90% of plastic pollution

Except, that's not true. The study you're referring to found that those 10 rivers account for 90% of plastic waste going into the ocean from rivers, not all sources[1]. Rivers contribute only 10% or so of the plastic found in the ocean. So not nothing, but far from 90% of all plastic pollution.

Also, probably worth pointing out that quite a bit of that plastic probably originated in the west and was shipped to developing nations to be processed cheaply[2]. Often that amounts to little more than having it burned or dumped into those rivers mentioned.

I personally agree that plastic, when properly stored in a well managed landfill is harmless. But the fact is, that's not happening for far too much waste. Even waste that's used and properly disposed of in developed countries.

[1] https://factcheck.afp.com/widely-cited-study-did-not-show-95...

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-plastic-polluti...

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.

> 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.

This demonstrably false. Plastics in landfills can leach into groundwater, for one. Two, a huge proportion of the plastic we use and dispose in much of the west end up in Asian countries because we can't be bothered to make sure it's recycled. Three, micro- and nano-plastic pollution is nearly ubiquitous now: we breathe it in and ingest it daily, with almost no understanding of the effects. It is very literally everywhere, from ambient air to the seafloor.

Expecting large public or private institutions to make a meaningful difference without anybody sacrificing anything is exactly the mindset that got us where we are today. Institutions have independent incentive structures and must be forced to work in our interest, otherwise they will not.

Yes, it's a spell of idiotic faith that's somehow been cast over people. I've tried asking proponents of recycling about about this and the only answers I've managed to squeeze out of them are:

1) Landfills leach toxic chemicals into the water table.

2) Landfills are on scarce land which will run out oneday, making waste disposal more expensive.

3) It can be inconvenient to build over a landfill because you might hit a bale of plastic when drilling holes for your piles.

4) Plastic bags can blow away from landfills and end up in the sea.

5) Landfills may eventually erode into the sea.

1) Isn't true of all plastics or all landfills but nobody wants to encourage the use of the harmless ones. 2) and 3) are such small problems, it doesn't make sense for the whole world to pay whatever it costs to slow them (not even stop them). We'll never run out of land, just prime land in existing cities which is already mostly "lost" to development anyway. 4) is easily solved or a non-problem and probably even worse for recycling. 5) is just a response to a recent news event.

Nobody wants to consider if recycling or banning products costs more than the purely financial future landfill cost problem. I've tried asking someone about the relative costs when they gave me reason 2) and they just responded by saying that their conscience feels better knowing they're doing what's right.

Some of their ideas to solve it cause increased greenhouse gas emissions, like you mentioned with the energy cost. Many people even want to burn it!

Those polluting countries are making stuff that the West consumes, so if we want to stop them polluting we just have to stop buying all this stuff that requires pollution to make. So it is absolutely within our gift to put an end to it.

This. Thank you. Don't forget that there is no proof that plastic in oceans harms humans. On top of that, the infamous Great Pacific Garbage patch is actually made of fishing gear rather than of the despised plastic bottles.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/03/great-pacifi...

Hmm. I didn't know this and it's a very helpful to me. This means that a private entity could create a mild solution and solve this overnight. Especially since there are multiple organisms eating plastics currently and researchers have created a few breakthroughs.

The first country/company to develop properly biodegradable plastics with similar properties to existing ones will be very rich.

But the market won't create that solution unless regulations create the problem to be solved: no more single-use non-biodegradable plastics.

> 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.

It sometimes feels as though climate change has sucked all the air out of other aspects of environmentalism. If you want to get people to pay attention to something, you first reframe it in terms of climate change. Want to protest the deforestation of the Amazon? Don't bother mentioning habitat loss and extinctions, people no longer care about that; focus on how it will impact CO2 levels. If the matter cannot rationally be framed in that way, do it anyway. Littering causes climate change because if we admit it probably doesn't, people won't care about it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190102054648/https://slatestar...

The "biodegradable" plastics can still take a _long_ time to decompose if not put into a city compost collection bin. The city has to "biodegrade" them via a method different from what you would do at home (throw it into a heap). Wikipedia has a list of plastics that are approved for "home composting" here[0].

Plus, these plastics still take a lot of energy to produce.

I definitely think that multi-use plastics make the most sense, if we can build the supply chain to get there. Sort of like how old glass milk bottles worked: You left them out and they were collected by the milk man.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic#Home_com...

Plastic bags used to be sturdy enough to be multi-use, and I still have a collection of them that I reuse. I'm old enough that I remember when they were introduced, and how much better than paper they were, and definitely didn't think of them as disposable back then --- unlike paper ones.

I think the problem is ultimately the "disposable attitude" of most people, which drove the manufacturers to make them thinner and weaker until they're barely enough for a single use (and also for more profit, of course.) I see biodegradable in the same way as planned obolescence --- the manufacturers can both guarantee that people will keep consuming, while also exclaiming how environmentally friendly they are.

Perhaps most people just don't like reusing things?

The path of least resistance and cost will always be taken.

So if I can sell you a product in a multi-use container, pass the cost to you, and you decide to throw it away after a single use, that's what's going to happen.

If instead it's more affordable to use compostable plastics or non-plastics (e.g. aluminum), then that's what will be done.

My hunch is with low oil prices and the high cost to manufacture biodegradable plastics, the first path may unfortunately become popular (biodegradable plastics runs for roughly 10x standard plastic.)

Perhaps a minimum pricetag then? E.g. a cup or a plate must cost at least $1.00

Here's the recent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23763265

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

> 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.

Likely major swings in demand combined with supply chains being affected. Change is tough during normal times, but toss in a global pandemic and...

Paper straws were never actually better for the environment.

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

I wonder what prevents them from bottling locally? It's cheaper and better for the environment. It feels like industries can always circumvent these one off laws. They should think of a whole framework of laws.

Orders of magnitude are important. Post consumer recycling involves extra transportation and thus greenhouse emissions. Except the energy savings can more than make up for this.

I have a family member who works for IKEA and one reason that small objects need lots of big packaging is because of theft, simple as that.

It wastes space for them, adds costs, and so on but the reduction in thefts are so big that it's worth it.

Choking regulation, presumably. Another example: I just ordered a medical cannabis cartridge from a dispensary. It's about the size of a pen cap, but has more packaging than my iPhone and the childproofing is so difficult that I resort to stabbing the box with a knife; it's borderline adult proof. There is so much waste and excess in packaging, and I think the highly regulated cannabis industry in the U.S. is the worst offender these days.

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

By having nuanced legislation and regulation?

This isn't a formal declaration of rule making, or legislation, simply a declaration of intent from the Prime Minister. There's no formal weight behind this (except probably to start getting internal government bodies working on policy).

There's lot of time and room for sane (or dumb) rules to come out of this.

Medical (and similar) use exceptions are common. For example RoHS initially had a medical device exemption (and still has an implantable device exemption).

> Trudeau did not specify the products to be banned, but said likely candidates include plastic bags, straws, cutlery, plates and stir sticks “where supported by scientific evidence and warranted.”

I don't think legitimate medical uses of single use plastics are at risk here, as long as no reasonable alternative exists.

It's a law banning the use of single-use plastic for (a large number of) specific use-cases where it's unnecessary; not a law banning single-use plastics generally.

When this single-use plastics ban was in the news a year ago, there was a ton of exceptions to it.

It seems like in practice this will basically amount to a ban on plastic straws and grocery bags.

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

Removing ash trays from public life was one of the worst recent urban decisions we've made. People don't quit smoking because they can't find an ash tray, they just throw the butt on the ground and buy another pack, and no one cleans it up. Not too long ago, practically every building had one of those plastic post ash trays out front.

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.

You'd have a bunch of currency that isn't really in circulation anymore, if my understanding of the Canadian penny is correct!

They should force companies to use biodegradable filters.

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.

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")

It's very real and very much already exists. I've met a few biochemists who are manufacturing it in the Denver, Colorado area and it absolutely blows my mind that we are not growing thousands of acres of industrial hemp for both controlling CO2 and for all it's bioplastic, wood, and material products it can be making. Stop growing cotton. Stop using crude oil based plastics, and all products of the plant can be used in extracts for foods, oils, and stalk/pithe/flour can be made into paper products and hempcrete.

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)?

Here in Gibraltar plastic bags have been banned for a while. You can buy more expensive reusable bags at the grocery store counter.

First it was pain. But it took only few months to adapt and now everyone are bringing bags to the store with then.

Fruit and veggie sections have paper bags, but also those sections offer canvas bags for the eco aware.

I’d presume that’s the cause of this legislation.

Not having alternatives to replace them with?

The actual announcement says that Canada will ban "harmful" single-use plastics. I’d assume single use plastics that are absolutely required for safety and medical purposes would not be considered harmful.

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.