patrick.net

"If people are forced not to use straws, then they won't necessarily see that it's for the environment," he tells Reason. "They'll just think it's just another inconvenience imposed on them by government."

The marketplace would do it's thing and bring back paper straws (biodegradable) even if they cost a penny more each.

How okay something that's environmentally unfriendly is, should be inversely proportional to how low the cost of a good alternative (substitute) is.

zzyzzx says

"If people are forced not to use straws, then they won't necessarily see that it's for the environment," he tells Reason. "They'll just think it's just another inconvenience imposed on them by government."

The marketplace would do it's thing and bring back paper straws (biodegradable) even if they cost a penny more each.

I wonder though. If it's that legit of a concern, why not just use peer pressure like they did with styrofoam. Although that only partially worked. I'm sure one of the reasons the typical
Trumpeter prefers dunkin donuts coffee to starbucks is the styrofoam.

Sorry to let you guys know this, but even Dunkin donuts is guilty of falling prey to virue signalling (sometimes a good thing).
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/07/news/companies/dunkin-styrofoam-cups/index.html

Marcus even you have to admit, fining waiters for straws is retarded and not a solution to anything,

What happens if the straw giver is an illegal-how will a liberal deal with that?

I'm sure one of the reasons the typical
Trumpeter prefers dunkin donuts coffee to starbucks is the styrofoam.

Al Gore is heavily invested in the biggest paper straw makers ?

Looks like In-n-Out has ditched paper straws and is back to dispensing plastic ones. Happened some time over the last month.

California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Unsolicited Plastic Straws

The key is getting to really high temperatures. You might actually be able to generate power from plastics too.

The key is getting to really high temperatures. You might actually be able to generate power from plastics too.

That "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" could actually be worth a lot of money if someone can make a ship that scoops it up, dries it off, and burns it or refines it back into oil.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/08/28/paper-straws-worse-than-plastic-pfas-study/70702090007/

The Dallas Morning News ran a story yesterday headlined, “Texas lawsuit accuses 3M, DuPont of concealing harm from ‘forever chemicals.’” It almost took forever to get someone in government, somewhere, to do something.

Doing the job the federal health agencies used to do, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton yesterday sued DuPont, 3M, and other manufacturers of so-called PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances), often called “forever chemicals” since they never degrade or break down. The chemicals are commonly used in waterproofing and non-stick coatings, such as on cookware or in protective sprays, and in thousands of other consumer products from carpets to pesticides.

But “these companies knew for decades that PFAS chemicals could cause serious harm to human health, yet continued to advertise them as safe for household use around families and children,” Paxton said in a statement.

The lawsuit (linked here) alleged that exposure to PFAS is connected to high cholesterol, increased risk of childhood infections, harmful reproductive and developmental effects, pregnancy-induced hypertension, decreased birthweight, testicular and kidney cancers, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and memory loss related to personal item placement. Well, it didn’t actually say the memory loss part, but you never know. It would explain a lot, especially to my wife, who has to help me find everything.




Anyway, Texas became the third state to sue the PFAS manufacturers this year, joining Connecticut and Minnesota. The CDC’s web page on PFAS admits that “many PFAS are found in the blood of people and animals all over the world and are present at low levels in a variety of food products and in the environment,” and clinically notes “exposure to some PFAS in the environment may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals.”

So that’s not too good.

The lawsuit’s allegations, if true, are damning. The lawsuit alleges that DuPont knew PFAS were toxic as early as the 1960’s, because exposed workers were getting sick. In 1981, DuPont did an internal blood sampling study of pregnant or recently pregnant employees. Of the eight women in the study who worked with Teflon, two (25%!) bore children with birth defects in their eyes or face, and at least one more had detectable levels of PFAS in their umbilical cord.

Paxton’s lawsuit alleges that DuPont lied and told its employees in writing the pregnancy study showed the chemicals were safe. It then slowly and quietly reassigned pregnant workers to other divisions.

The government has known about the problems with PFAS for decades. One EPA enforcement action was issued in 2004. But our fabulously funded government agencies have not even managed to get a warning label on products containing PFAS. The CDC’s PFAS webpage links to hundreds of other government websites about the chemicals. Nearly every major government agency is involved in PFAS research, including the obvious ones like EPA, FDA, and NIH, as well as more surprising ones like the DOD, the Navy, and the Air Force.

You know, between all the forever PFAS in our bloodstreams and fat tissues, the mRNA spikes in our cells (injected or shedded), and the microplastics building up in our brains, it’s getting pretty crowded in here.

Either way thanks, Texas! Thank you for at least doing something.

Finally, if you have time and interest, read the well-written and informative lawsuit. You can start at paragraph 20 (“Factual Allegations”) to skip the legalese.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/PFAS%20Manufacturers%20Lawsuit%20Filed.pdf