Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 362 posts

Re: Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

#331

Post by sumedh »

dingo_bat wrote: post #235
sumedh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cocaine should made legal too, with all the measures which you listed. If people like something, they will try anything to get it, if its illegal is just goes underground.

I don't understand this logic. We tax alcohol and cigarettes. We ban cocaine. And look at the result: hundreds of millions addicted to smoking, but almost zero usage of cocaine. Looks like a ban is a good way to curtail usage. Which is what we want, right?

> but almost zero usage of cocaine.

This is where the disconnect happens, since you dont see people using cocaine you assume that the ban is working. Meanwhile people who really want it, can get it with money or their bodies (women).

Just because you dont see it does not mean its not happening.

Re: Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

#332

Post by kamaal »

omk wrote: post #322
kamaal wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more or less impossible impose given how good and things move around in India. After a while it will just be a joke, and another bribe making scheme for audit/police.

It's tricky to bribe out of the situation especially if your product is being sold out there in the open. Your competition will tell on you or your consumers will notice.

You have to understand how things work in India. You competition will not tell on you and you customer want you to use plastic.

Re: Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

#333

Post by titzer »

mikec3010 wrote: post #240
titzer wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plastics are aesthetically bad, but other forces are quantitatively way worse. I don't agree with this line of reasoning. We have room for more than one priority, and solving the waste pipeline is ultimately one of logistics and political will, as well as elbow grease and the pluck to get out there and pick up some garbage. I've seen whole gaggles of people walk past a bottle lying on the ground next to a trash can…

The shit loads of trash in the ocean are from impoverished developing nations who use their rivers as garbage dumps. Not the ignorant yuppie who let's his Pepsi bottle blow into the marina. Don't let a few assholes be a surrogate for justifiable outrage that comes from a completely different source on an incomprehensibly massive scale.

> Don't let a few assholes be a surrogate for justifiable outrage that comes from a completely different source on an incomprehensibly massive scale.

Oh I'm well acquainted with the problems in developing countries and they are disproportionately responsible for the state of the oceans. However, I'd say that they are all just degrees of the same problem. I've picked up lots of trash in developing countries, but also plenty along American highways, even in the most scenic areas of the country, and even seen it here and there even in the cleanest countries (Japan, Switzerland, Germany). I met some really nice people all over New Zealand who as volunteers simply go out and pick up garbage off the beach, in the bushes, trees, rivers, whereever it occurs. They recognize other places are shitholes but that doesn't stop them from doing something about the trash where they live. If you join in, in short order you can't help but realize that it isn't all washing up from some shithole in Southeast Asia, but a lot of it comes from local sources. Litter and dumping are universal problems.

Don't fall prey to the "solving the biggest problem first" fallacy. Yes, we need to fix the pipeline and help those countries develop waste management systems, we need to stop producing so much plastic, but hell, when there is trash laying around, just pick it up! Getting people involved in doing this is the best way for them to see that this is a widespread problem, not just some trashy fuckwits over there that we can blame it all on.

Re: Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

#334

Post by dingo_bat »

sumedh wrote: post #331
dingo_bat wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this logic. We tax alcohol and cigarettes. We ban cocaine. And look at the result: hundreds of millions addicted to smoking, but almost zero usage of cocaine. Looks like a ban is a good way to curtail usage. Which is what we want, right?

> but almost zero usage of cocaine. This is where the disconnect happens, since you dont see people using cocaine you assume that the ban is working. Meanwhile people who really want it, can get it with money or their bodies (women). Just because you dont see it does not mean its not happening.

It's still insignificant compared to smokers.

Re: Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

#335

Post by sleepychu »

sleepychu wrote: post #66
1ba9115454 wrote: post #17

Great. Let's roll this out everywhere. Actually it would be nice to do something about cigeratte butts too.

Just ban cigarettes? They're ridiculous, I don't understand why we allow them.

To address the many replies. What I would actually propose is a ban on smoking in public places of all types (streets, parks, etc.) with aggressive fines.

If you want to smoke in your own house with no children in it, that's fine.

I'm just sick of walking down the street and smelling smoke, knowing it's causing harm to people who have little choice in the matter via passive smoking, creating so much litter etc.

Re: Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

#336

Post by icebraining »

shripadk wrote: post #311
icebraining wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, from your links, nobody was actually killed by terrorists, nor has a security guard actually stopped any terrorist. Meanwhile, you know who actually has killed Infosys employees? A security guard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9MenY2dEs

> So, from your links, nobody was actually killed by terrorists That is not a justification for no security checks. That's my only argument. If one is willing to go through security checks at malls, airports, movie theaters, sports game at a stadium, a music concert without any fuss I don't see why one would want to be treated differently at the workplace. You don't find anyone talking of "giving up personal libertie…

If one is willing to go through security checks at malls, airports, movie theaters, sports game at a stadium, a music concert without any fuss I don't see why one would want to be treated differently at the workplace. You don't find anyone talking of "giving up personal liberties and freedoms out of unsubstantiated fears based on a few fringe cases is a slippery slope" when trying to enter any of these secured areas do they?

Yes. Yes, I do. In fact, I'm one of them. Thankfully I live in a relatively sane country, so there's no such nonsense except on airports, where we must comply with global rules.

By the way, Brussels - which as you may know has had a recent history of multiple terrorist attacks - doesn't have that nonsense either. Even in the main train station, where some poor lunatic tried to harm others and only ended up immolating himself, the doors are all wide open without any checks.

If those terror threats were not thwarted by agencies do you agree that having security at the gates of an IT enterprise would be a second line of defence?

My complaint wasn't with any security checks, it was with rummaging through people's bags. Guys carrying AK-47s are not going to be deterred by a bag check. Having secure doors that only open with a badge makes sense.

So you say just because of this one incident we remove all security from these companies and let anyone walk in and out?

Just like you never claimed a security guard actually stopped a terrorist, I never claimed we should remove all security. All I'm saying is that the importance of terrorists is being overblown. In practice, even security guards themselves are more dangerous.

Re: Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

#337

Post by sumedh »

dingo_bat wrote: post #334
sumedh wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but almost zero usage of cocaine. This is where the disconnect happens, since you dont see people using cocaine you assume that the ban is working. Meanwhile people who really want it, can get it with money or their bodies (women). Just because you dont see it does not mean its not happening.

It's still insignificant compared to smokers.

Is it almost zero?

Re: Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

#338

Post by TheGrumpyBrit »

jdietrich wrote: post #287
inapis wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see two problems with your argument. One - you are giving humans and plastic a lot of benefit of doubt. Time and again, it is demonstrated that human convenience trumps environmental concerns. So governments can have state-of-the-art recycling facilities but getting people to co-operate is an uphill challenge. Second - the nature of plastic itself. You are basing sustainability on cost to environment in production…

>Second - the nature of plastic itself. You are basing sustainability on cost to environment in production but not taking into account the cost of disposal. If you just burn the wrapper in your fireplace, it'll produce less than 6g of CO2. We're talking about the equivalent of half a teaspoon of gasoline. Growing and transporting a cucumber produces about 1kg of CO2. The wrapper is not the problem. https://www.scienc…

But we want the cucumber, and any leftover cucumber will decompose to nothing - it doesn't require any specialised waste processing. The 1kg of CO2 to grow and transport the cucumber is a spent cost, but half a teaspoon of gasoline for every single cucumber is an obscene environmental cost.

The same argument applies to your steak - the environmental cost of the steak is irrelevant, because the steak is the product we want, and again, leftover steak disappears without trace in very short order. The issue is the packaging, which we don't want but hangs around for half a millenia if disposed of irresponsibly.

The goal of this part of the initiative is to deal with that "last mile" problem of irresponsible waste processing, because we can't trust people to dispose of plastics properly. That will inevitably have a knock on effect on the rest of the supply chain, because now companies can't sell products which use single use plastics in that area, so they'll look at alternative ways of packaging their product.

That might result in some products having shorter shelf lives, but those products don't require complex waste management practices - they just move to different levels of the food chain.

The other environmental issues such as the transport cost are an entirely separate concern which aren't impacted by this move at all.

Re: Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

#339

Post by TheGrumpyBrit »

jdietrich wrote: post #273
ozborn wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While carbon emissions are an important consideration, they are not only impact of plastic. Plastics often end up in the ocean where they cause havoc with not just marine marine life, but also people. It is not just about viewing unsightly plastic, but also ingestion of plastic and chemicals associated with plastic such as phthalates and endocrine disruptors. While spoilage is in issue, so are the various health prob…

As brutal as it might seem, plastic pollution is not a high priority. It makes for some shocking and upsetting photos, but it's not a fundamental threat to the marine ecosystem. The sources of marine plastic pollution are non-obvious and can be mostly mitigated through better management of waste rather than elimination at source. Ocean acidification due to rising CO2 levels is a cataclysmic threat to the marine ecosy…

In Mumbai, it's a high enough priority to justify doing something about it. There may be bigger threats to the marine ecosystem, but this isn't a situation where relative privation is appropriate - this part is fixable, so why not fix it?

The problem with "better waste management" is it requires involvement on an individual level, and individuals can't be trusted to do it. Elimination at source removes the responsibility for the consumer and reduces the requirement for complex waste processing. That's a win for everybody.

Re: Mumbai bans plastic bags, bottles, and single-use plastic containers

#340

Post by TheGrumpyBrit »

ceejayoz wrote: post #183
nmcfarl wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that last 'graph got me wondering, and knowing that there are basically no plastics recycled where I live, I looked up if cling film, or polystyrene (a typical steak wrapping) could be recycled in Seatlle, and the answer is no. In fact it looks like the answer is no most everywhere. And while cling film does degrade after decades, while polystyrene might take multiple 100,000s of years. Which means the problem mig…

See if your grocery store's plastic bag recycling can take it. Cling film can't be recycled with glass/plastic/paper because it ties up the machines, but here in upstate NY you can put it in with grocery bags, ziplocks, and other thin plastics at the in-store drop-off. We started doing this as well as a composting service and it's remarkable how much emptier our trash bin is now - half the volume, easily.

This exactly sums up the problem. It's no use being able to recycle everything if doing so requires everybody to sort their waste and take it to different places. Most people won't do that.

If we remove single use bags and cling film (yes, cling film is going to be a tough one), you're no longer reliant on the consumer to responsibly manage their waste.

There's a trade off. You're no longer sorting waste, and you're still generating less waste, but reduced shelf lives mean you now need to shop for fresh produce more often, potentially using more fuel and offsetting any gains. But you're no longer producing waste that takes centuries to decompose.

Post reply on HN