The performative stuff has to stop. On the one vacation I am doing since this pandemic began, I saw a place in Northern Italy give out paper straws enclosed in plastic wrapping. You have to be kidding me. It’s missing the point and greenwashing at its finest (unrelated to climate).
You’ll meet plenty on the left, especially scientists, who are in favor of nuclear. Where I live (Switzerland[0]), the biggest NIMBY against nuclear are the provincial nationalists who are going nuts about installation of a subterranean disposal site in their area (proposed because it is the most suitable site due to geological properties). My turning point with nuclear was about 15 years ago when learning about thorium. Very eye-opening.
[0] - To the grandparent comment, natural born American who spent most of the adult life and all of childhood in the States. Emigrated a decade ago and still keep close tabs. This post is giving me serious flashbacks to the 1992, when Bush called Gore “Ozone Man”. Was that a genesis of the contrarian political differentiation?
It's important to remember that plastic waste is virtually unrelated to climate change. They both might be "green" issues, but plastic straws in our oceans aren't going to have any significant effect on warming the planet. They'll just end up causing ecological changes/damage.
Malicious actors try to conflate the two. Carbon gas emissions pose an existential threat to the future of human society; plastic straws do not.
You don't have to be a malicious actors. The same folks are pushing both issues and will not talk proactively / positively about anything?
Carbon capture? Hell no!
Micro nuclear? Hell no!
Ban straws? Yes!!
We did the whole glass bottle use thing for milk etc etc - but at some point you realize some of these high profile enviro actions are basic hot air - we'd be better off with getting rid of them entirely and doing things like
1) Carbon tax on all sources of carbon emissions that then pays for ANY solution (carbon capture, solar + battery, mini-nuclear) that folks want to try.
In fact, the plastic replacements often cause more emissions. Because of production or because more trucks are needed for the same products with thicker packaging. Supermarket chain in my country changed their packaging, the same amount now needs 2 trucks instead of one.
Also glass bottles or cardboard are heavier so more fuel consumption.
Reusable "bamboo" cups are a fun example. I'm not sure if they are considered biodegradable anymore and then the fact that some countries in Europe had them remove from market... Due potentially leaching melamine and formaldehyde...
So I take it will take awhile for us to get these things right...
Things I learned from Wikipedia as a result of reading your comment:
Cellophane is not plastic.
Cellophane is biodegradable.
Rayon is the same substance as cellophane, but in a different shape.
Cellophane and Rayon are often made using the "viscose process", which requires the use of carbon disulfide, which is toxic, and the process has toxic byproducts.
I wasn't able to figure out if this process has more or less toxic byproducts than processes for making plastic films.
I wasn't able to figure out if this process is more carbon-intensive than processes for making plastic films. Harvesting plant matter, pumping water around, etc. sounds energy-intensive. Is it better or worse than digging carbon sludge up out of the ground?
You’ll meet plenty on the left, especially scientists, who are in favor of nuclear. Where I live (Switzerland[0]), the biggest NIMBY against nuclear are the provincial nationalists who are going nuts about installation of a subterranean disposal site in their area (proposed because it is the most suitable site due to geological properties). My turning point with nuclear was about 15 years ago when learning about thorium. Very eye-opening.
[0] - To the grandparent comment, natural born American who spent most of the adult life and all of childhood in the States. Emigrated a decade ago and still keep close tabs. This post is giving me serious flashbacks to the 1992, when Bush called Gore “Ozone Man”. Was that a genesis of the contrarian political differentiation?