Idk. It’s not at all clear to me why or what’s the point of these very performative acts.
There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife. It seemed to me something companies could “do” as a form of visual way of communicating that they were “doing something”, and it’s something that was done in sync, with no real consent of the consumer. It’s not like people were driving this. It was very much from the corporate side.
There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife.
Source: your ass?
Eighty of 135 (59%) species with studies reported in the literature between 1962 and 2012 had ingested plastic, and, within those studies, on average 29% of individuals had plastic in their gut.
Source: the about an hour of research I did on straws to write the response. I mean I read a fucking thesis on it and probably 4-5 articles. I mean the links in there you lazy fukkah
So maybe shove it up your ass.
Oh you editing now? Go find evidence that the transition from plastic straws to paper has had any measurable impacts on wildlife.
That doesn’t really get to the impact of the plastic. Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood. It’s there, but mostly it just seems to be inert. There are thousands of problems we are creating that we know are causing widespread extinctions. I’m not opposed to reducing plastic use, but forcing a major inconvenience for dubious results burns a lot of goodwill. That’s why this is a popular wedge issue for the right, even though it mostly affects liberal coastal cities.
Well the sentence after that is rather critical. It’s not that 100% of humans have it, so who cares about animals; it’s that we have an enormous highly-scrutinized test population, and in general the impacts are mild to imperceptible. I’m not blowing off this concern; we need to keep studying it in humans and animals (and the results may be different!).
But right now there are scores of critical world issues that can be tangibly addressed. Asking people to make lifestyle changes for possibly zero meaningful impact is actually counterproductive.
Idk. It’s not at all clear to me why or what’s the point of these very performative acts.
There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife. It seemed to me something companies could “do” as a form of visual way of communicating that they were “doing something”, and it’s something that was done in sync, with no real consent of the consumer. It’s not like people were driving this. It was very much from the corporate side.
Source: your ass?
Source: the about an hour of research I did on straws to write the response. I mean I read a fucking thesis on it and probably 4-5 articles. I mean the links in there you lazy fukkah
So maybe shove it up your ass.
Oh you editing now? Go find evidence that the transition from plastic straws to paper has had any measurable impacts on wildlife.
That doesn’t really get to the impact of the plastic. Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood. It’s there, but mostly it just seems to be inert. There are thousands of problems we are creating that we know are causing widespread extinctions. I’m not opposed to reducing plastic use, but forcing a major inconvenience for dubious results burns a lot of goodwill. That’s why this is a popular wedge issue for the right, even though it mostly affects liberal coastal cities.
It blows my mind how you’re saying that like it makes it ok
Well the sentence after that is rather critical. It’s not that 100% of humans have it, so who cares about animals; it’s that we have an enormous highly-scrutinized test population, and in general the impacts are mild to imperceptible. I’m not blowing off this concern; we need to keep studying it in humans and animals (and the results may be different!).
But right now there are scores of critical world issues that can be tangibly addressed. Asking people to make lifestyle changes for possibly zero meaningful impact is actually counterproductive.