If you remove 99% of single use plastic, you can still have your single use surgical and medical plastic. It’s a matter of using them where they are actually needed instead of using them because it’s cheaper to throw shit away.
Fair enough. Polyurethane condoms do exist, especially for people of latex allergies, in fact they’re more popular in the premium priced condoms, because they’re thinner
My concern with language, is using broadly simplistic language that is very evocative, necessitating exceptions and carve outs, either diminishes the message itself, or the carve outs undermine the objective.
For example, the people who say “death to America” but then when you push them on it say oh but I don’t mean the people of the country, I just mean the foreign policy etc the message is very evocative, and I think it’s counterproductive.
I think it would be easier to ignore calls like “let’s ban all bannable single use plastics”, because what would that mean? But yeah I hear you. I always thought “Zero Waste” was a stupid moniker because it’s literally impossible to have no waste. But it probably does succeed in getting people to talk/think about the issue.
Your average Lemmy user doesn’t have that level of awareness. It’s all spent on looking for opportunities to feel superior. Sorry it had to happen this way, but now you’re a pro-plastic capitalist out to fuck the environment for personal short-term gain and convenience or something… Because that’s apparently more obvious somehow.
Regarding how rushed international policy-making for the environment and against profitability is not at all a problem has never been and won’t be anytime soone, that “scepticism” seems to be the product of “looking for superiority” here, imho
I understand and totally support that in general. I’m gonna try to explain my point of view.
In this case we don’t exactly look at policy-making. Between stating that a majority supports governmental action to ban one use plastics and actual policy is a process.
This process will “forge” the outcome. In it, several conflicting interests will meet/clash and according to the power relations between them, they will be able to enforce their respective will.
Since the power relations are, let’s say, fucked up, we are constantly seeing how profit of few overrule need of many and overall rational solutions.
Thats why the criterion “clearness” seems out of place for me at this point.
Certanly, before it comes to the actual policy-making, things like the washabillity of surgical equipment will be processed. You will certanly not end up with a dirty scalpel in your body.
That’s why the scepticism of your initial comment seemed odd to me.
Don’t know if this should be seen as a given standard, or if we (“average lemmy users”) should disclaim it more often, but I don’t mean to be offensive (even though this format of short message discourse provoces a certain sass). I mean to have meaningful conversation about each others POV’s. That’s somewhat the point of lemmy, imo.
I don’t know … I like my surgical equipment to stay sterilized before surgery.
Let’s push for surgical equipment to be made more environmentally friendly, rather than dismiss a global iniative to reduce plastics
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068768/
Also, sterilisation isn’t dependent on the equipment being made of plastics
https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-sterilization/sterilizing-practices.html
Oh man! Healthcare (esp. hospitals) makes so much trash!!!
If you remove 99% of single use plastic, you can still have your single use surgical and medical plastic. It’s a matter of using them where they are actually needed instead of using them because it’s cheaper to throw shit away.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough.
Condoms are rubber and I’m not sure how you don’t know that. Besides, I don’t know that anyone wouldn’t want some number of exemptions to exist.
Fair enough. Polyurethane condoms do exist, especially for people of latex allergies, in fact they’re more popular in the premium priced condoms, because they’re thinner
My concern with language, is using broadly simplistic language that is very evocative, necessitating exceptions and carve outs, either diminishes the message itself, or the carve outs undermine the objective.
For example, the people who say “death to America” but then when you push them on it say oh but I don’t mean the people of the country, I just mean the foreign policy etc the message is very evocative, and I think it’s counterproductive.
I think it would be easier to ignore calls like “let’s ban all bannable single use plastics”, because what would that mean? But yeah I hear you. I always thought “Zero Waste” was a stupid moniker because it’s literally impossible to have no waste. But it probably does succeed in getting people to talk/think about the issue.
it’s all burned for sanitary reasons
I’m responding to the global ban aspect of the headline.
Your average Lemmy user doesn’t have that level of awareness. It’s all spent on looking for opportunities to feel superior. Sorry it had to happen this way, but now you’re a pro-plastic capitalist out to fuck the environment for personal short-term gain and convenience or something… Because that’s apparently more obvious somehow.
Regarding how rushed international policy-making for the environment and against profitability is not at all a problem has never been and won’t be anytime soone, that “scepticism” seems to be the product of “looking for superiority” here, imho
I want people and policy makes to be clear about what they mean, intentions, and language.
I understand and totally support that in general. I’m gonna try to explain my point of view.
In this case we don’t exactly look at policy-making. Between stating that a majority supports governmental action to ban one use plastics and actual policy is a process.
This process will “forge” the outcome. In it, several conflicting interests will meet/clash and according to the power relations between them, they will be able to enforce their respective will.
Since the power relations are, let’s say, fucked up, we are constantly seeing how profit of few overrule need of many and overall rational solutions.
Thats why the criterion “clearness” seems out of place for me at this point. Certanly, before it comes to the actual policy-making, things like the washabillity of surgical equipment will be processed. You will certanly not end up with a dirty scalpel in your body.
That’s why the scepticism of your initial comment seemed odd to me.
Don’t know if this should be seen as a given standard, or if we (“average lemmy users”) should disclaim it more often, but I don’t mean to be offensive (even though this format of short message discourse provoces a certain sass). I mean to have meaningful conversation about each others POV’s. That’s somewhat the point of lemmy, imo.
Its nice to learn something new about myself every day! Neat.
Global banning laws can have exceptions carved out of them and usually do. There’s a global ban on whaling- Iceland excepted.
Comically, the whaling fleet docs next to where the whale watching boats launch.