England is Banning Sale of Some Single-Use Plastics (engadget.com) 40
England will ban businesses from selling and offering a variety of single-use plastics, including plates and cutlery, by the end of the year, the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced on Saturday. From a report: The government will begin enforcing the legislation in October 2023. In addition to some plastics, the ban will cover single-use trays and certain types of polystyrene cups and food containers but will exempt plates, trays and bowls included with supermarket-ready meals; the government intends to target those through a separate plan that incentives manufacturers to meet higher recycling standards.
According to one estimate cited by the environment ministry, English consumers use about 2.7 billion items of single-use cutlery every year, and only about 10 percent of those are recycled. The department said 95 percent of people it consulted before today's announcement were in favor of a ban. "We have listened to the public and these new single-use plastics bans will continue our vital work to protect the environment for future generations," said Environment Secretary Therese Coffey.
According to one estimate cited by the environment ministry, English consumers use about 2.7 billion items of single-use cutlery every year, and only about 10 percent of those are recycled. The department said 95 percent of people it consulted before today's announcement were in favor of a ban. "We have listened to the public and these new single-use plastics bans will continue our vital work to protect the environment for future generations," said Environment Secretary Therese Coffey.
Sarcasm (Score:2)
English consumers use about 2.7 billion items of single-use cutlery every year
How can that be possible, I only use ~20 per year myself !
Re: (Score:3)
English consumers use about 2.7 billion items of single-use cutlery every year
How can that be possible, I only use ~20 per year myself !
The population of England in 2022 is 56,550,138, so 2.7 billion works out to just under 48 pieces per person. Granted that infants and toddlers won't use that many, but it isn't as if your number is low by an order of magnitude.
Re: (Score:1)
Sequestering carbon... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that fuel is at least not blown into the sky by cars, we need MORE plastic forks, if anything!
Re: (Score:2)
Seems that if single use plastics never decay in the environment, they are a great way to sequester carbon.(yes I know they are produced from fossil fuels)
The trick would be to make them from the CO2 in the air, right?
I think I see a flaw in your cunning plan...
Re: (Score:2)
Seems that if single use plastics never decay in the environment, they are a great way to sequester carbon.(yes I know they are produced from fossil fuels)
A better carbon sequester is to leave the oil in the ground to begin with.
Meanwhile, let's open a coal mine (Score:3)
FFS, this is the same government that only a month ago announced the opening of the first coal mine in the UK in 30 years.
They don't care about saving the environment. They just care about the '95% approval for the ban', which means they can win some swing voters by pretending to care about the planet without the risk of alienating too many core tory supporters.
At least Boris had a vision, which was to massage his massive ego, but it was a vision none the less. Rishi doesn't even seem to have a clear idea of how to carry out his hyper-neo-liberalism plan in an effective way.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, he definitely had a vision. An awful one. You know what would have been better than that particular visionary leader? Having a tree stump for a prime minister. Doing literally nothing would have been better for the country. Boris pulled the country down.
People love a visionary leader, but they should be careful what they wished for. Once a country reaches a high level of development, it’s way easier to make things worse than to make them better.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They don't care about saving the environment. They just care about the '95% approval for the ban', which means they can win some swing voters by pretending to care about the planet without the risk of alienating too many core tory supporters.
The Torrie's need as much help as they can get too.
After the absolute fiasco that was Truss' nomination they are massively behind labor in the polls, never mind that a lot of Brits are starting to figure out that they were lied to in regards to Brexit as the problems it's created become obvious. They're going to be going out of their way to do anything they perceive as popular for the next two years in the hopes of become politically relevant again before the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
this is the same government that only a month ago announced the opening of the first coal mine in the UK in 30 years.
Yes, because the UK is facing an energy crisis [nytimes.com]
Across Britain this winter, more people are falling into debt and sitting in cold or damp homes as a result of rising energy bills, which have helped push the country’s inflation rate above 10 percent. This sharp increase in what is called “fuel poverty,” when 10 percent of household income is spent on energy bills, is stretching the resources of charities that provide free advice, emergency funds or resources to get access to heat and improve home energy efficiency.
They don't care about saving the environment. They just care about the '95% approval for the ban', which means they can win some swing voters by pretending to care about the planet without the risk of alienating too many core tory supporters.
Getting something with such high public approval enacted sounds like a good example of effective governance and public service? As does dealing with skyrocketing energy prices and overall inflation?
Good governance is about balancing concerns. To which end, it makes far more sense to plan for the future and build more nuclear plants [wikipedia.org] than to pretend like no one is dependent on coal right now and let the poor suffer horribly in the interim due to a myopic policy
Re:Meanwhile, let's open a coal mine (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Single use lithium ion battery vapes next please? (Score:2)
Next on the list should be single use lithium ion battery vape pens. These are disposable and non-rechargeable, but they include non-removable lithium ion or lipo batteries (you know, the type that contain rare minerals, and are capable of hundreds of charges).
These are sold in the UK by their millions are end up discarded as litter everywhere.
Toxic components include:
Lithiumhexafluorophosphate
Ethylene carbonate
Diethyl carbonate
Vinylene carbonate
Polyvinylidene fluoride
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a great way for a hobbyist to figure out how to reclaim some of these rare earths. Corollary: if you want trash to be picked up, make it valuable.
Ban everything disposable! (Score:1)
Trash bags, diapers, broken glass, all of it!
If people have to wallow in their own refuse, it'll learn 'em to have a lower footprint!
Not the first UK Nation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And the EU banned single use plastics from July 2021 on.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is doing the same thing, we started last month and it's continuing to rollout.
https://www.canada.ca/en/envir... [canada.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we even need straws? Is it that difficult to just drink out of a cup or glass without a straw?
Re: (Score:3)
The commitment came out of COP26, which was hosted in the UK. Outside the US, even right wing an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever considered about driving rather than drinking? And if you *need* a drink what you actually need to do is stop driving such long stretches without a break and pull the f*** over before you kill someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Single use plastic straws are already banned in England. The legislation in Scotland also bans them, with an exemption for those who need to use them for independent living and medical purposes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That article is garbage, when it comes to actually looking up data its citation links do not support its arguments as it claims. For instance
"Further problems: Paper straws are not actually biodegradable and use significantly more energy to produce than plastic straws. " (with this text linked as a citation to support the claim https://www.theatlantic.com/id... [theatlantic.com] ).
The cited article has zero supporting data on plastic straws requiring less energy to produce than paper. All this citation is doing is creating t
How about mult-component packaging too? (Score:1)
Better yet, stop making consumers the real target of the cleanup.
Supermarket-ready meals (Score:2)
Why the exemption? One could simply serve these meals on top of or between two slabs of bread. Which, after consuming the main course, could either be eaten or fed to dogs.
You could come up with a catchy name. Perhaps name them after a nobleman or something. The Earl of Shrewsbury comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A Gilligan?
Tax them, do not ban. (Score:1)
It is a simple idea, you put a tax on the bad stuff rather than banning it. Even go for a high tax, such as 50%. Banning causes a larger reaction than taxing it, even if you tax it to hell. It also causes unintended consequences/problems
If you merely tax it (even a high tax), you prevent most of the unintended consequences.
Key example, my area has banned plastic bags for grocery stores. Except I personally pay for a grocery delivery service.
Before the ban, I paid nothing for plastic bags and reused ea
Australia is doing it too (Score:2)
Many states have banned (or are banning) single-use plastics as well. Where I am in Queensland, single use plastic straws, plastic stirrers, plastic plates, plastic bowls, plastic cutlery, polystyrene food containers and polystyrene cups have been banned with more items to follow later.
Really? (Score:2)
They banned pumping shit into creeks, rivers, lakes and oceans decades ago and they do it over 1000 times PER DAY anyway.
wash and peel (Score:2)
As long as customers have to wash empty containers and scrape the label off, the recycling process is seriously flawed.