If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   No foam for you. Minneapolis considers banning foam take out containers. Large Cokes, politically incorrect people and Bloomberg terminal next on agenda   (startribune.com) divider line 103
    More: Misc, Minneapolis, polystyrene, Johnson, berg Terminal, Indian restaurant, speed limits  
•       •       •

1051 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 May 2014 at 1:25 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-14 06:10:44 PM

whidbey: Yeah but anyone who goes out their way to "discredit" recycling deserves a good drubbing. You, in other words.


Discredit recycling? Seriously, are we reading the same thread here?

I speculated in one message about sequestering carbon--which would work, I hope you realize--but not on any kind of large scale.

The problem with this plastic (polystyrene foam) isn't that it can't be recycled; its simply not economical to recycle it. So, yes, it seems extremely prudent to limit the scope of its use when possible. To their credit, some businesses are doing that all by themselves... without any laws being imposed at all. My problem has been, some businesses can't. And often times, when these laws get written, its usually those that actually require whatever it is getting banned, that get screwed.

That's pretty much it. I honestly don't see how that's an unreasonable concern or position. So much so that I don't really seeing the need for a law. Voluntary compliance should actually be fairly easy.
 
2014-05-14 07:19:18 PM

Destructor: The problem with this plastic (polystyrene foam) isn't that it can't be recycled; its simply not economical to recycle it.


Because saving the earth depends on how much something should cost.

Do go on.

That's pretty much it. I honestly don't see how that's an unreasonable concern or position

I'm sure you don't.

Voluntary compliance should actually be fairly easy.

Because that's worked as a hedge against pollution for so long.

Um, derp much?
 
2014-05-14 07:45:55 PM

whidbey: Because saving the earth depends on how much something should cost.


If you need everyone to pitch in, it's probably the single most important factor. From an economic point of view, there's no way you can win a battle if it consists of claiming that a polystyrene food container is going to end life as we know it ("saving the Earth") because its going to end up in a landfill.

whidbey: Voluntary compliance should actually be fairly easy.

Because that's worked as a hedge against pollution for so long.


It is not a cure-all. But in a situation like this, it's probably the best solution. Lots of companies have already changed the way they ship stuff (one of the primary uses of polystyrene foam is in shipping) because there are more sensible ways to do it.

IMHO, people are willing to spend a little more to do the right thing; but if you're going to kill them (30% increases), it becomes a much harder prospect. Ignoring that just doesn't strike me as the right thing to do.
 
Displayed 3 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report