Frequently we end up with a solution which is even worse for the environment. For instance, we switched from single use plastic bags to multiple use plastic bags in new york. I spent $8 dollars on buying 4 multiuse polypropylenes bags, not a big deal, but 2 of the four bags are already beginning to rip after 5 or 6 uses. In order for the the reusable bags to be as environmentally friendly as the single use bags they need to be reused atleast a couple of hundred times. So my grocery shopping is now a couple of bucks more expensive for me (whatever) and environmentally less friendly.

Straws are likely the same deal, plastic straws are probably more environmentally friendly than their metal straws.

No, they're not. Full stop. It's not just the production of the straws that matters, it's their post-use effects. They can choke birds and fish, pierce stomachs or guts, and eventually become microplastics that get eaten by plankton and fish since the plastic doesn't degrade on a timeframe relevant to human or even generational lifespans.

Tons of plastic waste ends up in the ocean, with the bulk coming from China and Southeast Asia. However, the concern with straws is the harm they cause to local wildlife at their macroscopic sizes.

Throwing it in a bin reduces the amount of trash that ends up in the ocean, but wind, homeless, gravity, can all result in trash ending up outside of the bin and on a path into the water.

Tossing out "homeless" for a reason trash ends up in the ocean really undermines your point and makes you seem like an asshole. Maybe I'm naive, but I've never seen _anyone_ intentionally take things out of the trash and toss them somewhere else. I can't imagine this happening (caused by any human) on a scale where it is worth mentioning before mentioning negligent littering.

Sarcasm aside, metal straws don't float, and fish and birds don't try to eat them. And unless you have some fancy expensive metal straws, in a corrosive sea salt environment the ones generally available rust in a matter of years.

Bioplastic straws are a superior solution.

Compostable straws can be made of bioplastics, but require high temperatures to biodegrade, meaning generally temperatures not found in nature (outside of volcanic areas).

My kids are so indoctrinated into these habits that my four-year-old asked me which trash bin to use for a tiny spec of crust from her eye (compost was the correct answer). These habits—even over a lifetime—will have a negligible impact. But I'm confident that my kids will factor environmental issues highly for decisions (such as voting) that actually do matter.

I think one of the problems is that people very much overestimate how big a problem "plastic bags at the grocery store are", because they're big, and white, and loud when they move around, and they're something so many people deal with. But they're also whisps of plastic nothingness. Save up all the bags you shop with, and see how long it takes for them to equal the mass, of, say, this: https://www.amazon.com//dp/B07HKV9339 You're going to be saving for a long time... and you're going to be saving long past the point where your best efforts have squashed those bags into the same apparent volume.

Plastic bags and straws aren't the problem. "Solving" the not-a-problem is burning people's limited give-a-damn on pointless wastes of time, and psychologically rewarding people for doing useless things to their own detriment that helps nobody.

1. Restructure society to become carbon neutral.

2. Restructure society to end throwaway culture.

I understand that to some people 2 is a secondary value derived from 1. For me, both are independent primary values, not derived from any other deeper value, or from each other.

I am fairly certain that, while local moves towards the two values sometimes seem in conflict, I think on the global scale, they are roughly in the same direction. So yes, I will buy cotton bags every half decade or so, so I don't use and throw away a minuscule volume of plastic bags, that are a symbol of the throwaway culture.

It is not clear to me if you are advocating for everyone to not use plastic bags. If you choose to do net very-slight harm to the environment to take a stand against some thing you find aesthetically displeasing, that's find by me, because we're talking negligible values on all sides here. No sarcasm; I truly have no objection. We all tend to spend much greater on things much sillier. And you're putting your skin in the game, at your expense. No sweat.

If you are advocating that everybody should do so, that is at the very least questionable, though, and downright wrong at the government level. If the government is going to decide that environmental damage is a concern it has, which is fine, then at the very least they could use those powers to actually help the environment, rather than helping some particular people's sense of aesthetics, and their sense of aesthetics at other people's actions no less, while failing at their stated goals.

My point which I articulated poorly is that when we push environmental friendly things we should push for things which are more/actually effective, e.g. make sure you use your car for as long as possible, and build smaller, well insulated, energy efficient homes.

I don't carry any water for plastic straws — haven't used them regularly since I was a kid — but it's easily imaginable that the political capital expended to ban them would have yielded better results for the environment elsewhere.

Heck, it's very possible that your metal straws themselves caused more environmental damage than the average man's lifetime straw consumption. Or not.

Also, Cash for Clunkers was as much (or more) an economic stimulus program as an environmental program.

An analogy is "Why would promoting handwashing to combat aids be a bad thing? It gets people focused on health."

Well? Do tell. While hand washing or eliminating plastic bags or eliminating plastic straws might not be the end-all be-all of good environmental stewardship or good health practices, I'm a bit dumbfounded how they can be seen in a negative light. It's flu season, be cognizant of hand washing and cover your mouth when you cough - how's that a harmful message again?

Well, you don't get to say you're helping to combat aids by giving out that type of advice. If you try, you are "promoting bikeshedding and signaling contests" instead of doing anything productive [to solve the AIDS problem].

The point is these measures solidify indoctrination. Let us tell you what to do. “We’ll think it through for you. Here is what’s good.” And as kids grow up they grow up trusting these voices telling them what’s best for them. It undercuts their critical thinking skills. It’s one big “YEA”.

Rarely are they asked to follow the rabbit hole or all the unintended consequences. But it makes people feel good about “having agency” and “doing good”.

mandatory helmet laws are dumb nanny stuff. if someone wants to split their skull on a curb, it's their own business. riding a bike/scooter at low speeds is not particularly risky anyway, and such laws add friction to a healthy and environmentally friendly means of transportation.