> It's the same story with trying to get rid of plastic straws.

The plastic straw thing is not to make an impact on the environment, it was chosen to make an impact on everyone's life.

Yes, we could do something bigger, but people won't notice because they can't see the effect in their day to day life.

Ban plastic straws though and EVERYONE notices and talks about it constantly everywhere. And if even one person starts using less plastic because of that, it was a success.

If someone feels they are already doing their part by sacrificing the convenience of plastic straws, how does this make them more likely to reduce plastic use elsewhere in their life? I would expect the opposite.

This strikes me as the same basic reasoning as blocking traffic to protest various social causes.

If you're "making an impact on everyone's life" in the form of making their lives more annoying and inconvenient, those people are going to resent you and the cause for which you inconvenienced them.

I disagree. I think if anything, it'll lead to people being more angry/disillusioned about recycling. It's the equivalent of your teacher/parent/manager micromanaging you on trivial tasks. Let the person figure out what they want to do but make sweeping changes that are meaningful (e.g. reg cap on companies producing/importing disposable plastic goods).

> And if even one person starts using less plastic because of that, it was a success.

I can buy not relying on the first order impacts of banning plastic straws for the coat-benefit analysis, but relying on second-order effects doesn’t mean you get to toss out cost-benefit altogether.