>Solutions must benefit all parties.

but solutions never benefit all parties. Laws tend to tell some group what not to do, so most laws will inconvinience someone. You just need to figure out who the law and targeting (and REALLY targeting, not just what PR says) and then follow the money from there.

Less energy would be used by creating straws that are both convenient and good for the environment, like agave fiber straws.

Solutions can benefit all parties in any context (and the best ones do), but environmental protection is unique because the solution must benefit all parties. This is because, while some will sacrifice for the sake of the world, some will not. Convenience compels the lazy to change. No amount of coercion, or threat of force will change that.

Perhaps it would be more useful to unban plastic straws, and then ban unsolicited straws.

It's rather tedious to take a straw out of a drink, dry it off, and find somewhere to put it.

I can agree with this. Straws upon request makes more sense.

This is, in fact, how I think we should have handled plastic bags. The plastic bags themselves are fine. But the customer should have to actually request one.

I can't tell you how many times I bought one small item I intended to carry out of the store with me, and the cashier just automatically put it in a plastic bag. "Oh, I don't need a bag," I'd say. The cashier would then proceed to take the item out of the bag, and throw the bag away.

(No animosity intended towards the cashiers, who have difficult jobs. But we should have a better process.)

Sure, but not forever. My city banned plastic bags in grocery stores and I was annoyed and resentful because I used those when I cleaned out my cats litter box. However I got over it.