Home | About | Donate

EU Urged to Go Further to Save Trash-Filled Waters With New Proposed Plastics Ban


#1

EU Urged to Go Further to Save Trash-Filled Waters With New Proposed Plastics Ban

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

In a move welcomed by conservationists, the executive arm of the European Union (EU) on Monday proposed a ban on 10 common single-use plastics that, together with fishing gear, account for about 70 percent of Marine litter across Europe.


#2

Anybody over 60 in the US should be able to recall that almost every kind of single-use food container that was not glass or steel or deposit bottles was made of paper or waxed paper instead of plastic. Such materials worked perfectly fine. The current-day totally unrecyclalble aluminized mylar packaging that has replaced paper is the absolute worst.

But watch how US corporation will fight - maybe even violently with death squads against environmental activists - if we attempted to ban these materials. It’s all about peculiar extremist USAn (and many Latin American countries) ideological construct of “individual freedom” you see. And they believe that this gangster impunity wrapped in the USAn flag that they call “freedom” is something to defend, like all true gangsters, with deadly force if necessary.

And are there still people here that believe that the EU is a bogeyman?


#3

Growing up we re-used a great percentage of the containers items came in and or they easy to recycle as paper. What I really do not get is this though.

I live in Vancouver BC and as people know who might live here there all manner of creeks and streams and smaller rivers that flow to the ocean. After all of these years I still see old sofas or stoves or tires thrown into the stream bed. I have seen this even in places where two blocks away there a recycling station.

Why? It is such a callous act.

Denmark has a law on the books in that all items manufactured or sold inside that Country must have multiple uses so that it just not going to a landfill or dumped into an ocean. They are forced to do this in part because they such a small Country.

Here in Canada we have more freshwater lakes than the rest of the world combined and Mining Companies have openly suggested they have the “right” to pollute and use a lake as a dump because “Canada has so many lakes so what is the loss of one?”.

I really think a Countries relative size leads to a situation where it becomes “acceptable” to wreck ecosystems because “we have so much of it” . The oceans make up 2/3rds of the Earths surface and that mentality exists there as well.


#4

Wow, My image of Vancouver, BC is one of everyone being hyper-green (you have the only Green Party MP don’t you?) I would have never thought that you find junk dumped into hollows like I see here in Appalachian rust belt. At least the plastic has to travel a long ways to get to the sea in my area.


#5

It not as bad as it used to be as they are really focusing on going green but it still happens.


#6

Sign Petition, Cradle to Grave Tax on Plastics:

https://www.thepetitionsite.com/118/941/637/cradle-to-grave-tax-on-plastics/


#7

At least Europe is doing something, unlike the “Exceptional” nation which shall not be named.


#8

I hope the Nestle plastic water bottles will be exempted from this ban.
Nestle is such a responsible company that protects the environment and returns so much to the communities that it exploits.


#9

Overall, I don’t understand why companies resist anything as long as it is a level playing field and they aren’t in a losing position (such as the company making the aluminumized mylar packaging). Why do car companies resist seat belts or better fuel economy standards? They don’t think they will sell just as many cars? That’s moronic. And people aren’t going to buy any less fast food when the packaging changes back to only fully biodegradable options.

I recall seeing Bio-pac as the packaging at my favorite vegan fast food place 10 years ago (Native Foods). They have a nice website in the UK to show what is possible: http://www.biopac.co.uk/. Resisting a better future when you can make just as much money is really really strange.


#10

I’m gagging

“After all of these years I still see old sofas or stoves or tires thrown into the stream bed. I have seen this even in places where two blocks away there a recycling station.” It is called super ignorance !!! and is also common here in theoosa


#11

I don’t have the data to back it up, but knowing everything corp’s. do is based on profit, my bet is the packaging used now increases profits over paper or bio packaging.


#12

I’m not so sure. I think it could be a competitive advantage effecting profits, e.g. the first company that uses styrofoam and customers like that there food stays a bit warmer may be reapeat customers slightly more likely. But as long as every company is under the same constraint (either food won’t stay as warm as long or a more expensive bio foam is used), then it is hard to see how profits are impacted by a few cents off packaging cost increase (which they will of course pass on to the consumer as we pay for seat belts airbags and better engine technology).


#13

At the time, car companies did not want people to think that cars were unsafe. Every time you click that belt, it reminds you that you are putting your life at risk (in their narrow minded thinking). I remember at Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry before seat belts were mandated, GM had a display/movie about how we do not need safer cars - we need safer roads. It can’t be the car design or manufacturer which is at fault for injuries and deaths. It is too bad those videos are next to impossible to find these days.