• skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife.

    Source: your ass?

    Eighty of 135 (59%) species with studies reported in the literature between 1962 and 2012 had ingested plastic, and, within those studies, on average 29% of individuals had plastic in their gut.

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1502108112

    • RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 minutes ago

      That doesn’t really get to the impact of the plastic. Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood. It’s there, but mostly it just seems to be inert. There are thousands of problems we are creating that we know are causing widespread extinctions. I’m not opposed to reducing plastic use, but forcing a major inconvenience for dubious results burns a lot of goodwill. That’s why this is a popular wedge issue for the right, even though it mostly affects liberal coastal cities.

      • skisnow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 minutes ago

        Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood

        It blows my mind how you’re saying that like it makes it ok

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Source: the about an hour of research I did on straws to write the response. I mean I read a fucking thesis on it and probably 4-5 articles. I mean the links in there you lazy fukkah

      So maybe shove it up your ass.

      Oh you editing now? Go find evidence that the transition from plastic straws to paper has had any measurable impacts on wildlife.