Ppl have been mentioning the plastic in the paper cups but I haven’t seen anyone mention that large cups used to all be Styrofoam. Some places all the cups were Styrofoam. And that was god awful for the environment. They were amazing though. Getting a giant sweet tea in a cup that never sweated was phenomenal. Shame they suck so bad.
Paper cups still have a plastic lining, and it’s related to PFAS chemicals iirc
Go back to them being wax coated.
As do metal soda cans to keep them from corroding
paper straws are quite literally a strawman project against environmental pollution. they do not actually solve environmental pollution while pretending they do …
its actually propaganda, a campaign by the oil/gas industry to avoid reducing thier own emissions or pollutions, thats why many countries arnt very keen on reducing it. they funded things like “how to reduce your carbon footprint, use less gas, or electricity” plus all those climate protesters you heard about defacing historic places, are funded by them.
i was watching some animal videos one day, and the presenter was promoting this “carbon footprint” company, and the commenters called it out that these companies are funded by the oil-gas industry, luckily the youtube channel listened and stopped promoting them.
There is actually a bit of sense in there. Paper cups weren’t simply paper - its tetrapak-like material with plastic coating inside. They are notoriously hard to recycle. Plain plastic cups on the other hand are made from single material, most likely PET. Moreover, they are transparent, without colouring additives.
There are two reasons why colour in plastic makes it harder to recycle. First, pigment is a completely different substance, which behaves differently from plastic itself. It makes it harder to “re-melt” into stable material. If you ever 3d printed anything with matte/gloss filament, you’ll know that it is more finicky than plain one. Second, uncoloured plastic can be coloured into anything, while other needs to be either sorted by colour or mixed with strong dye (black, gray, dark brown, etc) to have consistent colour.
PET itself is pretty easy to turn into something new, actually. A workshop near me had a live demo of the whole process - chipping it into small pieces, feeding to the heated tube, and then injection molded into trinkets. Industrial grade processing usually have “turned into pellets” step in between, but it’s basically the same.
Plastic-covered paper, on the other hand, should be somehow separated first, and then handled with two different approaches - one for paper, another one for plastic film. Doable, but much harder. Paper straw can probably decompose by itself, without any special conditions.
UPD: Be wary that recycling is not a panacea. There’s multiple videos about how recycling plastic isn’t actually a thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68zjxTTl5Ik for example.
this would be a legitimate argument if any of the plastic was actually recycled … last time i checked it all goes into the incinerator to make electricity out of it.
the recycling of plastic is difficult, not because melting and re-shaping the plastic itself is difficult (it is not, it’s trivially easy); the problem is that you basically never get correctly-sorted garbage. when you get “plastic waste”, it has at least 20% things in it that are not plastic, including food waste, aluminum, paper, etc. some even throw toxic batteries in it, chemicals (soap), pharmaceuticals … then there’s the risk of infections on the plastic (viruses, bacteria, fungi). there’s absolutely no chance that you’re just gonna take plastic waste and mold it into a new shape that’s food safe. best you can do is to mix it with concrete and use it as a construction material in road construction.
edit: the video you linked is really watchable.
I’ve worked with plastic recycling in West Africa at one factory, and just sorting plastic waste by hand is a decent job for a few dozen marginalized women because it demand real human level work.
The reason why is pigment and color. They could recycle yellow into yellow or tan, red into red, green into green. But blue and black were the deal breakers. Black being probably already recycled plastic that uses black pigment to mix colors.
Everything after the sorting is trivial. Shredding, re-peletizing, molding, all easily done.
Even if you perfectly sort the plastic out, it can only be recycled about 1.5 times before the structure changes so much it’s not suitable for the original use. Plastic recycling is a scam.
yeah btw this is because it’s not purely-sorted input. mixing is up with other plastics is what leads to the molecules to not properly align and that’s what makes it brittle.
Many people don’t understand why plastic straws are considered more harmful than plastic cups. The key issue is that straws are far more likely to escape waste management systems due to their small size, allowing them to pass through filtration screens and enter waterways. As a result, they reach the ocean at a higher rate and pose a greater threat to marine life, including sea turtles. Larger items like plastic cups are generally easier to capture and contain before they become environmental hazards.
Then they reach the ocean where they account for 0.2% (-ish?) of the plastic out there, 50% of the plastic in the ocean is fishing equipment (nets, etc.) for which we did… absolutely nothing.
And no, I’m not advocating in favor of plastic straws. I wish the rules worldwide would have been to make cups and straws mandatory complementary fees. Everyone would bring their own re-usable cups. Then onto disposable cutlery, etc. We managed to ban plastic bags at supermarkets, sure we could get a habit of carrying cups.
Because at the end, the better solution is not to recycle wastes, it’s to stop producing them.
Sorry, people don’t give a shit about nuance and technicalities anymore. It’s all vibes, baby. ChatGPT says I’m right.
I like the meme but I would like it more if it didn’t have a wojak in it
There’s so much plastic lining that paper otherwise everything would get too soggy anyway. Yay for glass and metal. Reusable beats disposable, no matter what it’s made of
Theres a plastic lining in aluminium cans too. So glass is the way.
It’s quite thin for aluminum, and the downside with glass is the high energy cost of melting it. I’d like if we went back to washing and reusing bottles, but I suppose that’s a big shift in processing capabilities.
There’s plastic in bottle caps :)
and tin cans. i think with tin it might be wax though
Epoxy resin. Which is basically plastic. Arguably worse because of BPA
Not 100% win though:
Glass bottles of lemonade, iced tea, soft drinks and beer contained on average around 100 microplastic particles per litre, which is between five and 50 times more than plastic bottles or cans. Source
Forgive any ignorance or arrogance on my part, I’m not a materials scientist at all, but wouldn’t the plastic caps on plastic bottles also have the same deleterious effect?
I didn’t read anything in there about them exploring the source of the plastic particulates in plastic bottles. Whether from the bottle or from the cap too.
The cap is actually much worse than the bottle because the mechanical twisting motion abrades the surfaces, so yes it turns yes out you can badly contaminate a whole bottle of liquid with a simple bottlecap.
Yay for glass and metal
Some poorly made reusable shopping bags rip or otherwise break before they get used enough times to break even with the single use disposable plastic shopping bags they are supposed to replace. Especially the cheap ones bring given out as freebies.
That’s bullshit from the oil companies. They did a “study” that concluded that, but if you read the methodology, they made the assumption that the reusable bag would be unusable after 20 uses.
Meanwhile I’ve been going to the grocery store every week for quite a few years using the same bags without much issue. I’ve had one strap on a bag break after ~10 years of use, so there’s that I guess. Still haven’t thrown it out, keep meaning to repair it which I never get around to doing.
Anyway, if you read between the lines of the study conducted by the oil companies, if you reuse the bag more than 20 times (half a year of going to the grocery store every week) you are reducing plastic waste.
Those damn oil companies really grind my gears
Electric motors don’t use gears… we have gears to grind because the oil companies have made a lot of people think they’re necessary.
The motors don’t but the drivetrains often do. Not for multiple gear ratios usually but to get a good ratio for it particular motor in the car. But IIRC some EVs do have two speed transmissions because high RPMs might not necessarily be the most efficient for an electric motor even if they can be reached.
No, that’s no bullshit, we just recently had a reusable shopping bag’s handles literally rip off after only the third use…
Consider buying less shitty bags then.
It was a donation from a food bank, but thanks for the thought.
Also, how do you know what bags are and aren’t shitty? Do you have a list of such bags, with weight limit capacity, plus age limit before the threads start to come loose or dryrot?
Didn’t think so.
Most of my bags are given to me by boomers that can never remember to take their bags to the store and just buy more. I think I’ve only actually bought one shopping bag about 25 years ago, which is the one that had it’s handle tear off after about near to two decades of service. I don’t put more weight in the bag than a plastic bag would be able to carry. I have a fabric tote bag and a backpack to use for heavier stuff. I just exercise some common sense with my shopping bags, I guess.
Are you claiming that disposable plastic bags would never have the handles tear off (or the bag just split open) if you put too much weight into them? I think the same rules apply to either, it’s a mess either way if you put too much weight into a single bag, so… don’t do that.
If they’re made from fabric they’re pretty repairable though.
Don’t tell that to the anti-repair folks, they’ll end up banning sewing needles and thread…
Glass is glass and glass breaks. Win win for overpopulation, though.
Yeah, I want to be able shove my McDonald’s cups up my ass without ending up like the jar guy
A German talking about overpopulation. I don’t like where this is going…
Why would you assume I am German? Also, the person you were thinking of is from Austria.
Because the instance your account is on ends in
.deYeah, but a lot of the others were from Prussia, and as I’m sure you love hearing, Prussia invented Germany! 😄
We saw your snap feed in Poland…
“snap”? You mean, Snapcraft, the most evil of software?
Unlike plastic which never breaks ever
Sheet thin bendable plastic like that is difficult to break without tools. Especially while you are in progress of drinking from it. I was referring to glass shards going into people if it wasn’t clear. There’s already plastics in people (for various reasons, not just straws), not much to loose there.
Jeff Bezzos:
So I’ve wanted to do this for a minute…
But how many paper straws would you have to use to offset one of these explosions? How long would it take to offset one of these explosions through straw use?
Writing this now I was surprised by the results…
Source for plastic v paper straw data
So apparently plastic straws are actually more carbon neutral than paper straws, but for the purposes of this analysis I’m going to carry it through to find out how long it takes to create equivalent emissions.
Paper straws:
Call it 1430 grams of emissions per straw (which is wild btw)
Plastic straws:
Call it 610 per plastic straw. Still wild for something which weighs less than a gram.
This is also from the thesis
So yeah… not great.
Gonna be using 825 tons of carbon dioxide emitted from Hank Green’s video.
I think Hank is working in US standard units here… which is also weird and annoying but whatever… We’re getting to units of rocket explosion per straw so it’s fine…
And I’m going to be using 500 million straws per day, which is cited in the thesis from a 2017 study and repeated elsewhere in other studies on this.
It’s not great but what even are we doing here…
I don’t know how we get a plastic straw versus compostable straw use rate (what proportion of straws are still plastic versus how many are now paper or some other alternatives)
But we get 820 additional grams of emissions for each straw swapped.
500 tons to grams is:
838238016
Divided by the difference in co2e foot print per straw…
838238016 / 820 is about 1022240, in other words, about a million.
So for about every million straws swapped from plastic to paper, one giant fiery rocket explosion of CO2 emissions occurs.
The US consumes straws at a convenient rate of 500 million a day, so if ALL of those straws were converted to paper, we’re setting off about 500 of those explosions per day.
I was always given to understand that the straw thing was because plastic straws get out and fuck up wildlife, but that message seems to get buried in handwringing over climate change so often that I suspect bad actors are at play spreading all these memes.
Idk. It’s not at all clear to me why or what’s the point of these very performative acts.
There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife. It seemed to me something companies could “do” as a form of visual way of communicating that they were “doing something”, and it’s something that was done in sync, with no real consent of the consumer. It’s not like people were driving this. It was very much from the corporate side.
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.
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.
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.
Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood
It blows my mind how you’re saying that like it makes it ok
Does that include the co2 generated by the incineration of each straw at the end of their life? Assuming you’re in a region that can incinerate trash instead of landfilling it.
This is just… Crazy bruh… 😭
I am not sure if that makes me feel better for the explosion or worse for the straws.
But that is awesome!
Have you noticed the intense UV this summer? I think he legit ripped a hole in the ozone layer with that explosion.
Somebody contact the investigative journalists at the Washington Post!
Oh…wait…
This image looks like right wing corpo propaganda to me. Not only does it divert the attention away from the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases, it is attacking a moderate leftist – who admittedly causes a relatively large amount of greenhouse gases.
But Taylor Swift is not making most of those flights on a personal basis. It’s to provide a service to fans. So in that sense we can regard the emissions as those of Taylor Swift the company. And in that sense they are much lower than many other companies who we often give a free pass.
So, yes hold the big emitters responsible, but let’s start with the 57 on the list and work our way down to Taylor Swift.
As i do every time somebody posts this article:
The headline is misleading. It’s not 57 “companies”. The original source speaks of “Entities”.
Number one on that List of 57? The former Soviet Union. Good luck holding them responsible. Next to several state controlled Actors like Gazprom (6th) or Saudi Armaco (3rd), some privat companies like ExxonMobile (5th), there are entities like Chinas Coal production from 1945 - 2004 (2nd) North Korea (57th) or Cinas Cement production (13th).
The list shows that oil companies cause a lot of emissions (but apparently not as much as the former soviet union). To absolutly nobodies suprise.
Next to holding them accountable for their emissions (and their lobbying, pro oil propaganda, etc) we need to find ways to reduce emissions in our lives. Those companies will only stop if their products is less and less needed.
Obviously you can’t do anything about the former Soviet Union –although Ukraine is doing a pretty good job– and China is doing a decent job moving away from coal and towards renewables, rail and EVs.
It doesn’t matter whether the results are surprising or not, we need to move away from the narrative created by oil companies that the end user is at fault. And you’re not helping either in that sense. Oil companies have been doing whatever they can do hide the truth about emissions, lie to the public through propaganda and sow doubt about climate research.
Of course end users need to change something too, but that’s far less easy than it sounds. Especially the USA people seem to have absolutely no idea what they’re doing driving around everywhere in big trucks, even for short distances.
Bingo.
It invites hatred from a sizeable (though perhaps potentially less politically-aware) fan base that might otherwise be receptive.
Using someone as popular as Swift as a target for less-pop-culture-interested folks who are politically informed is clearly kicking the hornets’ nest to stir up in-fighting among the working class.
Next time use Bezos or one of the other folks who showed up in that “Dialog” secret society since they also use private jets in the same way someone like Swift does, but in addition are far worse in every other way and who also lobby with their billions towards worsening the world in every way imaginable.
Yeah, if you convinced Taylor Swift to stop using a private plane, it’s analogous to fast food companies switching to paper straws while keeping everything else plastic. It helps, but it’s just demanding a token solution instead of taking on the bigger problem.
There are no ethical billionaires
I didn’t say that. But we have to be pragmatic and focus our energy on the worst offenders, because that’s where the most gain comes from.
Why waste energy distinguish are you a level 4 or a level 5 offender. Our energy would be much better spend dealing with the root of the problem. That is a society allowing that level of accumulation of wealth. No matter if you are performing for your fans or flying to Epstein island.
And the root lies with keeping the oil inside the earth’s crust. Not with Taylor Swift performing through MS Teams.
Taylor swift is a leftist just like my racist boss has a black friend and is thus not racist.
I said moderate leftist, but you may have your own opinion about her
I’m blown away every time anew how some people on lemmy, like you here, effortlessly cut through manipulation. Reflecting on the state of the internet it’s sadly delightful and refreshing.
If you make a snappy meme about it, I’ll start using it.
Didn’t make one, but I found this one:
It’s crazy how long that misrepresented study stays alive. The point wasn’t to find fault, it was to figure out how much comes from people in general. After all, nature does create it’s own green house gases.
By the logic of the study, the oil company that sold Swift her kerosene is 100% responsible for it. By that studies logic me, you and Swift are EQUALLY not responsible for ANY oil we use, ever. That’s obviously stupid.
Just a different way of interpretation. Of course the user and producer share some of the blame, but now it’s the other way around, now Taylor Swift gets the full blame.
And the point is that the oil companies have actively lied to their customers about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, even though they knew about it since the ‘50s.
So if I sell you a box, and I tell you it’s completely safe, but the box explodes and kills a bunch of people, who, in your mind, is responsible?
the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases
That’s just nonsense.
- The top two providers in that list are the governments of USSR and China. They are not “megacorporations”
- It not a list of “emitters”. These entities are just “linked to” the emissions – i.e. they provided the fuel that someone else burned.
It’s completely ridiculous to say that it doesn’t matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.
Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There’s over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.
Definitely not nonsense. Perhaps you can try to read what is said if you make such a strong statement.
- It’s state-owned companies, not the entirety of the government. Why would they need to be treated differently?
- First: not all of them. For example, the vast majority of Chinese coal is also burned in China. And why not put the emissions created by the production of these oil giants on them? It’s their product causing the emissions after all. On top of that, they have been actively trying to obfuscate and manipulate the data on greenhouse gas emissions for the better part of a century now.
I never said you don’t need to look at your own emissions, but the difference can only really be made by taking on these major corps. Ignoring or trying to downplay that is what’s ridiculous.
And I agree with carbon taxes, but let’s make sure they hit corporations much much harder than individuals just trying to get by.
It’s nonsense because there’s no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).
- State “companies” should be treated differently because they have different structures, motivations, scope, and controls
- It is not useful to focus on oil conglomerates because they are basically interchangeable. What is the behavior change you want from them? To all stop existing? To raise prices to discourage use? To collude into providing some correct amount of their product?
How do you imagine one would “take on” a corporation? “Hey Exxon, you’re bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!”. If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.
It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.
So, holding companies responsible for the product they make and try to downplay the effects of isn’t right because there are more steps after them to create the emissions? While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products? Yeah that’s absolutely nonsense.
- Why? State companies are just as accountable. They’ve known about this since the 1960s. The goal is to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Time is of the essence, so we need to put our efforts where it matters the most.
- To all stop existing? No, as of yet they are still necessary for some chemical processes and back-up power generators for vital infrastructure like hospitals. But we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land. So they will need to drastically change their operations away from oil and gas. They can go into green hydrogen production or focus on EV charging stations. And yes, it helps to hit them where it makes a difference. Put emission taxes on every molecule of carbon they pump out of the earth. Because the only way it doesn’t end up in the air is to leave it there.
Your reductio ad absurdum is ridiculous. Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them? The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes. Countries can accelerate the transition to green energy through their state-owned energy companies. We can sanction countries who don’t do their part.
While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products
This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
State companies are just as accountable
My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land
This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them
What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.
100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
taylor swift’s private plane is a 1947 boeing b-47 stratojet?
girl’s got style.
I thought that was a lobster disintergrating at first
Everything looks like a lobster disintegrating when your only tool is a lobster reintegrator.
Sidenote: all 4 include plastic.
Neither of those containers can be recycled.
Still waiting on straws made of dry pasta. Biodegradable, strong, edible if you really want
Is this real?
$140 USD for a box of pasta. You should buy a box and let us know. To be fair that gets you a few thousand straws but no matter how hungry I am I can’t eat that many pieces of noodle.
140 for how many pounds? you can get a 50 pack for like 6 bucks.
i kind of want to try them in both drinks and pasta. like, that would pick up so much vodka sauce i want it. but i have yet to try the rice pasta i don’t gag on. i’ll stick with my cannellonis, ravioles, linguines, bucatinis, and cavatappis. those five hit all the notes i need.
$140 = 2250 straws.
5c a straw feels expensive. I buy PLA straws at around 4c a straw. I don’t think pasta straws are all that better unless you compost. All straws are bad if you’re just chucking them in a bin at least from what i’ve heard.
5c a straw is expensive unless they’re bendy.
There’s also a $5.50 for 50 though if you just want to try.
Wouldn’t those significantly alter the taste of whatever they’re sitting in?
Not if we line it with plastic
Also, fuck people with gluten allergy I guess 🤷
pretty much fuck em
Could we do Twizzlers instead?
bucatini is a pasta coffee swizzler basically if you want to try that. makes damn good pasta too
The real trick all along was always reducing your consumption of disposable products.
As I said to a college professor when he was pointing out how the “Reduce” in “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” is often ignored or at best whispered, reducing our consumption isn’t profitable.
It’s not just profitable, it also requires most people in the west (probably 99% of people here) to realize there understanding of what a “basic level of quality of life” is is completely scewed by our immense privilege. Globally speaking, we are all part of the top 10% destroying the planet the most. From memory, a single american going vegan can make up for a families worth of emissions in a poorer country.
There’s no amount of rich people we can eat or corporations we can destroy that will allow us to just live like we are at the moment. Nowhere close.
The real trick all along was always reducing your consumption.
Ftfy
The real trick all along was always reducing you
Less people = less consumption.
So what you’re saying is we should replace the USA with a giant beyblade arena?
I mean you still gotta eat
I mean waxed paper cups aren’t super, they are likely better than plastic, but the wax is likely a fossils fuel byproduct
I believe they increasingly use PLA which is a bioplastic. But yeah it used to be, and in many cases likely still is, polyethylene which is an oil product.
PLA is not compostable or anything of the sort. So honestly it’s more of a “this plastic could be recycled, given that it’s sorted out from the other plastic, and given financial viability”.
Edit: as pointed out below, it’s more correct to say that it’s not home-compostable
PLA very much is compostable, but only in composting facilities designed to handle bioplastics, which most aren’t (and also additives like pigments likely aren’t compostable).
Fair, I mean that it’s not compostable in home compost environments.
Yeah, unfortunately without some true dedication home composters do not have enough fuel (or material balance) to hit the temps required to compost PLA. It works great if you’ve got a hot composter, if you’re interested in the DIY side of things, but generally you need several households worth of input (or as in my area, a community garden with shared composting) to be able to reliably decompose PLA.
Not nearly as compostable as PHA though!
PLA isn’t food safe though, and it’s only bio degradable in very specific circumstances, and that ““biodegradable”” status also means it puts off tons of micro plastics
I think you’re thinking of 3D printed PLA which indeed typically isn’t food safe. Industrially produced PLA can be food safe and it’s used in a lot of food packaging, disposable cutlery etc.
Gotcha TIL
PLA itself absolutely is food safe, and a significant plurality of plastic disposable forks and spoons are made from it these days. (To be clear [edit], this is the material itself typically in an injection moulded final product. FDM 3D printed objects made out of it are not food safe, at least not more than once, because of the layer lines in which bacteria and other cooties can hide.)
bacteria and other cooties
👍
Yup, just looked it up from your comment because it made me realize that I had no idea what wax was actually made of.
Paraffin wax is a colorless solid derived from petroleum, coal, or oil shale, consisting of hydrocarbon molecules
It is also a mixed material which makes it difficult to recycle
Not if they use beeswax or some other natural resin
Hence the likely a fossil fuel byproduct. But let’s be real the cost associated with using beeswax would be unbelievable
unless you’re just a home manufacturer with a lot of bees looking for a way to use your extra bee products. but like how many of those are there
The cup wasn’t just made of paper. It was paper with a Wax Coating.
It hasn’t been wax in decades, its polyurethane.
I know. Thank you.
Just implement a carbon tax already FFS.
