• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

France bans use of plastic forks and spoons to battle 'climate change'...

Here is a law that will have no significant effect on climate warming or other forms of pollution (garbage nowadays is very rarely buried). Yet it will significantly increase the costs for some industries and lead to more accidents involving children, for whom plastic forks are great.

One year before the election, the greens had to say "see, we made a difference" and they came up with some ridiculous and useless symbol. That's it.

Instead they could have decided on a strategy to handle existing nuclear wastes rather than their evading this topic since decades. Or they could have banned wood heating in cities (1% of the population), since it generates as much respiratory problems as cars altogether, rather than supporting it. Or they could have helped rebuild garbage burners which are environmentally great rather than fighting them for sanitary problems that occurred decades ago. Or they could have voted stricter norms on cars rather than being lax to please their German allies (greens are hardcore euronationalists). Or they could have decided to build nuclear plants to produce hydrogen in order to completely get rid of fossil fuels in transportation (admittedly at the cost of an increased nuclear risk). Or they could have told us exactly how they envision a full-renewable future and where they will take the territory for it (THE big problem).

Nope, plastic forks.



EDIT: I didn't see they were still allowed provided they came from biologically sourced materials. That's better but why care about the source? What should matter is how they degrade. Besides fossil fuels are technically "biologically sourced".
 
Last edited:
MickeyW said:
France bans the use of plastic crockery and cutlery to aid battle against climate change

Plastic crockery and cutlery is to be banned in France unless it is made from biologically sourced materials.

The law comes into force in 2020. It is part of a French environmental initiative called the Energy Transition for Green Growth, part of a package aimed at tackling climate change.
France bans the use of plastic crockery and cutlery to aid battle against climate change


Absolute...Lunacy! :roll:
Click to expand...

Timely idea. They were responsible for the scourge of bottled water so it's nice to see them reverse course.
 
Henrin said:
It was nice outside today. The horror.

Won't it just be awful to not freeze your ass off in January? That will just suck so hard.
Click to expand...

If global warming was as simplistic as cold winters and hot summers you could have a point. Anyhow, if you want warm January, then move to Australia.
 
Henrin said:
What's crazy about convincing people to not use the products instead of banning it?
Click to expand...

It's crazy to authoritarians because all they have is a hammer so everything looks like a nail.
 
Henrin said:
It was nice outside today. The horror.

Won't it just be awful to not freeze your ass off in January? That will just suck so hard.
Click to expand...
The rise of sea level, aridity and tropical diseases are enough to convince me that freezing in January is not so bad.
 
joG said:
You are quite right there. The question is how to do it. Forks are not going to do it and that is so obvious that this must be considered a symbolic or learning measure; a precedent.

That is fine, if everything is priced in. But it isn't and that is the problem.
Removing plastic will remove whole industries to be replaced by ones that operate at higher direct costs. That will translate into lower supply with goods, lower income etc.
Now, that is not the interesting question. We will have to accept the reduced welfare, if we travers to a more expensive technology from bottom to top. This cannot be done by forbidding forks and stretch jeans unless we want to act like idiots. But this is old hat and was in The Economist two decades ago.

Forbidding consumption products is counter to everything we know about economics. It is wastefully inefficient and probably not politically sustainable outside of a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Economy doesn't take into account environmental externalities. This law nudges the industry in a direction to take into account that externality. It might not be the most economically efficient solution, but economic efficiency isn't the only efficiency we should care about.
 
MickeyW said:
France bans the use of plastic crockery and cutlery to aid battle against climate change

Plastic crockery and cutlery is to be banned in France unless it is made from biologically sourced materials.

The law comes into force in 2020. It is part of a French environmental initiative called the Energy Transition for Green Growth, part of a package aimed at tackling climate change.
France bans the use of plastic crockery and cutlery to aid battle against climate change


Absolute...Lunacy! :roll:
Click to expand...

Use chopsticks.
 
JayDubya said:
It's crazy to authoritarians because all they have is a hammer so everything looks like a nail.
Click to expand...

No, they're just dicks. They can't accept the idea that people might not agree with them. They figure that because they see themselves as so brilliant it is best if everyone is forced to do whatever crosses their mind.
 
They are going to replace them with machetes and axes. Bon Appetite.
 
Nilly said:
Economy doesn't take into account environmental externalities. This law nudges the industry in a direction to take into account that externality. It might not be the most economically efficient solution, but economic efficiency isn't the only efficiency we should care about.
Click to expand...

That is quite right. Political efficiency is required too. But forbidding something as central to our society as co2 and methane exhaust quickly is extremely more disruptive and will be much, much more expensive than using consecutive tax increases or a cap and trade system to wind down climate gases. It give industry and consumers to find the new optimum by marginal adjustment instead of hitting a wall.
 
joG said:
That is quite right. Political efficiency is required too. But forbidding something as central to our society as co2 and methane exhaust quickly is extremely more disruptive and will be much, much more expensive than using consecutive tax increases or a cap and trade system to wind down climate gases. It give industry and consumers to find the new optimum by marginal adjustment instead of hitting a wall.
Click to expand...

Who's forbidding CO2? No-one in this thread, nor in the climate debate in general. Even the most ardent supporters of measures to tackle climate change (of which I am probably one) do not think we should be banning CO2, just reducing our output.

Not just political efficiency but environmental efficiency too. It's about balancing cons vs pros. Forbidding CO2 would be an incredibly environmental pro but an economic disaster. A balance has to be found. Likewise in this case, nobodies expecting banning plastic flatware to solve the climate change crisis, but it's going to at least help, and it's hardly going to crash the global economy.
 
Nilly said:
Who's forbidding CO2? No-one in this thread, nor in the climate debate in general. Even the most ardent supporters of measures to tackle climate change (of which I am probably one) do not think we should be banning CO2, just reducing our output.

Not just political efficiency but environmental efficiency too. It's about balancing cons vs pros. Forbidding CO2 would be an incredibly environmental pro but an economic disaster. A balance has to be found. Likewise in this case, nobodies expecting banning plastic flatware to solve the climate change crisis, but it's going to at least help, and it's hardly going to crash the global economy.
Click to expand...

Admittedly the the forks are only a small part of the co2 problem. But one of the reasons given to forbid them was co2, if I recall. This is a precedent for the wrong type of instruments.
 
joG said:
Admittedly the the forks are only a small part of the co2 problem. But one of the reasons given to forbid them was co2, if I recall. This is a precedent for the wrong type of instruments.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it is precedent.

If you believe that we should never make any economic sacrifices in the name of environmental good, then yes, it's a precedent. But I don't believe that anyone rational thinks that. If you think that a small economical sacrifice can be justified by a large environmental gain, then you agree in principle that trade-offs between the two can be rational and can be a good thing. And if you can agree that trading economic gain vs environmental gain is agreeable in principle, then really all we're doing is haggling over perceived value of the two against each other. This case has not set the precedent that we should value environment over economy in general. It has just set the precedent in this specific case that we should value the environmental cost of plastic flatware as higher than the economic cost of replacing it.

That same value equation should be taken into account with any similar type of law. We should only implement a carbon tax if the environmental gain from it outweighs the economic sacrifice. This is always going to be difficult because the economy is easy to quantify, the environment isn't, but I absolutely welcome attempts to value it, which is what this law does.
 
Nilly said:
I disagree that it is precedent.

If you believe that we should never make any economic sacrifices in the name of environmental good, then yes, it's a precedent. But I don't believe that anyone rational thinks that. If you think that a small economical sacrifice can be justified by a large environmental gain, then you agree in principle that trade-offs between the two can be rational and can be a good thing. And if you can agree that trading economic gain vs environmental gain is agreeable in principle, then really all we're doing is haggling over perceived value of the two against each other. This case has not set the precedent that we should value environment over economy in general. It has just set the precedent in this specific case that we should value the environmental cost of plastic flatware as higher than the economic cost of replacing it.

That same value equation should be taken into account with any similar type of law. We should only implement a carbon tax if the environmental gain from it outweighs the economic sacrifice. This is always going to be difficult because the economy is easy to quantify, the environment isn't, but I absolutely welcome attempts to value it, which is what this law does.
Click to expand...

How did you get the idea that cap and trade or taxes would not cause "economic" sacrifices. As a matter of fact, the promised 2 degree maximum rise in temperature will mean rather substation restrictions of consumption for most people and substantial changes in our lifestyle at today's technology.
The thing is that those restrictions will be far less difficult, if we do it the wrong way. And having the government decide which goods should be forbidden when is the wrong way. If there is anything we have learned about economics is that using the price/ market mechanism is the by far and away best method and not the command economy.

PS: As to the plastic flatware, it is no skin off my knuckles. I have always disliked the stuff and don't use it.
 
Henrin said:
That's a downgrade.
Click to expand...

All the energy to to drive the dishwasher and purify the water for the real fork and spoon cleaning will be environmentally damaging. Chopsticks are the only solution.
 
joG said:
How did you get the idea that cap and trade or taxes would not cause "economic" sacrifices. As a matter of fact, the promised 2 degree maximum rise in temperature will mean rather substation restrictions of consumption for most people and substantial changes in our lifestyle at today's technology.
The thing is that those restrictions will be far less difficult, if we do it the wrong way. And having the government decide which goods should be forbidden when is the wrong way. If there is anything we have learned about economics is that using the price/ market mechanism is the by far and away best method and not the command economy.

PS: As to the plastic flatware, it is no skin off my knuckles. I have always disliked the stuff and don't use it.
Click to expand...

I do think cap and trade and taxes cause an economic sacrifice. I just think that the environmental gain far far outweighs them.

The free market has proven to be hopelessly terrible at accounting for those environmental externalities. It's blind obedience to the price/market mechanism that we're in this problem in the first place. Yes, it works in many case, but in many others it does not.
 
How socialist authoritarian of them..

Spoon nazis..
 
Nilly said:
I do think cap and trade and taxes cause an economic sacrifice. I just think that the environmental gain far far outweighs them.

The free market has proven to be hopelessly terrible at accounting for those environmental externalities. It's blind obedience to the price/market mechanism that we're in this problem in the first place. Yes, it works in many case, but in many others it does not.
Click to expand...

I don't think I want to argue the optimum method of handling externalities. The literature is quite clear on the topic. And yes, there are situations under which the markets do not work. This is not one of them.
 
german hick said:
http://i0.wp.com/www.eaglewaterqual...08/eagle-industries-vortex.jpg?resize=602,333
Click to expand...
This agglomerate results from the plastics released by countries in the Pacific Ocean.

The Atlantic Ocean has its own vertex, the Sargasso Sea near Caribbeans, and there is far less pollution thanks to the fact that most of western garbage is burned/methanized/recycled.


joG said:
If there is anything we have learned about economics is that using the price/ market mechanism is the by far and away best method and not the command economy.
Click to expand...
Regrettably the best approaches, such as billing CO2 emissions, are rendered impossible by globalization and the various free market rules (WTO, EU, treaties, ...) since they would simply result in more outsourcing and worse environmental outcomes.

Therefore governments have to use more targeted, inefficient and radical approaches. Environment and free market are natural antagonists.
 
Again, if plastics are so bad then convince the people you're right. The problem is the anti-plastic people haven't been able to do that for decades now and it would appear they're tired of waiting around for people to agree with them. This isn't about global warming like they claim, but about an on going agenda against plastic.
 
Henrin said:
Again, if plastics are so bad then convince the people you're right.
Click to expand...
I think this rule is badly formulated anyway, so I was not defending it. However I was defending the fact that governments cannot smarty internalize externalities.


So you ask why not convince people? Because individual-centric policies are inefficient at promoting collective political changes even when all individuals agree on this change: because people are lazy and feel powerless, because the market only offer us few choices and do not make the information transparent, because for now the price differential is too high and will remain too high until we reach a critical mass. Consumers cannot and do not usually make objective decisions: marketing prospers on the plains of doubt, ego, automatism, and loose mental associations. And the required advertisement budget in this case would be daunting.

Yet, as for the individual-centric perspective, why reduce the individual as a consumer and ignore it is also an elector? The fact is that most of electors DO approve those environmental rules, even when they have contradictory consumption patterns! Just like we all like to drive at 250km/h, yet most of us agree it is better to outlaw it.
 
Last edited:
MickeyW said:
France bans the use of plastic crockery and cutlery to aid battle against climate change

Plastic crockery and cutlery is to be banned in France unless it is made from biologically sourced materials.

The law comes into force in 2020. It is part of a French environmental initiative called the Energy Transition for Green Growth, part of a package aimed at tackling climate change.
France bans the use of plastic crockery and cutlery to aid battle against climate change


Absolute...Lunacy! :roll:
Click to expand...

So France should also stop atomic bomb testings
 
Medusa said:
So France should also stop atomic bomb testings
Click to expand...
We stopped them twenty years ago. At that time we wanted to collect enough data to verify the robustness of our numerical simulations, so that we would no longer need field tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom