'Glitter ban' comes into force across EU but critics say it's not enough
'Glitter ban' comes into force across EU but critics say it's not enough
People may be receiving fewer glittery Christmas cards this year because microplastics have been banned across the European Union.
People be receiving fewer glittery Christmas cards this year as harmful microplastics have been banned across the European Union.
The European Commission has outlawed the sale of plastics smaller than five millimetres and that are intentionally added to products but do not dissolve or break down naturally.
One of the best pieces of news I've heard in my life. I hate glitter. It gets everywhere.
It's also coarse, irritating, and rough
And it gets everywhere.
It's the herpes of the craft world.
The herpes of art supplies.
"art" supplies
The non-plastic glitter that it will be replaced by is finer and lighter.
And sequins. I had a one night stand once with a woman who had a sequin dress on, I was finding random sequins multiple house moves later.
"The most important thing is to cut pollution at the source," said Virginijus Sinkevicius, EU commissioner for the environment, oceans and fisheries
Exactly. There's a fuck ton of plastic fishing crap dumped in the sea every year, more focus on that instead of low effort, low impact pr puff pieces
Now do plastic water and soft drink bottles
God, I fucking wish I lived in Europe.
I loathe glitter.
Had a craft project involving some glitter, bought 3x 10 mL of glitters, and feel like I have enough for my whole life, it's great to fight single user plastic, but I feel like that cheap shoes a lot of polyester/plastic cause more microplastic than glitters
But glitters are also one of the most pointless and useless forms of small plastics.
At least cheap shoes benefit people who need shoes and can't afford to buy expensive ones. Nobody needs glitter for literally anything.
I fully agree with you but allow me to insert a personal experience here.
For years, I bought cheap sneakers. There was no store offering name brands and I wasn't motivated to do a 100km round trip to go buy footwear. So I would go through a pair of shoes every two months, if I was lucky.
At €20 a pair, assuming I would wear out 6 pairs in a year, that is €120.
When a name brand shoe store finally arrived here, a pair of sneakers of decent quality start at €55, €40 if on sale.
I bought a pair of shoes there one year back; only slight wear signs are starting to show. I've been saving €10 a month to eventually replace the sneakers. At this point, I have enough money saved to buy two pairs.
It hurts but getting a better quality pair of shoes can save both money and some garbage.
Yes, but its not an either/or situation. There are alternatives to glitter that are biodegradable. Glitter generally serves no purpose that other more environmentally sound products can't fill. It's for kids art and short term decoration.
Cheap shoes allow some people to buy shoes. We should look at cutting down on cheap plastic fast fashion but that's a harder cookie to crack without side effects that could be quite devastating to some people.
One cheap plastic step at a time.
It's a start. Certainly not the most ambitious start but it bans utterly useless products that nobody will miss.
Shoes are actually useful and they tend to emit microplastics from the sole. You'd need a scalable way to fix their soles without limiting poor people's access to footwear. As far as I know there's, as yet, no real, sustainable, scalable alternative to rubber soles. The only thing the EU can do here, is to discourage fast fashion and invest in manufacturers working on alternatives until they have, say, 20% market share.
Leather soles.
I know, I know, but it is far a more sturdy material than rubber and bio degradable, with a very long wear life.
The same techniques used to make a good comfortable shoe out of plastics can be applied to leather and natural materials.
I know people that have shoes and boots with more than twenty years of use (live in rural area, with shepperds and farmers). Require a good deal of care and some maintenance but can last a life time.
These bans are 100% about shifting responsibility to us as individuals instead of putting it on those actually responsible, rather than about actually solving any environmental problem.
Why are you saying that? These bans are a push for manufacturers to produce more environmentally-friendly products. They are only affecting consumers insofar as consumers can't buy some of these products, such as glitter cards for a while.
Compare that to e.g. separating household waste which is indeed a shift of responsibility to consumers. Manufacturers merrily continue melting together three types of plastic and gluing some cardboard on top, while consumers are supposed to be responsible for separating and recycling.
Meanwhile, in the UK, Rishi Sunak is preparing to give peerages and sham contracts to his glitter empire owning mates, who definitely didn't donate any money to the Tories.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
People be receiving fewer glittery Christmas cards this year as harmful microplastics have been banned across the European Union.
The European Commission has outlawed the sale of plastics smaller than five millimetres and that are intentionally added to products but do not dissolve or break down naturally.
"The most important thing is to cut pollution at the source," said Virginijus Sinkevicius, EU commissioner for the environment, oceans and fisheries, in an interview with the Guardian newspaper.
He said the aim of the ban is to "prevent the spill of plastic pellets in our environment, for the sake of our ecosystems and health, and in support of economic sectors that depend on healthy soils and clean, plastic-free rivers and oceans."
Standard glitter is made from etched aluminium bonded to polyethylene terephthalate - a form of microplastic that can find its way into the oceans.
These are tiny pellets of plastic that are transported around the world and melted down into everyday products like water bottles, clothes or even artificial plants.
The original article contains 462 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Mark Rober’s sad face
Mate, he says in every video that it is the finest biodegradable seaweed-based glitter. He's ahead of the curve here.
You’re right, I missed that, or forgot about it. Good to know he can still make EU porch pirates look festive.