The Final Straw

Gavin Smith 30/12/2025

124 7 minutes read

Listen to this article

Whilst eating-out with my children, I passed my younger son a plastic disposable straw that I had brought from my home for his drink, rather than use the restaurant provided paper straws that so often go soggy and become unusable mid-use. As he commenced slurping at his drink, a fellow customer from an adjacent table took it upon themselves to come across to our table and proclaim “You can’t use plastic straws.” Whilst my first inclination was to retort “If I wanted to be told what I can or cannot do, and be forced to do such, then I’d choose to live in a Socialist country, or in the UK under Labour.”; however, as I am not a naturally confrontational person, I politely informed them that I had recently found an old bag of such straws in my home and thought it best to make use of straws I already had, rather than dispose of unused straws. The person standing uninvited and unwanted at my table berating me over the use of a single-use plastic straw disagreed and reiterated that I am not permitted to use single-use disposable plastic straws. I would question where this person sources their “facts” from.

My understanding is that the EU banned the sale of single-use plastic straws as of July 3, 2021, as part of its Single-Use Plastics Directive:

(Reference: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/plastics/single-use-plastics_en).

As far as I can tell, this directive does not, and did not criminalise me or any other EU resident from using a disposable plastic straw any time or any place that they would choose to use one. The EU regulations and local regulations and laws are in relation to the supply of single-use plastic items, not the possession or use by any individual unless they re-sell, distribute or make them available for public use.

Whilst I support reducing or eliminating single-use plastics, my logic is that as I already have/had a bag of disposable plastic straws, and seem to have had them for quite some time, then I might as well use them and dispose of them “used” in my plastics recycling rather than as “unused” into the same recycling. Otherwise, what else am I to do with them? Is throwing away an old bag of 200 unopened and unused disposable plastic straws a better option than to make use of them? It would seem to me that that’s exactly the preferred option for this “eco warrior” disturbing my meal and berating me in front of my children for using a pre-existing single-use plastic straw. I would wonder if this person would have been so affrontive towards someone vaping or chewing gum; given those things for the most aren’t readily biodegradable nor recyclable, and often end up in Landfill (when not being discarded onto the ground as litter or elsewhere).

Reference: Chewing gum releases microplastics into mouth – study

Specifically in relation to my use of a pre-existing plastic straw, I don’t dispute that we shouldn’t use “single use” disposable plastics for any number of reasons given a suitable alternative (and I am not convinced that paper straws are that!). One “reason” that often gets banded about is the apparent harmful effects to the environment of the microplastics that straws break down into when entering the sea or as landfill.

I also wouldn’t dispute that microplastics are found in all sorts of places that they shouldn’t – from human carotid arteries to beach sand; but is there proof that they are harmful? I have found many articles and studies “suggesting” microplastics exposure “could” be linked to cancer, heart attacks, reproductive problems, and a host of other harms; and yet I couldn’t find any peer reviewed scientific or medical study that indisputably showed beyond reasonable doubt that microplastics ARE proven to be harmful.

I wouldn’t dispute that there are concerns over plastics and microplastics that both accumulate within our bodies, and throughout the wider environment. I also wouldn’t disagree with the Natonal Geographic 2023 article “Microplastics are in our bodies. How much do they harm us?” (Reference: Microplastics are invading our bodies. How severe is the damage? | National Geographic); just that the article makes no firm conclusions to the question in the title. Reading the first line of this article states as much: “As plastic waste proliferates around the world, an essential question remains unanswered: What harm, if any, does it cause to human health?”. What harm, IF AN!? Until we have some clarity and certainty, perhaps people might want to hold off on berating people in public spaces, or on social media in relation to this topic?

As with many “environmental arguments” it is often the lesser evils that grind people’s gears the most. Misinformation and Disinformation from social media often seems to trump solid scientific data in some people’s (apparent) beliefs. Use of chewing gum also generates microplastics that end up both in the users bodies and as water pollution or land fill (when not disgustingly spat onto the sidewalk!). Yet, there currently isn’t an EU ban, nor restrictions on the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of chewing gum when perhaps there should be? Despite biodegradable, micro-plastic free alternatives to mainstream commercial brands of chewing gums being available, they aren’t mainstream when perhaps they should be? This is mostly down to how they taste and perform, and that this “environmentally friendly” alternative is too inconvenient for eco-warriors whom would otherwise champion the cause. There is of course the alternative to simply not chew gum?

Reference: I Tried 10 Non-Toxic Gum Brands With Plastic-Free Ingredients

Seemingly, some people will more willingly be righteous saviours of the planet when it suits, and where they aren’t personally inconvenienced. That would seem flippant if not to consider the People’s Summit “Global Call to Action” ahead of COP30 wasn’t to take proactive action that would actually make a difference; it was to protest and be disruptive. For those not already aware, the cost of protests in Ireland and the UK costs the taxpayers in those countries tens of millions of pounds/euros, and takes many serving police officers away from the fight against (other) crime. It also costs businesses a great deal of revenue; revenue that the government draw tax from.

For reference, let’s just consider costs to the UK taxpayer attributed to just “Just Stop Oil” that runs into the tens of millions of pounds of public money:

The quote to consider in the BBC article of 7 December, 2023 in relation to “Just Stop Oil” is:

“The force said the time it had spent on the group equated to roughly 300 officers being taken off frontline policing each day.”

It is a fair question to ask what “Just Stop Oil” has achieved beyond being a public nuance, and vandalism; and whether the public on balance thinks that this a sensible use of public monies and police time and resources? It could be challenged that it was a current sitting socialist MP with no background in business, industry or any leanings towards science that brought the UK oil industry to it’s knees, rather than anything “Just Stop Oil” could claim responsibility for. Sure, just stop oil in the UK, but not Russia, or the Middle East, or the Caspian basin… or those places that produce oil at a much higher environmental cost to the UKCS. Where and what is the sense in this? Anyone can look as to where global methane emissions are highest, and see that there are few people protesting there. It seems clear that we need “action”; however, it needs to be the right action to the right issue, at the right time, and in the right place. For example, if people just want to “just stop oil”, then perhaps protesting for China and India to stop importing Russian oil would be a better and more direct action?

Methane emissions, 2023 (Measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalents)

Country	Annual methane emissions (including land use) tonnes	Environmental Protests	Current Government
Ireland	17 million	Yes	Centre Left Democracy
UK	48 million	Yes	Shambles
Russia	533 million	No	Communist, non-Democratic
Brazil	611 million	Yes	Federal Leftist Democracy
USA	683 million	Yes	Conservative Democracy
India	940 million	No Significant Protests beyond local issues with pollution and air quality.	Leftist Nationalist Republic
China	1.9 BILLION	No	Communist, non-Democratic

Being “outraged” at someone’s use of a plastic straw, but not that any language at COP30 alluding to the phasing out of fossil fuels was omitted, to me seems an over rection to a minor thing and an under-reaction to something quite significant and concerning. Similarly, “Just Stopping Oil” in the UK makes no significant difference to global oil production; rather damages the UK economy, and hinders the transition away from fossil fuels by driving up energy costs and killing off those remaining jobs in the UKCS that the Energy Profits Levy (EPL), or Energy Sector Windfall Tax hasn’t already. Oddly, environmentalists don’t seem “outraged” as to the continuation of the EPL, when perhaps they should be? If there is no energy industry left to drive this transition to renewables, then who will? To me, that could be the final straw that people really should be most concerned about?! Dave Whitehouse (OEUK’s Chief Executive) thinks so, and I’d agree. Final straw, or short straw?

David Whitehouse: “Today, the government turned down £50 billion of investment for the UK and the chance to protect the jobs and industries that keep this country running. Instead, they’ve chosen a path that will see 1,000 jobs continue to be lost every month, more energy imports and a contagion across supply chains and our industrial heartlands.”

Reference: £50 billion going down the drain as UK keeps oil & gas windfall tax in place – Offshore Energy