Quote:
Originally Posted by smallpox
...
Smallpox's post on chopsticks...
...
|
I am sorry I haven't been giving much attention to your response on this thread lately, I have been too (emontionally) occupied with other things these days. Here is my perspective on this chopsticks issue:
I don't consider myself as a frequent dine-out person. Once a month, we go shopping at a nearby mall and have lunch at its food court (Sarku Japan and Master Wok are our favorites). A few times a year, we go on a long distance trip, get some fast food (Panda Express) at connecting airports (times two for round-trips). We occasionally go to outdoor celebrations of public holidays (July 4th, Mid-autumn etc.) and buy fast-food from road-side food trucks. Most of these places provide single-use chopsticks (SUCs). That amounts to ~10-15 SUCs consumed by me annually (not including those consumed in sit-down restaurants, which I am hoping to convince them to switch to reusable ones). Multiply that number by 1.3 billion, you would estimate ~15 billion pairs consumed in China annually (the real number is 45 billion, likely because I am a below-average SUC user). You may have noticed that many migrant workers having boxed lunch near construction sites in many Chinese cities, they often use SUC as well. Unlike those sit-down restaurants, it is much more difficult for them to switch to reusable ones due to the nature of the business.
I hope you can see that a simple ban of the SUC industry is, in fact, not as simple as you thought it was. Unless you can really eliminate the consumption, there will always be need for the supply.
I told you of several alternative ways to tackle this problem.
(1) Encouraging production of SUC from bamboos. The Chinese government has passed tax laws to do so, and its positive effect is very obvious.
(2) Discouraging the use of SUC altogether by taxation. The tax incentive has already been started, although it is unclear at the moment how much effect it will have. Stay tuned.
(3) Making more efficient use of the timber resources, by using only scraps to make SUCs. After all, the wood consumed by the SUC industry is only ~1% of the total wood consumption in China; thus, it is possible to use scraps exclusively. Regulation on its production is needed. Although it may encounter some resistence, because of the associated cost increase and profit margin decrease, I think it is absolutely necessary. The actual enforcement of the law might be another problem.
(4) Recycle, recycle, recycle. I must admit that recycling is not a concept well held by normal Chinese people. If the "waste" can be sold for money, people might keep them: such as newspapers, aluminum cans. Otherwise, they usually end up as trash (SUC's likely fate after its single use). The most important thing to tackle this part is through education, plant the idea of recycling deep into everyone's head.
(5) There is a growing desert on the west. In that part of China, reforestation is the priority (there weren't many trees left for cutting down anyway). Timber industry in those areas is next to non-existent. Most of the wood consumed now are from the northeastern region. We should learn from the desert on the west, and develop a wood industry which is sustainable, and environment friendly.
Also, it's very easy to find arguments both in support of and against the SUC industry on Google. Most of them are in Chinese, perhaps because China is the most affected country. I learned a lot from reading all these debates. SUC will eventually exit from our daily lives, I just don't think its imminent banning is practical or even necessary.
That's it. Feel free to disagree and hold on to your idea of root digging. I won't comment on this further.