 |
|
|
|||||
Donald Trump recently surprised the world again by signing an action to end what he describes as the forced use of paper straws. Although there is some merit in the argument the White House presents that paper straws simply arent fit for purpose, what the paper straw revolution represents is the power of individual change in enacting progressive policy. Much like recent EU legislation which required all plastic bottles to have caps attached by a tether, the removal of items that tend to be easily littered is a way to help people be more environmentally cautious without any extra effort. Unfortunately, the paper straw appears to have failed in this endeavour. We should not stop this trajectory because of one fail, however. Even if paper straws are not a viable option, we mustnt let their fate undermine all initiatives to reduce the impacts of single use plastics. The story behind the move away from plastic straws began in 2015, when a disturbing video of a turtle having a plastic straw removed from its nose went viral. Unfortunately this appears to be a common occurrence, with a video of a turtle with a plastic fork in its nose posted only a few months later. This shows plastic straws themselves are not the issue and that there is a wider problem that everyone should be aware of: plastic that ends up in the ocean is often mistaken for food and eaten by wildlife. Paper problems Admittedly, anyone who has used a paper straw will agree that they are not a viable alternative to plastic. The obvious complaint is that they get soggy too quickly. But there are several unseen components that show the switch to paper may not be as great as we once thought. To begin with, in an effort to keep them water-resistant, paper straws themselves are coated in plastic. This means they cannot be recycled. As they are an organic material, they release greenhouse gas when they decompose in landfillthey can however safely be incinerated, something that is not widely recommended for their plastic counterparts. As the demand for paper straws skyrocketed, this created a deficit in production, leading to the development of new manufacturing facilities, construction that in itself has a significant environmental impact. Meanwhile, the heavier weight of paper straws can lead to an increase in freighting fuel consumption and associated emissions. Flimsy plastics are more likely to be littered Anything, however, is better than plastic. A somewhat misleading statistic that plastic straws account for a mere 0.025% of ocean plastics has been circulating in the argument to bring them back. Although this is true by volume, it is not a correct representation of the sheer number of individual straws recorded in the environment which is suspected to be as many as 8.3 billion, about one per person on earth. The fact straws are so small and lightweight is a big part of the problem, since smaller and more easily fragmented items are far harder to collect. As litter, they punch above their weight. A childs plastic beach toy may weigh as much as a few hundred plastic straws, but if littered the straws would do more harm to the environment and wildlife, and would look worse. As straws are made of polypropylene, a flimsier more brittle type of plastic, it doesnt take much effort for them to break apart into bite-size pieces. Because of this, straws turn into microplastics much quicker than the toy, which has a higher chance of eventually being picked up. To this day, straws continue to be on the top 10 types of plastics found on beaches, and we have yet to see any videos of larger pollutants like those beach toys being pulled from the nose of any animal. Although we could argue indefinitely as to which straw materials are worse (reuseable metal or glass straws require water and a cleaning agent, another potential contaminant) the overarching sentiment is the most alarming component of Trumps announcement. Paper straw pressure came from below The move towards paper straws was a refreshing direction in environmental preservation, in that it was initiated locally and by producers, not through legislation. In the summer of 2018 Seattle became the first U.S. city to enforce a ban on plastic utensils, straws and cocktail sticks. Soon thereafter, McDonalds, Starbucks, Alaska Airlines, and many others announced they would stop the sale of plastic straws. Later that year, the U.K. government and European Union began consultations for national bans which came into effect in 2020 and 2021 respectively. In 2019 Canada followed suit with a ban coming into law in 2022. It was not until July of 2024 that the then U.S. president, Joe Biden announced his plan to phase out single-use plastics (although the fact sheet and official press release has now been removed from the White House website). This was several years after the global movement got underwayaccompanied by the first complaints from Trump on the topic in 2019. It is important to note that both the EU and U.K. bans on plastic straws inluded stirrers and cotton bud sticks. However their removal from the market caused little to no controversy, mostly because there are adequate alternatives. Litter producers can drive change What the movement towards paper straws represents is the power of producers to drive change, in a bottom-up approach. A similarly encouraging scenario can be seen in attitudes towards polystyrene. Back in 2019 Dunkin Donuts announced it would stop using foam cups in certain U.S. markets, and delivered a full removal of the cups in the U.S. by early 2020, while in January 2025 California introduced a state wide polystyrene ban. Meanwhile, negotiations on a global plastics agreement remain indecisive. In the wake of a pattern of stalemate and regressive policy, it is on the consumers and producers to take action. We must continue to support producers who invest in innovation to address these issues in a way that makes our lives easier and cleaner. Randa Lindsey Kachef is a research affiliate at King’s College London. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
As a leadership advisor, Ive worked with countless executives who wrestle with failuresome fearing it to the point of paralysis, others glorifying it without extracting real lessons. Failure is inevitable. Growth is optional. The difference between leaders who thrive and those who stagnate isnt the absence of failureits how they respond to it. Fear of failure holds many organizations back, stifling creativity, slowing innovation, and fostering a culture of risk aversion. But failure, when embraced correctly, is one of the most powerful catalysts for growth. The problem? Too many leaders either avoid failure altogether or celebrate it without reflection. The key is courageous failurethe kind that fuels insight, builds resilience, and sets the stage for transformative breakthroughs. Why leaders fear failure Despite the lip service given to failing fast, many leaders still operate in fear of mistakes. The reasons are clear: Ego and Identity: Leaders often tie their worth to their success, making failure feel deeply personal. When setbacks occur, they dont just see it as a professional challenge but as a reflection of their own competence and value. Cultural Stigma: Organizations reward wins but often penalize failure, even when it leads to progress. This creates an environment where employees become risk-averse, opting for predictable outcomes over bold innovation. Short-Term Pressures: Quarterly earnings, investor expectations, and performance metrics discourage experimentation. Leaders feel the pressure to deliver immediate results, making it difficult to justify long-term bets that may initially appear as failures. Psychological Safety Issues: When failure is punished rather than examined, employees hide mistakes instead of learning from them. This lack of psychological safety stifles open communication, preventing valuable lessons from emerging and limiting the organization’s ability to adapt. When fear dominates, organizations fall into a risk-averse cycledefaulting to safe decisions, missing opportunities, and becoming stagnant. The courageous failure framework Not all failures are created equal. Reckless failures, failures due to negligence, lack of preparation, or poor execution, should be avoided. But courageous failuresthose that come from thoughtful experimentation, calculated risks, and boundary-pushing innovationare the seeds of progress. Leaders who want to leverage failure must foster an environment where learning is valued more than perfection. Heres how: Define What Good Failure Looks Like. Not all failures are worth celebrating. A good failure is one that teaches something valuable, aligns with strategic goals, and moves the organization forward. Clearly define the difference between reckless mistakes and courageous failures. Reframe Failure as Data. Instead of seeing failure as a dead end, treat it as an information-gathering exercise. Amazons Fire Phone flopped, but the underlying technology led to Alexas developmentone of its most successful innovations. Encourage Micro-Failures. Instead of placing massive bets that can sink an initiative, create low-risk experiments to test ideas before scaling. This approach minimizes damage while maximizing insights. Normalize Transparent Debriefs. Establish post-failure debrief rituals that focus on what was learned, not who was to blame. Bridgewater Associates, for example, operates with radical transparency, analyzing mistakes openly to prevent them from repeating. Publicly Recognize Productive Failures. If employees only see success being rewarded, theyll avoid risk. Celebrate well-intentioned failures that led to key learnings, just as you would a big win. Lessons from leaders who failed forward When Sara Blakely started Spanx, she made countless mistakes in manufacturing and marketing but saw each misstep as part of the process. She credits her father for encouraging her to talk about what she failed at each dayinstilling a mindset of resilience and growth. Another great example is Oprah Winfrey, who, when she was fired from her first TV job, used the setback to refine her approach and ultimately built one of the most influential media empires in history. Companies that fear failure more than stagnation are already losing ground. The leaders who fail forward fasterlearning, iterating, and growingwill define the future. So, before your next big decision, ask yourself: Am I playing it safe to avoid failure, or am I willing to take a calculated risk that could lead to something extraordinary? Failure isnt the opposite of successits the bridge to it. The only real mistake is not learning from the ones you make along the way.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sensitive financial and health data belonging to millions of veterans and stored on a benefits website is at risk of being stolen or otherwise compromised, according to a federal employee tasked with cybersecurity who was recently fired as part of massive government-wide cuts.The warning comes from Jonathan Kamens, who led cybersecurity efforts for VA.govan online portal for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits and services used by veterans, their caregivers and families. Kamens was fired February 14 and said he doesn’t believe his role will be filled, leaving the site particularly vulnerable.“Given how the government has been functioning for the last month, I don’t think the people at VA . . . are going to be able to replace me,” Kamens told the Associated Press Monday evening. “I think they’re going to be lacking essential oversight over cybersecurity processes for VA.gov.”Kamens said he was hired over a year ago by the U.S. Digital Service, whose employees’ duties have been integrated into presidential adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, which is leading the downsizing effort. Kamens was a digital services expert and the VA site’s information security lead when he was fired by email at night, along with about 40 other USDS employees, he said.Millions of people use the VA.gov website monthly, Kamens said, and the department is responsible for securing private health and financial information including bank account numbers and credit card numbers. Others on the team will focus on protecting the site, but his expertise can’t be replaced, he said, noting he was the only government employee with an engineering technical background working on cybersecurity.“VA.gov has access to a huge number of databases within VA in order to provide all of those benefits and services to veterans,” Kamens said. “So if that information can’t be kept secure, then all of that information is at risk and could be compromised by a bad actor.”Peter Kasperowicz, a Veterans Affairs spokesman, said the loss of a single employee wouldn’t affect operations, and noted that hundreds of cybersecurity workers are among the department’s staff of nearly 470,000.Meanwhile, more than 20 civil service employees who’d also previously worked for USDS resigned Tuesday from DOGE, saying they refused to use their technical expertise to “dismantle critical public services.”Kamens said he was required to have a background check and a drug test before he was allowed to access any system containing veterans’ data. He said he doesn’t understand why Musk and DOGE shouldn’t have to jump through the same hoops.“I don’t think they should have access to that data,” Kamens said. “These are people who have never been background-checked. They’re not confirmed to be trustworthy.”Kamens also said he’s worried that DOGE is “trying to break down the walls of decentralization” that have kept data isolated in individual agencies. Centralization, he said, could increase the chances for abuse. He also described confusion since DOGE became involvedpeople didn’t know who their manager was, work became isolated, and people were “frozen out.”“The only motive that I can think of,” Kamens said, “is exactly because they want to be able to use that data to harm citizens that they perceive as enemies of the state.” Brian Witte and Rodrique Ngowi, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||