The actions of green public welfare organizations will always be a pleasure to see.

The latest news is that the Fourth Intermediate People's Court in Beijing has accepted a public interest litigation case in which the plaintiff, Chongqing Green Union, sued the defendants, Baidu, Hungry Mou and Meituan, respectively, in a dispute over the responsibility for environmental pollution of three takeout platforms.

Chongqing Green Union will cause waste of resources and environmental pollution caused by the three companies to the court, the Green Union believes that: takeaway ordering platforms on the existence of business model defects, did not provide users with the option of whether to use disposable tableware, resulting in the user in the direct ordering of food system will be the default delivery of disposable tableware, resulting in a huge waste of resources and a great ecological damage.

It looks like the Green Council's action is already a success. The public interest lawsuit has just been filed, and two takeout platforms have already responded.

Hungry Mou said it will use a "no disposable tableware" option on its app to popularize the concept of environmental protection through civic participation by users. Meituan also said it will add the option of "no disposable tableware" to its APP, and will encourage users to participate in the "bring your own tableware" campaign.

The first victory is certainly a happy one. But it will be interesting to see how the lawsuit proceeds, given that it was corrected before it went to trial.

And for me personally, I'm particularly curious about the fact that takeout platforms are starting to offer users a "no disposable tableware" option in accordance with the public interest group's request, and if users check that box, then what do they take with their orders?

That's a problem. As a matter of fact, the takeout scenario is such that businesses can only serve users with disposable utensils. If it's not encouraging takeout workers to grab their meals by hand and choke on them, then there's a problem with public service organizations wanting users to "not use disposable tableware," and it's a bit of a fundamentalist thing to say.

More importantly, when the public welfare organizations clearly hope that "do not use disposable tableware" when, in fact, also bring a misunderstanding: disposable tableware is the source of all evil, all disposable tableware are not environmental protection.

This is a huge fallacy. The progress of human concept and technology is making disposable tableware possible in terms of environmental and resource protection.

Not to mention that biodegradable, easy to recycle disposable tableware has become a big trend, should also see a trend of scientific and technological progress. For example, the Germans developed a leaf instead of plastic made of the world's most environmentally friendly disposable tableware, the Indian people developed an edible environmentally friendly disposable tableware, Shandong, China, to the use of straw and other natural plants as raw materials for the manufacture of disposable tableware with the same significance of environmental protection.

Of course I can understand why this green public service organization is still looking at the option of disposable tableware, and not really do not know that there is still environmentally friendly disposable tableware in the world, but in the use of domestic disposable tableware, still a large number of options for the use of plastic bags, PP5 lunch boxes, the reason.

"470 years to degrade plastic garbage" is indeed the environmental pressure we must bear today. But the question therein is, is it the ultimate point for environmental organizations to resort to takeout platforms alone?

Clearly not. For the takeaway platform, of course, has its responsibility to advocate environmental protection, but in the final analysis, the platform is just a platform, and does not have the right to enforce the law, and can not directly intervene in the choice of the business autonomy, especially when this behavior is not contrary to the laws and regulations.

Any country's environmental governance, the government legislation is strictly prohibited, law enforcement agencies strict supervision as a prerequisite. However, in the face of China's implementation of the 10-year "plastic" but alienated into the "sell plastic", was once banned for 14 years of disposable foam lunch box production and then somehow lifted the ban on the situation, there is a kind of embarrassment is self-evident.

The Chongqing Green Council seems to be aware of this. The person in charge said that the takeaway garbage pollution to the legal level mainly has three initial purposes: first, is to promote the relevant enterprises to fulfill their corporate and social responsibility; second, is to promote the attention of consumers to the relevant issues, to change their personal habits; third, and is the most important point, is to promote the relevant management departments, takeaway this new industry, as soon as possible, the introduction of some of the management rules.

It's not easy to say that takeout platforms have become the backers of environmental problems. But environmental organizations want to sue the takeaway platform to promote national legislation, such a tortuous painstaking, I hope the relevant departments can understand.