NationStates Jolt Archive

Why Plastic Bags are Good for the Environment

In the opinion of Premier Funkalunatic of the Dominion of Tongass:

Lots of progressive places are banning plastic bags from grocery stores and stuff, ostensibly for environmental reasons. This seems foolish to me. Consider the following:

It's an inevitability that humanity will deplete as much of the Earth's fossil fuels as it can, since they is a cheap source of chemical energy. The amount of oil and other fossil fuels harvested from the Earth isn't affected by the demand for plastic bags, because market forces will ensure that the scarce petroleum is redistributed to other activities. (For example, if no more plastic bags are produced, then a surplus would cause gas prices to go down and people would use more gas.)

So the effect of banning plastic bags does not reduce overall oil consumption, but merely causes it to be reallocated. Because of this, the environmental impact of banning plastic bags must be a comparative one, taking into account these other uses. Let's do a comparison!


1 - Plastic bags are not banned.
Consequence: the vast majority of plastic bags end up safely in a landfill. A very small number end up in the environment, where they photodegrade and leave behind small bits of unnatural, but environmentally benign chemicals. Note that this can be controlled with litter pickup prior to degradation.

2 - Plastic bags are banned.
Consequence: Consumers switch to bioplastic or paper bags, both of which require an ecological footprint to produce. Additionally, the absence of a plastic bag market frees up more of the finite fossil fuel resource to be devoted to things like fuel for cars, engines, energy production etc, that convert the almost all of the fossil fuel into a pollutant of one form or another (CO, CO2, etc.) that is deposited directly into the environment.


So banning plastic bags actually has a net negative effect on the environment. Somebody call Penn and Teller.


Disclaimer: Premier Funkalunatic is not an expert in any of this crap.

I am planning on recycling my plastic bags. I have like..400 some odd in my apt(all put away and tidied up, of course).

I work in an Industrial Grocery Complex, and after we started charging for plastic bags, about half our customer base bought plastic bins or cloth bags. Both containers can last years of weekly usage.

Disclaimer: Premier Funkalunatic is not an expert in any of this crap.

Haha. I may have to steal that line when starting threads about science. :p

1 - Plastic bags are not banned.
Consequence: the vast majority of plastic bags end up safely in a landfill. A very small number end up in the environment
mind telling us how you can up with this 'very small number'? link to relevant research would be nice.
As for 'ending up safely in a landfill', two things spring to mind: landfill seepage and where do we get the land from to make these landfills?
In HK, an estimated 8 billion plastic bags are discarded each year (link (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200705/22/eng20070522_376611.html)), which costs HK$40 million to deal with. You want to imagine how much a landfill problem those 8,000,000,000 make?
Even if only 'a very small number' end up in the environment, that still makes for a lot of rubbish floating about, clogging up drains, posing hazards to fauna and generally being a horrid eyesore. Considering there's plenty of other, better, alternatives (eg. biodegradable bags, cloth bags) why continue with this mess?

There's always Bioplastic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic) which, while not perfect, is still better than traditional plastic. It uses between 25 and 60% less fossil fuel to make than polyethylene and which completely degrade with no adverse affect to the environment.

I should have said small percentage instead of small number. The effect of leachate from plastic bags in landfills ought to be negligible. It's my understanding that modern landfills incorporate impermeable liners, and any leachate is monitored and dealt with if environmentally necessary. I doubt that plastic bags are going to contribute much to that, as they're unlikely to degrade in a landfill. On the other hand, biobags might contribute to methane buildup.

I guess my point is, as bad as plastic bags are, it seems to me that having all that petroleum be burned as fuel instead would be significantly worse for the environment.

I should have said small percentage instead of small number. The effect of leachate from plastic bags in landfills ought to be negligible. It's my understanding that modern landfills incorporate impermeable liners, and any leachate is monitored and dealt with if environmentally necessary. I doubt that plastic bags are going to contribute much to that, as they're unlikely to degrade in a landfill. On the other hand, biobags might contribute to methane buildup.

I guess my point is, as bad as plastic bags are, it seems to me that having all that petroleum be burned as fuel instead would be significantly worse for the environment.

Which misses the point. People used to use cloth bags and other carriers from home all the time when they went to the market. It encourages moderation in what you buy as well as not producing plastic bags, but that's beside the main point.

That point is giving in to the notion than using up fossil fuels is inevitable is the problem. Bush is partly right in that our nation and others need to "tech" our way out of fossil fuel dependency. Were it me in charge, I'd say no bags at all in stores BUT cloth. After an initial surge of cloth bag manufacture, there'd be a minimal level of bags needed (compared to now where they'll bag a single bar of soap for you in plastic). Besides, commercial paper is now available without sundering forests, with fast-growing, paper-specific trees on plots across the nation.

Also, we as a people just might start to realize that throwing everything away is irresponsible and loutish behavior. If it costs you a couple of bucks to replace your cloth bags, you'll LEARN to keep track of them, or even *gasp* keep them in your car or hanging near your *gasp again* bicycle. We've allowed convenience technology to make us fat and lazy on the average, and if getting rid of plastic bags goes even a short way toward alleviating that and making us think a little bit about what and how we consume, I'm all for it.

I'd go on about the juvenile addiction to horsepower when it's not needed that is a drain on oil as well, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

I should have said small percentage instead of small number. The effect of leachate from plastic bags in landfills ought to be negligible. It's my understanding that modern landfills incorporate impermeable liners, and any leachate is monitored and dealt with if environmentally necessary. I doubt that plastic bags are going to contribute much to that, as they're unlikely to degrade in a landfill. On the other hand, biobags might contribute to methane buildup.
a couple of points:
a small % of billions is still a very large number. As I said, Hong Kong alone (pop: 7 million - 0.11% of World pop) discards over 8 Billion plastic bags each year. Just 1% of that is another 80 million non-degradable bags floating around in the environment each year.
And that still leaves 7.92Billion being added to the Landfills each year. 1 bag mightn't take up a whole lotta room but can you imagine how much room is needed to house ~8Billion? each and every year? And HK ain't got that much land to use.
As for the possible methane build-up (of which I have to plead ignorance as to if bioplastic does when degrading and by how much), it still needs to be weighed against the fossil fuel savings (and thus resultant pollution from said fossil fuels) in their production.

a couple of points:
a small % of billions is still a very large number. As I said, Hong Kong alone (pop: 7 million - 0.11% of World pop) discards over 8 Billion plastic bags each year. Just 1% of that is another 80 million non-degradable bags floating around in the environment each year.
And that still leaves 7.92Billion being added to the Landfills each year. 1 bag mightn't take up a whole lotta room but can you imagine how much room is needed to house ~8Billion? each and every year? And HK ain't got that much land to use.
As for the possible methane build-up (of which I have to plead ignorance as to if bioplastic does when degrading and by how much), it still needs to be weighed against the fossil fuel savings (and thus resultant pollution from said fossil fuels) in their production.What's wrong with methane being given off as something degrades. If you put a little bit of effort into sorting rubbish into types that produce methane and types that don't then you can put the plastic bags and stuff into a closed environment and just harvest the methane for use.

I've no opposition. My mum went shopping every day and I don't even remember the last time the shued a plastic bag. All she did was use the Waitrose carrier boxes and the big cloth bags from France. Sure, It's be a bit more difficult for me, considering I do my shopping on the way back from Uni and I carry enough without a big cloth bag, but I could put up with that if pushed. So, either a plastic bag tax or ban (preferably a ban since the tabloids would go nuts if it were taxed and the whole issue would be dead) can't be too bad really.

Why Plastic Bags are Good for the EnvironmentThis has got to be good...

In the opinion of Premier Funkalunatic of the Dominion of Tongass:

Lots of progressive places are banning plastic bags from grocery stores and stuff, ostensibly for environmental reasons. This seems foolish to me. Consider the following:At the moment, yes. In the near future, this may be less so.

It's an inevitability that humanity will deplete as much of the Earth's fossil fuels as it can, since they is a cheap source of chemical energy. The amount of oil and other fossil fuels harvested from the Earth isn't affected by the demand for plastic bags, because market forces will ensure that the scarce petroleum is redistributed to other activities. (For example, if no more plastic bags are produced, then a surplus would cause gas prices to go down and people would use more gas.)Doubtful. It's more likely that the plastic will be used for other things that require plastics. Besides, any amount of "freed up" fossil fuel will be swallowed up by the ever increasing demand. Gas will be more expensive anyway; not using plastic bags might reduce the impact a bit.

So the effect of banning plastic bags does not reduce overall oil consumption, but merely causes it to be reallocated. Because of this, the environmental impact of banning plastic bags must be a comparative one, taking into account these other uses. Let's do a comparison!The environmental impact of plastic bags isn't limited to oil being extracted. Also, overall oil consumption will be impacted, while oil extraction will not.


1 - Plastic bags are not banned.
Consequence: the vast majority of plastic bags end up safely in a landfill. A very small number end up in the environment, where they photodegrade and leave behind small bits of unnatural, but environmentally benign chemicals. Note that this can be controlled with litter pickup prior to degradation.Ah, bullshit. "Landfill" and "safely" are mutually exclusive. All landfills (and not most: ALL of them) will leak eventually. Also, space is finite. America has plenty of poor communities that can be pressured into accepting other peoples' trash, but eventually those will run out and then you have a problem. Japan is a good example of how to combat little available landfill space.

2 - Plastic bags are banned.
Consequence: Consumers switch to bioplastic or paper bags, both of which require an ecological footprint to produce. Additionally, the absence of a plastic bag market frees up more of the finite fossil fuel resource to be devoted to things like fuel for cars, engines, energy production etc, that convert the almost all of the fossil fuel into a pollutant of one form or another (CO, CO2, etc.) that is deposited directly into the environment.Plastic bags also require an ecological footprint to produce. I like how you ignore the possibility of switching to cloth bags, which, while also requiring an ecological footprint to produce, can be reused a lot more often than paper or the flimsy American plastic bags.

Considering that we're reducing one use for plastics, its more likely that the freed up resources will be used for other plasticy things.


So banning plastic bags actually has a net negative effect on the environment. Somebody call Penn and Teller.


Disclaimer: Premier Funkalunatic is not an expert in any of this crap.You forgot a lot of things that punch large holes into your rationale, particularly the poor solution that landfills are (and therefore the bad idea of creating more waste) and the availability of cloth bags.

I should have said small percentage instead of small number. The effect of leachate from plastic bags in landfills ought to be negligible. It's my understanding that modern landfills incorporate impermeable liners, and any leachate is monitored and dealt with if environmentally necessary. I doubt that plastic bags are going to contribute much to that, as they're unlikely to degrade in a landfill. On the other hand, biobags might contribute to methane buildup.Modern landfills will break eventually. You can prolong their use by making higher quality landfills, but all it takes is one rip throughout the layers, and considering that landfills are permanent, it will happen. Apart from that, using less bags means less waste, which means less landfills overall. And considering that space is finite, reducing the amount of needed landfills is a good idea.

I guess my point is, as bad as plastic bags are, it seems to me that having all that petroleum be burned as fuel instead would be significantly worse for the environment.But there's a long way from petroleum to plastic, so any effect reducing the amount of plastic bags used won't show up until the long run when the chain of demand hits the plastic producers. By that time, we'll probably be low enough for that effect to be negligible.

I've no opposition. My mum went shopping every day and I don't even remember the last time the shued a plastic bag. All she did was use the Waitrose carrier boxes and the big cloth bags from France. Sure, It's be a bit more difficult for me, considering I do my shopping on the way back from Uni and I carry enough without a big cloth bag, but I could put up with that if pushed. So, either a plastic bag tax or ban (preferably a ban since the tabloids would go nuts if it were taxed and the whole issue would be dead) can't be too bad really.Plastic bags in Germany cost money (about 20 cents or so). In return, they're also sturdier, so you can actually reuse them.

Plastic bags in Germany cost money (about 20 cents or so). In return, they're also sturdier, so you can actually reuse them.
Come to think of it, I can't think of a single time I've been on the continent and actually had to get any plastic carrier bags more than once. And that's in contrast to Britain, where they're absolutely everywhere - the litter is a nightmare.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single time I've been on the continent and actually had to get any plastic carrier bags more than once. And that's in contrast to Britain, where they're absolutely everywhere - the litter is a nightmare.

Yep. Mind you it can lead to problems along the line of turning up at the supermarket having forgotten your bags...and so you buy them at the store...

I now have about 10 of these bags.

So...I now carry a couple in the trunk of the car....my bag stash LOL

Without the thin plastic bags from supermarkets, what will we use in small household garbage bins?

I seriously don't know why more people don't use reusable bags/boxes for their groceries. Last time I went to the grocery store before I got my reusable containers I came home with 48 plastic bags. It's ridiculous, they are flying around everywhere in my city, it's gross and wasteful.

I got 24 canvas bags for $6 I have been using them for 6 months, they still look new. I also bought 2 laundry baskets for $10 to hold bigger things, they are still going strong too. I even got some of those burlap bags for my veggies, they work great. It's not a lot of expense up front even, and for how long they last, it's mostly not costing you anything.

Without the thin plastic bags from supermarkets, what will we use in small household garbage bins?

you don't need to use trash bags at all. Things that are wet or smelly most likely can be composted. The only thing that should be in your trash can is paper that you can't/shouldn't recycle and plastics that can't be recycled in your area.

I like how you ignore the possibility of switching to cloth bags, which, while also requiring an ecological footprint to produce, can be reused a lot more often than paper or the flimsy American plastic bags.
I don't know about other countries, but from what I have seen, that isn't really feasible in America.

I don't know about other countries, but from what I have seen, that isn't really feasible in America.

why not?

I don't know about other countries, but from what I have seen, that isn't really feasible in America.

Sure it is. When I was a kid (in the late 40's and 50's) my mother had cloth or burlap bags she took to the store with her. She even had a little cart that folded up so she could put the bags in and pull behind her as we walked home from the store. In Spain, people use those carts and bring their bags to the store with them all the time.

When I go shopping at Reasor's or Wal-Mart I come home with a bunch of plastic bags. I keep a stash behind the seat in my truck to use when I go to Aldi's. My wife then uses the plastic bags to line the small trash cans in the bathrooms.

Also, people go shopping at Sam's all the time and Sams doesn't supply any bags, you can't even buy them there like you can at Aldi's.

snip


You are assuming that the only reason people want to ban plastic bags has to do with fossil fuel use. Here is an article from National Geo that discusses some of the other issuesat play:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/19/SS6JS8RH0.DTL&hw=pacific+patch&sn=001&sc=1000

Plastic bags do have some environmental benefits, particularly as compared to paper bags, in terms of saving water, energy, etc.. However, they often take up to hundreds of years to break down, during which time they are a blight on our landscape (the visual pollution concern) Some of them do contain toxic chemicals which enter our environment (the chemical pollution concern). They also represent a threat to a wide range of wildlife including giant sea turtles, who mistake the bags for jellyfish and choke while trying to eat them, and sea birds who get strangled by them (wildlife concern).

They also form a substantial portion of the giant garbage island in the Pacific:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/19/SS6JS8RH0.DTL&hw=pacific+patch&sn=001&sc=1000

Last but not least, they contribute to serious local problems, such as flooding in India:
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19980730/21150564.html

So they are hardly environmentall benign, let alone a net environmental benefit, particularly when compared to some of the alternatives, such as biodegradable plastic or cloth.

If plastic bags are banned, what will be used in their place? And what problems might their replacement have?

If plastic bags are banned, what will be used in their place? And what problems might their replacement have?

In Ireland plastic bags are levyed at 23c and all money goes directly to environmental projects.

people take paper or bring heavier plastic bags with them. it has been a hugely successfull initiative.

In Ireland plastic bags are levyed at 23c and all money goes directly to environmental projects.

people take paper or bring heavier plastic bags with them. it has been a hugely successfull initiative.

Sounds good to me

Outright banning them would be a tad silly. Trying to get people to use as few plastic bags as possible? Definitely a good thing.
Here, we have had to pay for plastic bags in supermarkets for at least, I don't know, the last 15 years or so? As a result, most people bring their own shopping bags.
Also, the plastic ones you can buy (for about 0.10€ to 0.20€, I think) are big, sturdy ones you can reuse, not those horrible flimsy small ones I remember from Ireland and the US.

you don't need to use trash bags at all. Things that are wet or smelly most likely can be composted. The only thing that should be in your trash can is paper that you can't/shouldn't recycle and plastics that can't be recycled in your area.

To be fair, many urban dwellers have no composting facilities, nor any use for it as they have no gardens.

That being said, for the ecologically sound individual who also uses mass transit, most of the eco bags I see sold are just too damned bulky to be carrying with you all of the time. You'd think that there might be a good market out there for the mesh carry bags that were often seen a couple of decades ago, and which in Soviet Russia were called "perhaps bags" as they could be left easily in a pocket and carried everywhere just in case you lucked into finding something you wanted to buy as you went about your daily business.

To be fair, many urban dwellers have no composting facilities, nor any use for it as they have no gardens.

That being said, for the ecologically sound individual who also uses mass transit, most of the eco bags I see sold are just too damned bulky to be carrying with you all of the time. You'd think that there might be a good market out there for the mesh carry bags that were often seen a couple of decades ago, and which in Soviet Russia were called "perhaps bags" as they could be left easily in a pocket and carried everywhere just in case you lucked into finding something you wanted to buy as you went about your daily business.

I have a bag on my keychain that I got from the health food store, I use it for things like that, but mostly I shop once a month, going every day or even every week is a waste of gas, besides shopping monthly lets me more efficiently plan my menu so I don't waste as much food and we save a lot of money

http://www.amazon.com/Chico-Bag-Green-Keychain-attachment/dp/B000OOJPJE

I have a bag on my keychain that I got from the health food store, I use it for things like that, but mostly I shop once a month, going every day or even every week is a waste of gas, besides shopping monthly lets me more efficiently plan my menu so I don't waste as much food and we save a lot of money

http://www.amazon.com/Chico-Bag-Green-Keychain-attachment/dp/B000OOJPJE


I have a couple of eco-bags that I leave in the car for quick pickups on the way home from work when neccessary, but I can't shop monthly. I just don't have the fridge/freezer space for a month of food for four. There is about a once-a-month trip to get some things in bulk, but Saturday is shopping day to grab the fresh veggies, meat, and dairy products etc to get through the week.

And given that the store is only about three blocks away, we will often walk up with the kids and a wagon rather than drive.

I have a couple of eco-bags that I leave in the car for quick pickups on the way home from work when neccessary, but I can't shop monthly. I just don't have the fridge/freezer space for a month of food for four. There is about a once-a-month trip to get some things in bulk, but Saturday is shopping day to grab the fresh veggies, meat, and dairy products etc to get through the week.

And given that the store is only about three blocks away, we will often walk up with the kids and a wagon rather than drive.

If I had a store that close I would totally walk.

That being said, for the ecologically sound individual who also uses mass transit, most of the eco bags I see sold are just too damned bulky to be carrying with you all of the time. You'd think that there might be a good market out there for the mesh carry bags that were often seen a couple of decades ago, and which in Soviet Russia were called "perhaps bags" as they could be left easily in a pocket and carried everywhere just in case you lucked into finding something you wanted to buy as you went about your daily business.
Here you can buy nylon shopping bags in pretty much every drugstore, they are very sturdy and can be folded up into a small baggy and cost maybe 2€, tops.
It was really hard to find a picture of them, they're so unremarkable and ubiquitous - this one (http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.werbeartikel.com/html/258-259_taschen/pg_0001.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.werbeartikel.com/html/258-259_taschen/258-259_taschen.htm&h=991&w=1416&sz=191&hl=de&start=10&um=1&tbnid=QlHKlfY0-viFCM:&tbnh=105&tbnw=150&prev=) has some pictured at the very bottom of the page, they're all pretty similar.

Canvas bags are great, I support em, I just don't use em. Most of my shopping is done "spur of the moment". usually on my way home from work. so I use Plastic bags.

however, plastic bags are reused and recycled in my house. I reuse them as often as I can. As hampers (whites in this one, colors in that) two full bags is one load in my tiny washer. as bags I can grab, stuff and go. as garbage bags, Storage, etc...

Recycled they get cut up and used as wrapping paper, table cloths (for painting projects), cheap art supplies, etc...

yes I have a canvas bag, but because I don't drive, I rarely go to the store from home. so they end up sitting in my apartment (one is currenly my document/laptop carrier.)

and yes, it makes me sad to see a lonely plastic bag tumbling in the wind like some modern tumbleweed...

you don't need to use trash bags at all. Things that are wet or smelly most likely can be composted. The only thing that should be in your trash can is paper that you can't/shouldn't recycle and plastics that can't be recycled in your area.
Well, being a student living in halls, I don't have either the time, space or need for composting. I'm all for banning the free plastic bags they hand out in supermarkets, and cutting down on unnecessary wrapping, but I still need to be able to get hold of something to put all my guff in without dribbling rotting water all over my floor. I wouldn't even need to buy that many plastic bags anyway, since I buy most of my stuff wrapping free at a proper greengrocers.

Why Plastic Bags are Good for the Environment

In the opinion of Premier Funkalunatic of the Dominion of Tongass:

Lots of progressive places are banning plastic bags from grocery stores and stuff, ostensibly for environmental reasons. This seems foolish to me. Consider the following:

It's an inevitability that humanity will deplete as much of the Earth's fossil fuels as it can, since they is a cheap source of chemical energy. The amount of oil and other fossil fuels harvested from the Earth isn't affected by the demand for plastic bags, because market forces will ensure that the scarce petroleum is redistributed to other activities. (For example, if no more plastic bags are produced, then a surplus would cause gas prices to go down and people would use more gas.)
If plastic bags don't use much fossil fuels, how would the cause gas prices to go down enough to make a difference? He contradicts his own illogical arguments.

1 - Plastic bags are not banned.
Consequence: the vast majority of plastic bags end up safely in a landfill. A very small number end up in the environment, where they photodegrade and leave behind small bits of unnatural, but environmentally benign chemicals. Note that this can be controlled with litter pickup prior to degradation.
Safely in a landfill? What a joke. That's the problem. They end up used once and then thrown away where they can go into the environment, leach chemicals, etc. Plastic is not environmentally benign. What are you smoking? Plastic?

2 - Plastic bags are banned.
Consequence: Consumers switch to bioplastic or paper bags, both of which require an ecological footprint to produce. Additionally, the absence of a plastic bag market frees up more of the finite fossil fuel resource to be devoted to things like fuel for cars, engines, energy production etc, that convert the almost all of the fossil fuel into a pollutant of one form or another (CO, CO2, etc.) that is deposited directly into the environment.
Or maybe canvas bags? At least paper can be recycled much more easily than plastic. I think many paper bags are even at least 30% post-consumer anyway. Also, at lesat the oil is being used and not leaching chemicals in a landfill. Again this argument works against the previous argument. If plastic bags make up such a small amount of the market, why would they affect the supply of oil for other uses?

So banning plastic bags actually has a net negative effect on the environment. Somebody call Penn and Teller.
No, you're logic is illogical and your arguments are utter crap. Why don't you or whoever wrote this actually do some real research or even use common sense and logic.

Outright banning them would be a tad silly. Trying to get people to use as few plastic bags as possible? Definitely a good thing.
Here, we have had to pay for plastic bags in supermarkets for at least, I don't know, the last 15 years or so? As a result, most people bring their own shopping bags.
Also, the plastic ones you can buy (for about 0.10€ to 0.20€, I think) are big, sturdy ones you can reuse, not those horrible flimsy small ones I remember from Ireland and the US.

Where do you live?

Also, the plastic ones you can buy (for about 0.10€ to 0.20€, I think) are big, sturdy ones you can reuse, not those horrible flimsy small ones I remember from Ireland and the US.

Do people actually reuse them? Are they biodegradable? How long do they take to break down?

Do people actually reuse them? Are they biodegradable? How long do they take to break down?

yes. people do reuse them. some (like me) to the point where they are shredded.

Yes, there are Biodegradable ones out there. does that mean all plastic bags are biodegradable? no.

how long? dunno.

Where do you live?
Germany
Do people actually reuse them? Are they biodegradable? How long do they take to break down?
Not biodegradable, but yeah, people reuse them. I don't think there are many people who actually throw them away after unpacking their groceries. You use them for all kinds of things, at the very least as trash bags. Which is not exactly a long recycling cycle like JuNii is doing, but at least it saves buying trash bags.

Germany

Not biodegradable, but yeah, people reuse them. I don't think there are many people who actually throw them away after unpacking their groceries. You use them for all kinds of things, at the very least as trash bags. Which is not exactly a long recycling cycle like JuNii is doing, but at least it saves buying trash bags.

Germany....rampant tyrants when it comes to waste disposal and recycling....4 different bins and woe betide you if you are caught putting something where it should not go...

Yeah..I fell foul (!) of the rubbish police LOL

Germany....rampant tyrants when it comes to waste disposal and recycling....4 different bins and woe betide you if you are caught putting something where it should not go...

Yeah..I fell foul (!) of the rubbish police LOL

:cool::p

:cool::p

To be honest I have no big issue with it anymore...if it helps why not...

Sure it is. When I was a kid (in the late 40's and 50's) my mother had cloth or burlap bags she took to the store with her. She even had a little cart that folded up so she could put the bags in and pull behind her as we walked home from the store. In Spain, people use those carts and bring their bags to the store with them all the time.
I'm going to discount that for every obvious reason

When I go shopping at Reasor's or Wal-Mart I come home with a bunch of plastic bags.
Captain Obvious to the rescue.

Also, people go shopping at Sam's all the time and Sams doesn't supply any bags, you can't even buy them there like you can at Aldi's.
Stuff at Sam's doesn't fit in bags. Not even the huge bags they have at clothing stores.

I'm going to discount that for every obvious reason

So, you are saying you are incapable of using cloth or burlap bags when you go shopping?

I'm going to discount that for every obvious reason
Like what?

My my my... lot's of hate for plastic bags 'round these parts.


That point is giving in to the notion than using up fossil fuels is inevitable is the problem.
I agree that using up fossil fuels is not a good thing, but it IS inevitable. We in an interconnected, multi-billion person society, the net effect of which are determined in no significant way by individual decision, but rather by societal systems. The marketplace regulates the decisions of sum of our decisions via the mass media and economic pressures. This is the central problem of modern society, and banning plastic bags not only doesn't tackle it in any fundamental way, but ignores the reality of its existence. Perhaps if you ban enough activities, you'll have some effect in the same way the enough bandaids might stop a gushing wound, but the degree of regulation it would take to have an effect would paralyze humanity. Society wouldn't be freed - it would be congealed.

And that still leaves 7.92Billion being added to the Landfills each year. 1 bag mightn't take up a whole lotta room but can you imagine how much room is needed to house ~8Billion? each and every year?
Somebody check my calculations:
Low density polyethylene has a density of about 0.92 g/cm³
According to http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4296 19 billion disposable plastic bags in California produce 147,000 tons of waste, so one average bag weighs about 7 grams.
That means 8 billion plastic bags takes up at least 60869 cubic meters, or a cube about 39 meters deep, wide, and tall. Of course, since the 8 billion figure comes from the "People's Daily" it could be made up for all I know.

As for the possible methane build-up (of which I have to plead ignorance as to if bioplastic does when degrading and by how much), it still needs to be weighed against the fossil fuel savings (and thus resultant pollution from said fossil fuels) in their production.
The methane thing is probably not a big deal, since that can be captured and used, and if not it's a drop in the bucket compared to cow farts in the Midwest. However, no fossil fuels are being saved by using bioplastic, assuming a finite supply of fossil fuels that is smaller than the remaining demand.

Also, overall oil consumption will be impacted, while oil extraction will not.
Do you think oil will be extracted that won't be consumed?

Ah, bullshit. "Landfill" and "safely" are mutually exclusive. All landfills (and not most: ALL of them) will leak eventually. Also, space is finite. America has plenty of poor communities that can be pressured into accepting other peoples' trash, but eventually those will run out and then you have a problem. Japan is a good example of how to combat little available landfill space.
Modern landfills will break eventually. You can prolong their use by making higher quality landfills, but all it takes is one rip throughout the layers, and considering that landfills are permanent, it will happen. Apart from that, using less bags means less waste, which means less landfills overall. And considering that space is finite, reducing the amount of needed landfills is a good idea.
I call bullshit. The modern landfill is one of the primary sanitation advancements of the past century. Landfills are dynamic entities that are actively managed to control environmental impact, and the technology used to do this is only improving. The notion that every landfill will one day explode and come back to haunt our children is a myth. In the future, they will be resources unto themselves.

Spacewise, the problem is that nobody wants a landfill anywhere near their property. It's realistically impossible for the Earth to run out of landfill space.

But there's a long way from petroleum to plastic, so any effect reducing the amount of plastic bags used won't show up until the long run when the chain of demand hits the plastic producers. By that time, we'll probably be low enough for that effect to be negligible.
I don't think so. Speculators in the marketplace look at the supply chain and anticipate changes in demand fulfillment. Even if that were not so, banning plastic bags isn't touted as being environmentally solid based on fossil-fuel-delay-for-a-few-years-while-we-magically-reverse-global-warming.

you don't need to use trash bags at all. Things that are wet or smelly most likely can be composted.
Can I compost snot-filled tissues? (Serious question. If I ever move back to the lower 48, my allergies will act up again, and I may want to start composting one day.)

They also form a substantial portion of the giant garbage island in the Pacific:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/19/SS6JS8RH0.DTL&hw=pacific+patch&sn=001&sc=1000
That article is BS. First off, go to google maps, hit satellite view, and show me this "heap of debris floating in the Pacific that's twice the size of Texas". Secondly, if the ocean currents are collecting garbage into one pile, that's a good thing because if makes us easier for somebody to pick it up an put in a landfill where it belongs. Thirdly, this article is talking a litter problem. Why should I not be able to use plastic bags because other people litter their's and the police don't see fit to enforce anti-litter laws?

Last but not least, they contribute to serious local problems, such as flooding in India:
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19980730/21150564.htmlA litter and waste collection/management problem. India should concentrate on these, and other very real root cause problems, rather than institute an impotent, ineffective, knee-jerk "ban all plastic bags" solution. Note that most places banning plastic bags aren't in third world countries.

If plastic bags don't use much fossil fuels, how would the cause gas prices to go down enough to make a difference? He contradicts his own illogical arguments.I never said plastic bags don't use much fossil fuels, although they probably don't use a large percentage. The gas price doesn't have to go down significantly - that was just an exaggerated example of how the marketplace compensates, leaving the amount of petroleum extracted unchanged in any case.

Somebody check my calculations:
Low density polyethylene has a density of about 0.92 g/cm³
According to http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4296 19 billion disposable plastic bags in California produce 147,000 tons of waste, so one average bag weighs about 7 grams.
That means 8 billion plastic bags takes up at least 60869 cubic meters, or a cube about 39 meters deep, wide, and tall. Of course, since the 8 billion figure comes from the "People's Daily" it could be made up for all I know.

If your calculations are correct, that means that every single year, there's one building that cannot be built, because the space is used for landfill.

Now imagine Hong Kong, where one building can contain hundreds of people, offices or something else.

With a growing population, the problem will only increase, to the point where it becomes impossible for Hong Kong to have enough space for it's already immense population density.

But Hong Kong isn't the world. It can simply ship its trash elsewhere. Also, it's already built more or less to the brim, so these awful consequences are already a fact. If there's not enough space, then people will simply stop moving there due to high rents. If the economy wills it, building taller will happen, and building on the ocean too. In fact, I would guess that it's already cheaper to ship out trash since it would be taking up valuable real estate.

But Hong Kong isn't the world. It can simply ship its trash elsewhere. Also, it's already built more or less to the brim, so these awful consequences are already a fact. If there's not enough space, then people will simply stop moving there due to high rents. If the economy wills it, building taller will happen, and building on the ocean too. In fact, I would guess that it's already cheaper to ship out trash since it would be taking up valuable real estate.

ah, yes... the mystical place where everyone's troubles will go and be solved.

anyone remember that barge of trash that spent weeks/months at sea because no one wanted it?

wasn't there an Island of trash floating out in the pacific?

But Hong Kong isn't the world. It can simply ship its trash elsewhere.

Highly irresponsible and it does not solve the problem of the trash still existing. Why have trash, when you can recycle?

Also, it's already built more or less to the brim, so these awful consequences are already a fact.

Like in the OP, your arguments work against you and promote the banning of plastic bags.

If there's not enough space, then people will simply stop moving there due to high rents.

People will still be born there. The world's population is still growing. We need space. We can't afford to have places where you cannot live.

If the economy wills it, building taller will happen, and building on the ocean too.

Plastic bags or no plastic bags, it will happen if the economy wills it.

In fact, I would guess that it's already cheaper to ship out trash since it would be taking up valuable real estate.

But again, how is this solving the problem?

The point is there isn't really a trash problem. Hong Kong being overpopulated has nothing whatsoever to do with trash. As for people being born being a problem, that's unlikely considering that Hong Kong has the world's lowest birth rate.

Trash existing in a landfill is not a problem. Trash existing outside a landfill is a litter problem. Litter problems can be addressed in a direct manner. Fossil fuel used as chemical energy does not produce waste that can be so easily quarantined.

Can I compost snot-filled tissues? (Serious question. If I ever move back to the lower 48, my allergies will act up again, and I may want to start composting one day.)
actually I wouldn't know since I don't use disposable tissues.

Why ban plastic? Paper recycling is more damaging to the environment. It is easier to recycle a plastic bag than a paper one.

Look, the transport costs of paper, plastic, metals, and ordinary trash will be the same no matter what because they're all run around in the backs of big trucks so you can't use that as an argument for or against any particular material or method of waste management. what you have to look at are the recycling manufacturing process costs and the costs of different methods of waste disposal. Recycling plastic is pretty simple and straight forward, you mostly melt it and then turn that plastic pellets into new plastic things of about equal quality. Paper is a bit more complicated; first you soak and shred it into pulp, then you bleach it and treat it with a whole bunch of chemicals and create quite a bit of slimy waste sludge in the process, then you press it into new paper of lower quality because the fibers were damaged. Metal recycling is currently the only recycling that is actually profitable, mainly due to the difficulty in extracting and smelting ore.

Banning plastic bags, like organic food and anti-nuclear protesting, is a feel-good move that may look and sound nice but has serious consequences for both the environment and the people who live in it, especially the really poor brown people halfway around the world.

Mountain Equipment Coop uses bags made from corn starch.

I've seen some stores using plastic made from corn.

Superstore charges you for the plastic bags you use.

Many stores encourage you to use cloth bags or durable plastic bins to cart your groceries around in. Other than the IGA in a small town I lived in for two years, I've never seen any of these places offer paper bags.

Banning plastic bags made from fossil fuels would not unduly inconvenience people, and would encourage further innovations.

That article is BS. First off, go to google maps, hit satellite view, and show me this "heap of debris floating in the Pacific that's twice the size of Texas".

So the SF Chronicle is BS?
As is the LA Times?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean2aug02,0,3130914.story
AS is physorg?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean2aug02,0,3130914.story
CBS NEws too I suppose:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/eveningnews/main591770.shtml




Secondly, if the ocean currents are collecting garbage into one pile, that's a good thing because if makes us easier for somebody to pick it up an put in a landfill where it belongs.

Great idea. Lets turn the entire world into our garbage dump.


Thirdly, this article is talking a litter problem.



A litter and waste collection/management problem.

No, it is much more than simply a waste management problem. Part of the problem is that we are using a product that has an average useful life of 15 minutes, and takes up to 3000 years to break down. So we this is a waste problem period. This is a problem in terms of generational equity (i.e. future generations are stuck with the burden of looking after our waste). Further, no matter how effective your system of waste management and collection is, some bags are inevitably going to end up where they shouldn't be, which creates the problems mentioned in some of the articles I have cited.

Your responses also display another part of the problem: a problem of mindset. Rather than adopt simple, cost effective low-waste alternatives and sticking the polluters with the cost of their pollution, we allow people to create needless waste, and then put in place a massive bureaucratic waste management system to deal with the problem, that everyone has to pay for.


Why should I not be able to use plastic bags because other people litter their's and the police don't see fit to enforce anti-litter laws?

Why should the rest of us have to put up with overflowing landfills, litter, garbage islands, dead sea animals, and all of this pollution generally because some people are too lazy and cheap to use the viable alternatives to non biodegradable plastic bags?

Seriously...how far behind the times are some of you people?

In a two week period, between my girls and I, we produce a single small plastic grocery bag full of unrecyclable garbage. The rest is recyclable or reusable, or compostable. It takes no extra effort, it is not difficult in any way. All this complaining about your right to dump waste etc seems frankly moronic when it takes very little effort on your part to not produce a ridiculous amount of waste in the first place.

ah, yes... the mystical place where everyone's troubles will go and be solved.

anyone remember that barge of trash that spent weeks/months at sea because no one wanted it?
Ah, you mean the Mobro4000. That was a business deal gone bad. The owner of the trash wanted more money than was available locally so he loaded up the garbage barge and sent it on its way. The deal fell through before the trash could be unloaded and it had to go back to NY. See someone decided it would be real funny if they told the folks in NC that the barge was full of medical waste which violated the aggreement for the disposal of the yankity muck and caused it to get denied everywhere else it went.

Even the Union of Concerned Scientists says that it was the result of poor decision making and had nothing to do with America running out of landfill space. In fact, if you dug a landfill 35 miles by 35 miles and only 200 feet deep it could store over 800 years of America's trash and would only show up as a tiny dot on a map. And when filled it would be covered wit dirt and turned into a gold course or park and provide methane to power homes.

Seriously...how far behind the times are some of you people?

In a two week period, between my girls and I, we produce a single small plastic grocery bag full of unrecyclable garbage. The rest is recyclable or reusable, or compostable. It takes no extra effort, it is not difficult in any way. All this complaining about your right to dump waste etc seems frankly moronic when it takes very little effort on your part to not produce a ridiculous amount of waste in the first place.

after we started reusing, recycling and composting our family of four has maybe 1-2 small bags of trash each week. I was really surprised at how much "good stuff" we had been throwing out.

after we started reusing, recycling and composting our family of four has maybe 1-2 small bags of trash each week. I was really surprised at how much "good stuff" we had been throwing out.

It also helps buying bulks...can't freaking BELIEVE how much packaging is still used for some products.

It also helps buying bulks...can't freaking BELIEVE how much packaging is still used for some products.
Whenever I go to the store I always make the bagger bag each item in its own plastic bag then put it all in double plastic and then double paper just to piss them off. What? I suffered through that job too.

So the SF Chronicle is BS?
As is the LA Times?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean2aug02,0,3130914.story
AS is physorg?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean2aug02,0,3130914.story
CBS NEws too I suppose:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/eveningnews/main591770.shtml

None of those articles talk about a state-sized heap of floating trash. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pacific_Gyre "Some sources[2] have incorrectly reported that there is a "floating continent" of debris that is roughly twice the size of Texas, however no scientific investigation... has verified this."

Great idea. Lets turn the entire world into our garbage dump.That would probably violate some law of thermodynamics, since all of our waste originates from on-world materials.

No, it is much more than simply a waste management problem. Part of the problem is that we are using a product that has an average useful life of 15 minutes, and takes up to 3000 years to break down.15 minutes? Not if you reuse or recycle. As for not breaking down, decomposition is the bane of the modern landfill. We want litter to degrade, but not trash in a landfill.

This is a problem in terms of generational equity (i.e. future generations are stuck with the burden of looking after our waste).Any detriment to future generations will also have to be weighed against advancements and retreats we've made in other areas of society. The problem of plastic bags is comparatively small. However, the institutionalized legitimization of a knee-jerk tendency to force our will on others to ban whatever makes us feel uncomfortable isn't.

Further, no matter how effective your system of waste management and collection is, some bags are inevitably going to end up where they shouldn't be, which creates the problems mentioned in some of the articles I have cited.Of course, and we need to combat litter and waste and all that. But when petroleum is being used as fuel rather than materials, ALL of it ends up where it shouldn't be, which is the point that everybody here seems to be ignoring.

Your responses also display another part of the problem: a problem of mindset. Rather than adopt simple, cost effective low-waste alternatives and sticking the polluters with the cost of their pollution, we allow people to create needless waste, and then put in place a massive bureaucratic waste management system to deal with the problem, that everyone has to pay for.What makes you think I oppose regulating pollution and waste? Especially when I've been admitting that there's a litter problem, and my argument is premised on the need to reduce pollution? Also, what makes you think that disposal-oriented waste management system is any more bureaucratic than a recycling/regulation-oriented system?

Why should the rest of us have to put up with overflowing landfills, litter, garbage islands, dead sea animals, and all of this pollution generally because some people are too lazy and cheap to use the viable alternatives to non biodegradable plastic bags?
My use of non-biodegradable plastic has nothing to do with any of those things.

Seriously...how far behind the times are some of you people?

In a two week period, between my girls and I, we produce a single small plastic grocery bag full of unrecyclable garbage. The rest is recyclable or reusable, or compostable. It takes no extra effort, it is not difficult in any way. All this complaining about your right to dump waste etc seems frankly moronic when it takes very little effort on your part to not produce a ridiculous amount of waste in the first place.Congratulations, that sounds like the amount of trash I would have if I could compost. See, us behind-the-times people recycle and reuse, too. You'll have to do something else to be cool now.

Why Plastic Bags are Good for the Environment

In the opinion of Premier Funkalunatic of the Dominion of Tongass:

Lots of progressive places are banning plastic bags from grocery stores and stuff, ostensibly for environmental reasons. This seems foolish to me. Consider the following:

It's an inevitability that humanity will deplete as much of the Earth's fossil fuels as it can, since they is a cheap source of chemical energy. The amount of oil and other fossil fuels harvested from the Earth isn't affected by the demand for plastic bags, because market forces will ensure that the scarce petroleum is redistributed to other activities. (For example, if no more plastic bags are produced, then a surplus would cause gas prices to go down and people would use more gas.)

So the effect of banning plastic bags does not reduce overall oil consumption, but merely causes it to be reallocated. Because of this, the environmental impact of banning plastic bags must be a comparative one, taking into account these other uses. Let's do a comparison!


1 - Plastic bags are not banned.
Consequence: the vast majority of plastic bags end up safely in a landfill. A very small number end up in the environment, where they photodegrade and leave behind small bits of unnatural, but environmentally benign chemicals. Note that this can be controlled with litter pickup prior to degradation.
Don't forget, plastic bags are made out of petroleum which we are fast funning out of.

2 - Plastic bags are banned.
Consequence: Consumers switch to bioplastic or paper bags, both of which require an ecological footprint to produce. Additionally, the absence of a plastic bag market frees up more of the finite fossil fuel resource to be devoted to things like fuel for cars, engines, energy production etc, that convert the almost all of the fossil fuel into a pollutant of one form or another (CO, CO2, etc.) that is deposited directly into the environment.
Or they use those cool new reusable bags made out of 100% environmentally friendly material. $0.99/bag. Or they can practice reuse and use the boxes that the store gets product in.

So banning plastic bags actually has a net negative effect on the environment. Somebody call Penn and Teller.
Except it doesn't.

Disclaimer: Premier Funkalunatic is not an expert in any of this crap.
Research FTW!

None of those articles talk about a state-sized heap of floating trash. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pacific_Gyre "Some sources[2] have incorrectly reported that there is a "floating continent" of debris that is roughly twice the size of Texas, however no scientific investigation... has verified this."

Let's quote the rest of the article shall we?

"The centre of the North Pacific Gyre is relatively stationary region of the Pacific Ocean (the area it occupies is often referred to as the horse latitudes) and the circular rotation around it draws waste material in. This has led to the accumulation of flotsam and other debris in huge floating 'clouds' of waste which have taken on informal names, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the Eastern Garbage Patch or the Pacific Trash Vortex. While historically this debris has biodegraded, the gyre is now accumulating vast quantities of plastic and marine debris. Rather than biodegrading, plastic photodegrades, disintegrating in the ocean into smaller and smaller pieces. These pieces, still polymers, eventually become individual molecules, which are still not easily digested.[1] Some plastics photodegrade into other pollutants. The floating particles also resemble zooplankton, which can lead to them being consumed by jellyfish, thus entering the ocean food chain. In samples taken from the gyre in 2001, the mass of plastic exceeded that of zooplankton (the dominant animalian life in the area) by a factor of six. Many of these long-lasting pieces end up in the stomachs of marine birds and animals. [2]

For several years ocean researcher Charles Moore has been investigating a concentration of floating plastic debris in the North Pacific Gyre. He has reported concentrations of plastics on the order of 3,340,000 pieces/km² with a mean mass of 5.1kg/km² collected using a manta trawl with a rectangular opening of 0.9x0.15m² at the surface. Trawls at depths of 10m found less than half, consisting primarily of monofilament line fouled with diatoms and other plankton."

The point being there is a massive accumulation of garbage in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, largely made of plastics which do not biodegrade. Whether it is state-sized or not is a pointless argument.


15 minutes? Not if you reuse or recycle.

Most people don't bother. Besides, plastic bags tend to be of such a low grade plastic that they are difficult to recycle into anything useful (without expending an increcible amount of energy and other resources).


As for not breaking down, decomposition is the bane of the modern landfill. We want litter to degrade, but not trash in a landfill.

Really? We want it around forever?


Any detriment to future generations will also have to be weighed against advancements and retreats we've made in other areas of society. The problem of plastic bags is comparatively small.

It's actually a measurable part of the waste problem: about 5% of landfill waste, and 10% of the garbage islands in the Pacific. Moreover, it's a part of the problem that is easily dealt with, as there are cost-effective and readily available alternatives.


However, the institutionalized legitimization of a knee-jerk tendency to force our will on others to ban whatever makes us feel uncomfortable isn't.

I'm actually not in favour of banning them. I'm actually in favour of taxing the hell out of them (making the polluter pay) and offering people viable, cost-effective alternatives


Of course, and we need to combat litter and waste and all that. But when petroleum is being used as fuel rather than materials, ALL of it ends up where it shouldn't be, which is the point that everybody here seems to be ignoring.

Actually, some other people have met that aspect of your argument head-on. Your argument ignores simple economics. A decrease in the number of plastic bags would create a decrease in the demand for petroleum products. It would reach a new equilibrium with lower prices and lower consumption (there would be a slight increase in consumption from other consumers, but the overall net effect would be negative). The decrease in price would also lead to a decrease in production, as some sources of oil would no longer be economically viable. In short, we would be consuming less oil.


What makes you think I oppose regulating pollution and waste? Especially when I've been admitting that there's a litter problem, and my argument is premised on the need to reduce pollution? Also, what makes you think that disposal-oriented waste management system is any more bureaucratic than a recycling/regulation-oriented system?

You're not opposed to regulating pollution and waste, but you are opposed to reducing it at source, which is actually the most cost effective and environmentally friendly way to do it.


My use of non-biodegradable plastic has nothing to do with any of those things.


If you'd bothered to read the National Geo article, you'd know that your use of non biodegradable plastic bags has something to do with all of those things.

Actually, some other people have met that aspect of your argument head-on. Your argument ignores simple economics. A decrease in the number of plastic bags would create a decrease in the demand for petroleum products. It would reach a new equilibrium with lower prices and lower consumption (there would be a slight increase in consumption from other consumers, but the overall net effect would be negative). The decrease in price would also lead to a decrease in production, as some sources of oil would no longer be economically viable. In short, we would be consuming less oil.Are you kidding me? YOUR argument ignores simple economics. Since supply is finite, and demand is not, the economic viability of fossil fuel sources is only limited by the comparative economic viability of other fuel sources. That is, while the rate of demand may be reduced by banning plastic bags, it doesn't matter since fossil fuels are non-renewable, and demand will continue through their depletion regardless of the rate. The ratio of demand to supply approaches infinity in either case, so while the final hour may come at a different time, the price people are willing to pay to squeeze the last drop would remain the same, (assuming that interim technological advancement is equal in renewable and non-renewable resource harvesting).

You're not opposed to regulating pollution and waste, but you are opposed to reducing it at source, which is actually the most cost effective and environmentally friendly way to do it.
1 - Cost effective? Based on what twisted logic? It saves me and the taxpayers time and money to simply not to deal with this feel-good banning plastic bags bullcrap.
2 - Even if it were more cost-effective, how does that justify putting restrictions on what private businesses and individuals can and can't do?
3 - If it were really more cost effective, wouldn't we already be doing it?

If you'd bothered to read the National Geo article, you'd know that your use of non biodegradable plastic bags has something to do with all of those things.
I can't find that article. Your post on page 2 links to the sensationalist SFgate article twice. If it says that plastic bags in the environment are bad, then fuck you for calling me a litterer.

3 - If it were really more cost effective, wouldn't we already be doing it?

All the cool kids are doing it.

As in, some of us are already doing it. We're showing you the research that shows you that it works, that it helps and that it is more cost effective. You're sticking to your twisted, contradictory theory though.

If it says that plastic bags in the environment are bad, then fuck you for calling me a litterer.

How are you plastic bags in the environment Not bad?

Paper bags are better, they fold neatly and can be reused for years (they can, believe me, my family until recently had some that were more than a decade old) Cloth bags are better still. Though textbook store plastic bags are good and highly reusable because of their increased thickness and therefore durability.

How are you plastic bags in the environment Not bad?Of course they're bad. I'm saying that MY plastic bags don't get put in the environment.

Of course they're bad. I'm saying that MY plastic bags don't get put in the environment.

They end up there either way. Even unintentionally.

Don't forget, plastic bags are made out of petroleum which we are fast funning out of.
Don't forget that plastic is easier to recycle than paper and is the closest of the non-profitable recyclables to actually being profitable.

Or they use those cool new reusable bags made out of 100% environmentally friendly material. $0.99/bag. Or they can practice reuse and use the boxes that the store gets product in.
As someone who has worked in a grocery store I can tell you the prices of the different bags used. Plastic bags cost less than $0.02, paper is between 0.08 and 0.10, cloth bags are generally over a dollar (those I saw at my local Kowalski's were 1.25), big boxes are 0.50. Plastic makes cents.

Plastic bags are easiest to pack out of all the bags so long as they remain on their rack when being stuffed. Paper can be packed pretty easily standing upright but the glue doesn't always hold and they can rip if you try to put large, oddly shaped item in them. Boxes are probably the easiest to pack but few people get enough groceries in a single stop to bother getting a couple of boxes too. Cloth bags are by far the most difficult and time-consuming to pack, they just don't stay up and so cannot be fully loaded quickly like paper and plastic and boxes. Most cloth bags are also more expensive than most boxes so they really son't make a lot of sense.

Also, don't be so quick to trust someone when they say that what they're doing is environmentally friendly. Organic food actually requires more land because of the lower yeilds of the crops being harvested and creates more waste than modern farming. It also uses more dangerous "organic" pesticides like nicotine sulfate, a potent neurotoxin that has killed farmers and handlers.

My advice to you and everyone here is to stop taking things at face value. Conduct some research before taking a position on something.

Don't forget that plastic is easier to recycle than paper and is the closest of the non-profitable recyclables to actually being profitable.

As someone who has worked in a grocery store I can tell you the prices of the different bags used. Plastic bags cost less than $0.02, paper is between 0.08 and 0.10, cloth bags are generally over a dollar (those I saw at my local Kowalski's were 1.25), big boxes are 0.50. Plastic makes cents.
a couple of points:
those cardboard boxes might cost money to produce, but are already there in order to cart the goods to the supermarket. Their cost has already been factored into the cost of production of the goods. Plastic bags are an additional cost.
Cloth bags might cost more to produce but can be reused many times over. Sure it might be 50x the cost of a plastic bag (using your figures), but it can be used more than 50x. Generally plastic bags are used just once before being discarded. So total cost over the life of the product is in fact less.
And then there's the ecological footprint of producing a cloth bag over a plastic bag.


Also, don't be so quick to trust someone when they say that what they're doing is environmentally friendly
That's very sound advice. I find it ironic, if not outright hypocritical, some of the 'environmentally-friendly' products out there preying on people's social conscience.
eg.
One of my favourite herbal teas is a licorice-blend. I usually get a NZ brand, which isn't organic (at least doesn't claim to be). Recently I bought a different brand which proclaimed proudly to be organic (and thus containing the underlying implications of environmentally-friendliness) more out of curiosity than any prick of my social conscience or need to be 'healthier' (also it's hard getting the NZ brand here so I'm always looking for reasonable substitutes).
My usual brand is 30 paper teabags in a cheap cardboard box.
This new organic brand is 30 paper teabags each in a plastic-coated paper slip sealed in plastic wrapping, all of which are in a plastic-coated cardboard box which itself was wrapped in plastic.
environmentally-friendly my arse.

Don't forget that plastic is easier to recycle than paper and is the closest of the non-profitable recyclables to actually being profitable.
Better to have nothing to recycle at all.


As someone who has worked in a grocery store I can tell you the prices of the different bags used. Plastic bags cost less than $0.02, paper is between 0.08 and 0.10, cloth bags are generally over a dollar (those I saw at my local Kowalski's were 1.25), big boxes are 0.50. Plastic makes cents.
Well, the boxes that are going to be recycled anyway aren't costing the store a damn thing now are they. And the consumer pays for the resuable bags (not cloth some other cool material).

Plastic bags are easiest to pack out of all the bags so long as they remain on their rack when being stuffed. Paper can be packed pretty easily standing upright but the glue doesn't always hold and they can rip if you try to put large, oddly shaped item in them. Boxes are probably the easiest to pack but few people get enough groceries in a single stop to bother getting a couple of boxes too. Cloth bags are by far the most difficult and time-consuming to pack, they just don't stay up and so cannot be fully loaded quickly like paper and plastic and boxes. Most cloth bags are also more expensive than most boxes so they really son't make a lot of sense.
Your store has crappy ones then. These bags are flat when foled and ahve a little plastic thing in the bottom so you can make them stand up just like a paper bag.

Also, don't be so quick to trust someone when they say that what they're doing is environmentally friendly. Organic food actually requires more land because of the lower yeilds of the crops being harvested and creates more waste than modern farming. It also uses more dangerous "organic" pesticides like nicotine sulfate, a potent neurotoxin that has killed farmers and handlers.
What on earth does that have to do with the topic at hand?

My advice to you and everyone here is to stop taking things at face value. Conduct some research before taking a position on something.
Might want to fully form an argument instead of just giving a random opinion.

Without the thin plastic bags from supermarkets, what will we use in small household garbage bins?How often do you bring out the trash? I used them for that too, but I never needed as many as I could have gotten each time I went shopping.

a couple of points:
those cardboard boxes might cost money to produce, but are already there in order to cart the goods to the supermarket. Their cost has already been factored into the cost of production of the goods. Plastic bags are an additional cost.
Actually the boxes come flat in stacks. They need to be assembled and are an additional cost. Product comes to the store on wood or plastic pallets and wrapped in plastic to prevent it from tipping over in the truck. They cost around 30x a plastic bag.

Cloth bags might cost more to produce but can be reused many times over. Sure it might be 50x the cost of a plastic bag (using your figures), but it can be used more than 50x. Generally plastic bags are used just once before being discarded. So total cost over the life of the product is in fact less.
Actually I use mine at least twice. Once as grocery bags then a second time as garbage bags.

And then there's the ecological footprint of producing a cloth bag over a plastic bag.
Yes, the cloth bage has a larger ecological footprint. You see, things don't cost more just because someone said so, cost is determined by the materials and labor consumed fro production with a small percentage tacked on for profit. In grocery stores, profit margins are pretty damn thin.

That's very sound advice. I find it ironic, if not outright hypocritical, some of the 'environmentally-friendly' products out there preying on people's social conscience.
I'm glad you agree.

Better to have nothing to recycle at all.
To have zero waste would require zero consumption. That's not an option.

Well, the boxes that are going to be recycled anyway aren't costing the store a damn thing now are they. And the consumer pays for the resuable bags (not cloth some other cool material).
Tote boxes come flat in stacks and must be assembled in the store. Product arrive at the store on wood or plastic pallets wrapped in plastic. Paper costs more to recycle than plastic and creates moderate volumes of toxic waste during the chemical treatment of pulp.

Your store has crappy ones then. These bags are flat when foled and ahve a little plastic thing in the bottom so you can make them stand up just like a paper bag.
Those are the 'new' re-usable bags. They're usually made out of plastic, just like those orange vests you see construction workers wearing. What I'm talking about are the cloth bags that people bring in.

What on earth does that have to do with the topic at hand?
The topic is about the environmental impact of plastic bags. I used the environmental impact of organic farming as an example of how something marketed as environmentally friendly can actually be more damaging than standard practices and to show that deception is not limited to eco-friendly packaging.

Might want to fully form an argument instead of just giving a random opinion.
I did. You ignored it.

To have zero waste would require zero consumption. That's not an option.
So when you go to a store and use a reusable bag instead of a new bag, how much goes into the landfill/recycle? By the time the reusable bad is cashed, you've used it hundreds (if not thousands of times).

You still aren't stating why throwing one thing away/recycling once every several years is preferable to throwing something out every time you shop.

Tote boxes come flat in stacks and must be assembled in the store. Product arrive at the store on wood or plastic pallets wrapped in plastic. Paper costs more to recycle than plastic and creates moderate volumes of toxic waste during the chemical treatment of pulp.
Didn't I make it abundantly clear I wasn't talking about tote boxes?

Not in all stores, no. And not all product in all stores.

Those are the 'new' re-usable bags. They're usually made out of plastic, just like those orange vests you see construction workers wearing. What I'm talking about are the cloth bags that people bring in.
Well I wasn't. And those bags aren't plastic in this region.

The topic is about the environmental impact of plastic bags. I used the environmental impact of organic farming as an example of how something marketed as environmentally friendly can actually be more damaging than standard practices and to show that deception is not limited to eco-friendly packaging.
Well that's not on topic now is it?

I did. You ignored it.[/QUOTE]
No, you've thrown together some random nonsese and given your opinion. Not quite the same.

Actually the boxes come flat in stacks. They need to be assembled and are an additional cost. Product comes to the store on wood or plastic pallets and wrapped in plastic to prevent it from tipping over in the truck. They cost around 30x a plastic bag.
I thought you meant the boxes the goods come in. In NZ, one of the biggest supermarket chains, Pak'n'Save (or Pak'n'Slave as it's known by anyone and everyone who's ever worked there, myself included) leaves these boxes up near the checkouts for people to pack their own groceries into. If you prefer to use their plastic bags, they charge 10c for each one.

Actually I use mine at least twice. Once as grocery bags then a second time as garbage bags.
And you can use a cloth grocery bag hundreds of times before using it as a garbage bag. So it still comes out cheaper in the long run.

Yes, the cloth bage has a larger ecological footprint. You see, things don't cost more just because someone said so, cost is determined by the materials and labor consumed for production with a small percentage tacked on for profit. In grocery stores, profit margins are pretty damn thin.
Ummm...I didn't say cost to produce. I said ecological footprint. There's a difference there.
Also profit margins in supermarkets might be low (~1% iirc) it's not the same on every product. So one shouldn't (indeed can't) compare the costs of production of two items based solely on their respective pricings. Especially with environmentally-friendly products which are in vogue and still in the crystallisation and growth stage - and thus at the stage where profit margins can be maximised.


There's also the effect of this msg on the public. Even if there's little gain to be had from banning plastic bags per se, if it results on heightened awareness of environmental concerns, rubbish disposal and landfill use and results in people making less waste (and thus less burden and costs on society), then that too needs to be taken into consideration. By not doing anything, it's sending the msg out that it's perfectly okay to continue with our wasteful ways.

So when you go to a store and use a reusable bag instead of a new bag, how much goes into the landfill/recycle? By the time the reusable bad is cashed, you've used it hundreds (if not thousands of times).
Why force that upon others? What gives you the right to tell me how I can and cannot live my life?

Didn't I make it abundantly clear I wasn't talking about tote boxes?
All product arrives at stores on pallets. Those pallets and product get placed on large shelves in the back room with forklifts. The large boxes in the store are the tote boxes that come flat and must be assembled in store by employees and they are not free.

Not in all stores, no. And not all product in all stores.
Roundy's owned stores, Cub, Kowalski's, and all other local stores do. The only boxes that arrive at the store are the individual packages like a box of Pop Tarts or cereal. I've worked in grocery stores, I know grocery stores. Don't give me this bullshit.

Well I wasn't. And those bags aren't plastic in this region.
Chances are they are. Chances are that you've got clothing that contain plastics and other synthetic materials. It's really damn common.

Well that's not on topic now is it?
Actually, it is. I was attempting to illustrate that deception in the name of environmental protection is not isolated to recycling and grocery bags.

No, you've thrown together some random nonsese and given your opinion. Not quite the same.
No, I threw together an argument against banning plastic bags drawing on my personal experiences and what should be common knowledge.

I thought you meant the boxes the goods come in. In NZ, one of the biggest supermarket chains, Pak'n'Save (or Pak'n'Slave as it's known by anyone and everyone who's ever worked there, myself included) leaves these boxes up near the checkouts for people to pack their own groceries into. If you prefer to use their plastic bags, they charge 10c for each one.
In America we use wood and plastic pallets because they make it easy to move large quanities of goods around a store with jacks. Empty pallets are stacked and sent back with an empty truck so they can be used again. I have no problem with a store charging $0.10 for plastic bags, that is the choice of the store and if consumers don't like it they can shop elsewhere.

And you can use a cloth grocery bag hundreds of times before using it as a garbage bag. So it still comes out cheaper in the long run.
A good cloth bag can cost 100x what a plastic bag does so the difference isn't quite what you think it is.

Ummm...I didn't say cost to produce. I said ecological footprint. There's a difference there.
Not really. Paper recycling has a larger ecological footprint than using virgin pulp gathered through responsible rotational logging. It also costs more.

Same with organic farming; more land because of lower crop yeilds, more organic fertilizer because it isn't as effective as standard, more (and more dangerous) organic pesticides because they break down so quickly, all add up to create more waste and use more land to produce a more expensive, inferior and potentially dangerous product.

Also profit margins in supermarkets might be low (~1% iirc) it's not the same on every product. So one shouldn't (indeed can't) compare the costs of production of two items based solely on their respective pricings. Especially with environmentally-friendly products which are in vogue and still in the crystallisation and growth stage - and thus at the stage where profit margins can be maximised.
Yes, you can compare items based on the cost of production. You get out what you put in but not all of it will be what you want. What's left over is called waste. Things that are more wasteful are generally more expensive and things that are more expensive are generally more watseful.

There's also the effect of this msg on the public. Even if there's little gain to be had from banning plastic bags per se, if it results on heightened awareness of environmental concerns, rubbish disposal and landfill use and results in people making less waste (and thus less burden and costs on society), then that too needs to be taken into consideration. By not doing anything, it's sending the msg out that it's perfectly okay to continue with our wasteful ways.
No end justifies the means of lying.

There is a quote in my signature, words spoken by the fictional Judge Aaron Satie but still ring true. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." In Niven's Known Space universe only about 1 in 12 people are permitted to learn of Earth's history, of war and life before the "golden age" that preceeded the first Man-Kzin War. Everyone is told that it is because most people cannot handle the truth but the true reason could only be to keep people from learning of the freedom's they've been robbed of. The future that he described was a sinister dark cloud sheathed in a silver lining; vivisection for nearly all crimes, forced mass-sterilization, no freedom, no choice, and a populace kept ignorant of its liberty lost. There is a difference between a man and a slave, that difference is choice.

Remember, villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged.

Why force that upon others? What gives you the right to tell me how I can and cannot live my life?
Ummmm okay, but that had nothing to do with what I posted.


All product arrives at stores on pallets. Those pallets and product get placed on large shelves in the back room with forklifts. The large boxes in the store are the tote boxes that come flat and must be assembled in store by employees and they are not free.
Riiiiiiiggggghhhhtttt. Because employees sit in the back of Sam's Club and put together a random assortment of Eggo Waffle boxes, Boonze Farm boxes, ciggarette brand boxes. And I guess that all the boxes are different shapes and sizes to add to the ambiance.

I can take a picture if you don't believe me. You are 100% wrong.


Roundy's owned stores, Cub, Kowalski's, and all other local stores do. The only boxes that arrive at the store are the individual packages like a box of Pop Tarts or cereal. I've worked in grocery stores, I know grocery stores. Don't give me this bullshit.
Yes, you've worked in all supermarkets everywhere.:rolleyes: I guess all those boxes the Nabisco reps asked us to recycle was just to give us more work to do. So please tell me what a pallatte of wine bottles looks like.

Chances are they are. Chances are that you've got clothing that contain plastics and other synthetic materials. It's really damn common.
YOU said they were made out of plastic road vest looking material. I said they weren't
A: stop bringing up irrelevant stuff.
B: stop changing the argument.

Did Corneliu teach you how to debate?

Actually, it is. I was attempting to illustrate that deception in the name of environmental protection is not isolated to recycling and grocery bags.
Irrelevant and not on topic.

No, I threw together an argument against banning plastic bags drawing on my personal experiences and what should be common knowledge.
Personal and unverifiable.

In America we use wood and plastic pallets because they make it easy to move large quanities of goods around a store with jacks. Empty pallets are stacked and sent back with an empty truck so they can be used again. I have no problem with a store charging $0.10 for plastic bags, that is the choice of the store and if consumers don't like it they can shop elsewhere.
Not all product.

A good cloth bag can cost 100x what a plastic bag does so the difference isn't quite what you think it is.
They're $0.99. Where's this crippling cost?

Not really. Paper recycling has a larger ecological footprint than using virgin pulp gathered through responsible rotational logging. It also costs more.
And now you are switching arguments again. Since when does recycled paper = cloth?


Same with organic farming; more land because of lower crop yeilds, more organic fertilizer because it isn't as effective as standard, more (and more dangerous) organic pesticides because they break down so quickly, all add up to create more waste and use more land to produce a more expensive, inferior and potentially dangerous product.
Irrelevant and doesn't prove your point.

Yes, you can compare items based on the cost of production. You get out what you put in but not all of it will be what you want. What's left over is called waste. Things that are more wasteful are generally more expensive and things that are more expensive are generally more watseful.
You might want to reread his statement.

No end justifies the means of lying.

There is a quote in my signature, words spoken by the fictional Judge Aaron Satie but still ring true. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." In Niven's Known Space universe only about 1 in 12 people are permitted to learn of Earth's history, of war and life before the "golden age" that preceeded the first Man-Kzin War. Everyone is told that it is because most people cannot handle the truth but the true reason could only be to keep people from learning of the freedom's they've been robbed of. The future that he described was a sinister dark cloud sheathed in a silver lining; vivisection for nearly all crimes, forced mass-sterilization, no freedom, no choice, and a populace kept ignorant of its liberty lost. There is a difference between a man and a slave, that difference is choice.

Remember, villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged.

Please tell me you are capable of staying on topic.