Ban Plastic Bags!

[ClearWest]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

A step forward for environmentalism? Or will it just cause more trees to be cut down, since the biodegradable alternative is currently very expensive and untested?

I am generally skeptical of any kind of ban. Obviously people were perfectly fine with using plastic bags, why else would they need to ban it? In a free society nobody would tell you what product you can and cannot use. Those decisions would be made according to supply and demand. That's true democracy - rule by the people, not by majority.

[Charles Anthony]

Who cares about plastic shopping bags per se??? We should be more concerned about all sorts of packaging and garbage in general.

I think it would wiser for municipalities to charge residents for the garbage they dispose.

For example, $1 a pound of garbage and maybe gradually increase it over time. That way, individuals will have an incentive to change their purchasing habits so that they throw out less packaging and wrappers.

[marcinmoka]

Why not biodegradable "plastic" bags?

I , in some way, shape or form, always reuse my plastic bags, whereas I can't quite see myself carrying my wet sneakers to school in a brown paper bag

[guyser]

I think it would wiser for municipalities to charge residents for the garbage they dispose.

They already do Charles. There are two tiers of payment .If you exceed a certain limit, then you must pay for a sticker.

Under that limit it is called "taxes" .

[geoffrey]

Mountain Equipment Co-op uses biodegradable bags, and their prices are as competitive (actually most of the time much cheaper) then their competitors.

I don't see it as much of a problem. Companies should be held to account for the wastefulness of some of their products. Why even use a bag? Superstore (Loblaws I believe in the East?) already encourages people to use baskets and the such instead.

There is a market solution to this, unfortunately it won't be realised until the garbage is piling up on our lawns.

[Charles Anthony]

Companies should be held to account for the wastefulness of some of their products.

No. The consumer should. The results will be faster if the consumer sees a price associated with their choices.

There are two tiers of payment .If you exceed a certain limit, then you must pay for a sticker.

Under that limit it is called "taxes" .

Unfortunately, if somebody puts nothing out on garbage day, they will still pay through "taxes".

I would suggest that those two tiers be subdivided further and there be no lower limit covered exclusively by "taxes" at all. Every single thing you put on the curb will have a visible and higher price.

[geoffrey]

No. The consumer should. The results will be faster if the consumer sees a price associated with their choices.

CA suggesting a tax? Unbelievable. It doesn't matter where the burden is, the consumer pays all in the end. Switching to biodegradable bags will be like a tax, without the evasion.

I would suggest that those two tiers be subdivided further and there be no lower limit covered exclusively by "taxes" at all. Every single thing you put on the curb will have a visible and higher price.

Fair enough.

[BZBee]

As consumers we purchase products in the packaging in which they are sold. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the companies who sell these products to find environmentally friendly alternatives? Plastic bags are the least of the problem and banning them is not the answer; most people bunch them into little balls and reuse them and/or keep them for a very long time (like I do). Maybe more supermarkets need to charge for plastic bags if you don't bring your own; that may stop a lot of dicarding and start a lot of reusing.

[geoffrey]

Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the companies who sell these products to find environmentally friendly alternatives?

Someone like Charles Anthony would likely find a market solution, and I tend to agree. But when dealing with the environment, we are dealing with competiting liberties, and I think there is a justified state intervention here.

One individuals abuse of the environment infringes upon my liberty to live in a world largely free of unneccessary pollution. Throwing garbage into your neighbours yard isn't going to fly. Throwing garbage around just for convenience sounds like a rather big infringement upon my liberty, and if the alternatives are reasonably priced and easily implemented, then yes, companies (rather, individual shareholders through their voting power) have a duty to use more environmental friendly measures.

[theloniusfleabag]

I have heard from some buddies in the petro-chemical field that plastic bags are much more 'environmentally friendly' than paper....they are easier to recycle (they get melted down and the components are easier to manage), and they take about 10% of the space vs. paper in landfills...

As to packaging, I must concur with Charles Anthony, the consumer ultimately decides direction. However, I believe that there should be some sort of recoverable 'deposit' for all packaging, encouraging the consumer to recycle and recover that cost.

I believe I saw a documentary on waste management in the UK years ago (as riveting as that sounds) where all household waste was taken to sorting stations before going to landfills. The municipalities reduced the volume going to the landfill by 90% by filtering out recyclables and organics, and actually turned a profit on the solids they sold to recycling plants.

There is nothing like that here because we don't have the land crunch and it remains cheaper to just 'dispose'.

[Liam]

My understanding of the ban is that only non-degradable plastic is banned. Bio-degradable plastic bags and paper will still be available.

I think the ban is a good step, even though a small one. Plastic production requires petroleum and the ban on these bags in San Francisco alone is, I believe, estimated to save 450,000 gallons (maybe barrels?) of petroleum annually. A drop in the bucket in terms of oil, but when you add in the permanent polution of discarded bags littering the sides of roads or tangled up in trees or blowing round and round and round in the wind tunnels of a city, the ban makes a little more sense.

I'm not averse to environmental issues, but like most consumers I probably don't think to much about it. I see the ban as being good for someone like me who is pro-environment but lazy about it. (My town instituted mandatory recycling about 10 years ago and I thought it was a great move. Great for me, who would probably just throw everything away. Now, my town recycles close to 50% of its trash by ton. Not bad for a mandated change.) So what do I care if the plastic they use at the grocery store is bio-degradable? Fine. It doesn't impact my choices in any way and it only does good.

[Canuck E Stan]

My understanding of the ban is that only non-degradable plastic is banned. Bio-degradable plastic bags and paper will still be available.

A bigger issue than plastic bags for me is the over packaging of items. Cardboard plus heavy shrinking or molded plastics to hold the item in place plus bag ties supporting the item inside the heavy plastic or styra-foam.

Plastic so tough you can't cut it with scissors and would best be removed using a band saw. Why?

This kind of packaging should be outlawed. With build in security available, there is no need for overkill.

Simplicity in packaging has to be returned to most items.This type of packaging is excessive and serves no purpose but filling the landfills.

[Charles Anthony]

The municipalities reduced the volume going to the landfill by 90% by filtering out recyclables and organics, and actually turned a profit on the solids they sold to recycling plants.

There is nothing like that here because we don't have the land crunch and it remains cheaper to just 'dispose'.

I like to joke with Newfies by telling them to get into the land-fill business. They have a lot of empty space.

I had a riveting conversation with an uncle of mine about recycling in Europe compared to North America. He confirmed that they make it profitable because of volume and thus, they make economies of scale. Everybody in Europe recycles. We can do the same if only more people participated.

A drop in the bucket in terms of oil, but when you add in the permanent polution of discarded bags littering the sides of roads or tangled up in trees or blowing round and round and round in the wind tunnels of a city, the ban makes a little more sense.

This might conceivably be a good justification for the ban given our State of affairs.

People who want to avoid the costs of disposing their garbage could litter.

(My town instituted mandatory recycling about 10 years ago and I thought it was a great move. Great for me, who would probably just throw everything away. Now, my town recycles close to 50% of its trash by ton. Not bad for a mandated change.)

Would it not be better for everybody to aim for a reduction in consuming those products all together?

If reducing these products by 50% is possible, recycling is a relative waste of resources.

If processing these recycled products emits nefarious pollution, we might be barking up the wrong tree. We might be exchanging one type of pollution for a different type.

[ClearWest]

A town in Manitoba recently joined in the fun. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...70402/20070402/

How would you feel if your town decided that stores couldn't use plastic bags anymore? Would you switch to cloth or paper? Would some of the smaller shops, to avoid cost, continue to provide the now illegal plastic bags?

I'm generally opposed to most 'bannings' as it creates unnecessary friction for voluntary traders in the free market, and sometimes a black market. Wanna buy a plastic bag?

Where could they take this from here. Maybe banning ziplock from people's homes? People probably go through those as much as grocery bags.

[geoffrey]

There is no potential for a blackmarket here in plastic bags, the evasion of this banning is nearly impossible and the cost to comply is low compared to the environmental benefit.

I say have at it.

[Liam]

Would it not be better for everybody to aim for a reduction in consuming those products all together?

If reducing these products by 50% is possible, recycling is a relative waste of resources.

If processing these recycled products emits nefarious pollution, we might be barking up the wrong tree. We might be exchanging one type of pollution for a different type.

Yes, it would be better to reduce consumption, but I'll take recycling of a town's trash at a rate of 50% over throwing away 100%. Who's to say that recycling at a given rate is a relative waste of resources? Maybe the energy consumption (carbon production, etc.) of recycling, even at 50% of all trash produced, is less than the production costs and environmental impact of making new, non-recycled paper and alumium and glass? I don't know, but I'm glad we're at least recycling 50% of our trash and look to the day when we'll be at 60% or 70%.

[Liam]

I'm generally opposed to most 'bannings' as it creates unnecessary friction for voluntary traders in the free market, and sometimes a black market. Wanna buy a plastic bag?

Where could they take this from here. Maybe banning ziplock from people's homes? People probably go through those as much as grocery bags.

Then the easy solution is to charge people more for the more polluting product. People still have the choice to buy the product they want in the marketplace, but there is an out-of-pocket cost associated with it.

[Charles Anthony]

Yes, it would be better to reduce consumption, but I'll take recycling of a town's trash at a rate of 50% over throwing away 100%. Who's to say that recycling at a given rate is a relative waste of resources?

The tax-payer could say it.

How about we make a compromise by having the State do both: recycling and charge people directly for their trash? If you say NO, I do not trust your motives concerning the environment. Reducing waste is better than recycling waste.

This is where I object to our culture of the recycling business. Most recycling programs are politically convenient make-shift civil servant jobs. It is analogous to paying a person to dig a hole and paying a second person to back-fill the same hole and a third person to re-dig the hole and so on and so on and so on and leave the tax-payer with the bill.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Would it not be better for everybody to aim for a reduction in consuming those products all together?

Surely you jest. You become an enigma, as I have said of August1991. Consumption is the driving mantra of free-enterprise. It's raison d'etre, for now, until we choose a new reason. Or, until a new reasoon is forced upon us.

The analogy of the hole-digging is not entirely accurate. Your hole has no purpose. The purpose of the hole in the real world is to generate profit. An example of freedom. Do you now wish to say that this purpose is not almighty?

[Charles Anthony]

Surely you jest. You become an enigma, as I have said of August1991. Consumption is the driving mantra of free-enterprise. It's raison d'etre, for now, until we choose a new reason. Or, until a new reasoon is forced upon us.

I am not joking. [Granted, I understand that I throw sarcasm around too often but I am not this time. Maybe I should start using those smilie-thingies.] However, be realistic: we are discussing what is commonly (but not necessarily) a public service. Would you want me to hijack this thread with how a Universally Respected Private Property Rights World would deal with garbage? I could.

The term "consumption" is used loosely. What exactly do you mean? What is "forced upon us"???

I am forced to eat and breathe too! Oh! Woe is me!

I can not wait until I figure out a way around living happily without having to consume anything.

Unless you are equating free-enterprise with an entire lack of government interference, I have no interest in defending your free-enterprise. If we are talking about consumption as the be-all-and-end-all of a public service, hell! we should promote having the recycling company not only process my junk but also come into my kitchen, do my dishes and sweep my floors. My analogy of the hole-digging is with reference to public services and not to free-enterprise.

The analogy of the hole-digging is not entirely accurate. Your hole has no purpose. The purpose of the hole in the real world is to generate profit. An example of freedom. Do you now wish to say that this purpose is not almighty?

In my example, the hole represents a service and not a purpose nor a means to generate profit in a free world.

I realize that I may have found a better analogy but my point is that we are doing work that is unnecessary given that there is an alternative: reduce garbage.

The way we handle garbage as a public service stops people from being held directly accountable for their pollution. I promote reducing garbage because its disposal affects other people. People do not deserve the freedom to pollute other people's property.

[Liam]

...How about we make a compromise by having the State do both: recycling and charge people directly for their trash? If you say NO, I do not trust your motives concerning the environment. Reducing waste is better than recycling waste...

I didn't know that my motives concerning the environment were subject to your litmus test, but for what it's worth, my town does charge people for the trash they throw away and I don't object to it. We have a pay-per-throw system whereby you must buy and use town-issued trash bags for all non-recyclables. Believe me, since I pay-per-bag of trash, I try to reduce the amount of stuff I send to the town landfill every weekend. Do I pass your test? Are my motives concerning the environment good now?

[Charles Anthony]

I didn't know that my motives concerning the environment were

something that should be taken personally?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "if"?

I did not accuse you personally of anything. I do not know you and you do not know me. Why take anything personal?

but for what it's worth, my town does charge people for the trash they throw away and I don't object to it.

I would say that is worth a lot.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Would you want me to hijack this thread with how a Universally Respected Private Property Rights World would deal with garbage? I could.

Yes, if it is relevant and contains answers to problems that should be considered.

I can not wait until I figure out a way around living happily without having to consume anything.

Indeed, tis a lofty goal...but rather than work toward it, we are going in the opposite direction. We worship consuming.

The term "consumption" is used loosely. What exactly do you mean?

The consumerist society that praises excess and cares not a whit for the bigger picture, nor the long term.

What is "forced upon us"???

I am forced to eat and breathe too! Oh! Woe is me!

Hardy har har. Actually, if you re-read what I wrote....

It's raison d'etre, for now, until we choose a new reason. Or, until a new reason is forced upon us.

I mean a new reason for driving our economy, a new reason for doing what we do. We can choose one, perhaps even a noble one, or we can continue as we have and have that new reason, that being base survival, come to the fore.

[Liam]

I didn't know that my motives concerning the environment were

something that should be taken personally?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "if"?

I did not accuse you personally of anything. I do not know you and you do not know me. Why take anything personal?

but for what it's worth, my town does charge people for the trash they throw away and I don't object to it.

I would say that is worth a lot.

Frankly, I thought our post was somewhat accusatory in tone, if that's not what you meant, I withdraw the interpretative part of my comment.

[Charles Anthony]

Frankly, I thought our post was somewhat accusatory in tone, if that's not what you meant, I withdraw the interpretative part of my comment.

Cheers. I think I should likewise be more careful with my wording.

I mean a new reason for driving our economy, a new reason for doing what we do. We can choose one, perhaps even a noble one, or we can continue as we have and have that new reason, that being base survival, come to the fore.

I am lost. Are we choosing or are we being forced?

The consumerist society that praises excess and cares not a whit for the bigger picture, nor the long term.

-- and so the definition of consumerism loosens and loosens...

Indeed, tis a lofty goal...but rather than work toward it, we are going in the opposite direction. We worship consuming.

As they say: "You are what you eat."

Would you want me to hijack this thread with how a Universally Respected Private Property Rights World would deal with garbage? I could.

Yes, if it is relevant and contains answers to problems that should be considered.

Simple. The problems with evironmental pollution have a hope of being solved by selling off all public lands and denying government authority.