Seems like I remember reading an article a while back about how Wal-Mart changed the 'look' of their plastic bags, so they would look like all the other plastic bags. Apparently, it was very easy to notice the millions of Wal-Mart plastic bags at the dump. I'll have to locate that article.
Well maybe if their cashiers didn't use one bag for every item, there wouldn't be that many bags I always have to tell them to put stuff together because I don't feel like carrying 12 bags of stuff when it will fit in 3.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
it's not really in THEIR interests, but it is in the environment's interests. and since it is unfortunately true that the environment cannot vote to protect its own interests, sometimes we need to make some decisions to protect it out of the kindness of our heart. if we can find ways to do so that are relatively cheap, simple, and not inconvenient, i am all for that. better a plastic bag ban than a car ban.
Why "better"? I see absolutely nothing to suggest a plastic bag ban would address the environmental concerns listed (oil and waste), whereas banning cars most certainly would.
as to condoms, yes, theoretically it could be done by the same logic. but, as usual, you are all in your head and not in reality. the same logic could be used, but wouldnt be, for a number of reasons:
1) condoms are not nearly as common or prevalent in their use. people are handed 3-4 of these bags every time they go to the store... i have hundreds in my closet that i use for trash bags.
Not nearly as common or prevalent? Well, I guess it depends on the standard. 10,000,000,000 condoms are discarded each year worldwide, roughly. Meanwhile, 500,000,000,000 plastic bags are used each year worldwide, roughly. So you have a factor of 50 times more plastic bags than condoms, but you also have plastic products that are more prevalent than both, yet you don't ban them. Like milk jugs, plastic bottles, etc.
2) condoms are smaller, so even if numerically, as many condoms were used as plastic bags, it would not be as big a problem.
Depends. Condoms are also thicker, and tougher. Furthermore, when we consider energy, it takes 4 times as much energy to create a paper bag than it does a plastic bag. Paper bags produce much more waste mass, but it decomposes faster.
3) for both of the above reasons, condoms would NOT be banned becos the intent of this law is environmental protection and a condom ban would not have any significant impact on the environment. whether or not the plastic bag thing does is debatable but it is assuredly (by simple math and physics) far more significant than a condom ban.
10,000,000,000 condoms has no "impact on the environment?" Again, this is bullshit. If I forced people to take birth control pills instead of using condoms, I'd significantly reduce environmental impact.
4) alternatives to condoms are nowhere near as cheap and convenient and practical as alternatives to plastic grocery bags. a paper bag is handed to the customer and carried in the same manner. other than condoms, you have to get the pill, the path, or some other vastly different contraceptive.
Of course they are. Lambskin condoms are a viable alternative.
5) for the reason above, such a measure would spur a public outcry becos the costs vastly outweigh the benefits for a condom ban. this is not the case for a plastic bag ban, which has very moderate/minimal costs for a relatively significant benefit.
I agree with this one.
as you were so quick to point out in the human hybrid thread, just becos something can be done doesnt mean it should or will be done. in this case, yes, similar logic could be used to band condoms, but it will not be due to a basic cost-benefit analysis. surely as a businessman you understand the concept of cost-benefit analysis.
Hehe...I do understand the concept of a "cost-benefit analysis". The entire purpose of governmental intervention here, however, is to pretend that the very same public is immune from such analyses. They've simply replaced the cost of their own choices with the enforcement of others. They've removed the decision, which in turn makes them believe they've removed the costs. It doesn't work.
this is a good thing esp since they are only banning plastic bags but not re-usable plastic bags. So really it just forces companies and consumers to used recycled goods.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Why "better"? I see absolutely nothing to suggest a plastic bag ban would address the environmental concerns listed (oil and waste), whereas banning cars most certainly would.
but as i said, the cost of banning cars would be huge. i dont know enough science to know the actual effects of a plastic bag ban and dont care enough to look into it.
Not nearly as common or prevalent? Well, I guess it depends on the standard. 10,000,000,000 condoms are discarded each year worldwide, roughly. Meanwhile, 500,000,000,000 plastic bags are used each year worldwide, roughly. So you have a factor of 50 times more plastic bags than condoms, but you also have plastic products that are more prevalent than both, yet you don't ban them. Like milk jugs, plastic bottles, etc.
yes, but we're talking san fran. how many condoms vs. plastic bags are discarded in america? or in san fran? also, plastic bottles and jugs have strong recycling programs to somewhat offset the cost of using them. i believe plastic bags are recyclable too, but people dont do it. the world is less than perfect. but id still like it to be habitable in a few hundred years.
Depends. Condoms are also thicker, and tougher. Furthermore, when we consider energy, it takes 4 times as much energy to create a paper bag than it does a plastic bag. Paper bags produce much more waste mass, but it decomposes faster.
i thnk the decomposition is the issue here. i get the impression this is about lanfdill issues. we consume way beyond a healthy rate of resources and we're running out of places to throw the garbage. again, an easy way to make a significant reduction in landfill use with minimal costs is kind of a no brainer.
10,000,000,000 condoms has no "impact on the environment?" Again, this is bullshit. If I forced people to take birth control pills instead of using condoms, I'd significantly reduce environmental impact.
i didnt say it has no impact, i said it was not as significant as plastic bags. yes, you could force people to take birth control, but handing someone a paper instead of a plastic bag is a difference probably no one in san fran will notice and one that requires no effort really. forcing a switch to the pill is vastly different... doctor's visit for prescrip, fighting insurance to pay for it, totally different change in habits and practices for consumers, it has a much wider and troubling impact on the public than switching to paper from plastic.
Of course they are. Lambskin condoms are a viable alternative.
but can they meet the demand with the minimal cost impact of paper vs. plastic? i know little about them except that as an idea it's really gross... i wouldnt stick my pecker in a lamb, i sure as hell dont want to wrap a lamb around it
and this one is the most important one. the costs of this initiative are minimal. the benefits are tangible (though debatable). which is why condom bans would not fly and plastic bags will. you can't get something for nothing. as a capitalist you should know. if san fran decides they are willing to give up plastic bags for the environmental benefit, it's their call. if they decide they're not willing to give up condoms for the environmental benefit, there is nothing contradictory or illogical about that. again, your devotion to abstract logic makes no sense here. they are parallel, but in no way are they the same and there is nothing unreasonable about drawing a distinction between them.
Hehe...I do understand the concept of a "cost-benefit analysis". The entire purpose of governmental intervention here, however, is to pretend that the very same public is immune from such analyses. They've simply replaced the cost of their own choices with the enforcement of others. They've removed the decision, which in turn makes them believe they've removed the costs. It doesn't work.
i dont understand what you're saying here. the public is immune to what? this is basic human psychology. people will sit by and watch someone be murdered and not lift a finger if the people around them don't. so the chance of one citizen trying to take some stand on plastic bags is absurd. their one decision makes no impact, and nobody will even be aware of it. for every bag citizen 1 doesn't take, citizen 2 takes an extra. so they do choose... they choose to place environmental concerns over a stupid and pointless "choice" that nobody is making anyway... nobody is going to cry over not having a plastic bag, they wont even notice. they've decided that their concern over limited landfill resources and the problems of disease associated with insufficient waste disposal resources vastly outweighs their concern over being able to go into a supermarket and say "i want plastic." that is a choice. and if it so so abhorrent to the community, the law will not be passed. and if you're in the minority that is really attached to plastic, you too have a choice: you can move out. there's another cost-benefit analysis: is your abstract devotion to ridiculous ideals of sufficient benefit to you that you will endure the cost of uprooting your life over the horror of being denied the benefit of a plastic bag at walgreen's? you cannot live in a vacuum and will always have to cope with human society, which means at some point, there will be impositions upon you. that's when you have to learn what battles are worth fighting.
but as i said, the cost of banning cars would be huge. i dont know enough science to know the actual effects of a plastic bag ban and dont care enough to look into it.
Me neither
yes, but we're talking san fran. how many condoms vs. plastic bags are discarded in america? or in san fran? also, plastic bottles and jugs have strong recycling programs to somewhat offset the cost of using them. i believe plastic bags are recyclable too, but people dont do it. the world is less than perfect. but id still like it to be habitable in a few hundred years.
Ok, but isn't that statement "I'd still like it to be habitable in a few hundred years" a little ridiculous? Do you honestly believe that a plastic bag ban is relative to that in any appreciable way, particularly given the previous set of questions you ask?
i thnk the decomposition is the issue here. i get the impression this is about lanfdill issues. we consume way beyond a healthy rate of resources and we're running out of places to throw the garbage. again, an easy way to make a significant reduction in landfill use with minimal costs is kind of a no brainer.
It's obviously not a "no brainer". If it were that simple and basic, the law would be completely unnecessary because people wouldn't be using plastic bags.
This plays into the rest of your post, particularly regarding the "cost-benefit" issue, I'd ask you simply to look at the differentiation between the behavior of the people as it stands today and the edict of their representatives. Two contradictory behaviors cannot arise from a single cost-benefit analysis, yet that's what is happening here. We have a population consuming plastic bags and banning that consumption at the same time, supposedly. Just doesn't make sense to me.
What am I supposed to use to gather my garbage in if not the plastic bags I get from grocery stores? I guess I'll have to start buying plastic garbage bas that are way over packaged. I guess they figure this is good for the environment. What f***in' morons.
I guess the idea of recycle is too advanced for San Francisco. Why recycle when you can outlaw.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I can't speak for anyone else... but, I when I'm doing the beach clean-up in the Spring and Summer, the things I pick up from the sand... cigarette butts, plastic straws and cup lids... and empty plastic bags from stores.
I rarely... if EVER... have picked up a store bought, pre-packaged, over packaged Hefty bag from the sand. I guess they don't usually find their way to our oceans via the storm drains and flood control systems.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Ok, but isn't that statement "I'd still like it to be habitable in a few hundred years" a little ridiculous? Do you honestly believe that a plastic bag ban is relative to that in any appreciable way, particularly given the previous set of questions you ask?
but, but a dozen such measures in a lot of major cities can add up. and more importantly, a society committed to environmental awareness can make a difference. we made space travel a priority in the 60s and were on the moon in less than a decade. you start with small steps like this and build up to awareness of what we're doing to the planet, and i have a feeling we could make a huge difference in terms of safer and smarter resource use. but you have to start by building populist support cos we are governed by majorities. so you pass small measures like this to get people going "oh, ok, environmental protection is easy" before building up to wider initiatives like alternative fuels. it's kind of an ad-hoc band-aid, but it is a step in the right direction.
It's obviously not a "no brainer". If it were that simple and basic, the law would be completely unnecessary because people wouldn't be using plastic bags.
This plays into the rest of your post, particularly regarding the "cost-benefit" issue, I'd ask you simply to look at the differentiation between the behavior of the people as it stands today and the edict of their representatives. Two contradictory behaviors cannot arise from a single cost-benefit analysis, yet that's what is happening here. We have a population consuming plastic bags and banning that consumption at the same time, supposedly. Just doesn't make sense to me.
it makes perfect sense. cos like i said, most people dont give a second thought to what bag they're being handed. there's not a demand for plastic bags. they're writing checks and thinking about the next errand and trying to keep their kid from walking out with a candy bar. the use of plastic bags is undoubtedly a business decision for reasons unknown... perhaps the ease of storing large quantities of them. but they are consumed becos customers have their head elsewhere and simply arent thinking about where the bag comes from. so maybe no-brainer was the wrong word in some sense... people aren't aware of the cost. but when given notice of the benefits of switching to plastic they say "good idea, im in" becos they know the cost is minimal... maybe a few extra cents at the store to cover the cost of paper bags. they are not consuming plastic bags, they're just being handed them. they will consume whatever is given to them. they might support using paper over plastic, but not enough to drive all over town to find a grocery that uses them.
now if you have a majority of the citizens who support the measure, and it has a tangible public benefit, it makes no sense not to do it becos of a small minority interest (store owners wanting to save a few cents). the benefit of plastic to the store is negligible, otherwise they'd be outraged. the benefit to the citizens is nonexistent cos they dont care what kind of bag they get. but the cost to public waste disposal is large. on the flipside, the cost to the store is small and is passed on to the public anyway. the cost to the public is small and clearly acceptable to them. and the benefit to the city waste disposal is large. so it makes perfect sense to do this. so you have a law that has widespread support and no inconvenience. whereas not having the law has neutral support and convenience level, but places a heavy burden on public resources.
but, but a dozen such measures in a lot of major cities can add up.
Into a dozen measures, yes. Into something that has an appreciable effect on oil consumption or the environment? That seems unproven here. It's just assumed, and that flies in the face of the "analysis" you mentioned.
and more importantly, a society committed to environmental awareness can make a difference.
How committed is that society really when it has to force itself? Seriously.
we made space travel a priority in the 60s and were on the moon in less than a decade. you start with small steps like this and build up to awareness of what we're doing to the planet, and i have a feeling we could make a huge difference in terms of safer and smarter resource use. but you have to start by building populist support cos we are governed by majorities. so you pass small measures like this to get people going "oh, ok, environmental protection is easy" before building up to wider initiatives like alternative fuels. it's kind of an ad-hoc band-aid, but it is a step in the right direction.
I disagree. It's a step in one direction, yes. But you seem to be assuming some singular direction here is the answer. Are paper bags the right direction for the environment? In some cases, sure. In other cases, no. Are paper bags the right direction for oil consumption? It certainly doesn't look like it. Are paper bags the right direction for my arthritic father who probably is a lot more comfortable with plastic? Probably not.
Now, if consumers are able to make their own choices for what works best for them, does that not imply multiple standards which in turn implies multiple directions?
it makes perfect sense. cos like i said, most people dont give a second thought to what bag they're being handed. there's not a demand for plastic bags.
There's no demand? Then why are they used 80% of the time?
they're writing checks and thinking about the next errand and trying to keep their kid from walking out with a candy bar. the use of plastic bags is undoubtedly a business decision for reasons unknown... perhaps the ease of storing large quantities of them.
Ease of use. Ease of storage. Ease of production. Cost. The reasons are many. And if you're actually considering a "cost-benefit" analysis, wouldn't the benefits be relevant? Or is this only a liberal cost-benefit analysis wherein only costs matter?
but they are consumed becos customers have their head elsewhere and simply arent thinking about where the bag comes from.
I really think that's an argument of convenience, though I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to counter it. People are constantly given a "paper or plastic" choice and choose plastic 80% of the time.
they will consume whatever is given to them.
Do you not see the problem here, given the issue at hand? Do you not see how this law plays into this and ends up contributing more to the problem?
How committed is that society really when it has to force itself? Seriously.
how committed is committed enough? do i have to be out there on the street stumping for darwin to say i support teaching evolution in schools and vote based on that?
There's no demand? Then why are they used 80% of the time?
Ease of use. Ease of storage. Ease of production. Cost. The reasons are many. And if you're actually considering a "cost-benefit" analysis, wouldn't the benefits be relevant? Or is this only a liberal cost-benefit analysis wherein only costs matter?
I really think that's an argument of convenience, though I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to counter it. People are constantly given a "paper or plastic" choice and choose plastic 80% of the time.
are these hypothetical numbers? im assuming they are so i will respond accordingly... i think plastic is used far more becos that's what businesses prefer, it's easier on them. i think when given the choice, most people pick plastic becos it is what they are used to. maybe there are some benefits to plastic for some people, but i've never heard of someone being upset at having to use a paper bag. cost-benefits weigh comparative value. is the added convenience worth the cost in waste disposal problems? is the inconvenience of having to use paper worth the benefit of alleviating those problems? again, i dont know enough to say exactly what the various benefits/costs are, but if the voters of san fran feel that the benefits are worth it, that is their prerogative. i dont know if paper is better than plastic for the environment, i never studied it. but worst case scenario... it backfires and they repeal the law. no harm done, just a failed experiment.
how committed is committed enough? do i have to be out there on the street stumping for darwin to say i support teaching evolution in schools and vote based on that?
Hehe...no. You only need to be committed enough to say "paper please".
are these hypothetical numbers? im assuming they are so i will respond accordingly... i think plastic is used far more becos that's what businesses prefer, it's easier on them. i think when given the choice, most people pick plastic becos it is what they are used to. maybe there are some benefits to plastic for some people, but i've never heard of someone being upset at having to use a paper bag. cost-benefits weigh comparative value. is the added convenience worth the cost in waste disposal problems? is the inconvenience of having to use paper worth the benefit of alleviating those problems? again, i dont know enough to say exactly what the various benefits/costs are, but if the voters of san fran feel that the benefits are worth it, that is their prerogative. i dont know if paper is better than plastic for the environment, i never studied it. but worst case scenario... it backfires and they repeal the law. no harm done, just a failed experiment.
How can people pick plastic because it is what they are used to? Plastic bags have only experienced wide-spread use for what, 15 years?
We're kind of arguing guesses here, however. I don't think either of us has a leg to stand on when we start getting into people's motivations and things like "demand for plastic bags".
im not sure what issue at hand you're referring to. so no, i dont see how a ban on plastic bags is a bad thing or what problem it worsens.
What kind of "committed society" do you get when individuals simply off-load their decisions to the government? I mean, how are people ever going to make wise choices when they simply shun the act of choosing? How long until those they off-load those choices onto simply take full advantage of the power they've been given? That's my beef here. I'm not trying to make out a plastic bag ban to be some kind of fascistic or intensely oppressive thing. It's not. It's just the mindset behind these kinds of actions and their contradictory and convenient justifications that baffle me.
What am I supposed to use to gather my garbage in if not the plastic bags I get from grocery stores? I guess I'll have to start buying plastic garbage bas that are way over packaged. I guess they figure this is good for the environment. What f***in' morons.
I guess the idea of recycle is too advanced for San Francisco. Why recycle when you can outlaw.
you should be diverting most of your garbage anyways ... odds are that you are not and that you are sending too much stuff to the landfill ... (odds being that this is the case for most people - not necessarily you personally per se)
it's pretty obvious that there is an excess of plastic bags in this world ... banning them only indicates to me that people are too stupid to stop using them to begin with ...
How can people pick plastic because it is what they are used to? Plastic bags have only experienced wide-spread use for what, 15 years?
We're kind of arguing guesses here, however. I don't think either of us has a leg to stand on when we start getting into people's motivations and things like "demand for plastic bags".
perhaps. but the internet didnt even become available until barely 15 years ago. and dyou remember what cell phones were like then? people can become dependent/used to things pretty quickly.
What kind of "committed society" do you get when individuals simply off-load their decisions to the government? I mean, how are people ever going to make wise choices when they simply shun the act of choosing? How long until those they off-load those choices onto simply take full advantage of the power they've been given? That's my beef here. I'm not trying to make out a plastic bag ban to be some kind of fascistic or intensely oppressive thing. It's not. It's just the mindset behind these kinds of actions and their contradictory and convenient justifications that baffle me.
becos government is created to handle those sorts of things. people need enforcement mechanisms to protect their interests. if there were no police and some guy stole all your money, how would you get it back? if there were no garbage service, how much valuable time and effort would be wasted by people driving their trash to dumps. given that you spent so much effort defending the concept of contracts against gue... surely the concept of social contract is not that foreign? this is, however, why i prefer such decisions be made at a local level. if the citizens of san fran want to build a community that is eco-friendly by whatever criteria they want to use, then let them do it. that is their social contract... "we're going to not allow plastic bags, we will allow gay marriage, blah blah blah." in return for living by the rules set by the community, you get the benefits of that community... waste disposal, or whatever. this is nothing new, it has been part of every human life going back as far as us being monkeys that were part of troops. you live by the rules and get the benefit of the society. sometimes things dont go your way, but the benefits of being part of it outweigh the cost to certain inconveniences to you. when the benefits cease to exceed the cost, you can move and go elsewhere.
Towns bag 'Paper or plastic?' query
BANS: In some parts of rural Alaska, grocery bags are outlawed before they
become airborne trash.
By JOEL GAY
Outside the Western Alaska village of Emmonak, white plastic shopping bags
used to start appearing 15 miles from town. They blew out of the dump and
rolled across the tundra like tumbleweeds. In Galena, they snagged in the
trees and drifted into the Yukon River. Outside Kotlik, on the Yukon Delta,
bags were found tangled around salmon and seals.
No more. All three villages banned the bags.
"It's working out good here," said Peter Captain Sr., chief of the tribal
council in Galena, where the city banned stores from using plastic bags in
1998. "You used to find plastic bags all over the place, up in the trees.
... But you don't see that now."
At least 30 communities statewide have banned plastic bags. They have joined
a growing list of places around the world that decided the bags' nuisance
outweighs their convenience. Ireland and Taiwan started taxing bags to
curtail their use. South Africa banned them completely, as did Bangladesh
after devastating floods were attributed to stray plastic bags blocking
drains.
In Alaska, the expansion of bag bans shows no signs of slowing down. Other
communities are now considering prohibitions, including the biggest city off
the road system, Bethel.
"They're horrible. They're all over," said Bethel City Councilman Jerry
Drake. Once, he said, driving to the airport outside town, "in a one-mile
stretch I counted over 200 bags." Looking out his living room window earlier
this week, he counted a dozen.
In Bethel as elsewhere, plastic bags flutter out of trash bins or ravens
peck them loose. They drift and lodge in bushes and trees, dot the roadsides
and collect on the trackless tundra.
Several years ago, Bethel public works director Clair Grifka said he looked
out his office window and saw an enormous flock of snow geese. Then he
realized it was 800 to 1,000 errant bags.
Drake's proposal would ban Bethel stores but not restaurants from using
plastic bags, essentially requiring them to use paper. Elsewhere, shoppers
have been encouraged to provide their own canvas or nylon bags, though in
some paper-only villages, shoppers hoard plastic bags and reuse them,
village officials have said. Violating the Bethel ban could cost up to $500.
The Bethel council largely supports the proposed ban, members said this
week. Public hearings later this month will gauge local opinion, but Drake
and other people believe the council will put the decision before Bethel
voters in October. Drake said he's sure it will be approved.
"In my four years on the council, I've never heard people talk to me like
this" about any other community issue, he said.
One reason it's such a hot topic is that the council approved a ban two
years ago only to see a voter initiative repeal the measure months later.
This time, the ban will stick, Drake predicts.
"The only reason it got repealed was that it was a poorly written ballot
measure, where yes meant no and no meant yes," he said. "I had to read the
ballot about three times before I realized what was going on with it, and I
knew all about it."
Others say that banning plastic bags is the wrong way to solve Bethel's
trash problem. Restaurant owner Yolanda Jorgensen sponsored the repeal
initiative two years ago and said she'll work to defeat the ban again this
fall. There are many angles to attack, she said.
Paper bags cost more to buy and ship to Western Alaska and take up more
storage space, a precious commodity for many businesses, Jorgensen said.
They're weak when wet and are hard to carry. And plastic can be recycled but
the City Council isn't talking about that, she said.
Jorgensen doesn't dispute they're ugly but added, "There are a lot more
things littering our tundra than plastic bags."
Many of Bethel's bags bear the distinctive logo of Alaska Commercial Co.,
the biggest store in town. Manager David Hicks said the store will abide by
the community's vote, but he fears that Bethel's poor will suffer most if
plastic bags vanish.
"It'll make a difference to the people that have to walk a lot," he said,
which includes many of the city's residents and visitors. Bethel is a city,
not a tiny village, Hicks said. "It's very difficult to walk home with more
than a night's worth of groceries in a paper bag, whereas you can walk home
with quite a bit in a plastic bag."
Banning plastic wasn't easy in Emmonak or Galena, officials said, and
attempts in other villages have failed because plastic bags have loyal fans.
Last year in Alakanuk, the City Council decided against a ban because of the
bags' utility, said village planner Stephanie Ayunerak. Not only are they
more convenient for carrying groceries, "they make good freezer bags," she
recalled council members saying.
Ban supporters, however, can point to places like Galena. The Yukon River
village also feared losing its plastic bags, but according to Huhndorf's
Store owner Max Huhndorf, "it's worked out OK. It took a little bit of
adjustment, but we did it."
The additional cost hasn't been an issue, because people started using
canvas bags and the store's empty cardboard boxes, he said.
"A lot of people will put their stuff under their arm and carry it home They
say, 'We don't want a bag.' It still costs us more (for paper bags), but in
the long run it's for the best," Huhndorf said.
In Emmonak, the village corporation store pays a nickel for each paper bag
returned, said Albert Westlock of the tribal council.
"You see a whole bunch of little kids making money after (retrieving) those
paper bags."
If the bag bans spread, there may soon be a bounty for plastic bags too.
Bill Stokes, the rural environmental specialist for the Department of
Environmental Conservation, promotes recycling plastic bags into valuable
crafts using nothing more than a size 6 crochet hook.
He first saw the method practiced in Mekoryuk in 1993, but it has spread
statewide. People cut plastic bags into strips, then crochet them into
backpacks, handbags, sweat bath mats and baskets, some with ornate Yup'ik or
Tlingit designs.
"It's nothing short of miraculous," he said.
It can be lucrative too. Shoulder bags have sold for as much as $300 and
often fetch $50, he said.
Nevertheless, Stokes still encourages bag bans, and the philosophy seems to
be spreading, he said.
"Village by village by village, they're just really tired of them."
I'm curious the percentage on that. I've never been to a grocery store that doesn't offer both. A lot of gas stations are plastic only here, however. Regardless, you can always turn down the bag.
perhaps. but the internet didnt even become available until barely 15 years ago. and dyou remember what cell phones were like then? people can become dependent/used to things pretty quickly.
Hehe...yes. They become dependent on things they like, things that have value to them. Banning the internet and cell phones would also do much for the environment.
becos government is created to handle those sorts of things. people need enforcement mechanisms to protect their interests.
Sorry, this is ridiculous. Government was not and is not created to handle regulation of your bag consumption. And people don't need "enforcement mechanisms" in this issue in any way, shape or form.
Sorry, this is ridiculous. Government was not and is not created to handle regulation of your bag consumption. And people don't need "enforcement mechanisms" in this issue in any way, shape or form.
no they dont need it. but if they want it, why can they not tell their government to do it? you may think it unwise, but that doesn't mean it's immoral or anything.
Sorry, this is ridiculous. Government was not and is not created to handle regulation of your bag consumption. And people don't need "enforcement mechanisms" in this issue in any way, shape or form.
Government was not and is not created to handle regulation of your bag consumption. And people don't need "enforcement mechanisms" in this issue in any way, shape or form.
yea government was created to regulate behaviour...but unfortunately it is sometimes necessary to use them for such purposes.....people are generally lazy..and even if they know that plastic is bad for the enviornment....they won't change their ways...same as big vehicles. Another example is no smoking ordinances....no business wants to be the first to go no smoking..as they will loose business...but most are okay when everyones got to do it....
on this issue..kills me when I go into a store....Home Depot..Lowes perfect example...buy on bolt or whatever and they throw it into a bag....always tell them no bag needed as Its simply trash...clerks always looked confused. Anyhow....lived in Germany many years..and you always bring your own bag...plastic not offered.
you should be diverting most of your garbage anyways ... odds are that you are not and that you are sending too much stuff to the landfill ... (odds being that this is the case for most people - not necessarily you personally per se)
it's pretty obvious that there is an excess of plastic bags in this world ... banning them only indicates to me that people are too stupid to stop using them to begin with ...
Actually I can get by with grocery bags for my garbage because I do sort and recycle. Banning these bags rather than charging for them does not solve anything. Replacing one problem with another is not solving anything.
I thought the mantra we were to adopt was "reduce, re-use, recycle". Not is seems to be "Ban It". Seems like a step backwards to getting to a sustainable solution. I guess some people just need more government intervention in their life to feel safe and secure. After all, ban it has been such a successful strategy in fighting drugs, I'm sure it will be just as effective at fighting pollution.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Actually I can get by with grocery bags for my garbage because I do sort and recycle. Banning these bags rather than charging for them does not solve anything. Replacing one problem with another is not solving anything.
I thought the mantra we were to adopt was "reduce, re-use, recycle". Not is seems to be "Ban It". Seems like a step backwards to getting to a sustainable solution. I guess some people just need more government intervention in their life to feel safe and secure. After all, ban it has been such a successful strategy in fighting drugs, I'm sure it will be just as effective at fighting pollution.
well ... your diversion efficiency would depend on the number of bags you need a week ...
i'm not too sure why some are having difficulty with this ban - is it just the word that ticks people off ... we have bans on all kinds of things ... sometimes they work sometimes they don't ... and in this particular case - something has to be done about this excessive waste ... the majority of these bags end up in landfills and the energy required to produce them is excessive as well ...
we don't need these bags ... if people cared a bit more maybe there wouldn't need to be a ban but like in most instances - we don't give a rats ass ...
Actually I can get by with grocery bags for my garbage because I do sort and recycle. Banning these bags rather than charging for them does not solve anything. Replacing one problem with another is not solving anything.
I thought the mantra we were to adopt was "reduce, re-use, recycle". Not is seems to be "Ban It". Seems like a step backwards to getting to a sustainable solution. I guess some people just need more government intervention in their life to feel safe and secure. After all, ban it has been such a successful strategy in fighting drugs, I'm sure it will be just as effective at fighting pollution.
'Excuse while I go page my bag dealer.' LOL
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Actually I can get by with grocery bags for my garbage because I do sort and recycle. Banning these bags rather than charging for them does not solve anything. Replacing one problem with another is not solving anything.
I thought the mantra we were to adopt was "reduce, re-use, recycle". Not is seems to be "Ban It". Seems like a step backwards to getting to a sustainable solution. I guess some people just need more government intervention in their life to feel safe and secure. After all, ban it has been such a successful strategy in fighting drugs, I'm sure it will be just as effective at fighting pollution.
im ok with charging for bags, but ffg would be just as opposed to a plastic tax. in fact, most americans would probly prefer not having the option to having to pay for it. im not going to lie, but they would flikely feel a tax is be more of a government intrustion into their lives than a ban on plastic bags. it's weird. but americans are pretty apathetic about everything until it comes to their wallet. you can deny them the choice and they won't notice or care outside of grumbling, but if you ask them to pay for the luxury they will scream about socialism and greedy government.
I hate those plastic bags, mostly because they seem to kill the brain cells of the clerks who have to handle them all day long. That's the only explanation I can come up with for why they won't put more than three items in a bag.
I'm in favor of forcing all groceries to get paper bags from the same place Trader Joe's gets theirs. Those are really nice paper bags.
I know, I'm a heartless commie bitch.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I hate those plastic bags, mostly because they seem to kill the brain cells of the clerks who have to handle them all day long. That's the only explanation I can come up with for why they won't put more than three items in a bag.
I'm in favor of forcing all groceries to get paper bags from the same place Trader Joe's gets theirs. Those are really nice paper bags.
I can't speak for anyone else... but, I when I'm doing the beach clean-up in the Spring and Summer, the things I pick up from the sand... cigarette butts, plastic straws and cup lids... and empty plastic bags from stores.
I rarely... if EVER... have picked up a store bought, pre-packaged, over packaged Hefty bag from the sand. I guess they don't usually find their way to our oceans via the storm drains and flood control systems.
haa haa haaaa...
This is very true...Damn, I swear, every time we go to the beach, I pick up a couple dozen cigarette butts, 3 or 4 plastic cups, and several plastic bags...
today, as I went to an appointment, I saw 2 plastic shopping bags blowing around...I bet everyone here, within the next 24 hours, can find a discarded shopping bag blowing around or stuck in a tree or stuck to the bottom of car...
I hate those plastic bags, mostly because they seem to kill the brain cells of the clerks who have to handle them all day long. That's the only explanation I can come up with for why they won't put more than three items in a bag.
I'm in favor of forcing all groceries to get paper bags from the same place Trader Joe's gets theirs. Those are really nice paper bags.
I know, I'm a heartless commie bitch.
wow, you get 3 items per bag....down in these here parts, we get one item per bag...2 if they are a cleaning supply paired with a perishable food item...
I hate those plastic bags, mostly because they seem to kill the brain cells of the clerks who have to handle them all day long. That's the only explanation I can come up with for why they won't put more than three items in a bag.
I'm in favor of forcing all groceries to get paper bags from the same place Trader Joe's gets theirs. Those are really nice paper bags.
Comments
Well maybe if their cashiers didn't use one bag for every item, there wouldn't be that many bags
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Why "better"? I see absolutely nothing to suggest a plastic bag ban would address the environmental concerns listed (oil and waste), whereas banning cars most certainly would.
Not nearly as common or prevalent? Well, I guess it depends on the standard. 10,000,000,000 condoms are discarded each year worldwide, roughly. Meanwhile, 500,000,000,000 plastic bags are used each year worldwide, roughly. So you have a factor of 50 times more plastic bags than condoms, but you also have plastic products that are more prevalent than both, yet you don't ban them. Like milk jugs, plastic bottles, etc.
Depends. Condoms are also thicker, and tougher. Furthermore, when we consider energy, it takes 4 times as much energy to create a paper bag than it does a plastic bag. Paper bags produce much more waste mass, but it decomposes faster.
10,000,000,000 condoms has no "impact on the environment?" Again, this is bullshit. If I forced people to take birth control pills instead of using condoms, I'd significantly reduce environmental impact.
Of course they are. Lambskin condoms are a viable alternative.
I agree with this one.
Hehe...I do understand the concept of a "cost-benefit analysis". The entire purpose of governmental intervention here, however, is to pretend that the very same public is immune from such analyses. They've simply replaced the cost of their own choices with the enforcement of others. They've removed the decision, which in turn makes them believe they've removed the costs. It doesn't work.
but as i said, the cost of banning cars would be huge. i dont know enough science to know the actual effects of a plastic bag ban and dont care enough to look into it.
yes, but we're talking san fran. how many condoms vs. plastic bags are discarded in america? or in san fran? also, plastic bottles and jugs have strong recycling programs to somewhat offset the cost of using them. i believe plastic bags are recyclable too, but people dont do it. the world is less than perfect. but id still like it to be habitable in a few hundred years.
i thnk the decomposition is the issue here. i get the impression this is about lanfdill issues. we consume way beyond a healthy rate of resources and we're running out of places to throw the garbage. again, an easy way to make a significant reduction in landfill use with minimal costs is kind of a no brainer.
i didnt say it has no impact, i said it was not as significant as plastic bags. yes, you could force people to take birth control, but handing someone a paper instead of a plastic bag is a difference probably no one in san fran will notice and one that requires no effort really. forcing a switch to the pill is vastly different... doctor's visit for prescrip, fighting insurance to pay for it, totally different change in habits and practices for consumers, it has a much wider and troubling impact on the public than switching to paper from plastic.
but can they meet the demand with the minimal cost impact of paper vs. plastic? i know little about them except that as an idea it's really gross... i wouldnt stick my pecker in a lamb, i sure as hell dont want to wrap a lamb around it
and this one is the most important one. the costs of this initiative are minimal. the benefits are tangible (though debatable). which is why condom bans would not fly and plastic bags will. you can't get something for nothing. as a capitalist you should know. if san fran decides they are willing to give up plastic bags for the environmental benefit, it's their call. if they decide they're not willing to give up condoms for the environmental benefit, there is nothing contradictory or illogical about that. again, your devotion to abstract logic makes no sense here. they are parallel, but in no way are they the same and there is nothing unreasonable about drawing a distinction between them.
i dont understand what you're saying here. the public is immune to what? this is basic human psychology. people will sit by and watch someone be murdered and not lift a finger if the people around them don't. so the chance of one citizen trying to take some stand on plastic bags is absurd. their one decision makes no impact, and nobody will even be aware of it. for every bag citizen 1 doesn't take, citizen 2 takes an extra. so they do choose... they choose to place environmental concerns over a stupid and pointless "choice" that nobody is making anyway... nobody is going to cry over not having a plastic bag, they wont even notice. they've decided that their concern over limited landfill resources and the problems of disease associated with insufficient waste disposal resources vastly outweighs their concern over being able to go into a supermarket and say "i want plastic." that is a choice. and if it so so abhorrent to the community, the law will not be passed. and if you're in the minority that is really attached to plastic, you too have a choice: you can move out. there's another cost-benefit analysis: is your abstract devotion to ridiculous ideals of sufficient benefit to you that you will endure the cost of uprooting your life over the horror of being denied the benefit of a plastic bag at walgreen's? you cannot live in a vacuum and will always have to cope with human society, which means at some point, there will be impositions upon you. that's when you have to learn what battles are worth fighting.
Me neither
Ok, but isn't that statement "I'd still like it to be habitable in a few hundred years" a little ridiculous? Do you honestly believe that a plastic bag ban is relative to that in any appreciable way, particularly given the previous set of questions you ask?
It's obviously not a "no brainer". If it were that simple and basic, the law would be completely unnecessary because people wouldn't be using plastic bags.
This plays into the rest of your post, particularly regarding the "cost-benefit" issue, I'd ask you simply to look at the differentiation between the behavior of the people as it stands today and the edict of their representatives. Two contradictory behaviors cannot arise from a single cost-benefit analysis, yet that's what is happening here. We have a population consuming plastic bags and banning that consumption at the same time, supposedly. Just doesn't make sense to me.
So that explains that awful smell coming from the north...here I thought it was just Clevelanders.
I guess the idea of recycle is too advanced for San Francisco. Why recycle when you can outlaw.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I rarely... if EVER... have picked up a store bought, pre-packaged, over packaged Hefty bag from the sand. I guess they don't usually find their way to our oceans via the storm drains and flood control systems.
Hail, Hail!!!
but, but a dozen such measures in a lot of major cities can add up. and more importantly, a society committed to environmental awareness can make a difference. we made space travel a priority in the 60s and were on the moon in less than a decade. you start with small steps like this and build up to awareness of what we're doing to the planet, and i have a feeling we could make a huge difference in terms of safer and smarter resource use. but you have to start by building populist support cos we are governed by majorities. so you pass small measures like this to get people going "oh, ok, environmental protection is easy" before building up to wider initiatives like alternative fuels. it's kind of an ad-hoc band-aid, but it is a step in the right direction.
it makes perfect sense. cos like i said, most people dont give a second thought to what bag they're being handed. there's not a demand for plastic bags. they're writing checks and thinking about the next errand and trying to keep their kid from walking out with a candy bar. the use of plastic bags is undoubtedly a business decision for reasons unknown... perhaps the ease of storing large quantities of them. but they are consumed becos customers have their head elsewhere and simply arent thinking about where the bag comes from. so maybe no-brainer was the wrong word in some sense... people aren't aware of the cost. but when given notice of the benefits of switching to plastic they say "good idea, im in" becos they know the cost is minimal... maybe a few extra cents at the store to cover the cost of paper bags. they are not consuming plastic bags, they're just being handed them. they will consume whatever is given to them. they might support using paper over plastic, but not enough to drive all over town to find a grocery that uses them.
now if you have a majority of the citizens who support the measure, and it has a tangible public benefit, it makes no sense not to do it becos of a small minority interest (store owners wanting to save a few cents). the benefit of plastic to the store is negligible, otherwise they'd be outraged. the benefit to the citizens is nonexistent cos they dont care what kind of bag they get. but the cost to public waste disposal is large. on the flipside, the cost to the store is small and is passed on to the public anyway. the cost to the public is small and clearly acceptable to them. and the benefit to the city waste disposal is large. so it makes perfect sense to do this. so you have a law that has widespread support and no inconvenience. whereas not having the law has neutral support and convenience level, but places a heavy burden on public resources.
Into a dozen measures, yes. Into something that has an appreciable effect on oil consumption or the environment? That seems unproven here. It's just assumed, and that flies in the face of the "analysis" you mentioned.
How committed is that society really when it has to force itself? Seriously.
I disagree. It's a step in one direction, yes. But you seem to be assuming some singular direction here is the answer. Are paper bags the right direction for the environment? In some cases, sure. In other cases, no. Are paper bags the right direction for oil consumption? It certainly doesn't look like it. Are paper bags the right direction for my arthritic father who probably is a lot more comfortable with plastic? Probably not.
Now, if consumers are able to make their own choices for what works best for them, does that not imply multiple standards which in turn implies multiple directions?
There's no demand? Then why are they used 80% of the time?
Ease of use. Ease of storage. Ease of production. Cost. The reasons are many. And if you're actually considering a "cost-benefit" analysis, wouldn't the benefits be relevant? Or is this only a liberal cost-benefit analysis wherein only costs matter?
I really think that's an argument of convenience, though I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to counter it. People are constantly given a "paper or plastic" choice and choose plastic 80% of the time.
Do you not see the problem here, given the issue at hand? Do you not see how this law plays into this and ends up contributing more to the problem?
how committed is committed enough? do i have to be out there on the street stumping for darwin to say i support teaching evolution in schools and vote based on that?
are these hypothetical numbers? im assuming they are so i will respond accordingly... i think plastic is used far more becos that's what businesses prefer, it's easier on them. i think when given the choice, most people pick plastic becos it is what they are used to. maybe there are some benefits to plastic for some people, but i've never heard of someone being upset at having to use a paper bag. cost-benefits weigh comparative value. is the added convenience worth the cost in waste disposal problems? is the inconvenience of having to use paper worth the benefit of alleviating those problems? again, i dont know enough to say exactly what the various benefits/costs are, but if the voters of san fran feel that the benefits are worth it, that is their prerogative. i dont know if paper is better than plastic for the environment, i never studied it. but worst case scenario... it backfires and they repeal the law. no harm done, just a failed experiment.
im not sure what issue at hand you're referring to. so no, i dont see how a ban on plastic bags is a bad thing or what problem it worsens.
Hehe...no. You only need to be committed enough to say "paper please".
How can people pick plastic because it is what they are used to? Plastic bags have only experienced wide-spread use for what, 15 years?
We're kind of arguing guesses here, however. I don't think either of us has a leg to stand on when we start getting into people's motivations and things like "demand for plastic bags".
What kind of "committed society" do you get when individuals simply off-load their decisions to the government? I mean, how are people ever going to make wise choices when they simply shun the act of choosing? How long until those they off-load those choices onto simply take full advantage of the power they've been given? That's my beef here. I'm not trying to make out a plastic bag ban to be some kind of fascistic or intensely oppressive thing. It's not. It's just the mindset behind these kinds of actions and their contradictory and convenient justifications that baffle me.
you should be diverting most of your garbage anyways ... odds are that you are not and that you are sending too much stuff to the landfill ... (odds being that this is the case for most people - not necessarily you personally per se)
it's pretty obvious that there is an excess of plastic bags in this world ... banning them only indicates to me that people are too stupid to stop using them to begin with ...
I agree.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
a lot of places dont offer paper anymore.
perhaps. but the internet didnt even become available until barely 15 years ago. and dyou remember what cell phones were like then? people can become dependent/used to things pretty quickly.
becos government is created to handle those sorts of things. people need enforcement mechanisms to protect their interests. if there were no police and some guy stole all your money, how would you get it back? if there were no garbage service, how much valuable time and effort would be wasted by people driving their trash to dumps. given that you spent so much effort defending the concept of contracts against gue... surely the concept of social contract is not that foreign? this is, however, why i prefer such decisions be made at a local level. if the citizens of san fran want to build a community that is eco-friendly by whatever criteria they want to use, then let them do it. that is their social contract... "we're going to not allow plastic bags, we will allow gay marriage, blah blah blah." in return for living by the rules set by the community, you get the benefits of that community... waste disposal, or whatever. this is nothing new, it has been part of every human life going back as far as us being monkeys that were part of troops. you live by the rules and get the benefit of the society. sometimes things dont go your way, but the benefits of being part of it outweigh the cost to certain inconveniences to you. when the benefits cease to exceed the cost, you can move and go elsewhere.
Towns bag 'Paper or plastic?' query
BANS: In some parts of rural Alaska, grocery bags are outlawed before they
become airborne trash.
By JOEL GAY
Outside the Western Alaska village of Emmonak, white plastic shopping bags
used to start appearing 15 miles from town. They blew out of the dump and
rolled across the tundra like tumbleweeds. In Galena, they snagged in the
trees and drifted into the Yukon River. Outside Kotlik, on the Yukon Delta,
bags were found tangled around salmon and seals.
No more. All three villages banned the bags.
"It's working out good here," said Peter Captain Sr., chief of the tribal
council in Galena, where the city banned stores from using plastic bags in
1998. "You used to find plastic bags all over the place, up in the trees.
... But you don't see that now."
At least 30 communities statewide have banned plastic bags. They have joined
a growing list of places around the world that decided the bags' nuisance
outweighs their convenience. Ireland and Taiwan started taxing bags to
curtail their use. South Africa banned them completely, as did Bangladesh
after devastating floods were attributed to stray plastic bags blocking
drains.
In Alaska, the expansion of bag bans shows no signs of slowing down. Other
communities are now considering prohibitions, including the biggest city off
the road system, Bethel.
"They're horrible. They're all over," said Bethel City Councilman Jerry
Drake. Once, he said, driving to the airport outside town, "in a one-mile
stretch I counted over 200 bags." Looking out his living room window earlier
this week, he counted a dozen.
In Bethel as elsewhere, plastic bags flutter out of trash bins or ravens
peck them loose. They drift and lodge in bushes and trees, dot the roadsides
and collect on the trackless tundra.
Several years ago, Bethel public works director Clair Grifka said he looked
out his office window and saw an enormous flock of snow geese. Then he
realized it was 800 to 1,000 errant bags.
Drake's proposal would ban Bethel stores but not restaurants from using
plastic bags, essentially requiring them to use paper. Elsewhere, shoppers
have been encouraged to provide their own canvas or nylon bags, though in
some paper-only villages, shoppers hoard plastic bags and reuse them,
village officials have said. Violating the Bethel ban could cost up to $500.
The Bethel council largely supports the proposed ban, members said this
week. Public hearings later this month will gauge local opinion, but Drake
and other people believe the council will put the decision before Bethel
voters in October. Drake said he's sure it will be approved.
"In my four years on the council, I've never heard people talk to me like
this" about any other community issue, he said.
One reason it's such a hot topic is that the council approved a ban two
years ago only to see a voter initiative repeal the measure months later.
This time, the ban will stick, Drake predicts.
"The only reason it got repealed was that it was a poorly written ballot
measure, where yes meant no and no meant yes," he said. "I had to read the
ballot about three times before I realized what was going on with it, and I
knew all about it."
Others say that banning plastic bags is the wrong way to solve Bethel's
trash problem. Restaurant owner Yolanda Jorgensen sponsored the repeal
initiative two years ago and said she'll work to defeat the ban again this
fall. There are many angles to attack, she said.
Paper bags cost more to buy and ship to Western Alaska and take up more
storage space, a precious commodity for many businesses, Jorgensen said.
They're weak when wet and are hard to carry. And plastic can be recycled but
the City Council isn't talking about that, she said.
Jorgensen doesn't dispute they're ugly but added, "There are a lot more
things littering our tundra than plastic bags."
Many of Bethel's bags bear the distinctive logo of Alaska Commercial Co.,
the biggest store in town. Manager David Hicks said the store will abide by
the community's vote, but he fears that Bethel's poor will suffer most if
plastic bags vanish.
"It'll make a difference to the people that have to walk a lot," he said,
which includes many of the city's residents and visitors. Bethel is a city,
not a tiny village, Hicks said. "It's very difficult to walk home with more
than a night's worth of groceries in a paper bag, whereas you can walk home
with quite a bit in a plastic bag."
Banning plastic wasn't easy in Emmonak or Galena, officials said, and
attempts in other villages have failed because plastic bags have loyal fans.
Last year in Alakanuk, the City Council decided against a ban because of the
bags' utility, said village planner Stephanie Ayunerak. Not only are they
more convenient for carrying groceries, "they make good freezer bags," she
recalled council members saying.
Ban supporters, however, can point to places like Galena. The Yukon River
village also feared losing its plastic bags, but according to Huhndorf's
Store owner Max Huhndorf, "it's worked out OK. It took a little bit of
adjustment, but we did it."
The additional cost hasn't been an issue, because people started using
canvas bags and the store's empty cardboard boxes, he said.
"A lot of people will put their stuff under their arm and carry it home They
say, 'We don't want a bag.' It still costs us more (for paper bags), but in
the long run it's for the best," Huhndorf said.
In Emmonak, the village corporation store pays a nickel for each paper bag
returned, said Albert Westlock of the tribal council.
"You see a whole bunch of little kids making money after (retrieving) those
paper bags."
If the bag bans spread, there may soon be a bounty for plastic bags too.
Bill Stokes, the rural environmental specialist for the Department of
Environmental Conservation, promotes recycling plastic bags into valuable
crafts using nothing more than a size 6 crochet hook.
He first saw the method practiced in Mekoryuk in 1993, but it has spread
statewide. People cut plastic bags into strips, then crochet them into
backpacks, handbags, sweat bath mats and baskets, some with ornate Yup'ik or
Tlingit designs.
"It's nothing short of miraculous," he said.
It can be lucrative too. Shoulder bags have sold for as much as $300 and
often fetch $50, he said.
Nevertheless, Stokes still encourages bag bans, and the philosophy seems to
be spreading, he said.
"Village by village by village, they're just really tired of them."
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm curious the percentage on that. I've never been to a grocery store that doesn't offer both. A lot of gas stations are plastic only here, however. Regardless, you can always turn down the bag.
Hehe...yes. They become dependent on things they like, things that have value to them. Banning the internet and cell phones would also do much for the environment.
Sorry, this is ridiculous. Government was not and is not created to handle regulation of your bag consumption. And people don't need "enforcement mechanisms" in this issue in any way, shape or form.
no they dont need it. but if they want it, why can they not tell their government to do it? you may think it unwise, but that doesn't mean it's immoral or anything.
Then why did they vote otherwise?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
on this issue..kills me when I go into a store....Home Depot..Lowes perfect example...buy on bolt or whatever and they throw it into a bag....always tell them no bag needed as Its simply trash...clerks always looked confused. Anyhow....lived in Germany many years..and you always bring your own bag...plastic not offered.
I thought the mantra we were to adopt was "reduce, re-use, recycle". Not is seems to be "Ban It". Seems like a step backwards to getting to a sustainable solution. I guess some people just need more government intervention in their life to feel safe and secure. After all, ban it has been such a successful strategy in fighting drugs, I'm sure it will be just as effective at fighting pollution.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
well ... your diversion efficiency would depend on the number of bags you need a week ...
i'm not too sure why some are having difficulty with this ban - is it just the word that ticks people off ... we have bans on all kinds of things ... sometimes they work sometimes they don't ... and in this particular case - something has to be done about this excessive waste ... the majority of these bags end up in landfills and the energy required to produce them is excessive as well ...
we don't need these bags ... if people cared a bit more maybe there wouldn't need to be a ban but like in most instances - we don't give a rats ass ...
'Excuse while I go page my bag dealer.' LOL
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
im ok with charging for bags, but ffg would be just as opposed to a plastic tax. in fact, most americans would probly prefer not having the option to having to pay for it. im not going to lie, but they would flikely feel a tax is be more of a government intrustion into their lives than a ban on plastic bags. it's weird. but americans are pretty apathetic about everything until it comes to their wallet. you can deny them the choice and they won't notice or care outside of grumbling, but if you ask them to pay for the luxury they will scream about socialism and greedy government.
I'm in favor of forcing all groceries to get paper bags from the same place Trader Joe's gets theirs. Those are really nice paper bags.
I know, I'm a heartless commie bitch.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
haa haa haaaa...
This is very true...Damn, I swear, every time we go to the beach, I pick up a couple dozen cigarette butts, 3 or 4 plastic cups, and several plastic bags...
today, as I went to an appointment, I saw 2 plastic shopping bags blowing around...I bet everyone here, within the next 24 hours, can find a discarded shopping bag blowing around or stuck in a tree or stuck to the bottom of car...
wow, you get 3 items per bag....down in these here parts, we get one item per bag...2 if they are a cleaning supply paired with a perishable food item...
:DLOL:D
And the TJ bags are the best.