Deeper dive into "The Bag" isue
-
veteran+
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 2296
- Joined: January 3rd, 2015, 7:53 am
- Has thanked: 1364 times
- Been thanked: 79 times
- Status: Online
-
storewanderer
- Posts: 14732
- Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 328 times
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
Re: Deeper dive into "The Bag" isue
This was a good article.
There are a number of problems since these bag bans were initially conceived 15 years ago. As initially conceived they banned plastic bags and said use paper bags or use reusable bags. That was it. The reusable bags were cloth or some cheap ones made from "recycled plastic milk bottles/crates." Nobody was shopping online. They banned plastic bags in wealthy communities primarily in coastal areas. There were no bag fees attached either.
Now it has been all screwed up. Now we have super thick plastic bags being sold as "reusable" almost nobody reuses them. Now the "reusable" bags on the market are mostly plastic, some flock lined plastic that you can't wash, very difficult to clean/unsanitary. Now we have all this online ordering for which reusable bags are not a practical solution- this I see as the biggest problem.
Now we have statewide bag bans where there are bag bans in place in communities where there is zero reason to be regulating bags.
One of the article quotes said it best-
"“If we are striving towards a sustainable future with less of the buy-and-throw (away) mentality, then the single-use bag is not very consistent with that way of living. So in that sense, it might be reasonable to try to avoid it, even though it’s not specifically an environmental benefit from that choice.” "
The other problem is the article presents complete falsehoods. First, US does not dump trash into the ocean in most cases, especially interior states. Interior US states dump trash out into remote areas and bury the trash in the dirt. Then, the article gives an example of a dead whale with 88 pounds of "plastic bags" in its stomach. There is no way this is true. There may be a dead whale with 88 pounds of plastic in its stomach, but not specifically plastic bags. This plastic all over the oceans- they don't report how much comes from the US. Almost none. Most of it is from India, China, and other places. Oh, those countries already banned single use plastic bags, many years ago now. Yet this problem continues. So this exercise of banning single use plastic bags solves no problems at all.
If there is not an environmental benefit, what is the point of this? To increase costs to consumers? Is the point actually to trash the environment further and add even more plastic into it than it had before? To increase imports since the reusables mostly are made in China and the old "single use" bags were mostly made in the USA?
So at this point the issue being attacked is the thin bag is "single use." So we need to get rid of the thin bag because it is "single use" and basically "single use anything" needs to go away. But uhh, so is EVERY PACKAGE items are packaged in from the supermarket- EVERY ITEM IS PACKAGED IN A SINGLE USE PACKAGE. So why go after the bag? Why not go after all those single use packages and try to do things to make the packages more environmentally friendly? The thin plastic single use bag is the least of the problems. The super thick "reusable" plastic bag that almost nobody reuses, however- that thing is actually a pretty big problem. And now we have completely inept retailers like Sprouts who are dispensing those super thick plastic bags in states that have no bag regulations and trying to sell them as "sustainable" since you can "reuse it 125 times."
This reminds me of these fast food places who previously gave you a paper cup and a plastic straw. They now give you a plastic cup and a paper straw. The old straw was a fraction of the amount of plastic of the new plastic cup. But because some group attacked plastic straws this is what we get.
Wal Mart is getting this right by not providing any bags in most states that have these bag regulations and selling reusable bags (which are still plastic and still no good for the environment, but even their most entry level .50 or whatever it is blue bag can definitely be reused at least a few times which is probably worse for the environment than the old thin bags were but this obviously isn't about the environment, it is about something else). This is what I see as the future. No bags at checkout at any retailer. You go in and deal with your purchase however you see fit, and bagging is no longer part of the service provided by the store. Many customers will use no bags at all under this scenario but spend much longer checking out and much longer out at their car and at home getting items around. It is a hassle and a waste of people's time.
The retailers already solved the bag issue back in the 90's- that is why they came up with the thin single use plastic bag. It was the best solution, cheap to make, designed for efficiency, easily reused by the consumer for a trash bag/lunch bag etc., sanitary, had the least environmental impact of any bags including all these "reusables" (and still has the least environmental impact of any bags) and an easy way to designate items going out the door had actually been paid for.
There are a number of problems since these bag bans were initially conceived 15 years ago. As initially conceived they banned plastic bags and said use paper bags or use reusable bags. That was it. The reusable bags were cloth or some cheap ones made from "recycled plastic milk bottles/crates." Nobody was shopping online. They banned plastic bags in wealthy communities primarily in coastal areas. There were no bag fees attached either.
Now it has been all screwed up. Now we have super thick plastic bags being sold as "reusable" almost nobody reuses them. Now the "reusable" bags on the market are mostly plastic, some flock lined plastic that you can't wash, very difficult to clean/unsanitary. Now we have all this online ordering for which reusable bags are not a practical solution- this I see as the biggest problem.
Now we have statewide bag bans where there are bag bans in place in communities where there is zero reason to be regulating bags.
One of the article quotes said it best-
"“If we are striving towards a sustainable future with less of the buy-and-throw (away) mentality, then the single-use bag is not very consistent with that way of living. So in that sense, it might be reasonable to try to avoid it, even though it’s not specifically an environmental benefit from that choice.” "
The other problem is the article presents complete falsehoods. First, US does not dump trash into the ocean in most cases, especially interior states. Interior US states dump trash out into remote areas and bury the trash in the dirt. Then, the article gives an example of a dead whale with 88 pounds of "plastic bags" in its stomach. There is no way this is true. There may be a dead whale with 88 pounds of plastic in its stomach, but not specifically plastic bags. This plastic all over the oceans- they don't report how much comes from the US. Almost none. Most of it is from India, China, and other places. Oh, those countries already banned single use plastic bags, many years ago now. Yet this problem continues. So this exercise of banning single use plastic bags solves no problems at all.
If there is not an environmental benefit, what is the point of this? To increase costs to consumers? Is the point actually to trash the environment further and add even more plastic into it than it had before? To increase imports since the reusables mostly are made in China and the old "single use" bags were mostly made in the USA?
So at this point the issue being attacked is the thin bag is "single use." So we need to get rid of the thin bag because it is "single use" and basically "single use anything" needs to go away. But uhh, so is EVERY PACKAGE items are packaged in from the supermarket- EVERY ITEM IS PACKAGED IN A SINGLE USE PACKAGE. So why go after the bag? Why not go after all those single use packages and try to do things to make the packages more environmentally friendly? The thin plastic single use bag is the least of the problems. The super thick "reusable" plastic bag that almost nobody reuses, however- that thing is actually a pretty big problem. And now we have completely inept retailers like Sprouts who are dispensing those super thick plastic bags in states that have no bag regulations and trying to sell them as "sustainable" since you can "reuse it 125 times."
This reminds me of these fast food places who previously gave you a paper cup and a plastic straw. They now give you a plastic cup and a paper straw. The old straw was a fraction of the amount of plastic of the new plastic cup. But because some group attacked plastic straws this is what we get.
Wal Mart is getting this right by not providing any bags in most states that have these bag regulations and selling reusable bags (which are still plastic and still no good for the environment, but even their most entry level .50 or whatever it is blue bag can definitely be reused at least a few times which is probably worse for the environment than the old thin bags were but this obviously isn't about the environment, it is about something else). This is what I see as the future. No bags at checkout at any retailer. You go in and deal with your purchase however you see fit, and bagging is no longer part of the service provided by the store. Many customers will use no bags at all under this scenario but spend much longer checking out and much longer out at their car and at home getting items around. It is a hassle and a waste of people's time.
The retailers already solved the bag issue back in the 90's- that is why they came up with the thin single use plastic bag. It was the best solution, cheap to make, designed for efficiency, easily reused by the consumer for a trash bag/lunch bag etc., sanitary, had the least environmental impact of any bags including all these "reusables" (and still has the least environmental impact of any bags) and an easy way to designate items going out the door had actually been paid for.