|
The latest ban-a-thon (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Plastic bags are quite possibly the least likely man-made item on the planet to represent a serious problem to the environment.
Seriously, have any of you ever actually seen a landfill? Just one of the smallest landfills could easily hold the entire world's plastic bag consumption for thousands of years. The cost of banning them (effectively raising the cost of doing business for, um, everyone, and therefore raising the cost to consumers) is far, far greater than the cost of any highly speculative environmental problem they might cause (and there's zero evidence to support such a claim).
To suggest that we are "ing idiots" for using plastic bags is, well, ing idiocy. |
I was listening to a programme on CBC a month back which was discussing the ignorance (misinformation) of (from) the media and mass population re: the matter of plastic bags vs. paper bags.
ie. How we (society) just think (well, more like "naturally seem to just know") that paper bags are better for the environment than plastic.
I wish I had been paying more attention at the time to the interview, so I could recall more of it now.
But I seem to recall that by the mere fact alone that a percentage of plastic bags (even if it was only like 10% or something) are reused means that in the OVERALL picture they are better for the environment than paper bags which are almost unconditionally never re-used by the general population.
Other facts debunking the supposed superiority of plastic bags vs. paper bags were mentioned too, but I cannot recall them.
Interesting programme/interview. (I LOVE CBC.) I too prolly would have just naturally taken it (assume) that "oh yea, for sure plastic bags are most def better than paper" if I was asked on the street about my opinion on the matter.
Amazing the power of the media and how it shapes what we "think" we know to be absolutely true. ... |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ I read something on that too (and it might be posted earlier in this thread, but I'm way too lazy to check).
the argument I read is that plastic is indeed better than paper...but with a few qualifiers.
some argue that it takes less energy to make, use, and dispose of plastic vs. paper bags. that's literally from the point of harvesting raw materials to the point of disposal (recycling, landfill, enviro repercussions, etc) and includes reusability in between those points (where plastic clearly has a *huge* advantage over paper).
the problem with plastic bags is that recycling facilities are not widespread in comparison to paper. add to that when the facilities DO exist, people are either not aware of them, or don't even know that plastic bags are recycleable in the first place.
so...if this argument is true, then it appears that L.A. (and whoever else) is either deciding it's cheaper/easier to ban them than have recycling facilities in place and educate the public.
pretty weak. |
|
|
| loconet |
| quote: | Originally posted by *~LiSa-LoO~*
I actually did a google search for reusable garbage bags and came up with nothing useful...just small cloth ones to use in bathrooms, your car etc. |
"Reusable garbage bags"? Interesting. Would that not be functionally equivalent (or close to) to just dumping the waste in a plastic bin that you wash every now and then after some use?
PS. A related search that might yield some useful results for the original question: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&s...nG=Search&meta= |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
^^^ I read something on that too (and it might be posted earlier in this thread, but I'm way too lazy to check).
the argument I read is that plastic is indeed better than paper...but with a few qualifiers.
some argue that it takes less energy to make, use, and dispose of plastic vs. paper bags. that's literally from the point of harvesting raw materials to the point of disposal (recycling, landfill, enviro repercussions, etc) and includes reusability in between those points (where plastic clearly has a *huge* advantage over paper).
the problem with plastic bags is that recycling facilities are not widespread in comparison to paper. add to that when the facilities DO exist, people are either not aware of them, or don't even know that plastic bags are recycleable in the first place.
so...if this argument is true, then it appears that L.A. (and whoever else) is either deciding it's cheaper/easier to ban them than have recycling facilities in place and educate the public.
pretty weak. |
i've read before that 430,000 gallons is the amount of oil needed to produce 100 million nondegradable plastic bags. and apparently, there are 4 trillion to 5 trillion bags used worldwide annually. the source comes from the Worldwatch Institute.
| quote: | Originally posted by loconet
"Reusable garbage bags"? Interesting. Would that not be functionally equivalent (or close to) to just dumping the waste in a plastic bin that you wash every now and then after some use?
PS. A related search that might yield some useful results for the original question: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&s...nG=Search&meta= |
yeh i think that's what people are thinking of, biodegradable plastic bags. i've also read that there are compostable bags made out of cornstarch and recylced paper. i'm actually curious as to what is stopping the industry from making biodegradable bags instead of the ones we have now. i'm assuming it's cost but how much more would it be to produce these bags?
most places aren't banning plastic bags. places like melbourne, san fransisco and whole countries like china and isreal put a fee or tax on plastic bags. this is something that i would like to see rather than banning altogether. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
the problem with plastic bags is that recycling facilities are not widespread in comparison to paper. add to that when the facilities DO exist, people are either not aware of them, or don't even know that plastic bags are recycleable in the first place. |
I assume you're aware that it costs more to recycle a paper bag than it does to make a new one?
The only material that actually makes economic sense to recycle is aluminum; most of the other crap you put in the blue bin ends up in a landfill anyway (yes, I know, some of it really does get recycled too).
Another case of prematurely putting a price tag on environmental waste, before anyone has actually done a cost-benefit analysis. The irony is just extra palpable in this case because we may be spending all of this money to do more damage to the environment, however insignificant that is in reality. |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: |
Story perpetuates myths about plastic shopping bags;
Posted 18 days ago
Re: the Canadian Press story "Ontario student has solution in the bag" (July 2).
While the Canadian Plastics Industry Association would like to congratulate Daniel Burd on his win at the Canadian Science Fair, we are very concerned about the myths this story perpetuates.
The story extols bacterial degradation as the answer to concerns about plastic shopping bags. This is wrong and would only add to the problem by creating more greenhouse gases and killing our ability to recycle traditional plastic shopping bags. It is much better to reuse and recycle a resource than waste it by allowing it to degrade in landfills.
The story perpetuates the myth that because conventional plastic shopping bags are not biodegradable, they are bad for the environment. This is not true. The fact that conventional plastic shopping bags are inert in landfills is a good thing, because they don't give off methane and leachates.
Consider what happens in a landfill with biodegradable materials. The materials degrade over a long period of time. As they degrade, they produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and leachates. That is why some countries -for example, Germany and the United Kingdom -have banned biodegradable wastes from landfills, and why many municipalities in Canada are implementing composting programs to collect household organic waste.
Another myth that needs to be put to rest is that plastic bags are killing marine life. Again, not true. Scientists in a recent Times of Londonstory noted, "Plastic bags don't figure in entanglement. The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines. Most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag."
And as to the billions of bags produced each year, this is a fraction of one per cent of our annual car fuel use. And these bags do not clog landfills, as the story asserts. They represent less than one per of landfilled materials.
And here's another myth debunked about plastic bag bans: More than 50 municipalities in Canada that have looked at bans have rejected them based on the science and worldwide experience, which shows that bans have a number of negative unintended consequences.
The way forward has to be maximizing use of our resources through reuse and recycling, not throwing them away or making these resources degrade faster. Plastic shopping bags are highly recyclable and can be remade into new bags or many other products, such as siding, decking and laminate sub-flooring. Recycling is a $2-billion market in North America.
Let's work to improve the reuse and recycling of plastic bag, not bring about their destruction.
Cathy Cirko Vice President
Continued After Advertisement Below
Canadian Plastics Industry Association
Toronto
Article ID |
|
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
The answer is biobags.
http://www.biobagusa.com/
If only they were made out of something other than corn. |
haha! awesome!
 |
|
|
| *~LiSa-LoO~* |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
The answer is biobags.
http://www.biobagusa.com/
If only they were made out of something other than corn. |
It seems like people's answer to everything is to make it out of corn! Corn to eat, corn for fuel, corn for bags! There is just NOT enough corn in this world!! |
|
|
| msz |
 |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
Using corn to create such things (renewable fuel, other bio-products) is going to cause a massive problem in the near future.
NO crop rapes the soil as badly as corn... or really comes close. Corn is already one of (if not "the") most lucrative crop for most all farmers...
Making corn even more appealing to grow and harvest is going to lead to some bad farming practice choices by farmers down the line, and in the near future we're going to be suffering for it... |
|
|
| Time2Burn |
| It will never happen but HEMP is the answer! |
|
|
|
|
