4 ms·
All your points are addressed in the piece. It doesn't really inconvenience me. I'll be fine. I'll pay the extra few bucks if I forget a bag. I'm fairly well of
by bko 4y ago
All your points are addressed in the piece. It doesn't really inconvenience me. I'll be fine. I'll pay the extra few bucks if I forget a bag. I'm fairly well off and I own a car so I can just dump the groceries directly into my trunk. It inconveniences a lot of people that don't have that luxury. Maybe an overworked parent that's coming home from work that needs to stop by a grocery store to pick up a few things. It's also a net negative for the environment since people will end up using bags worse for the environment as single use bags. This will not reduce landfill space.
The recycling point is about the fact that much of the US is greenwashing their actions by thinking they're doing some noble deed by recycling, when they're really just spending a lot of money shipping their trash to other countries that end up throwing a lot of it in the ocean when we could have a sane policy of using landfills.
- taurusnoises 4y ago
- bko 4y ago> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- taurusnoises 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- manuelabeledo 4y ago> All your points are addressed in the piece. I only see the author's hypothesis about why not having paper bags is a bad thing. The only firm statement is that it seems "inconvenient", while all the other points are firmly based on a supposedly unavoidable need for bags. Bags are just containers. Why wouldn't we be reusing boxes for grocery delivery? There are reusable bags, why did the author assume that using a cotton bag a hundred plus times is not reasonable? Just stating that landfills aren't "bad" is not much of an address, either.