7 ms·

Bag bans are one of the most perfect examples of how American environmentalists focus on all the wrong things and miss the forrest for the trees. The plastic ba

• milliams 3y ago
  This is where fun protests like https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-43559636 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-43559636 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWz_p445Oh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWz_p445Oh0 help. I've noticed a more concerted effort by supermarkets to reduce plastic in their packaging (it's still a lot though) and to provide "soft plastic" recycling (at their expense).
  • thimp 3y ago
    I had a girlfriend who unpackaged a lot of stuff she bought at the checkout so she wouldn't have to deal with the trash. I thought it was insane for a bit but no it's quite reasonable actually when you think about it.
    • jfengel 3y ago
      I've seen this in places where they charge by the bag for trash pickup. Stores have bins set up for exactly that purpose. (Not sure if that's required or if they volunteer it.) I've seen it in Germany and Switzerland, but I have no idea how widespread it is.
• AdamN 3y ago
  Environmentalists can also focus on environmental beauty - which is the primary rationale for reducing single-use plastic bags so they don't end up in trees and on the street. This is more of a hedonistic environmentalism but it's totally valid. We can also push for other big ticket items like better sewage control and highway runoff management at the same time.
  • gruez 3y ago
    >which is the primary rationale for reducing single-use plastic bags so they don't end up in trees and on the street. Except that wasn't really an issue before the ban. Sure, I noticed a few bags laying on the street sometimes, but it's not like the streets were clogged with them[1]. In the same vein, I guess banning plastic straws does cause a non-zero amount of plastic straws from entering the environment, but it's not like it was a serious issue that warranted government intervention. > This is more of a hedonistic environmentalism but it's totally valid I agree with this statement, but probably not in the way you originally intended: it's a feel-good measure to make people think they're helping the environment. [1] eg. https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/955ff575a1da022b144dfffd34d0f9f1fe2763ee/0_46_3000_1800/master/3000.jpg?width=1200&height=900&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&s=3f65b7501ee4b1ebde23ed1a555a6982 https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/955ff575a1da022b144dfffd34d0f...
• acover 3y ago
  Aluminum cans contain about 73% recycled aluminum, in case anyone else was curious. I'm not sure why I thought it was 95%+ https://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/aluminum-cans-recycled-twice-plastic-bottles/ https://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/aluminum-cans-recycled-t...
  • bhickey 3y ago
    > I'm not sure why I thought it was 95%+ You may have been remembering numbers for the aluminum recycling rate in goods like cars. > On average, about 97% of the aluminum content in an end-of-life vehicle is recycled. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/whats-holding-back-aluminum-recycling-in-the-us https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/whats-holding-back-alu...
    • gruez 3y ago
      Or that recycled aluminum takes 95% less energy than virgin aluminum. https://international-aluminium.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/wa_factsheet_final.pdf https://international-aluminium.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/...
      • TexanFeller 3y ago
        But still a heck of a lot more than the reused container that should be used instead. Focusing on recycling instead of reducing and reusing is a good way to let Coca Cola off the hook for continuing to sell single use beverage containers.
• raisedbyninjas 3y ago
  If plastic bag bans annoy customers, wait until you ask people to wash and refill their single-use aluminum cans. Reusable bags are actually a pleasure to carry items and a minor inconvenience to schlep to the store.
• xnorswap 3y ago
  Your argument is a popular contrarian take, but it doesn't seem to hold up to the evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/31/government-urged-to-repeat-success-of-plastic-bag-charge https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/31/governme... If California has a problem it isn't because bag bans don't work, it's because they've screwed up their implementation. And yes, supermarkets do still use a lot of unnecessary plastic in packaging, but that's another issue that can also be tackled, and I haven't seen evidence that it has actually got worse since the plastic bag levy. Arguing that plastic bags shouldn't be tackled because something else could be done is an argument to do nothing. Plastic carrier bags were an absolute scourge a decade ago, they were everywhere. Their use has been absolutely decimated. The arguments that people are secretly using more because they're no longer re-using them as bin bags or because they're buying "bags for life" instead are bad faith arguments that just don't hold up to the statistics or the reality of the situation. Over 7 billion less plastic bags produced per year in the UK. That's a tremendous achievement.
  • gruez 3y ago
    The OP was talking about "bag bans". Your linked article talks about a "bag charge". Those are totally different things. Bag bans force forgetful people to buy "reusable" bags that take more plastic to produce, and inevitably pile up an need to be disposed of. Bag charges don't have that issue, because you can continue to buy thin bags, just at a steep markup.
    • duke_sam 3y ago
      Most shops in Ire/UK have stopped providing thin plastic bags for sale. All bags are either bags for life or (much) more expensive reusable plastic bags. Only small convenience stores still have the thin bags available.
    • xnorswap 3y ago
      Taxes are almost always the best way to implement "bans", you get huge benefits: 1. People feel less aggrieved if they still can technically access something at a price. ( Less accusation of Government overreach. ) 2. Economically nudging behaviour is extremely effective. People will do a surprisingly amount of work/effort to avoid even a small cost. 3. If people continue the behaviour you want to ban, you get a good revenue stream, and can escalate taxes ( e.g. Tobacco taxes ) 4. It reduces the size of a black market emerging for the banned goods ( i.e. Don't make the mistakes of USA during Prohibition. ) That California didn't realise this and naively implemented a concrete ban is screwing up implementing a ban.
• stetrain 3y ago
  Are single serving aluminum cans, if recycled, really worse than the alternatives? Plastic bottles or glass both have their own emissions and recycling issues.
  • martycon 3y ago
    All waste has issues. Time reduce, reuse, recycle. Products should be sold in containers that can be used again as much as possible.
  • Ekaros 3y ago
    Aluminium cans are probably one of the most effective packing tools we have. They are light, they are volumetrically efficient compared to let's say bottles. They can be recycled effectively. Also they keep stuff good longer than plastic. Glass on other hand is heavy, and washing it to food standard requires surprisingly hot water and caustic chemicals. Plus all the care in the handling and extra tooling in handling the bottles.
  • TexanFeller 3y ago
    They’re far worse than the alternative of using reusable containers. Single serving containers should be replaced with reusable containers filled from fountains in public places or from concentrate in something like a sodastream. Coca Coka would prefer we talk about the benefits of recycling so it doesn’t affect their business practices.
• audunw 3y ago
  > It would be far better to promote banning of single serving aluminum cans Uh, what? Aluminum cans are actually one of the things that can be easily recycled, and it's economic too. If anything should be done it is to mandate the introduction of bottle/can recycling machines like "Tomra" in the US. > and plastic/styrofoam packaging for goods within the store. That plastic packaging does actually serve a purpose which is not easy to solve in other ways though. People think plastic wrapped vegetables is stupid, but it helps keep the vegetables fresh for longer, which reduces waste. There are organic compostable "plastic" films that should eventually be used instead. But it's work in progress. Meanwhile, replacing a single use grocery bag for a reusable one is something that can be done instantly today.
• belorn 3y ago
  With the goal of less plastic in the ocean and landfills, the solution should not be to make a very narrow and specific form of plastic illegal while everything else is acceptable. Thick plastic and aluminum are both terrible at decomposing at the bottom of the ocean. Natural fibers however tend to dissolve quite well in water. Recycling and plastic waste initiatives seems like two completely different goals. Recycling reduce energy usage in the industry, but the effect on ocean waste can be anything from beneficial, marginal to negative. In order to address single serving aluminum cans, one of the more effective solution is container-deposit. When 1/5 of the counter price is in the deposit, people seems to litter a lot less. It need to hurt a little to throw the can into the ocean or just randomly in the street.
  • bryanlarsen 3y ago
    But thick plastic and aluminum are much less likely to end up in an ocean than a plastic disposable grocery bag. Plastic disposable grocery bags catch the wind very easily and are great kites. They can easily travel hundreds of miles in the air. Also, decomposing in the ocean is exactly what we don't want. Plastic disposable grocery bags decompose into microplastics, and we're finding out how bad that is. A heavier bag stays intact.
    • belorn 3y ago
      People don't generally see how much trash end up in the ocean since water surface naturally obscure visibility, and pollution obscure it even further. It far from just grocery bag. Littering is very common behavior, and cities located near rivers or the ocean has trash ending up in the water all the time. To get a bit of sense of the scale, every single dive center teaches divers about trash, and basically every employee of such places pick up trash as a matter of being able to do education. It is simply not a good practice to have students training diving when trash is littering around them. Measure a square meter and almost regardless where it is, there will be trash in it if located close to a city. In a city river there seems to be more trash than rocks. Decomposing nature fibers like paper or cloth does not leave microplastics. It also don't survive long time in the water so water near cities with bans on plastic bag and plastic eating utensils tend to be significant cleaner. The sad thing is that it is mostly just divers who will see this since the water tend to still have poor visibility (traffic, eutrophication, and other runoffs).
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]