I thought that it wasn't possible to get any more ridiculous.

[Bayushi]

I thought that it wasn't possible to get any more ridiculous.

Boy was I wrong.

Tomorrow, the Oregon state Senate will begin its consideration SB 536, in a committee hearing. State Bill 536 will ban plastic bags, as well as paper bags that do not have at least 40% recycled material.

To use a paper bag with 40% or more recycled material, the consumer will have to pay an additional five cents per bag used.

Good job, assholes. You're sure helping us out when there are an increasing number of poor. You know, those poor who don't exactly have the money to blow on PAPER GODDAMNED BAGS?

Maybe if you elected morons spent time figuring out how to bring JOBS to the state, and not worrying about PLASTIC BAGS, people might be able to afford retarded laws like this one?

OH, I'M SORRY! I forgot that COMMON SENSE does not exist. Just political pandering to special interest groups and massively overblown hyperbole.

. . .



Disclaimer: The poster is an irritated resident of the state of Oregon who cannot afford to pay 5 cents per paper bag when making once-a-month shopping trips for groceries. As such, the amount of groceries would greatly exceed the amount of space offered by reusable canvas bags, which the poster can not afford, either.

[Oniya]

My mother used to save paper grocery bags and re-use them.  Admittedly, she reused them as garbage bags, but if the bags aren't too badly beaten up, I could see taking them back to the store for a few refills.  Also, cardboard boxes.  There was a chain called Shopper's Food Warehouse where I used to live that encouraged people to use old cardboard boxes to carry their groceries.

Hopefully, it won't come to that, but those are possibilities for saving those extra nickles.

[Caeli]

Possible solutions:

Reuse the plastic bags that you do have. I don't go shopping that often, but all of my bags just accumulate because I save them for household trash and other things, and I don't use them fast enough.

Get one or two boxes (if you don't have any clean ones lying around, a large USPS flat rate box or two should do) and leave it in your trunk. When shopping, tell the bagger or cashier you'd prefer not to have a bag, thanks, and have them put groceries directly into the cart. Place your groceries directly into the boxes, sans bags, and transport your groceries that way.

Get some scrap fabric and sew together a large bag suitable for your grocery needs. You can reinforce it with extra fabric, make thick straps so they don't cut into your hands, and they'll look cool.



Frankly, I'm glad that there are cities and states that are doing more to conserve our resources and ban disposable, one-time-use items like plastic bags that are harmful to our environment and produce so much waste. I was rather ticked off when a similar bill in California didn't pass, because shoppers became all offended that the law was about inconveniencing them.

It's not. This is about being green, and being more environmentally friendly, and looking at the resource waste that's going into making these "free plastic bags" for people to use. In the long run, reusing your own bags (and they don't even have to be canvas; I have two reusable bags, one of which is a huge red plastic Toyota bag, and another a bag made out of recycled water bottles) isn't any less convenient, is environmentally friendly, and will save you and the store money.

[elone]

Some of us just like the idea of being green.  Plastic bags are the scourge of the Earth. While they are trying to make some out of natural products, most plastic is oil based. How many of those plastic bags do we see on the roadside every day. They fill the landfills and are not degradable. They are clogging our rivers and oceans.  Cudos to the politicians who have the guts to stand up for something that is right over what is convenient.  As for the 5 cent cost, be creative, make a bag and put it in your car.  There are also recycle bins outside the store for plastic bags. Where I live the grocery store actually takes 5 cents off your bill for every reusable bag supplied by the customer. A good solution for Oregon and elsewhere. Another idea, donate to Sierra Club, World Wildlife fund, and many other organizations. They often have introductory gifts such as canvas bags for donors. It does the world good and is tax deductible as well. Personally, I don't think they should charge for a recycled paper bag, but I think the idea is to encourage reusable bags.

[Zakharra]

It's not. This is about being green, and being more environmentally friendly, and looking at the resource waste that's going into making these "free plastic bags" for people to use. In the long run, reusing your own bags (and they don't even have to be canvas; I have two reusable bags, one of which is a huge red plastic Toyota bag, and another a bag made out of recycled water bottles) isn't any less convenient, is environmentally friendly, and will save you and the store money.

For alot of people, going green is an inconvenient becuase going 'green' costs more, and some green solutions are plain assed stupid.  A drunk, crack addicted, acid tripping monkey could come up with better solutions than some of the green ideas submitted and pushed by the politicians.

[Caeli]

Personally, I think a 5-cent fine for plastic or paper bags is preferable to an outright ban (nudging people to change their habits, rather than shoving them into it). I think it's more effective and more consumer-friendly than a ban, even though a ban would definitively cut down on the consumption of plastic bags. But, it's also been proven in cities that implemented them that fines can decrease plastic bag usage by 80% to 90%. But that's besides the point.

Paper bags actually aren't all that much better than plastic. Plastic bags are oil based, and paper bags are tree-based - and even if it is recycled, the process of recycling itself requires energy. It's good that they're working towards recycled paper bags, though, rather than originally produced paper bags (which require four times the energy to produce as the same amount of plastic bags). In my opinion, it's a step in the right direction.

For alot of people, going green is an inconvenient becuase going 'green' costs more, and some green solutions are plain assed stupid.  A drunk, crack addicted, acid tripping monkey could come up with better solutions than some of the green ideas submitted and pushed by the politicians.

I find it hard to believe that it's more costly for a consumer to save plastic bags from a previous grocery store run to use the next time s/he heads to the grocery store to buy more groceries.

Or to piece together from old shirts or unwanted clothing, a cloth bag that can be reused, at only the cost of some time and some thread.

Or to reuse an old box to hold groceries.

These aren't green ideas submitted and pushed by politicians. These are practical solutions that anybody - you, me, our neighbors, people up and down the socio-economic bracket - can use. Sure, it's not as convenient as getting your groceries bagged in plastic, but I don't see how it's a terrible ordeal to try to work towards a greener, more environmentally-friendly future with a small act like reusing a plastic bag that might otherwise go into the trash, or sit unused under the sink.

[Zakharra]

I find it hard to believe that it's more costly for a consumer to save plastic bags from a previous grocery store run to use the next time s/he heads to the grocery store to buy more groceries.

Or to piece together from old shirts or unwanted clothing, a cloth bag that can be reused, at only the cost of some time and some thread.

Or to reuse an old box to hold groceries.

For most people, it's a very big inconvenience to remember to take them with you in the car, then into the store.  I reuse the plastic ones at home as small garbage bags, or burn them.

These aren't green ideas submitted and pushed by politicians. These are practical solutions that anybody - you, me, our neighbors, people up and down the socio-economic bracket - can use. Sure, it's not as convenient as getting your groceries bagged in plastic, but I don't see how it's a terrible ordeal to try to work towards a greener, more environmentally-friendly future with a small act like reusing a plastic bag that might otherwise go into the trash, or sit unused under the sink.

If a city is trying to tax or outright ban plastic/paper bags, that is politics getting involved. Anything to do with a law is by definition, politics, for it to be enacted. 

Part of the problem though is that these 'practical' solutions are being pushed by politicians and such, with the motto, ' to work towards a greener, more environmentally-friendly future'.  Several examples are  discontinuing the incandescent lightbulb in favor of the curled fluorescent ones and the not too subtle political pressure to get people to buy electric cars (what powers the electric plants? Coal or gas. Fossil fuel).  Using ethanol for fuel was a real bright idea too.

[Oniya]

Yeah, funny thing about those curly fluorescent bulbs:  They don't actually last the 'seven years' that they were claiming.  We haven't owned our house that long, and we bought our first ones well after we moved in.  We're already replacing them.  Which brings me to the other fun thing about them:  You can't throw them away, even in your recycling bins.  They have to be taken to a special recycling center, due to the mercury vapor inside.  So, it's back to whatever hardware store you can find that stocks them, because the grocery stores and dollar stores that you got them from have no clue what to do with them.

[Bayushi]

Frankly, I'm glad that there are cities and states that are doing more to conserve our resources and ban disposable, one-time-use items like plastic bags that are harmful to our environment and produce so much waste. I was rather ticked off when a similar bill in California didn't pass, because shoppers became all offended that the law was about inconveniencing them.

I'm all for being more ecologically conscious. However, I do not believe that the government has any business in said matters.

Especially when it's not going to cost THEM anything more, but it will cost ME more. It's going to cost people money. At a time when money is becoming increasingly scarce, and food prices are rising.

If anything, the timing for this law is bad.

As for one-time use, I reuse my plastic bags. I've used them for anything from cleaning up after a dog while walking one, to taping a bunch onto my computer chair when I had to move it and it was raining. These bags have a lot of uses, and most stores here have readily accessible bins in which to dispose of used plastic bags. They're usually pretty full.

Even with the ecological concerns posed by plastic bags, to me it's just another creeping step taken by the encroaching nanny state. If I wanted to live in a nanny state, I'd move to the UK. Seriously.

[Lilias]

If I wanted to live in a nanny state, I'd move to the UK. Seriously.

You wouldn't complain about the free healthcare then, would you?

For reference, there's no law on plastic/paper bags here because retailers handle the issue themselves (apparently they get perks for being green). The Co-op and Marks & Spencer have been charging 5p for their carrier bags for years. Sainsbury's prefer the bribe approach, awarding loyalty points for reused bags and replacing their 'Lifetime' reusables free of charge when they're worn out.

Perhaps the answer to the grocery-carrying issue is something like this.

[RubySlippers]

How much effort is it to buy a few cloth bags and use those? Since they last a long time if sturdy and can be washed as needed I don't see the issue.

[Zakharra]

How much effort is it to buy a few cloth bags and use those? Since they last a long time if sturdy and can be washed as needed I don't see the issue.

It's probably just remembering to carry them with you in the car, that many people would forget. That and paying $.05 per bag when before they were free.

Yeah, funny thing about those curly fluorescent bulbs:  They don't actually last the 'seven years' that they were claiming.  We haven't owned our house that long, and we bought our first ones well after we moved in.  We're already replacing them.  Which brings me to the other fun thing about them:  You can't throw them away, even in your recycling bins.  They have to be taken to a special recycling center, due to the mercury vapor inside.  So, it's back to whatever hardware store you can find that stocks them, because the grocery stores and dollar stores that you got them from have no clue what to do with them.

Silly isn't it? As it is, most probably end up in the normal garbage and landfill. Not to mention it likely costs more in energy to make and dispose of the bloody fluorescent bulbs than an incandecent one.

[RubySlippers]

Once you get into the habit of carrying your own bag like you would your wallet or purse its not an issue. My dad got me into that habit years ago he said no use wasting a tree use this army surplus ammo bag it will last for years, that was years ago. And he is not a tree hugger just hates wasting things.

[Oniya]

Carrying 'a bag' is the sort of thing that makes sense if you can shop 'European-style' (getting most stuff fresh daily) or only for a single person on a weekly basis or so.  If you're shopping for a family on a monthly basis (and probably saving money by buying large, in-bulk products), you can be talking 10-15 bags, based on my recollections of Mom shopping on base.

[Valerian]

Granted, the once-a-month shoppers wouldn't want to have that many bags with them all the time -- and the initial investment might hurt a little, though it is possible to find free or very cheap bags -- but on the other hand, I would think it would then be very difficult to forget to bring them on one of the big shopping trips.  I have my bags on a shelf next to my front door, and it's quite rare that I forget to bring them along with me.  And I'm forgetful, as a rule.  :P

When I was growing up, we did large shopping trips regularly (the nearest grocery store was some distance away), and believe me, we prepared for those trips.  Heh.  I also have a vague recollection of shopping someplace where purchases were regularly packed up into boxes and we could pick up a small deposit when we returned the boxes, though that place closed when I was quite young.  That sort of setup might start to become popular again, though, as a way to help consumers adjust, since adjustments have to be made.


"Nanny state" is probably a misleading term in this case, however, since it usually refers to things like smoking bans and helmet laws -- laws that affect only an individual.  Here, we're talking about a problem that literally affects every person on earth.

[Trieste]

It's probably just remembering to carry them with you in the car, that many people would forget. That and paying $.05 per bag when before they were free.

I'm about the most forgetful person on the planet and I manage to remember them.

Plastic bags aren't biodegradable. They KILL any organisms that ingest them. They are made from non-renewable oil products, which makes them both environmentally and politically unwise. Paper bags are not much better.

And although they don't cost money, they are anything but 'free'.

Their only saving grace is that we have been conditioned to think of them as being convenient. Now, we need to shift our perceptions a little bit. Either people do it voluntarily now, or they get forced to do it later because of a crisis. Either way, it needs to get done.

[Alika Luminos]

I don't consider my life an entirely 'green' lifestyle per se, but I do try to make conscientious choices that will help preserve what we have left. It is really unfortunate that a lot of the 'conveniences' we have today are very, very bad for the world around us, and even our own bodies. I think all the suggestions are very good so far, and that they can likely help you feel a little better about the legislation being put into place. It sounds to me like the OP is more upset about what she feels is an encroachment on her right to choose, which is understandable, but there are always people on both sides of a law...which what makes legislation so difficult in general. You'll never appease everyone.

Unfortunately, even if the Pacific garbage swirl is -not- as large as Texas, the water is still heavily polluted. We are seeing more and more dead seabirds and mammals washing up on the shore with high levels of plastic-related toxicants in their fat stores and liver. It's easy to be swayed by hyperbole from either side of an argument. With reports of global warming, deforestation, mass animal die-offs, or other reports of our slowly dying world, the facts speak for themselves that the planet is in more trouble than ever, and not just from plastic. Humans (as a group) are stupid and wasteful. 

There are 3 or 4 videos in this series, I believe. I think they are worth watching. "Garbage Island" or not, you cannot stage pollution and waste like this:
Toxic: Garbage Island - Part 1

[Zakharra]

I'm about the most forgetful person on the planet and I manage to remember them.

Plastic bags aren't biodegradable. They KILL any organisms that ingest them. They are made from non-renewable oil products, which makes them both environmentally and politically unwise. Paper bags are not much better.

I am going to disagree with that. They do degrade. After several year or so of being exposed to the elements plastics degrade and the plastic bags you get in stores crumble into tiny pieces that are not a threat at all. I do admit the ones that are covered and buried last longer, but they do degrade over time.

[Trieste]

This is similar to the discussion previously about the oil that sits in the can in your back yard. You observed that if you leave it long enough, it supposedly became harmless, therefore the Gulf of Mexico could recover easily and it was no big deal. However, it's a problem of volume.

This is the same problem. One bag might 'break into tiny harmless pieces' (they actually don't, but whatevs) but a thousand million bags breaking into tiny pieces is not harmless at all - it still leaves you with billions of pieces of the bags. Which are still toxic.

Plastic remains toxic at the molecular level, though. So your point is not valid on that level, either.

[Zakharra]

This is similar to the discussion previously about the oil that sits in the can in your back yard. You observed that if you leave it long enough, it supposedly became harmless, therefore the Gulf of Mexico could recover easily and it was no big deal. However, it's a problem of volume.

Not true. Oil is an organic compound and degrades on it's own. Short term it can be toxic, but so is a mud slide and volcanic ash, but over the long term it's impact is erased. I've seen oil left out become an organic sludge if left out.  If the Gulf was left alone, in time you would find no trace of any spill because there are bacteria that would eat the oil.

This is the same problem. One bag might 'break into tiny harmless pieces' (they actually don't, but whatevs) but a thousand million bags breaking into tiny pieces is not harmless at all - it still leaves you with billions of pieces of the bags. Which are still toxic.

Plastic remains toxic at the molecular level, though. So your point is not valid on that level, either.

No. That is false. It's based off of an organic  compound and unless you have a source that says the plastic never ever degrades, I'm assuming that is just your opinion and gquestionable science. If it is organic, it will degrade and not remain toxic. Unless you are saying that it remains as toxic as nuclear waste and heavy metals..

[Trieste]

No, it doesn't. I am a chemist, and my school specializes in marine science including the effects of pollution on it. Much as you might like it to, that shit doesn't just go away. The environment can handle small amounts of contaminants, in extremely specialized circumstances. Human waste does not count as 'small amounts'.

You want other scientists? You got other scientists. I even did my best to get publicly accessible literature so that you could read it instead of being asked for an institutional password and username.

Source, 2004 Talks about how the 'little pieces' all end up in the ocean, consumed by marine organisms, etc.

Source, 2002 Tell me, why would we be needing to engineer water-soluble polymers ('polymers' are the larger chemical group of which 'plastics' are a part - all plastics are polymers, not all polymers are plastics) at great cost and effort if the ones we have were already biodegradable and water soluble? Oh right we wouldn't.

Source, 2000 One of the so-called 'little pieces' that plastic breaks down into is vinyl chloride (Poly vinyl chloride is composed of long chains of vinyl chloride. Poly vinyl chloride = PVC, which is a kind of plastic that piping is made out of.) which is then leached out of landfills into the surrounding area. Soil, groundwater, etc. Here is a whole article about how incredibly toxic vinyl chloride is, and why it's still a problem.

Source, 1974 We have been aware of this problem since 1974 and you're trying to call it my personal opinion?

How about some government studies?

You can look at O'Brine, Tim and Richard C. Thompson. "Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the marine environment". 2010. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 60, issue 12, pg 2279-2283.

Or you can look at a 2010 report out of Yangling, China. Maybe it will drive home that this is not just an American problem, or even a North American one. It's in Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2010 Mar, Volume 21 Issue 3 pg. 763-769, entitled "Physical and chemical properties of land-filling pile and aged refuse in 5-year-old semi-aerobic and anaerobic landfills", by Zhang et al.

"The cytotoxic effects of synthetic 6-hydroxylated and 6-methoxylated polybrominated diphenyl ether 47 (BDE47)". 2010. Authored by An et al., published in Environmental Toxicology in April 2010. This is an article about a chemical applied to plastics that are used in industrial processes - meaning they are produced at a prodigious rate - and the chemical is an endocrine disruptor. This chemical is being leached out of refuse and it's ending up in our soil. In our water. In our food. In our bodies. Another one of your 'little pieces'.



I could keep going. I could probably write a 50-page review paper from the resources that are available to me from a simple 20-minute search. Statements like this:

Not true. Oil is an organic compound and degrades on it's own. Short term it can be toxic, but so is a mud slide and volcanic ash, but over the long term it's impact is erased. I've seen oil left out become an organic sludge if left out.  If the Gulf was left alone, in time you would find no trace of any spill because there are bacteria that would eat the oil.

[...] If it is organic, it will degrade and not remain toxic. [...]

... are ignorant, in addition to being flat out incorrect. Wake up and smell the science: we only have one planet and attitudes like yours are destroying it. Just as much, if not more, than greed is.

"I don't care to be inconvenienced by having to bring my own bags to the market." Feh. Whatever.

[Serephino]

Instead of charging extra for plastic bags, why not give incentives for recycling them?  Like maybe stores could set up a bin where you would put old bags, and you could get a 50 cent discount per... 10 bags?... that you bring back for them to send off to have recycled.

People would respond better if you saved them money rather than cost them more.  I'm all for being greener, but the current culture makes it difficult.  We do our shopping twice a month.  We can end up with 20 or more bags, depending on how much stuff we're out of.  I keep them for cleaning the litter box, and picking up after the dogs.

We make quick trips too.  I did buy a few cloth bags for $1 each.  I never remember to take them with.  I even tried keeping them in the car, but I still didn't remember to take them in the store with me.  Admittedly, my memory is so bad that some days I can't remember my own name, but I also think that another part of it is I'm just not in the habit of taking them. 

[Oniya]

Instead of charging extra for plastic bags, why not give incentives for recycling them?  Like maybe stores could set up a bin where you would put old bags, and you could get a 50 cent discount per... 10 bags?... that you bring back for them to send off to have recycled.

They used to do that with bottles, back in my parents' day.  Not only did you get people bringing back the ones that they used personally, but people (often kids) would scour trash for bottles to bring back.  Imagine the impact on the amount of tossed plastic bags if there was a deposit/return on them?

[Callie Del Noire]

There are a lot of issues on both side of the issue but the approach that is being used by the Oregon state government seems to be a snap judgment with little thought on the impact their actions.

Impressive (actually intimidating) amount of data that btw Treiste.

[Trieste]

There are a lot of issues on both side of the issue but the approach that is being used by the Oregon state government seems to be a snap judgment with little thought on the impact their actions.

Agreed. Many people in our immediate area have made the switch to reusable bags because:

a) You get 5 cents off for each bag you use, which means if you keep one for about 6 months and you shop weekly, it pays for itself. Takes a little longer if you shop monthly (would take about 2 years) but using the bags less means that they won't wear out nearly as fast, too.

b) They are ubiquitous. Plastic bags are still fairly easy to get around here, and we still use them every once in a while when we make a quick trip (bread or milk or something) and forget the canvas bags. However, the cloth bags are everywhere. There are endcarts and racks with them on there ev.er.y.where.

[Callie Del Noire]

Agreed. Many people in our immediate area have made the switch to reusable bags because:

a) You get 5 cents off for each bag you use, which means if you keep one for about 6 months and you shop weekly, it pays for itself. Takes a little longer if you shop monthly (would take about 2 years) but using the bags less means that they won't wear out nearly as fast, too.

b) They are ubiquitous. Plastic bags are still fairly easy to get around here, and we still use them every once in a while when we make a quick trip (bread or milk or something) and forget the canvas bags. However, the cloth bags are everywhere. There are endcarts and racks with them on there ev.er.y.where.

True and it is like that pretty much everywhere I live. I think of the attempt to ban Barbie in West Virginia when something that is as 'all or nothing' as the Oregon measure. I agree to the trend of using the 5 cent off per bag used carrot, something my mom told me about first off. (She keeps like nearly a dozen cloth bags in her car now..even keeps a bundle in my dads) but any measure that is as clear and total as the measure in Oregon makes the cynic inside to look and see if the penner of it isn't invested in a paper bag factory somewhere.

[Zakharra]

... are ignorant, in addition to being flat out incorrect. Wake up and smell the science: we only have one planet and attitudes like yours are destroying it. Just as much, if not more, than greed is.

"I don't care to be inconvenienced by having to bring my own bags to the market." Feh. Whatever.

I'll grant you the first part but I know for a fact that oil will on it's own degrade into organic sludge that is NOT toxic because oil is at the base, an organic liquid. Everything that spilled into the Gulf will in time degrade on it's own. Nature cleans up it's own messes in time  It might not happen as fast as we humans want, but it will happen eventually.

[Trieste]

The problems with assuming that oil/plastic/pesticides/whatever will 'fix itself' because it's 'natural' are that:

a) We are putting them into the environment in unnatural quantities. At what point do you think the Gulf of Mexico randomly developed a mile-deep rupture and dumped millions of barrels of oil into itself?

b) Waiting for it to 'fix itself' usually puts local wildlife at risk. Usually this wildlife is endangered or threatened already (because we've already been trashing their environment, usually) and further tipping the balance in a catastrophic direction is, well, catastrophic. We are driving species to extinction with our carelessness. A tangentially related example would be the manner in which manatee populations have been decimated by human influence. (Please don't randomly start talking about manatees. They are an example, and not really on topic.)

c) Sure, it might clear up in a couple hundred thousand years or so. After we've scorched our planet and made it unlivable for ourselves and everything else. We may be the global apex predators, but in order to survive, we need to take care of our home. "Well, it'll fix itself" is asking to go the way of the dinosaurs. We need to be proactive. The second option is death - for us as a species and all of the critters that have to live with us.

And even when you don't consider all of that, it's really not a huge deal to remember to take a stupid little canvas bag to the grocery store in order to save a tree, or maybe the gloogy remains of a triceratops. :)

[Caeli]

True and it is like that pretty much everywhere I live. I think of the attempt to ban Barbie in West Virginia when something that is as 'all or nothing' as the Oregon measure. I agree to the trend of using the 5 cent off per bag used carrot, something my mom told me about first off. (She keeps like nearly a dozen cloth bags in her car now..even keeps a bundle in my dads) but any measure that is as clear and total as the measure in Oregon makes the cynic inside to look and see if the penner of it isn't invested in a paper bag factory somewhere.

I definitely think that a complete ban is a little over the top, though I don't think it's wrong to charge five cents per paper or plastic bag that you use from the grocery store (main reason being, paper bags aren't all that much better than plastic bags when it comes to resource waste). I think providing a little incentive - five cents off if you bring your own bags, for instance - as a carrot is a much better method than a ban, but this change has been a long time in coming, and despite the outward concern about the environment, people aren't making enough change in their daily lives to make the move an easy one.

There are several stores I can name off the top of my head that do the carrot thing - Trader Joe's is the first (I love Trader Joe's), and I think the local Whole Foods does, as does the local Albertson's in my neighborhood that recently went completely green - and I appreciate that step that's being taken. It's a step in the right direction, and that's the kind of thing that's needed to get people to slowly change their habits.

However, I sincerely believe that the main problem is that many people simply don't realize how bad for the environment plastic bags really are - they don't think about where or how it was made, how far it was transported, and the volume at which we consume them - and so they don't think it's that big of a deal if they forget their reusable bag in the house/car/wherever or if they just use a few plastic bags during their grocery trip.

It took the combination of living the principles of my service organization, a compelling documentary, and some research to really become aware of how it all adds up - and since then, I've been making a more focused effort on remembering to bring those reusable bags, reusing any plastic bags I have for household trash or other things, and so on. I think if people were educated or made more aware of how serious this issue is, and how our careless waste and usage of plastic bags is making a very negative impact on the earth and the animals that live here with us, they might also make a greater effort to make that change in their shopping habits.

[elone]

I know we have been talking about grocery stores here, but what about all of the other stores that put things in plastic bags? How about convenience stores? If you buy just about anything they put it in a plastic bag, even a single item. Unfortunately, this is true of too many stores. I am constantly saying "I don't need a bag".  I have been refusing bags for years. I am also old enough to remember when there were no plastic bags at stores. People seemed to survive just fine. It takes a lot of energy to produce plastic, and the paper industry is a major polluter, although they have made improvements. Besides, I love my forests. Unless wood is sustainably harvested, paper is also a problem.

One of the problems is that we get used to our conveniences. Our Earth is not one of these conveniences, it a finite resource. When we use it to its breaking point it will fix itself, by making humans an extinct species. Any small step we take now may extend our lifetime later.

[Callie Del Noire]

I say that a lot too. "I don't need a bag." When I go to get a six pack or a couple of liters, typically I have a shoulder bag or such when I go shopping for a few things. Particularly when I'm looking for tools or such. I don't usually use bags aside from grocery shopping and most of them I reuse as garbage bags or such or drop off at recycle spots around the area.

I don't like the idea of an outright ban, particularly one this forthright and sudden.

[Vekseid]

I'll grant you the first part but I know for a fact that oil will on it's own degrade into organic sludge that is NOT toxic because oil is at the base, an organic liquid. Everything that spilled into the Gulf will in time degrade on it's own. Nature cleans up it's own messes in time  It might not happen as fast as we humans want, but it will happen eventually.

Zakharra, this is not about oil. This is about plastic.

Oil takes a few weeks to degrade into a useless sludge in an environment like the Gulf. This is because oil is a relatively simple substance that is easily converted into fuel for things to eat, and things are well adapted to eat it. Even then, large quantities can still be significantly ecologically and economically disruptive. The 'let it happen and live with it' argument is like saying we shouldn't try to mitigate the effects of volcanic eruptions or hurricanes.

Plastic is not the same thing as oil, like diamonds are not the same thing as coal. One is a lot more chemically stable then the other - and plastics usefulness is due to that chemical stability.

[Zeitgeist]

One of the issues with the idea of reusable cloth bags for groceries and what not is, people don't wash them and they can be a carrier of germs to and from home and public places. Easily resolved if people take the time to wipe them down at least, with a disinfectant wipe, but I have my doubts people would do this often enough.

I myself reuse plastic bags for liners in my bathroom and computer area trash dispensers. That said, I believe a market based approach to these kinds of problems would be best, not government edicts imposed by a class of people who haven't seen the inside of a Walmart or Target in a decade or two.

[Ket]

One of the issues with the idea of reusable cloth bags for groceries and what not is, people don't wash them and they can be a carrier of germs to and from home and public places. Easily resolved if people take the time to wipe them down at least, with a disinfectant wipe, but I have my doubts people would do this often enough.

-blinks-

Anymore so than your own clothing (made out of cloth) or hands - which are just filled with lovely little buggers - or your shoes that track in dirt -filled with lovely little buggers- or anything else you might be bringing into the store?  I mean, how many people are handling your bags at the store? Unless there's some real scientific data out there showing that reusable shopping bags are ticking time bomb petri dishes carrying the next epidemic of the plague, I really don't see how germs are an issue when it comes to switching to them.

The issue is that people don't want to change. They don't want to have to remember to bring their own bags to the store and they don't want to have to pay for paper bags when plastic has always been 'free'.

[Vekseid]

I myself reuse plastic bags for liners in my bathroom and computer area trash dispensers. That said, I believe a market based approach to these kinds of problems would be best, not government edicts imposed by a class of people who haven't seen the inside of a Walmart or Target in a decade or two.

Mandating a 5 cent charge is a market based approach.

Plastic waste is an externality that is effectively a public concern. No one has an inherent right to impose externalities on others.

So a cost is figured for the externality and imposed on those who wish to commit it.

[RubySlippers]

In the Atlantic there is this HUGE swath of sealane the size of Texas I think or larger of plastic waste it was not biodegrading and styrophome I would just ban that will never break down 100% millions of years from now aliens could come down and test the water finding trace amounts of that most likely. What is the big issue get a cloth bag, tuck in on your person when you go shopping and take it. If you can remember your money to buy things that should not be an issue.

But I would use a carror bring your own bag and maybe they could knock off 2% from your receipt and if you don't add 2% instead. On a $10 bill that would be 20 cents off or 20 cents added and do that pre-tax the business can write off any loss on Federal Taxes perhaps.

[Zeitgeist]

Mandating a 5 cent charge is a market based approach.

Plastic waste is an externality that is effectively a public concern. No one has an inherent right to impose externalities on others.

So a cost is figured for the externality and imposed on those who wish to commit it.

I'm sorry, I don't consider government mandates, i.e. taxes, a market based approach. I just don't think it is the government's place. I'm sure you disagree, but that is how I feel about it. Even if, syntactically I may be wrong.

-blinks-

Anymore so than your own clothing (made out of cloth) or hands - which are just filled with lovely little buggers - or your shoes that track in dirt -filled with lovely little buggers- or anything else you might be bringing into the store?  I mean, how many people are handling your bags at the store? Unless there's some real scientific data out there showing that reusable shopping bags are ticking time bomb petri dishes carrying the next epidemic of the plague, I really don't see how germs are an issue when it comes to switching to them.

The issue is that people don't want to change. They don't want to have to remember to bring their own bags to the store and they don't want to have to pay for paper bags when plastic has always been 'free'.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/video/carrying-reusable-bags-11006319
http://www.examiner.com/sustainable-foods-in-portland/clean-your-reusable-bags-or-risk-food-poisoning

-blinkity-blink-

[Trieste]

... you know about it because it's being disseminated via the news and health blogs. So that people are educated about it and get into the habit of washing their bags. Not everyone will - but some people still leave the bathroom without washing their hands, too. (We've all heard someone come out of the next stall over and leave the public washroom without touching the sink. I know it's not just me.)

[Serephino]

Everything is covered in germs.  Medical and news shows do spots on this kind of thing all the time.  The keyboard you type on probably has more germs on it than a cloth bag.  If I let germs stop me, I'd have to live in a sanitized plastic bubble.

From my experience, people respond better to saving money rather than being charged more.  I remember there used to be a recycling center around here that payed for aluminum cans.  My babysitter used to get them anywhere she could, and make me crush them, so I can tell you she probably recycled at least a few hundred cans a month.  I can also tell you that woman would never have put such effort into it if she wasn't getting money for it.  That recycling center closed last year because of county budget issues, so no one around here can recycle unless they want to drive a good 30mi, which would defeat the purpose because of the gas used.

I agree that we have a problem, and need to fix it, but it won't happen overnight.  When I was a kid oil was cheap and plentiful, so it was used for everything.  People didn't start thinking about these things until a little while ago.  Sadly awareness came a bit too late.  Pretty much everything we do everyday involves an oil based product somehow. 

[Jude]

I'll grant you the first part but I know for a fact that oil will on it's own degrade into organic sludge that is NOT toxic because oil is at the base, an organic liquid. Everything that spilled into the Gulf will in time degrade on it's own. Nature cleans up it's own messes in time  It might not happen as fast as we humans want, but it will happen eventually.

Nature is not some anthropomorphic entity with a limitless capacity for adaptation to overcome damage and return to its original state like a stress ball:  it's our environment.  When we change our environment we are changing nature, and these changes in turn result in a myriad of other changes.  Natural + natural may equal natural, but it does not always equal hospitable.  That's just a complicated extension of the naturalistic fallacy.  And we can thank Rush Limbaugh for injecting that nonsense into culture most recently.

[Oniya]

Here's another example along those lines:  Salt is perfectly natural.  Ocean's full of it.  Dump a couple tons of it in a pond, or in an open meadow, though, and you kill off everything, and it may or may not recover.  There's a reason that the ancient Romans talked about 'sowing the enemy's fields with salt'.

[Vekseid]

I'm sorry, I don't consider government mandates, i.e. taxes, a market based approach. I just don't think it is the government's place. I'm sure you disagree, but that is how I feel about it. Even if, syntactically I may be wrong.

A non market-based solution would be an outright ban, quota limitation, or rationing system. Market based solutions impose costs in order to direct behavior to more favorable ends.

Conservative libertarianism, to my knowledge, doesn't actually have a solution. If you have one, I'd love to hear it. You use 'market based', but then claim that a market based solution isn't what you were talking about. So what, exactly, is your solution to curbing public externalities like this?

[Jude]

A non market-based solution would be an outright ban, quota limitation, or rationing system. Market based solutions impose costs in order to direct behavior to more favorable ends.

Conservative libertarianism, to my knowledge, doesn't actually have a solution. If you have one, I'd love to hear it. You use 'market based', but then claim that a market based solution isn't what you were talking about. So what, exactly, is your solution to curbing public externalities like this?

The libertarian solution is pretty much the same solution that's offered for every problem through libertarianism:  get government out of the way and rely on non-governmental entities to fix things through voluntary compliance.  That just doesn't seem realistic to me at all because there are no immediate consequences for failing to comply, but there are advantages for refusing to do so.  People will do what's in their best interest usually, not humanity's as a whole.

[Bayushi]

A non market-based solution would be an outright ban, quota limitation, or rationing system. Market based solutions impose costs in order to direct behavior to more favorable ends.

That's the thing, Veks.

It IS an outright ban. The proposed bill says: No more plastic bags, PERIOD, in Oregon. Five cents per paper bag ONLY if said paper bag is 40% or more recycled material; otherwise, paper bags will also be banned.

The government has no place making these types of laws.

[Vekseid]

Ah, sorry. Regardless, the five cent surcharge is still a market incentive to reduce waste.

The government has no place making these types of laws.

Then how do societies stop this, if not by governmental laws?

Non-market based solutions are typically inelegant, yes, but if you want to declare that this is not a solution, then you ought to propose one.

[Zeitgeist]

A non market-based solution would be an outright ban, quota limitation, or rationing system. Market based solutions impose costs in order to direct behavior to more favorable ends.

Conservative libertarianism, to my knowledge, doesn't actually have a solution. If you have one, I'd love to hear it. You use 'market based', but then claim that a market based solution isn't what you were talking about. So what, exactly, is your solution to curbing public externalities like this?

The libertarian solution is pretty much the same solution that's offered for every problem through libertarianism:  get government out of the way and rely on non-governmental entities to fix things through voluntary compliance.  That just doesn't seem realistic to me at all because there are no immediate consequences for failing to comply, but there are advantages for refusing to do so.  People will do what's in their best interest usually, not humanity's as a whole.

Well first off, we are presuming that there is a problem that needs resolving, and from what I read in the article linked by Akiko, there isn't a consensus that there is a problem, or at least one as significant as some would have us believe. Now I'm no scientist or researcher, but I'm not of the opinion that plastic bags are going to be the end our world as we know it. Additionally, our first knee-jerk reaction when presented with a problem shouldn't be, in my opinion, to turn to the government for a mandate, tax, or other corrective action. By market based solution I don't simply mean a monetary one, but one that comes from the private sector. It is in the private sector the best solutions come from. Again, my opinion.

Now what might be a solution that doesn't involve the government? Perhaps interest groups campaigning to the corporate entities to either change their offerings of bag types, or otherwise offering an alternative. Also, entrepreneurs selling and marketing reusable bags and promoting the concept themselves.

I don't suggest the government never have a part to play, but it shouldn't in my opinion be the first go-to option. In most cases, it should be the last. There is a reason we have state rights, and a reason we have a constitution, and a reason our government is formed the way it is. It's not to consolidate power and decisions in one or a few entities. I would think liberals would appreciate this concept, after all. This is simply my opinion, and not a judgement upon how other people see government's role.

[Caehlim]

We, (South Australia) banned non-reusable plastic bags a few years back, people were a little annoyed at the time but now we all seem to be completely used to it. I have an entire cupboard full of canvas bags. I don't just use them for shopping anymore either, once you have them you find a lot of uses for them.

Honestly I don't notice the difference at all any more. If it works out better for our long term survival and resource management then I'm willing to make an almost unnoticeable sacrifice.

[Valerian]

I'm not as qualified as some to discuss the question of governmental vs. private sector regulation, so I'll skip that part.

However, regardless of the relative size of whatever clumps of plastic are floating in the oceans, the mere fact that we're discussing such a thing is bad.  Someone had to go out and try to measure the amount of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean.  Saying that there's less toxic crap out there then we originally thought doesn't exactly reassure me.  Even in that article, the scientist in questions flat out says there's too much plastic in the oceans.

I don't think anyone's trying to say that plastic bags = the end of the world as we know it.  You can't point to any one factor and say that's the one that's going to bring us down.  But we know plastic bags are a problem.  We also know they're a problem that's relatively easy to fix.  As Caehlim says, it's an adjustment, but one that people can easily make.  Now is the time to make it, before we really do have piles of plastic out there the size of Texas.

[Trieste]

Now I'm no scientist or researcher, but I'm not of the opinion that plastic bags are going to be the end our world as we know it.

No, you're not. Fortunately, there are scientists and researchers on this board, so you were conveniently provided with a bunch of sources - both governmental and independent - that elucidate how big the problem is. The problem doesn't come entirely from little plastic bags; the problem is largely contributed to by plastics, though, of which little plastic bags are a significant part.

[Vekseid]

Well first off, we are presuming that there is a problem that needs resolving, and from what I read in the article linked by Akiko, there isn't a consensus that there is a problem, or at least one as significant as some would have us believe.

There isn't even a consensus that the Earth is round.

The only consensus that matters is that of those who honestly and objectively study the question at hand.

There is nothing preventing you from doing this. It's not hard. You don't even need to become an activist. Environmental concern is not a binary switch from 100% treehugging hippy to 100% sociopathic corporate stooge, where you choose one or the other with no ground in between.

Now I'm no scientist or researcher, but I'm not of the opinion that plastic bags are going to be the end our world as we know it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10781621

I could alternately respond with 'how is that sentence relevant', but yes, humanity is doing mass extinction level damage to the biosphere, of a sort not seen since the Permian-Triassic boundary.

We're also in the rather unique position of actually being able to mostly stop it.

But there is no 'private sector' solution.

Additionally, our first knee-jerk reaction when presented with a problem shouldn't be, in my opinion, to turn to the government for a mandate, tax, or other corrective action. By market based solution I don't simply mean a monetary one, but one that comes from the private sector.

How would a private sector initiative clean up an ocean?

Seriously. How.

It is in the private sector the best solutions come from. Again, my opinion.

This is demonstrably false.

Name one private sector initiative that created a better worldwide network than the Internet. This one is pretty egregious. Prodigy. Compuserve. AOL. None of their efforts hold a candle to the Internet.

Name one private sector initiative that manages water resources better than the USGS.

Name one private sector initiative that landed us on the moon.

You can have an opinion otherwise, but these are feats that have never been matched, by anyone else in the entire world, ever. The rest of the world, combined, dreams of rivaling them.

These do have something in common, however - they are projects specifically for the public interest and benefit.

Now what might be a solution that doesn't involve the government? Perhaps interest groups campaigning to the corporate entities to either change their offerings of bag types, or otherwise offering an alternative. Also, entrepreneurs selling and marketing reusable bags and promoting the concept themselves.

I imagine this was actually lobbied for by retailers as well as environmental groups. The optimal solution is for everyone to carry as few types of bags as possible, while also making sure that no other retailer can offer the 'convenience' to try to undercut them.

I don't suggest the government never have a part to play, but it shouldn't in my opinion be the first go-to option. In most cases, it should be the last. There is a reason we have state rights, and a reason we have a constitution, and a reason our government is formed the way it is. It's not to consolidate power and decisions in one or a few entities. I would think liberals would appreciate this concept, after all. This is simply my opinion, and not a judgement upon how other people see government's role.

And there is a reason the promotion of the general welfare is explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

Even then, it is a 220 year old document whose authors had no comprehension of the profound advances humanity would make, nor could they and nor can we blame them for that. We have top cope with the advances that they did not foresee, though they did in fact see advances would come that ought to be accommodated, as Jefferson himself noted.

[Jude]

I believe in the private sector as the solution to most of our problems, but the private sector believes in the profit motive.  There's nothing profitable about conservation, sacrifice, and restraint.  They're the opposite of consumption, greed, and rapid growth.

Initiatives like this, cap and trade, EPA policies, etc. try to change that so that there is profit to be made in being conscious of the effect companies have on the environment.  They do so because without that corporations are most likely to take the easiest route -- not giving a damn.

I really don't see how a private interest group could possibly encourage corporations to be less profitable in the name of slowing/stopping Climate Change.

Furthermore, maybe these bags won't be the end of the world if we fail to stop them, but you can apply that logic to every single tiny change we could make to positively effect the world, all of which add up to big sweeping advances when taken together.  We do need to perform a cost-benefit analysis in deciding what we're going to do in order to preserve humanity's place on earth, but 5 cents extra for a bag is hardly high on the "cost scale."

If a scientist who is very knowledgeable about the issue runs the numbers and it turns out this initiative doesn't make sense in terms of gains versus losses, then I don't think this legislation was very intelligent.  However, I'm not going to prejudge because I don't know.  I just disagree with the general sentiment of refusing any governmental involvement in stopping climate change:  it has to happen and it needs to start as soon as feasibly possible.

[Vekseid]

It's more appropriate to consider that the private sector focuses on externalizing. Especially corporations. This is effectively their job - they take an underutilized resource and turn a profit from it.

So there is no sense in trusting them to curb public externalities.

[Zakharra]

Zakharra, this is not about oil. This is about plastic.

Oil takes a few weeks to degrade into a useless sludge in an environment like the Gulf. This is because oil is a relatively simple substance that is easily converted into fuel for things to eat, and things are well adapted to eat it. Even then, large quantities can still be significantly ecologically and economically disruptive. The 'let it happen and live with it' argument is like saying we shouldn't try to mitigate the effects of volcanic eruptions or hurricanes.

Plastic is not the same thing as oil, like diamonds are not the same thing as coal. One is a lot more chemically stable then the other - and plastics usefulness is due to that chemical stability.

True. I had forgotten that part. I was just looking at the oil thing differnetly. Yes, the oil spill in the Gulf is a tragity, but so has every volcanic eruption, mudslid and other natural diaster. However the earth has recovered from those over time.  Human intervention has altered things a bit and we always want things fixed 'Now!'

There does need to be a better way to deal with plastics. Fixing our waste problems can definately be improved. Using the heavy hand of government isn't always the best solution though.

[Jude]

Business won't do anything about the environment unless there's money to be made in doing it.  That's unlikely to occur, though it could happen.  The other half of the "private problem solving" engine is charity, and that's unlikely to occur as well due to the scope of the problem, its abstract nature, and how hard it is to empathize with (there are few living victims to observe of climate change thus far).  Current environmentalist efforts certainly aren't the way to go if we're going to fight climate change.  We need to do a hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis, not partake in grandiose application of the naturalistic fallacy.