Single use plastic bags to be banned.

Forums › Off topic › Single use plastic bags to be banned.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 33

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2071527 10-Aug-2018 21:07

Remember, every time something is banned, we're raising the price of whatever is affected. Lots of people have the luxury of having cost as a secondary consideration (myself included) but many don't.

And although many are going to want to say "But what price the future of our planet?" just imagine you're now saying that to someone genuinely struggling to feed their children and think twice before bringing your financial privilege into it.

And no, I don't think banning "single use" plastic bags is going to dramatically affect anyone individually, but I do believe that the ever growing feeling that we need to ban anything not "environmentally friendly" will at some stage have real social impacts...

Although it doesn't fit into the environmental camp, for a real world example of this let's just wait and see how many families will no longer be able to justify fresh eggs when all supermarkets only stock free range at 2 or 3 times the price of caged.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

danielparker

223 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2071528 10-Aug-2018 21:11

debo:

If I had the power, I would do the opposite and ban all non-degradable plastic including all the other plastic used in supermarkets.

As would I.. If they are serious about it then do it properly.. Paper Bags at checkout (aka 1980s).. No plastics on vegetables (including stickers on Apples etc).. Meat wrapped in wax paper.. No tetrapak, no other non recyclable packaging that can not be recycled in NZ.

I'm absolutely not a greeny.. Not at all.. not really even a little bit. (I do 'recycle' but dont know where it actually ends up)..but this sort of thing is not well thought out (in my opinion)..

Be serious about it and say that in 5 years NZ can either recycle your packaging here in NZ, or your product does not get sold here..

DFP

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2071529 10-Aug-2018 21:14

Talkiet:

Remember, every time something is banned, we're raising the price of whatever is affected. Lots of people have the luxury of having cost as a secondary consideration (myself included) but many don't.

And although many are going to want to say "But what price the future of our planet?" just imagine you're now saying that to someone genuinely struggling to feed their children and think twice before bringing your financial privilege into it.

And no, I don't think banning "single use" plastic bags is going to dramatically affect anyone individually, but I do believe that the ever growing feeling that we need to ban anything not "environmentally friendly" will at some stage have real social impacts...

Although it doesn't fit into the environmental camp, for a real world example of this let's just wait and see how many families will no longer be able to justify fresh eggs when all supermarkets only stock free range at 2 or 3 times the price of caged.

Cheers - N

If things don't change the social impact of climate change and the damage to the oceans will hugely out strip any affect bans like this will have. The oceans are under huge pressure and this is the foundation of our food chain and we are running out of time.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2071531 10-Aug-2018 21:24

Pumpedd:

Fred99:

Geektastic:

Additionally the plastic in the bags probably pales into significance in comparison to the packaging the food you'll be putting in them comes with!

Yes I agree completely.

So should we do nothing at all because it really doesn't matter - or make a start - even if it's just low hanging fruit?

The Government should get on and sort out plastic recycling first as it is getting very serious. Secondly, they should look at reducing the amount of plastic used in packaging, and then assist the farming community find a way to recycle the massive amount of plastic it uses for bailing silage. Then it could worry about plastic bags. Oh wait....arent the supermarkets taking care of this on their own?

Yes - but recycling olefins (PP and PE etc) and bottles made of PET etc, it tends to get "reused" in something else - as opposed to "recycled" back into the product it was originally - for indefinite multiple use. It's referred to as "recycling" - but that's mainly BS, not honest. The tech improves, so more recovered resin can be used in new product, but it's not simple. So PET (that isn't dumped) from bottles gets turned into house insulation or polar fleece which is ok but not ideal, plastic bags turned into flower pots or crappy faux wood etc, but not much very much gets "recycled" as opposed to reused. In saying that, large companies such as Coca Cola have committed to change that - and genuinely "recycle" plastic bottles etc, committing to some targets. We'll see.

There may be viable technology to break the PE back down to monomers, reuse those chemicals to produce new genuinely "recycled" PE, but it's not likely to happen here. We're probably better to collect it and incinerate it safely - and use the energy to generate power - the end result of that isn't much different from burning oil or gas or coal, we use those anyway. NZ doesn't even have the capability to make make olefins, so "recycling" it is a pipe dream, and "reusing" it has limits. Reducing it's excessive use - it's a no-brainer.

debo

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2071549 10-Aug-2018 21:56

Fred99:

We're probably better to collect it and incinerate it safely - and use the energy to generate power - the end result of that isn't much different from burning oil or gas or coal, we use those anyway.

Finally, you say something I can agree with (I am a little surprised. Most greenies are worried about the carbon released when plastic is burnt). Fonterra is looking at reducing coal use and burning plastic is a suitable replacement.

So ideally plastic is either:

in the waste stream and gets burnt.

not in the waste stream and is degradable.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2071552 10-Aug-2018 22:02

debo:

Fred99:

We're probably better to collect it and incinerate it safely - and use the energy to generate power - the end result of that isn't much different from burning oil or gas or coal, we use those anyway.

Finally, you say something I can agree with (I am a little surprised. Most greenies are worried about the carbon released when plastic is burnt). Fonterra is looking at reducing coal use and burning plastic is a suitable replacement.

So ideally plastic is either:

in the waste stream and gets burnt.

not in the waste stream and is degradable.

Or don't produce the plastic then we don't need to find a way of getting rid of it.

debo

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2071553 10-Aug-2018 22:10

MikeB4:

Or don't produce the plastic then we don't need to find a way of getting rid of it.

Then you have to use even worse alternatives. We need to minimise the damage to the environment and plastic in most situations is the minimum impact. As I have already said, there is no planet B.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2071555 10-Aug-2018 22:14

debo:

MikeB4:

Or don't produce the plastic then we don't need to find a way of getting rid of it.

Then you have to use even worse alternatives. We need to minimise the damage to the environment and plastic in most situations is the minimum impact. As I have already said, there is no planet B.

Use products that are produced from renrewable resources and not from the petro chem industry

debo

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2071557 10-Aug-2018 22:27

MikeB4:

Use products that are produced from renrewable resources and not from the petro chem industry

You mean use products grown on former rain forest land (there is no other land left on earth), uses fertiliser made by the petro chem industry, uses more fossil fuel to transport, uses huge amounts of water, etc...

It is better to compare resource used and pick products that uses the least.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2071558 10-Aug-2018 22:28

debo:

Fred99:

We're probably better to collect it and incinerate it safely - and use the energy to generate power - the end result of that isn't much different from burning oil or gas or coal, we use those anyway.

Finally, you say something I can agree with (I am a little surprised. Most greenies are worried about the carbon released when plastic is burnt). Fonterra is looking at reducing coal use and burning plastic is a suitable replacement.

So ideally plastic is either:

in the waste stream and gets burnt.

not in the waste stream and is degradable.

I do wish you'd stop referring to "greenies" in the pejorative as point number one, and point number two, then suggest that I'm a "greenie". I worked with and for global chemical / petrochemical companies whose names would make a greenies' eyes glow red if I handed them an old business card.

I do think you need to get over the negativity about the plastic bag ban, It's not a big deal, but a start, Reducing use of plastic is a good idea. Reducing use of asbestos or lead in gasoline or prohibiting dumping untreated human waste out the bedroom window onto the road while screaming "gardyloo" was a good idea. It's not that hard. Plastic is fantastic if used appropriately, but using is stupidly is... really very dumb. One-use plastic bags to carry stuff home from the shop is really just nuts. Pointless stupidity. Yet here we are - several pages into a discussion, with a few people still trying to argue in favour of pointless stupidity.

And if you argue against that abject stupidity, you're accused of being a "greenie" as if that's an insult.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2071559 10-Aug-2018 22:30

debo:

MikeB4:

Use products that are produced from renrewable resources and not from the petro chem industry

You mean use products grown on former rain forest land (there is no other land left on earth), uses fertiliser made by the petro chem industry, uses more fossil fuel to transport, uses huge amounts of water, etc...

It is better to compare resource used and pick products that uses the least.

As I said Renewable resources there is still a lot of space for that

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2071562 10-Aug-2018 22:47

debo:

MikeB4:

Or don't produce the plastic then we don't need to find a way of getting rid of it.

Then you have to use even worse alternatives. We need to minimise the damage to the environment and plastic in most situations is the minimum impact. As I have already said, there is no planet B.

Oh FFS.

The best alternative - between making harmful product A that we don't need and harmful product B the we don't need - isn't a valid question.

It's probably just a test method humanity should use to cull morons out of any decision making process.

debo

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2071564 10-Aug-2018 23:00

Fred99:

I do wish you'd stop referring to "greenies" in the pejorative as point number one, and point number two, then suggest that I'm a "greenie". I worked with and for global chemical / petrochemical companies whose names would make a greenies' eyes glow red if I handed them an old business card.

I do think you need to get over the negativity about the plastic bag ban, It's not a big deal, but a start, Reducing use of plastic is a good idea. Reducing use of asbestos or lead in gasoline or prohibiting dumping untreated human waste out the bedroom window onto the road while screaming "gardyloo" was a good idea. It's not that hard. Plastic is fantastic if used appropriately, but using is stupidly is... really very dumb. One-use plastic bags to carry stuff home from the shop is really just nuts. Pointless stupidity. Yet here we are - several pages into a discussion, with a few people still trying to argue in favour of pointless stupidity.

And if you argue against that abject stupidity, you're accused of being a "greenie" as if that's an insult.

You don't seem to get my point. We should minimise the impact to the environment. Asbestos, leaded petrol, and window toilets all had better options, so they changed. Using heavy weight plastic bags that will last for decades it the ocean is pointless stupidity and is NOT a better solution. The plastic bag ban is a start in the wrong direction. You are right thou, plastic is fantastic if used appropriately, and mostly is. It keeps food fresh and safe to eat. It allows me to shop at least fortnightly (has been closer to monthly lately). If it gets banned, then i will need to shop more often, increasing global warming.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2071577 10-Aug-2018 23:21

It seems we need to bring back glass bottles....assume it is possible,

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2071579 10-Aug-2018 23:26

MikeB4:

Talkiet:

Remember, every time something is banned, we're raising the price of whatever is affected. Lots of people have the luxury of having cost as a secondary consideration (myself included) but many don't.

And although many are going to want to say "But what price the future of our planet?" just imagine you're now saying that to someone genuinely struggling to feed their children and think twice before bringing your financial privilege into it.

And no, I don't think banning "single use" plastic bags is going to dramatically affect anyone individually, but I do believe that the ever growing feeling that we need to ban anything not "environmentally friendly" will at some stage have real social impacts...

Although it doesn't fit into the environmental camp, for a real world example of this let's just wait and see how many families will no longer be able to justify fresh eggs when all supermarkets only stock free range at 2 or 3 times the price of caged.

Cheers - N

If things don't change the social impact of climate change and the damage to the oceans will hugely out strip any affect bans like this will have. The oceans are under huge pressure and this is the foundation of our food chain and we are running out of time.

Agreed. They'd achieve more by limiting family size somehow than they will banning bags.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 33