Please tell me I’m not the only one who thinks this whole “Ban the Plastic Bag” movement is a bit pretentious and drastic. Banning plastic bags or taxing them at supermarkets and drugstores where they used to be free, seems like an extreme jump, although most likely in the right direction. We do need to use less plastic, but banning plastic retail bags altogether will do more harm than good. First of all, plastic bags are mostly made in America. Stopping the production of plastic bags in the United States would result in the loss of over 4,000 jobs! Sure, there are alternatives. The reusable cloth bags, which cost anywhere from 99 cents to 7 dollars and are made in China, or paper bags, which are even worse than plastic when it comes to the cost and energy use it takes to manufacture, transport, and eventually dispose of them. I vote for an even smarter way to reduce the use of plastic, without charging citizens or inconveniencing their day to day activities.

Companies like Tesco, one of Britain’s largest retailers, are using other methods to discourage plastic bag use without complying with government and green campaigners’ demands. In light of higher food and gas costs, consumers don’t need to face another fee simply for buying the week’s groceries. Shoppers still have the choice of receiving free disposable plastic shopping bags for carrying purchased items. However, by offering customers loyalty card points for bringing in their own bags, they have managed to reduce the number of bags handed out by around 23 percent since September. Other stores in the U.S. are using similar tactics; less threatening, more rewarding. For instance, the Berkley Bowl in Berkley, California which offers a 5 cent credit for each reusable bag customers bring in to use, still maintains the customer’s right to a free paper or plastic bag. On the same note, Starbucks offers discounts on coffee if customers bring in their clean, used plastic cups or reusable cups and mugs. Furthermore, various curbside recycling programs all over the U.S. offer incentives for bringing in plastics to recycle, from coupons to monetary rewards. I think this is the smarter and easier way to handle the “evil plastic bag” problem. Promote reuse and recycling of plastic bags, rather than forcing customers to comply.

   Disclaimer: This blog or article is for information purpose only, and should not be treated a professional advise or price protection guarantee. This blog is mainly used for search engine optimization and other commercial purposes and it is advised that readers seek professional consultation in the field of interest for more information.

Comments

The West Side debate continues. After Seattle’s new law for a 20 cent tax on plastic bags, with high hopes of phasing out their use (or misuse) in grocery, and convenient stores, Los Angeles seems to be following suit. The City Council voted a resolution on July 22 to ban all retail plastic bags from stores starting July 1, 2010 if the state of California fails to impose a pending bill (AB 2058) that would force retailers to charge shoppers 25 cents for each plastic bag provided by supermarkets and large retail stores. So shoppers can either bring their own pre-purchased reusable bags from home, or choose the free paper bags.

So what impact will this have on us? There are quite vehement and opposing views on this. Some council members and environmentalists who agree with the proposed law, say that the end result would be a major cutback on plastic bags, eliminating them from stores, and thus eliminating them from city streets, rivers, oceans, and landfills. There is a lot of in-your-face information and propaganda directed solely at painting plastic bags as the enemy. In reality, these are all myths. Plastic bags as litter, plastic bags as damaging to the environment, plastic bags as a source of major energy consumption, these statements are all extremely misleading.

First of all, the major sources of litter, in order, are: Cigarettes, chewing gum, soda cans, beer cans, soda bottles, beer bottles, water bottles, disposable paper cups, newspapers, and so on. Secondly, environmentalists say that plastic bags take thousands of years to decompose and take up space in the landfills, when in reality, plastic bags generate 39% less greenhouse gas emissions than uncomposted paper bags, and 68% less greenhouse gas emissions than composted paper bags. Also, plastic retail bags consume 71% less energy during production than paper bags. Lastly, many environmentalists claim that the production of plastic bags is directly dependent on oil. The truth is, plastic bags are made out of polyethylene. Polyethylene is made of ethylene. In the United States, ethylene is made of ethane which is extracted from natural gas. As a result, plastic bags manufactured in the United States are not made out of oil. Perhaps they are referring to oil in terms of fuel, which is used in the transportation of plastic bags. Fact is, paper bags are 6 to 10 times heavier than plastic bags, which means 6 to 10 times more gas consumption in transporting them.

Perhaps the most tragic piece of information being overlooked by anti-plastic bag coalitions is that 85% of the plastic bags used here in the United States are made here as well. Taxing plastic bags will have a huge impact on the American manufacturing industry. Just in here in California, the proposed tax would cost an average family around $400 dollars per year. If plastic bags were banned all over the U.S. it would result in the loss of 4,000 American jobs. It is important to be smart about the use of plastic bags. Banning them seems a bit drastic, when all it takes is a bit of caution. Think twice before you throw away your bag. You can use it again as a trash can liner, to carry lunch or other items in, or to pick up after your dog. Don’t buy less, buy smart!

Source: savetheplasticbag.com.

   Disclaimer: This blog or article is for information purpose only, and should not be treated a professional advise or price protection guarantee. This blog is mainly used for search engine optimization and other commercial purposes and it is advised that readers seek professional consultation in the field of interest for more information.

Comments

I was just reading a story on the recently proposed law in Seattle for implementing a plastic bag reduction program. The law would impose a 20 cent tax on each and every plastic or paper bag used, which of course is aimed at reducing the waste and oil consumption associated

I’m not saying I disagree that plastic retail bags can be wasteful, damaging to the environment, and off-putting when seen littered throughout the street, I know some changes must be made. But I wonder, much like one Seattle blogger argued, is this law really the rational way to go? While the law aims at cutting consumption of plastic bags city officials estimate that the tax will cost an average of around $62 per household, assuming that the average household consumption remains the same – at around 250 bags a year. Will the law really cut consumption then? Or will it just be another substantial cost for taxpayers? And even if the law does cut down consumption by a buoyant 40-60% how are we really making any headway in improving the environment when we’re still using an obscene amount of plastic via the plastic water bottles we use everyday.

According to statistics, Seattle residents use 354,000 water bottles every day. That takes about 41,000 barrels of oil to produce them... Each DAY! Compare that to the amount of oil it takes to produce plastic bags including dyed custom printed plastic bags, and its 43,000 barrels of oil to produce the city’s annual consumption. So even by cutting back on the consumption of plastic bags, we still would have a staggering amount of energy use to deal with for the daily water bottle consumption. This is something to think about.

 Disclaimer: This blog or article is for information purpose only, and should not be treated a professional advise or price protection guarantee. This blog is mainly used for search engine optimization and other commercial purposes and it is advised that readers seek professional consultation in the field of interest for more information  

Comments

The poly bag has a lot going for it. It allows magazines and newspapers to be transported without fear of damage, gives the subscriber an unobstructed view of the cover, acts as a convenient source of revenue, where advertisers’ outserts can be neatly tucked, and compared to bulky paper envelopes, it brings down mailing costs substantially. A publisher’s ally, there are such retailers that create and sell a wide range of poly bags in several sizes shapes and colors for many different functions:

 The majority of poly bagging is manufactured using polyethylene, which is made from a byproduct of oil refining. Its strength and low cost makes it the perfect carrier for thousands of magazines and newspapers distributed across the country each year.

 Many advertisers use poly bags as promotional plastic bags with custom printed logos and bright colors. Some come as door knob bags, for publishers to leave advertisements and reading material on doors of many potential customers. Trade show bags are another popular item, but even more popular still are the custom printed non woven bags which offer a more environmentally friendly alternative to plastic. Another alternative is paper retail bags which are completely biodegradable. Some eco-friendly retailers offer seed paper, which is made from recycled paper infused with wildflower seeds. This paper, once used, can be planted instead of thrown away.

 Publishers do have the freedom to use biodegradable or compostable wrapping material through the USPS machineable mailing systems. However, both have set requirements for transparent wrappings’ clarity, strength, thickness and anti-static abilities. As long as the product meets these standards, it can go through machineable mail sorting uninterrupted.

People are often too quick to point the finger at plastic bagging as an environmental evil. But there are new ways of looking at poly bagging—a product that can happily fit into the recycle, reduce, reuse model.

Disclaimer: This blog or article is for information purpose only, and should not be treated a professional advise or price protection guarantee. This blog is mainly used for search engine optimization and other commercial purposes and it is advised that readers seek professional consultation in the field of interest for more information.

Comments