5p charge for plastic bags from October 2015 to cut usage

[Randy Winkman]

MikeyC said:

Randy Winkman said:

What would be the point of them being biodegradable? Where would they biodegrade and how do you both see that helping?

They're compostible - that (m)any households have a compost is open for debate !
A cursory scan through media doesn't explain how they de-compose or how long before it starts, but this info from BBiA Association on them is some PR stuff on them
Presumably even if they go to landfill, then maybe not such a problem - food for plants (?)
Still, I would still prefer to see people to re-use them (but hey!, why change the habit of a lifetime!)

The old Tesco ones did use to degrade into small little bits (maybe caused by exposure to UV light) which was a PiTA and not a good idea

Cheers. The reason I ask is that there seem to be as many arguments against biodegradable plastics as there are in favour of them. Including that they encourage "worse" consumer behaviour including littering and can mess up recycling systems. Hence there was a government call for evidence on the issue a few months ago.

[mygoldfishbowl]

Randy Winkman said:

MikeyC said:

Randy Winkman said:

What would be the point of them being biodegradable? Where would they biodegrade and how do you both see that helping?

They're compostible - that (m)any households have a compost is open for debate !
A cursory scan through media doesn't explain how they de-compose or how long before it starts, but this info from BBiA Association on them is some PR stuff on them
Presumably even if they go to landfill, then maybe not such a problem - food for plants (?)
Still, I would still prefer to see people to re-use them (but hey!, why change the habit of a lifetime!)

The old Tesco ones did use to degrade into small little bits (maybe caused by exposure to UV light) which was a PiTA and not a good idea

Cheers. The reason I ask is that there seem to be as many arguments against biodegradable plastics as there are in favour of them. Including that they encourage "worse" consumer behaviour including littering and can mess up recycling systems. Hence there was a government call for evidence on the issue a few months ago.

Where I am the food waste has to go into a compostable bag before it's put in the food bin. I use the free ones from the coop for that and buy the plastic bags that used to be free for the normal unrecyclable rubbish.

[Davos123]

kev1974 said:

Yet again picking on the easy target of plastic bags.

Totally ignoring that multiple studies have shown that cotton bags are actually WORSE for the environment than reusable plastic.
https://qz.com/1585027/when-it-comes-to-climate-ch...

And also doing nothing about far greater environmental catastrophes such as disposable nappies. The typical baby will cause 4000-6000 of them to fill up landfill. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45732371

We just pick on things that are easy for people to make a change on and feel good about themselves for - plastic bags and straws are a great example of this. We'll just continue to ignore consumption of things that actually cause huge harm, as you've mentioned - the biggest by far being meat.

[borcy]

Davos123 said:

kev1974 said:

Yet again picking on the easy target of plastic bags.

Totally ignoring that multiple studies have shown that cotton bags are actually WORSE for the environment than reusable plastic.
https://qz.com/1585027/when-it-comes-to-climate-ch...

And also doing nothing about far greater environmental catastrophes such as disposable nappies. The typical baby will cause 4000-6000 of them to fill up landfill. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45732371

We just pick on things that are easy for people to make a change on and feel good about themselves for - plastic bags and straws are a great example of this. We'll just continue to ignore consumption of things that actually cause huge harm, as you've mentioned - the biggest by far being meat.

It's often best to start with something simple, everyday and straightforward (although some still struggle /can't be arsed) as it sets people off in the right direction with some gentle nudges rather than really big changes first up.

[Welshbeef]

What the report overlooks also is the fact these bags for life are just that when your is getting tatty you return it to the shop for a brand new one. They recycle it to make new bags again.

Clearly if people don’t realise this and binning then unnecessarily that’s silly.

Some of the bags I’ve returned are shocking condition utterly worn out holes in then ripped etc but they are recycled to make new ones so zero issue.

[grumbledoak]

Davos123 said:

We just pick on things that are easy for people to make a change on and feel good about themselves for - plastic bags and straws are a great example of this. We'll just continue to ignore consumption of things that actually cause huge harm, as you've mentioned - the biggest by far being meat.

Citation needed. Or any understanding of agriculture.

Soil to plants to ruminants to soil is a virtuous circle than can continue indefinitely. The alternative is soil plus petrochemical fertilizer to plants to soil erosion and dust and silt. An environmental disaster. But very profitable in the short term.

[bristolracer]

If you stand in a supermarket long enough you will see somebody doing a family weekly shop and it will cost £140. Half a dozen carriers at 10p each is of no consequence. Make the bags £2 each and people may stop and think about it.

If you want to stop single use packaging, then tax it, and tax it big.

[Randy Winkman]

grumbledoak said:

Davos123 said:

We just pick on things that are easy for people to make a change on and feel good about themselves for - plastic bags and straws are a great example of this. We'll just continue to ignore consumption of things that actually cause huge harm, as you've mentioned - the biggest by far being meat.

Citation needed. Or any understanding of agriculture.

Soil to plants to ruminants to soil is a virtuous circle than can continue indefinitely. The alternative is soil plus petrochemical fertilizer to plants to soil erosion and dust and silt. An environmental disaster. But very profitable in the short term.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that more vegetarian/vegan diets would lead to environmental disaster?

[Roofless Toothless]

Randy Winkman said:

grumbledoak said:

Davos123 said:

We just pick on things that are easy for people to make a change on and feel good about themselves for - plastic bags and straws are a great example of this. We'll just continue to ignore consumption of things that actually cause huge harm, as you've mentioned - the biggest by far being meat.

Citation needed. Or any understanding of agriculture.

Soil to plants to ruminants to soil is a virtuous circle than can continue indefinitely. The alternative is soil plus petrochemical fertilizer to plants to soil erosion and dust and silt. An environmental disaster. But very profitable in the short term.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that more vegetarian/vegan diets would lead to environmental disaster?

Do you eat rice, Davos? Paddy fields produce as much methane as the farming of ruminants, but we never get to hear much about that.

[grumbledoak]

Randy Winkman said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that more vegetarian/vegan diets would lead to environmental disaster?

Agriculture without animals is not a cycle. Soil nutrient depletion, salination, and erosion follow. It's a one way road to dust, silted up rivers, and the main driver for historic imperialism. What would you call it?

[Randy Winkman]

grumbledoak said:

Randy Winkman said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that more vegetarian/vegan diets would lead to environmental disaster?

Agriculture without animals is not a cycle. Soil nutrient depletion, salination, and erosion follow. It's a one way road to dust, silted up rivers, and the main driver for historic imperialism. What would you call it?

Fair enough. Did you see the BBC programme the other night though and whether or not you did, do you think it makes any difference how the animals are reared?

[MikeyC]

grumbledoak said:

Randy Winkman said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that more vegetarian/vegan diets would lead to environmental disaster?

Agriculture without animals is not a cycle. Soil nutrient depletion, salination, and erosion follow. It's a one way road to dust, silted up rivers, and the main driver for historic imperialism. What would you call it?

Would rotting leaves from trees/bushes not provide nutrients etc into soil ?
NB: I am not a farmer/soil expert BTW - just curious !

[grumbledoak]

MikeyC said:

Would rotting leaves from trees/bushes not provide nutrients etc into soil ?
NB: I am not a farmer/soil expert BTW - just curious !

The crops take nutrients from the soil, Nitrogen, Calcium, Iron, etc. You need to replace those elements.

That's st, bones, and blood in simple terms.

The plants eat the soil, the animals eat the plants, and eventually the soil eats the animals.

[Randy Winkman]

grumbledoak said:

MikeyC said:

Would rotting leaves from trees/bushes not provide nutrients etc into soil ?
NB: I am not a farmer/soil expert BTW - just curious !

The crops take nutrients from the soil, Nitrogen, Calcium, Iron, etc. You need to replace those elements.

That's st, bones, and blood in simple terms.

The plants eat the soil, the animals eat the plants, and eventually the soil eats the animals.

But in order to get an environmental benefit, does it matter how the animals are reared?

[grumbledoak]

Randy Winkman said:

But in order to get an environmental benefit, does it matter how the animals are reared?

Yes. Ruminants on grass will be environmental positives, and you can aim for regeneration - topsoil growth.

Feeding them intensively grown cereals or soy is done purely for profit. Growing that stuff isn't good for the environment and the 'feed' isn't great for the animals.

As with the carrier bags - to drag us back - we are told a pack of lies, playing on our environmental or ethical concerns but really it's all about the money.

[garagewidow]

FiF said:

MikeyC said:

Maybe a bit O/T, but...

What if a car manufacturer designed a shopping trolley that slotted into the car boot somehow ?
Could be made of hard durable plastic & the wheels would obviously have to fold away somehow, but it's hardly rocket science!

You could just drive up, take trolley out (locking wheels etc), go around shop, and then take it all back to the car
Not all cars would be suitable, but it would be a start

I'm sure this can't be an original idea !

When we were students we had exactly that arrangement. Whoever's turn it was to do the weekly big shop would fire up the trusty house Moggy Minor van, drive to Sainsbury's, take out wheeled shopping implement, go round store filling it with various comestibles, having paid return to van, load wheeled implement into back, sod off home, unpack. Very time efficient.

It was an interesting design, something very similar to these...

Sounds like a good idea,..

A lambo is about the right height to slot in the back,hell,you could even make the trolley handle into a nice wing shape,

Damn forgot the engine.

[Randy Winkman]

grumbledoak said:

Randy Winkman said:

But in order to get an environmental benefit, does it matter how the animals are reared?

Yes. Ruminants on grass will be environmental positives, and you can aim for regeneration - topsoil growth.

Feeding them intensively grown cereals or soy is done purely for profit. Growing that stuff isn't good for the environment and the 'feed' isn't great for the animals.

As with the carrier bags - to drag us back - we are told a pack of lies, playing on our environmental or ethical concerns but really it's all about the money.

Cheers. I'd suggest therefore that there would be an environmental benefit if global consumption of meat went down. I'm not sure how we can eat the same amount without negative consequences.

[Gareth79]

MikeyC said:

Maybe a bit O/T, but...

What if a car manufacturer designed a shopping trolley that slotted into the car boot somehow ?
Could be made of hard durable plastic & the wheels would obviously have to fold away somehow, but it's hardly rocket science!

You could just drive up, take trolley out (locking wheels etc), go around shop, and then take it all back to the car
Not all cars would be suitable, but it would be a start

I'm sure this can't be an original idea !

How about just drive-thru (and around) supermarkets?

[grumbledoak]

Randy Winkman said:

Cheers. I'd suggest therefore that there would be an environmental benefit if global consumption of meat went down. I'm not sure how we can eat the same amount without negative consequences.

You do accept that people would have to eat something else instead?

What do you think that would be?
How do you think it would be better?

[Randy Winkman]

grumbledoak said:

Randy Winkman said:

Cheers. I'd suggest therefore that there would be an environmental benefit if global consumption of meat went down. I'm not sure how we can eat the same amount without negative consequences.

You do accept that people would have to eat something else instead?

What do you think that would be?
How do you think it would be better?

No idea. Did you watch the BBC TV programme the other night? If you did, did you think it was OK for all those US cattle to be reared in that way?