Calif Assembly Votes to Ban Plastic Grocery Bags

[lawrocket 3]

This is for the environment. If a person fails to bring his/her own bag then they will be charged at least 5 cents per paper bag - at least 40 percent recycled.

Okay. Which are worse for the environment? Paper bags or plastic? Well, "worse" is subjective. So I'll give my subjective belief.

I think paper bags are worse for the environment. Here's why...

(1) Greenhouse gases: one of the things about paper is that it biodegrades. This means that it produces CO2 in aerobic decomposition and methane in anaerobic decomp. Plastic doesn't biodegrade. It is stable - bury it and in a thousand years you can dig it up. You put it someplace and forget it. Paper - it's going somewhere. There'd be no such thing as a toxic landfill if all it had was plastics bags in it. It's the unstable stuff that forms leachates and the like - nasty stuff.

(2) It's environmentally friendlier to produce, You've gotta kill trees to make paper. Then you've gotta transport them, mill them and use some harsh chemicals to profuce them. And - you need a LOT of energy to process it and even dry paper.

Plastic bags use some nasty stuff. They also use a fraction of the power to produce. Scales heavily in favor of plastic here.

(3) Water - in places like my home state of Cali, water is a big issue. It's scarce. Water is needed to grow trees. Massive amounts of water are used for processing wood into pulp and into paper.

Plastic again uses a fraction of the water. Miniscule in comparison. Big edge - plastic.

(4) Transport - it takes a lot more energy to transport paper. Picture 1000 paper bags and 1000 plastic bags. Which weighs more? Which takes more space? Yep. Paper. That adds to fuel costs for transport.


Plastics have a lot of environmental benefits over paper. These seem to be overlooked because, well, "biodegradeable" was the big thing before greenhouse gases were the new rage. Why are climate scientists NOT saying anything about this?

And what are the costs/benefits of the paper bags and plastics? Are they really being weighed?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TankBuster 0]

Yes but don't forget - the paper bag manufacturer's association has figured out that if they can't compete on their own, they can buy the legislation that will lead to success. That's how big government works best.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Beachbum 0]

Preface to say that I am not totally decided one way or the other on this, but that I use bags that I take with me to the grocery, and I take any plastic grocery bags needed back to the store (they have a recycle bin for them outside).

They are now making some plastic bags that DO break down over time ... not all plastics are created equal. I haven't read anything that I remember as to what is produced in the process. You also failed to mention the enviromental costs of the petroleum industy which is necessary to create those plastic bags. Yes, it'll still be going on due to fuel needs, but still .... and BP has done a lot to harm the rep of the oil industry for the foreseeable future.

As for the water aspect, I know of no places that are commercially viable logging areas that rely on irrigation. The rain is going to fall there whether trees exist in a given location or not, and they DO help hold soil in place when not clear cut. Those trees help both the land itself by reducing the runoff rate so more can soak into the soil, and also benefits any nearby streams by reducing silt runoff, not to mention the CO2 being absorbed by those trees. Petroleum processing uses water too, though I think some are now on closed systems. I have no clue what the volumes are comparing one process to the other, but that might be interesting to see!

If it takes charging people a little to get them to do what is right, so be it. The bags like I have cost little, and last a long time (the first one, I bought about 5 years ago is still going strong). If a higher percentage of people would use them it would go a long way toward reducing the plastic bag/paper bag issues.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[Amazon 7]

It's environmentally friendlier to produce, You've gotta kill trees to make paper. Then you've gotta transport them, mill them and use some harsh chemicals to profuce them. And - you need a LOT of energy to process it and even dry paper

Brown paper bags are also very easy to recycle..and being brown paper.. there is far less of the chemicals used to bleach and none used to break down the lignin. The fibers/pulp can be reused from cardboard or other recycled to make the bags.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

If a person fails to bring his/her own bag then they will be charged at least 5 cents per paper bag . . .

Most of the stores that I go to give a discount for each reusable bag that I use, so I guess they are already effectively "charging" people for not bringing their own bags.

One of the problems I see with actually charging for bags is that people might start getting pissed off with baggers who don't know how to fill the bags efficiently. But maybe it would get a lot more people to start using the reusable bags. It took us a while to remember to take the bags with us, but now it's just a habit. And each bag holds so much more than the plastic bags do, that it makes it much easier to carry the groceries in.

As for which is worse - paper or plastic - I have no idea. I still get enough of the plastic bags that I can use them for cleaning the cats' litter boxes, but I guess paper would work for that too, and paper would probably be better as far as breaking down. (And I guess I'd have to figure out if five cents a bag is reasonable, or if there is a better alternative.)

[kallend 1,679]

It all depends which lobby has the most clout - big paper or big oil/chemical.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

This is for the environment. If a person fails to bring his/her own bag then they will be charged at least 5 cents per paper bag - at least 40 percent recycled.

It's not for the environment. It's for the politicians to stay in power by doing popular things. The voters seemed to like it when San Francisco and other California cities banned paper bags, so the ones in Sacramento are doing the right thing and following the cities.

As such the facts are irrelevant.

[pirana 0]

They both seem to have their up and down sides; so to me it comes down to utility.

Those plastic bags function like shit copmpared to paper. They hold far fewer groceries, require a bit of skill to hold shape, and are a general pain in the ass to use. Not to mention the eyesore they create when they get loose and stay snagged in a tree for a couple years.

I'd gladly pay a nickel per bag to use them instead of the plastic; and avoid stores (such as Walmart) that solely use plastic. Maybe if the cashiers would learn how to fit more items per bag. They are so fucking lazy, sometimes dropping 4 average size items in a bag, then spinning to the next bag rather than properly shape the bag with a couple boxed items and fill it up. I can fit the stuff from at least 6, probably more like 7 or 8 of their plastic pack jobs into just 2 paper bags. Off the top of my head I'd guess they use 3 to 4 times as many plastic bags to do the same job as paper.

A couple times I've complained at the checkout and gotten really dirty looks when I asked if they could please get my modest amount of groceries into something less than 15 of those stupid little things. I will concede that they are made so shitty that you are at risk for the bag breaking if you were to put say, 2 jars of mayonaise in one of them.

Not to mention that when you get home the contents are often spilled all over the trunk or back seat.

Face it, they use them for one reason - they are cheap. The race to the bottom sometimes includes very little common sense.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

It all depends which lobby has the most clout - big paper or big oil/chemical.

different pockets of the same essential creature.

[DFWAJG 4]

Honey, it would be helpful if you remembered all of the canvas/ recycled plastic bottle bags when you went to the store. We have about forty of them.

[Remster 26]

Quote

Honey, it would be helpful if you remembered all of the canvas/ recycled plastic bottle bags when you went to the store. We have about forty of them.

WHAM!

Remster

[Bolas 5]

Ugh. This sort of thing is why I don't agree with the tactics of most environmentalists.

Rather than get laws made or try to guilt people into conserving and recycling resources, why not educate them and show them the cost savings or possibly even pass some of that savings on to them to encourage conservation? Perhaps even persuade some companies to put in a policy such as this, but making it a law is just stupid.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[dgskydive 0]

dont care which is worse or better. I just remember how proud California was when they first started the whole plastic bag thing. Its plastic and you can recycle and not kill trees. Now plastic is bad. Wish we could make up our collective minds.

Dom

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Ugh. This sort of thing is why I don't agree with the tactics of most environmentalists.

Rather than get laws made or try to guilt people into conserving and recycling resources, why not educate them and show them the cost savings or possibly even pass some of that savings on to them to encourage conservation? Perhaps even persuade some companies to put in a policy such as this, but making it a law is just stupid.

I think some laws are reasonable, and in fact necessary, to environmental protection and/or control of pollution, as long as a fair balance is struck. Time once was when we had no such laws. But not being able to dump gasoline or motor oil or pesticides anywhere you want, pollution control standards in motor vehicles and factories, even local ordinances that ban open burning of trash and yard debris - personally, I think the benefit to society of such laws has outweighed the inconvenience and additional expense.

The key is reasonable balance.

[billvon 2,475]

>Greenhouse gases: one of the things about paper is that it biodegrades.

So do many plastic bags nowadays. However, paper/plastic tends to degrade into four things:

1) CO2 (during aerobic decomposition, such as happens in a forest.)
2) CH4 (during anaerobic decompostion, such as happens in a landfill)
3) Carbon solids (i.e. dirt, or coal/oil in a few million years)
4) water

Option 2) is actually a pretty nice one since we can use the methane. In San Diego, we capture it and use it to run a turbine to generate power.

> These seem to be overlooked because, well, "biodegradeable" was the
>big thing before greenhouse gases were the new rage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic

>Why are climate scientists NOT saying anything about this?

?? They are. Are you asking why isn't there a lot of research being done into this? I think because we have all the information needed to make decisions.

(BTW I think a plastic-bag ban is dumb.)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

dont care which is worse or better. I just remember how proud California was when they first started the whole plastic bag thing. Its plastic and you can recycle and not kill trees. Now plastic is bad. Wish we could make up our collective minds.

Yeah that whole recycling thing has worked out really good.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Ugh. This sort of thing is why I don't agree with the tactics of most environmentalists.

Rather than get laws made or try to guilt people into conserving and recycling resources, why not educate them and show them the cost savings or possibly even pass some of that savings on to them to encourage conservation? Perhaps even persuade some companies to put in a policy such as this, but making it a law is just stupid.

I think some laws are reasonable, and in fact necessary, to environmental protection and/or control of pollution, as long as a fair balance is struck. Time once was when we had no such laws. But not being able to dump gasoline or motor oil or pesticides anywhere you want, pollution control standards in motor vehicles and factories, even local ordinances that ban open burning of trash and yard debris - personally, I think the benefit to society of such laws has outweighed the inconvenience and additional expense.

The key is reasonable balance.

All of those laws are about disposal of "waste" products, not using laws to limit purchase choices.

Even those might not be necessary if industries were created to reuse and possibly resell those by-products.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.