Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,041,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by independent man
While plastic water bottles are also horrible for the environment, they don't hold a candle to the damage
plastic shopping bags do. Especially to ocean life.
I actually applaud the mayor's decision, when would this madness end! The most ridiculous trend of abuse of power ever these days. Yet progressive politicians around the world still follow each other like lemmings year after year.
In these cases they don't just ban something they also require stores to penalize people for using their services, essentially using stores as agents to get them to live a green lifestyle.
I am glad there are people questioning the constitutionality of the ordiannce in Boston. When is the last time agovernment actually forced stores to penalize shoppers for "serving them," and requiring the shopkeeper to keep the commission for helping enforce the "agenda."
Of course big grocers rejoice as they can turn a small overhead cost into a profit machine.
Based on real environmental reports and waste management reports done in places like San Francisco department of works which handles waste management, Toronto, and UK environmental agency, . Plastic litter skyrocketed after a bag ban as residents now would need to use alternative plastics much more both to wrap their food items and to wrap litter generated from all those other products we buy, use of bin liners and garbage bags also skyrocketed. Google street view clearly shows that freeway and street shoulders have accumulated much more litter in the years following a bag ordinance in the region. The ordinance just shift one plastic use to the other in a much heavier way and is worse for the environment.
I actually applaud the mayor's decision, when would this madness end! The most ridiculous trend of abuse of power ever these days. Yet progressive politicians around the world still follow each other like lemmings year after year.
In these cases they don't just ban something they also require stores to penalize people for using their services, essentially using stores as agents to get them to live a green lifestyle.
I am glad there are people questioning the constitutionality of the ordiannce in Boston. When is the last time agovernment actually forced stores to penalize shoppers for "serving them," and requiring the shopkeeper to keep the commission for helping enforce the "agenda."
Of course big grocers rejoice as they can turn a small overhead cost into a profit machine.
Based on real environmental reports and waste management reports done in places like San Francisco department of works which handles waste management, Toronto, and UK environmental agency, . Plastic litter skyrocketed after a bag ban as residents now would need to use alternative plastics much more both to wrap their food items and to wrap litter generated from all those other products we buy, use of bin liners and garbage bags also skyrocketed. Google street view clearly shows that freeway and street shoulders have accumulated much more litter in the years following a bag ordinance in the region. The ordinance just shift one plastic use to the other in a much heavier way and is worse for the environment.
I don't think this justifies not banning plastic bags nor does it signify an "abuse of power".
It does point out the need for alternative solutions and making environmentally better solutions available without charging more for them. Nobody "needs to use" non-biodegradable materials.
Using a "constitutional right" argument to pollute the planet is unjustifiable. Your rights end where mine begin.
I actually applaud the mayor's decision, when would this madness end! The most ridiculous trend of abuse of power ever these days. Yet progressive politicians around the world still follow each other like lemmings year after year.
In these cases they don't just ban something they also require stores to penalize people for using their services, essentially using stores as agents to get them to live a green lifestyle.
I am glad there are people questioning the constitutionality of the ordiannce in Boston. When is the last time agovernment actually forced stores to penalize shoppers for "serving them," and requiring the shopkeeper to keep the commission for helping enforce the "agenda."
Of course big grocers rejoice as they can turn a small overhead cost into a profit machine.
Based on real environmental reports and waste management reports done in places like San Francisco department of works which handles waste management, Toronto, and UK environmental agency, . Plastic litter skyrocketed after a bag ban as residents now would need to use alternative plastics much more both to wrap their food items and to wrap litter generated from all those other products we buy, use of bin liners and garbage bags also skyrocketed. Google street view clearly shows that freeway and street shoulders have accumulated much more litter in the years following a bag ordinance in the region. The ordinance just shift one plastic use to the other in a much heavier way and is worse for the environment.
Much of this is suspect, but even if partially true, doesn't justify not banning non-degradable plastic shopping bags. It only depressingly indicates much more could need to be done to follow up before it's too late. Regulating a few, who could care less, to the benefit of the many is common & entirely justified in a liberal democracy. That such environmentally progressive places as Boston & San Francisco are somehow wrong headed; but a few environmentally clueless & self-interested small business owners (and their defenders) in Providence are right is a bit absurd.
The mayor is pandering and knows better. He should put his efforts into environmental education - even though the case could be made you can't educate those who don't care or only care about themselves & money. Not the welfare of the rest of us or the planet.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,041,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by independent man
Much of this is suspect, but even if partially true, doesn't justify not banning non-degradable plastic shopping bags. It only depressingly indicates much more could need to be done to follow up before it's too late. Regulating a few, who could care less, to the benefit of the many is common & entirely justified in a liberal democracy. That such environmentally progressive places as Boston & San Francisco are somehow wrong headed; but a few environmentally clueless & self-interested small business owners (and their defenders) in Providence are right is a bit absurd.
The mayor is pandering and knows better. He should put his efforts into environmental education - even though the case could be made you can't educate those who don't care or only care about themselves & money. Not the welfare of the rest of us or the planet.
The reason for the rejection wasn't for the companies or business owners, or anti environmentalism, but due to the economic impacts of the very poor. Some communities groups (me being new to RI don't know these groups, but people I respect who are more tuned in to community politics in PVD have told me these groups generally do good due diligence before backing a stance) representing the least fortunate among us were in opposition to this regulation. Hopefully, another path can be found to getting rid of these bags.
The reason for the rejection wasn't for the companies or business owners, or anti environmentalism, but due to the economic impacts of the very poor. Some communities groups (me being new to RI don't know these groups, but people I respect who are more tuned in to community politics in PVD have told me these groups generally do good due diligence before backing a stance) representing the least fortunate among us were in opposition to this regulation. Hopefully, another path can be found to getting rid of these bags.
Environmental stewardship is never without costs. The organized resistance against the plastic bag ban comes from a segment of the small retail business community. What is the inordinate burden on the poor? That they learn to carry recyclable/reusable totes? What would another path be? Subsidy? That poor people and the small businesses which serve them be allowed to continue to use plastic bags? Unfortunately, there are well meaning PVD community groups which give little priority to our environment - unless there is some political gain to be had. I remember from my days of trying to organize neighborhood clean-ups.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,041,955 times
Reputation: 40635
The opposition to the ban I saw came from community groups representing the poor and disenfranchised, and that is what the mayor referenced with the veto. The burden is on costs, either of buying bags, or buying cloth bags/totes. It was the cost. And yes, another path would be subsidy or a community program providing them free of charge.
$0.10 (times multiples) actually does matter to some people. Not to me, not to you, not to 95% of the population, but it does matter to some people.
Businesses generally love the programs since instead of losing money on giving away cheap bags, they make a profit off of selling $0.10 bags.
I'm not agreeing with the veto, I just understand the reasons for it.
The opposition to the ban I saw came from community groups representing the poor and disenfranchised, and that is what the mayor referenced with the veto. The burden is on costs, either of buying bags, or buying cloth bags/totes. It was the cost. And yes, another path would be subsidy or a community program providing them free of charge.
$0.10 (times multiples) actually does matter to some people. Not to me, not to you, not to 95% of the population, but it does matter to some people.
Businesses generally love the programs since instead of losing money on giving away cheap bags, they make a profit off of selling $0.10 bags.
I'm not agreeing with the veto, I just understand the reasons for it.
Why wouldn't poor people bring their own bags and avoid the 10 cent purchase from the merchant? I feel I'm missing something. In my town it was simple. A few merchants opposed, because they knew they'd have to eat the costs of recyclable bags for their customers. Otherwise, it passed overwhelmingly.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,041,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by independent man
Why wouldn't poor people bring their own bags and avoid the 10 cent purchase from the merchant? I feel I'm missing something. In my town it was simple. A few merchants opposed, because they knew they'd have to eat the costs of recyclable bags for their customers. Otherwise, it passed overwhelmingly.
I think you'd be better off asking the people opposed, or reading some of their reasons. There is lots out there on the why there was opposition. It really wasn't the ban that was the issue, it was the fee for bags.
I, for one, no longer try to think like "why doesn't group X do Y" because I'm looking from it from a privileged lens. I am not in their shoes. We hear this a lot in society (ala "Why are poor people having children they can't afford? I waited until I could afford a family" etc, type thinking), its really important to get away from wearing such glasses, as our privilege permeates all our thought processes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
