California bans plastic bags

[whichphilosophy]

3) Pay 10c for a paper bag.

Or allow stores to give away paper bags for free, which the California State has made illegal. Stores MUST charge 10 cents.

This is following the Chinese model of some 4-5 years ago. If this doesn't work it may still be possible to ship these to China again.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Actually I observe, read sociology, and have evaluated the claims of many in the news (and have personally experienced). So far my "confirmation bias" has been unrelentingly confirmed both in the SF Bay area and in the national discourse, and even here:

Do they? Reread the first page of this thread. The reaction to the ban is one of support, but based on what, other than a potpourri of subjective and personal grievances? The sum total of "evidence" provided by the plastic bag offended is carping that " plastic bag trash is overwhelming." (whatever that means), or that "these people are bag happy", or that "...I hate F###King plastic bags!" because they don't hold enough and are "hard to open." These vague feelings and petty gripes are the basis of someone supporting the banishment of a preferred consumer choice for tens of millions who do not agree? This is not "evidence" to make a conclusion, it is the arrogance and immaturity of collective narcissism - in other words the elevation of the adolescent mindset to policy making.

I'm quite offended by your posts here, considering that I did post links to actual data. It's also absurdly easy to find the information. Failure to do so is willful ignorance on your part, which allows you to continue supporting the use of plastic bags for your short-sighted and selfish convenience.

That you are offended is a good thing, at least you care if your opinions have a basis in reality - a concern not shared by most crusaders and mass movements. However, most do-gooder crusades are based on sanctimonious gut feelings, often arrogant and rather immature. Do you honestly think that lurid pictures of a landfill with trash bags, or (for that matter) lurid pictures of aborted dead fetus's is a form of serious evidentiary and reasoned based belief? Or is it evidence of the modern age that embraces hyperbolic feelings as self-validating, and which engenders cries of "offense" when those feelings are challenged?

You think you provided links to evidence, but it seems you actually made unsupported presumptions that resonate with the like-minded, but are without merit as a basis for public policy. Consider:

Yes, you showed that plastic bags are resistant to decay. But so what if they, along with many other items last hundreds of years? Do you know what percentage of landfill (in the US) are composed of bags? What percentage is plastic? Do you know what percentage of land, land fills actually occupy? Does it matter over the next century or two?

Yes, plastic bags end up in the Pacific vortex around Midway island. So? Do you have any idea what percentage of sea water has plastic bags or how it compares to other debris? Do you know that a lot of photos of this vortex are faked? Do you know if 50 percent or .0005 percent of the bags come from US shores?

Yes, most plastic bags end up in US landfills. Any idea what percentage somehow migrates into major rivers and into the ocean?

Yes, plastic bags can kill a bird, fish or sea mammal. Any idea what percentage of fish or sea mammals are actually killed by plastic bags. 30 percent or .0003 percent? Curious if American domestic cats kill 1,000,000 fold more birds than plastic bags? Is any species actually endangered by a grocery bag used by Mrs. Sanchez or Mr. Smith in California?

Do you have any idea how much or how little the ban on single use bags in California (or the west coast) would actually effect ocean ecology or debris?

For those not indoctrinated in the 'green' quasi-religion ethos, invocations of the "Green Goddess" theology of recycling and rationing of resources we need proof. We don't accept the hopeful hand waving that "oh the data is out there proving my unsupported convictions". A conclusion based on subjective feelings accessible only to the tongue speakers just won't do.

I think there is one point you may be missing. It's not a ban but an effort to reduce the use of plastic bags by way of charging for them.

 

[maxparrish]

Or allow stores to give away paper bags for free, which the California State has made illegal. Stores MUST charge 10 cents.

Which according to libertarian theory makes the store charge 10 cents less for groceries.

Not necessarily. The fee acts as an excise tax, a portion of which may recovered by both the supplier and consumer, and a portion never collected due to reduced output. Moreover, other cost 'savings' are less, given that it shifted for those who have to buy totes who, previously, got free plastic sacks which were less expensive to stores than paper sacks. And complicating it is the unclear state provision that "stores will keep the 10-cent fee" but "they're allowed to spend that money only to cover (new) costs associated with complying with the program." (NPR).

In any event I will be getting a giant roll of discount dollar store garbage bags to keep in the car. When I go shopping I will roll out what I need and use those as bags - easy, clean, and they will end up in the landfill or storm sewers. For smaller purchases I already use the plastic produce bags as grocery bags when I occasionally shop in Berkeley...heh heh.

My "contribution" to the environment.

 

[maxparrish]

I think there is one point you may be missing. It's not a ban but an effort to reduce the use of plastic bags by way of charging for them.

Where did you get that idea? "The new law requires grocery stores and pharmacies not to distribute single-use plastic bags after July 1, 2015, and to charge a 10-cent fee for paper or compostable bags. Convenience and liquor stores fall under the ban in the following year." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...gle-use-plastic-bags-is-enacted-in-california

 

[arkirk]

You appear to have just as much ideological-"religious" fervor as those you criticize.

You are correct, it is the religion of deductive and inductive reasoning from theory and empirical evidence.

So that's what you are calling it....I see.

Isn't it possible there is a little bit of prejudice in the mix...so anti whatever you think "green" is? You have no concern about the environment? I will keep that in mind if I ever imagine I can reason with you. I do sense fervor. Just not sure what kind it is.

 

[maxparrish]

You are correct, it is the religion of deductive and inductive reasoning from theory and empirical evidence.

So that's what you are calling it....I see.

Isn't it possible there is a little bit of prejudice in the mix...so anti whatever you think "green" is? You have no concern about the environment? I will keep that in mind if I ever imagine I can reason with you. I do sense fervor. Just not sure what kind it is.

I think I addressed this in post 105. But as you still seem confused, I will restate it a different way. I have no concern over 'the environment', but I do have concern over issues in the environment t affect my well being or that of the society that I live in. Any issue in the environment that potentially harms the use and enjoyment of it (even remotely), I am concerned about.

I have many opinions that folks may confuse with "environmentalism"; I want to see many rivers returned to their wild state, other areas returned to their state of native flora and fauna, and yet other areas for national park expansion. I would love to see the return of the American Elm tree, American Chestnut tree, and Passenger Pigeon. I'm all for efforts to repopulate the wolf and grizzly, and would delight at seeing a part of the great plains and Missouri river returned to the state of nature before Louis and Clark. I also hope the rain forest can be saved, and the great migrating herds of Asia re-established. But it has nothing to do with being "concerned about the environment". It is about the enjoyment of raw beauty and the use of wild spaces. It is about heritage and national identity.

Like anyone I'd like to think that the ocean could be free of plastic. It's not...and it never will be. No amount of faux penance over a grocery sack is going to make a thimble full of difference, anymore than all the power plant regulations by the EPA born or unborn will make a nano-degree of global warming change. Nor will the American forests ever be more than barren 3rd or 4th growth imitations of what real nature is. We can pretend we are doing something with 'green' ritual, or face the truth.

So THAT is why I don't buy into the 'green' religion; its as important to nature as quarter in a collection plate is to God.