![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 9, 3:41 pm, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Feb 8, 11:03 pm, "V-for-Vendicar" wrote: "Jeff Strickland" wrote Back then, the problem was paper bags eating up trees at an alarming rate, so they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL concerns -- paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the environment, so let's use plastic and save the trees. Not a bad argument as arguments go, and I generally answered the question, "paper or plastic?" with, "plastic, please." Virtually all of my groceries come home in cloth (probably hemp) bags, and have done for the last 15 years. Same bags every time. They are great because they clasp shut and can be carried on the sholder. They are the perfect size, capable of holding about 20 lbs each - extremely strong, durable, washable, and usable for a variety of other purposes. Unfortunately they have become worn and I can't find similar replacements. A few days ago I picked up a reusable tarp like plastic bag. Inferior but still reusable and made from 100% recycled materials. Bag cost me a buck. While I am no fan of Wal-Mart, reps came to my childrens school and gave a propaganda speech and each child recieved a reusable shopping bag that is (according to the tag) "100% recylable, is made from 85% recyled materials, is made from approximately 4 plastic soad bottles, can replace 50 shopping bags and can carry the same weight as2-3 plastic shopping bags". Wal-mart states they have "a goal of zero waste by 2025 in all Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores." It's a start I guess. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 9, 3:41 pm, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Feb 8, 11:03 pm, "V-for-Vendicar" wrote: "Jeff Strickland" wrote Back then, the problem was paper bags eating up trees at an alarming rate, so they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL concerns -- paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the environment, so let's use plastic and save the trees. Not a bad argument as arguments go, and I generally answered the question, "paper or plastic?" with, "plastic, please." Virtually all of my groceries come home in cloth (probably hemp) bags, and have done for the last 15 years. Same bags every time. They are great because they clasp shut and can be carried on the sholder. They are the perfect size, capable of holding about 20 lbs each - extremely strong, durable, washable, and usable for a variety of other purposes. Unfortunately they have become worn and I can't find similar replacements. A few days ago I picked up a reusable tarp like plastic bag. Inferior but still reusable and made from 100% recycled materials. Bag cost me a buck. While I am no fan of Wal-Mart, reps came to my childrens school and gave a propaganda speech and each child recieved a reusable shopping bag that is (according to the tag) "100% recylable, is made from 85% recyled materials, is made from approximately 4 plastic soad bottles, can replace 50 shopping bags and can carry the same weight as2-3 plastic shopping bags". Wal-mart states they have "a goal of zero waste by 2025 in all Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores." It's a start I guess. Sorry for empty post; possibly more fodder for Mikey! But consider - "...Wal-mart states they have "a goal of zero waste by 2025..." Step one: create a monumental and growing problem. Yep, Wally's plastic trash. Step two: identify the problem as a "goal." Step three: pat yourself on the back as you ineffectually fall short of even remaining in sight of that goal. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
... they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL
concerns -- paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the environment, so let's use plastic and save the trees. =v= This is not accurate. Certainly plastic bags were HYPED as tree-saving, but enviromentalists at the time were opposed to all disposables and suggested reusable canvas tote bags. Which are still the solution. =v= Certainly there was a vaguely-countercultural trend towards anything hypermodern in the 1970s, which accepted pretty much anything new and plastic, but that wasn't environmental at all. _Jym_ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
We recognize one environmental problem, and remedy it by
going to a different material at the checkstand. =v= Plastic bags were not introduced to handle an environmental problem. Plastic bags were introduced because they're cheaper. The reason they're cheaper is that their environmental impact is more easily shuffled aside for somebody else to pay the costs of. In any case, it was patently obvious as the plastic bags became more popular that they were and would continue to be a burden on the environment. The solution of course is to recycle them. =v= That's no solution at all. Plastic is "downcycled," not really recycled. Most of the plastic taken for recycling is shipped overseas and dumped into landfill, commingled with other plastics that render it totally useless (and often quite toxic). When they actually do achieve downcycling, you end up with a flimsy plastic crap product, also destined for landfill. _Jym_ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jym Dyer" wrote =v= This is not accurate. Certainly plastic bags were HYPED as tree-saving, but enviromentalists at the time were opposed to all disposables and suggested reusable canvas tote bags. Which are still the solution. Absolutely correct. I remember their warnings. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:48:03 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Feb 7, 8:05*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: http://marine-litter.gpa.unep.org/documents/World's_largest_landfill.pdf -- I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande Mikey.... Maybe you can help me with something you specialize in....everytime I read your posts I get sick to my stomach and puke. Since your true specialty has nothing to due with real science or ecology or naturalism...and deals with being a dietary lunchlady...I figured you might be able to help me. ~Magua~ Stop eating your own turds. Glad to be of service. -- I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:47:18 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote: "V-for-Vendicar" wrote in message news ![]() "Jeff Strickland" wrote Back then, the problem was paper bags eating up trees at an alarming rate, so they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL concerns -- paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the environment, so let's use plastic and save the trees. Not a bad argument as arguments go, and I generally answered the question, "paper or plastic?" with, "plastic, please." Virtually all of my groceries come home in cloth (probably hemp) bags, and have done for the last 15 years. Same bags every time. They are great because they clasp shut and can be carried on the sholder. They are the perfect size, capable of holding about 20 lbs each - extremely strong, durable, washable, and usable for a variety of other purposes. Unfortunately they have become worn and I can't find similar replacements. A few days ago I picked up a reusable tarp like plastic bag. Inferior but still reusable and made from 100% recycled materials. Bag cost me a buck. That's great. I can see this -- canvas bags -- happening at my house soon as well. The point I was making though is the unintended consequence of Paper or Plastic. Paper takes trees, and this is an environmental concern and the customary way to get groceries home for more than half of my life, and all of my grand parent's lives. We recognize one environmental problem, and remedy it by going to a different material at the checkstand. The remedy has an unintended consequence that is just now being recognized, 20-ish years later. Smart people recognized that from the start. -- I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:14:40 -0800, Jym Dyer wrote:
We recognize one environmental problem, and remedy it by going to a different material at the checkstand. =v= Plastic bags were not introduced to handle an environmental problem. Plastic bags were introduced because they're cheaper. The reason they're cheaper is that their environmental impact is more easily shuffled aside for somebody else to pay the costs of. In any case, it was patently obvious as the plastic bags became more popular that they were and would continue to be a burden on the environment. The solution of course is to recycle them. =v= That's no solution at all. Plastic is "downcycled," not really recycled. Most of the plastic taken for recycling is shipped overseas and dumped into landfill, commingled with other plastics that render it totally useless (and often quite toxic). When they actually do achieve downcycling, you end up with a flimsy plastic crap product, also destined for landfill. _Jym_ Why can't the material in plastics be recycled to make new plastic? -- I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I would like to direct your attention to the '70s, if I may. OK. Back then, the problem was paper bags eating up trees at an alarming rate, so they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL concerns -- paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the environment, so let's use plastic and save the trees. Not a bad argument as arguments go, and I generally answered the question, "paper or plastic?" with, "plastic, please." Paper resource ONE problem. I don't know the people you associated with but the first thing any knowledgeable environmentalist back in the 70s that I remember would have known that most plastic bags came from oil. Trees were at least renewable. Plastic bags didn't come to save trees, they are merely cheaper. Stay away from the touchy warm fuzzy feelie granola types and stay with the more scientifically knowledgeable ones. It's bad enough that Moore, who led the the sci.env* proposal didn't listen to me and make the group moderated and elevate talk.environment for discussion. In his hindsight, he recanted and regretted it. Now, I am the bad guy again because plastic floats. Just is. You are going to consume whatever you do on your time on Earth. Environmentalism comes with a wealth of unintended consequences -- we save a tree but spoil the water, make electricity from wind but chop up a bird, (leaping forward a few decades ... ) drive fuel cell cars and flood the side of the road -- that seem to be worse than the problem we wanted to remedy when we embarked on the environmentalist agenda. Garrett Hardin once said you can't just do one thing. Having said that, it is refreshing to see Vandeman get excited about a real issue ... That doesn't let him off the hook. Reduce follow ups. -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Plastic Floating in the Pacific! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 26 | February 12th 08 09:58 PM |
floating pedal myth DEBUNKED | MagillaGorilla[_2_] | Racing | 37 | February 1st 08 05:01 AM |
[Melb] Main Yarra Trail closure next week - Floating Pontoons Section | cfsmtb | Australia | 5 | March 3rd 06 10:58 AM |
Performance goes to Pacific | Callistus Valerius | Techniques | 5 | December 13th 05 08:03 PM |