PDA

View Full Version : The Disgusting Consequences of Plastic-Bag Bans



Chris
02-07-2013, 06:02 AM
Concern for the environment is good but without concern for consequences it can go awry.


...San Francisco has been discouraging plastic bags since 2007, saying that it takes too much oil to make them and that used bags pollute waterways and kill marine animals. In 2012, it strengthened its law. Several West Coast cities, including Seattle and Los Angeles, have also adopted bans for environmental reasons. The government of Washington, D.C., imposes a 5 cent plastic-bag tax. (Advocates prefer to call it a “fee” because taxes are unpopular.) Environmental groups and celebrity activists, including Eva Longoria and Julia Louis- Dreyfus, support these laws.

The plastic-bag industry, predictably, wants to throw them away. It says that the making of plastic bags supplies a livelihood to 30,000 hard-working, law-abiding, patriotic Americans, many of whom have adorable children to support. It cites a 2007 report by San Francisco’s Environment Department that said plastic bags from retail establishments, the target of the ban, accounted for only 0.6 percent of litter.

Most alarmingly, the industry has highlighted news reports linking reusable shopping bags to the spread of disease. Like this one, from the Los Angeles Times last May: “A reusable grocery bag left in a hotel bathroom caused an outbreak of norovirus-induced diarrhea and nausea that struck nine of 13 members of a girls’ soccer team in October, Oregon researchers reported Wednesday.” The norovirus may not have political clout, but evidently it, too, is rooting against plastic bags.

Warning of disease may seem like an over-the-top scare tactic, but research suggests there’s more than anecdote behind this industry talking point. In a 2011 study, four researchers examined reusable bags in California and Arizona and found that 51 percent of them contained coliform bacteria....

<snip even more>

@ The Disgusting Consequences of Plastic-Bag Bans (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-04/the-disgusting-consequences-of-liberal-plastic-bag-bans.html)

zelmo1234
02-07-2013, 06:32 AM
Priceless! However, the law had the cood intentions and compassion for the enviroment at it hesrt, so liberals will judge it as successful. there will be no concern for thos that get sick and die, bucause the law was inteneded to me conpasionate.

At the very most you will see a new group of celebrities that will do a public service announcement telling people to wash their reusable bags, and they will sue the manufacture of thos bags for not having a warning label.

GrassrootsConservative
02-07-2013, 06:41 AM
:grin: We. Told. You. So.

Chloe
02-07-2013, 09:30 AM
See this is the good thing about having a doctor for a mom because I can just ask her questions before she leaves for work, like I just did, and get some common sense insight into this.

Norovirus (food poisoning) is easily spread and is not uncommon in hotels, schools, daycares, etc, and not even super dangerous in most cases. If you have a soccer team staying in a hotel and one player has bacteria on their hands because they failed to wash their hands after going to the bathroom then chances are whatever that player touches could easily infect others, especially if they touch food, and since they are a team they probably were around each other a lot which contributed to a lot of them getting sick. The reusable bags were being stored in the bathroom of a hotel, and so if a food bag is in a room with the types of germs that can get you sick already all over it, then common sense tells you that it wasn't necessarily the bag that decided to infect the world, it was probably a combination of an unclean bathroom and unclean hands touching a lot of things in and around those hotel rooms getting the players sick, including the bags that they were using for their food. Also it could have very well have been the person staying in the room before that group even checked in. The person could have contaminated the bathroom from being sick, it wasn't cleaned well by the housekeeper, and when the team checked in they touched things in the bathroom, door knobs, and so on, and got sick, or they could have simply gotten the virus from lunch earlier that day, who knows.

Also who keeps their reusable food bags in the bathroom???? There is always the possibility of contamination from it simply being the bathroom at that point because of fecal matter and other gross stuff that is all over the place. The bag didn't cause the outbreak, chances are the virus was on the bag because of someone not washing their hands, and maybe even because the bag wasn't ever wash as well, still not the bags fault, it's the person'a fault. All easily fixable by washing your hands and washing your shopping bags if you use them to carry food that can be contaminated.

At our house we have designated shopping bags for food that will need to be washed when we get home, things like fruits and veggies, and even meat since my parents do eat meat on occasion. Those bags that we use for those things get washed anytime we use them since it could carry bacteria from what we touched or if something was on the food and transfer to the bag, the rest of the reusable bags that we use at the grocery store for things packaged things and boxes get washed periodically but not every time.

The disgusting consequence you are talking about is not from a plastic bag ban it's about people not washing their hands and not washing their bags that they use to carry foods that could be contaminated. How often do people go to the store usually? Once, twice a week, if that? Use one or two bags for those types of foods and wash the bags and your hands afterwards. You don't have to go crazy and wash them every day, just use common sense, and wash them if you put the types of food in them that could get you sick. When you stay at a hotel wash your hands and be careful. People get other people sick by not paying attention and by ignorance usually, bags don't have a say in it.

Chris
02-07-2013, 12:37 PM
The point though is the ban increases risks. An unintended consequence. Jumping solutions become problems.

KC
02-07-2013, 12:55 PM
In general tinkering with the market is going to have some consequences other than those that are intended. We should only do so when inaction would be morally unjust. For example, the market for selling human organs is restricted, and imo rightly so.

Chloe
02-07-2013, 01:34 PM
The point though is the ban increases risks. An unintended consequence. Jumping solutions become problems.

Well sure there are unintended consequences to almost everything in some way, but there is a bigger risk continuing on with producing millions of plastic bags that will not decompose then the increased risk of food poisoning due to ignorance in my opinion. It's possible to teach people good environmental practices and also good health practices without using food poisoning as a reason to continue on with the status quo.

Peter1469
02-07-2013, 03:34 PM
Well sure there are unintended consequences to almost everything in some way, but there is a bigger risk continuing on with producing millions of plastic bags that will not decompose then the increased risk of food poisoning due to ignorance in my opinion. It's possible to teach people good environmental practices and also good health practices without using food poisoning as a reason to continue on with the status quo.

Some people just need to get sick a couple of times before they catch on.

Chloe
02-07-2013, 03:49 PM
Some people just need to get sick a couple of times before they catch on.

Well no I didn't mean it that way

Peter1469
02-07-2013, 04:08 PM
Well no I didn't mean it that way

I know.

But I did. :wink:

zelmo1234
02-07-2013, 04:10 PM
Well sure there are unintended consequences to almost everything in some way, but there is a bigger risk continuing on with producing millions of plastic bags that will not decompose then the increased risk of food poisoning due to ignorance in my opinion. It's possible to teach people good environmental practices and also good health practices without using food poisoning as a reason to continue on with the status quo.

What is the risk again? buried plastic? vs death due to food poisining?

Chloe
02-07-2013, 04:51 PM
What is the risk again? buried plastic? vs death due to food poisining?

People do not get food poisoning because of a plastic bag ban, they get it because of not washing their hands and also because of bad food handling knowledge. A billion+ non biodegradable bags on the planet is more important overall than the risk of getting food poisoning from their shopping bag because they didn't wash it after carrying raw chicken in it. Educate people on proper hygiene and food issues and the risk goes down.

zelmo1234
02-07-2013, 07:17 PM
People do not get food poisoning because of a plastic bag ban, they get it because of not washing their hands and also because of bad food handling knowledge. A billion+ non biodegradable bags on the planet is more important overall than the risk of getting food poisoning from their shopping bag because they didn't wash it after carrying raw chicken in it. Educate people on proper hygiene and food issues and the risk goes down.

Yes I agree with the public service anouncment. But you can't fix stupid, and there will be people that get sick and they will go to the hospital and run up the insurance bills for all of us and yes we burry plastic bags, but is we went back to paper bags that would solve the problem! Trees can be planted everyday, and it we did some selective harvest in areas like california where the fires burn the forests down instead of harvesting them, we could ahve the pest of both worlds.

Renewable resources are not a bad thing. And yes those that want to use reusable bags should be able to, but when you force things on people you loose me. I actually stopped using the resuables, when some cities started making it mandatory.

Chris
02-07-2013, 07:23 PM
Well sure there are unintended consequences to almost everything in some way, but there is a bigger risk continuing on with producing millions of plastic bags that will not decompose then the increased risk of food poisoning due to ignorance in my opinion. It's possible to teach people good environmental practices and also good health practices without using food poisoning as a reason to continue on with the status quo.

Earlier I was on my cell and couldn't do justice to your initial response--it was good. But you do recognize unintended consequences, now if we could just somehow measure the costs we might say the ban was good or bad. I agree, people could be educated to take better care of themselves, but rather than a blind ban would not have educating people about the evils of disposable plastic bags have alleviated that problem as well. Unintended consequences are the result of leaping to solutions, too often government ones, when thinking things out a bit might have foreseen the solution creating or increasing other problems.

Dr. Who
02-07-2013, 10:16 PM
The point though is the ban increases risks. An unintended consequence. Jumping solutions become problems.

The best thing that can happen with plastic bags is that they all be made biodegradable. After that, no problem. People will throw them out, rather than reuse them ad infinitum.

Chris
02-07-2013, 10:56 PM
The best thing that can happen with plastic bags is that they all be made biodegradable. After that, no problem. People will throw them out, rather than reuse them ad infinitum.

Is there a profit in it? Is it something people want?

Guerilla
02-07-2013, 11:06 PM
I don't really see a negative here. We are worried about hurting the plastic bag industry but doing so will allow other more favorable industries to grow like paper bags or biodegradable bags, as suggested. Plastic bags spreading disease sounds like they are pulling at straws here. why does everyone always have to have a fucking panic attack when they find a germ somewhere? Did it occur to you that these peoples symtoms were nausea and diarea? Everyone gets sick every so often and those are some pretty common ailments; nothing to worry about. These were soccer players that traveled to another region, so their immune system probably just wasn't used to the viruses their. Simple as that. Coliform is only dangerous when found in water and that's only because it's an indicator that their could be other contaminents. Since they said nothing about other contaminents I assume they found none. These are just scare tactics they use to get people riled up.

Chris
02-07-2013, 11:30 PM
It's non-plastic leading to greater spread of disease.

Dr. Who
02-07-2013, 11:35 PM
Is there a profit in it? Is it something people want?
Of course there is profit in it. The plastics industry employs many people. Making a product that is innimical to the environment in this day and age is a sure recipe for anachronism.
Do people want it? Try carrying something wet in a paper bag. Try carrying a paper bag in the rain. As a retailer, try putting large, heavy items in a paper bag. There is a way to make biodegradable plastic bags and I am sure that people in general would be better served and still have an environmental solution.

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 03:48 AM
The best thing that can happen with plastic bags is that they all be made biodegradable. After that, no problem. People will throw them out, rather than reuse them ad infinitum.

That is a fantastic Idea. You should invent the process, you would become a billionaire

Chris
02-08-2013, 04:20 AM
Of course there is profit in it. The plastics industry employs many people. Making a product that is innimical to the environment in this day and age is a sure recipe for anachronism.
Do people want it? Try carrying something wet in a paper bag. Try carrying a paper bag in the rain. As a retailer, try putting large, heavy items in a paper bag. There is a way to make biodegradable plastic bags and I am sure that people in general would be better served and still have an environmental solution.

I take it you're not a businessman.

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 05:03 PM
I take it you're not a businessman.
They already make biodegradable plastic bags, particularly for communities who must recycle their garbage. It doesn't mean that there is no market for paper bags, but plastic is more adaptable to things like groceries, and other heavy items. I'm sure the manufacturers of these bags are making money or they wouldn't be in business.

Chris
02-08-2013, 05:31 PM
They already make biodegradable plastic bags, particularly for communities who must recycle their garbage. It doesn't mean that there is no market for paper bags, but plastic is more adaptable to things like groceries, and other heavy items. I'm sure the manufacturers of these bags are making money or they wouldn't be in business.

Then the question becomes why was it necessary to make a law to get people to buy biodegradables if they, the consumers, wanted it?

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 06:11 PM
Then the question becomes why was it necessary to make a law to get people to buy biodegradables if they, the consumers, wanted it?
Because fewer and fewer places want to take garbage. Any large municipality must take their trash somewhere, unless they decide to go with gasification plants that incinerate their garbage, but that is another discussion. Most municipalities have to truck their trash to a dump. Dump sites are much harder to come by these days, as an increasing number of rural areas don't want them. Hence a large move toward recycling. The average plastic bag will not degrade for hundreds of years unless exposed to sunlight, thus sucking up space in trash dumps. If you separate out the recylables and put the pure garbage in biodegradable bags, and also make all the superfluous bags degradable, your dump space will last longer. Trash will not increase your tax bill as quickly. Municipalities will not be left in the position of having no place to dump the trash.

Guerilla
02-08-2013, 06:12 PM
Then the question becomes why was it necessary to make a law to get people to buy biodegradables if they, the consumers, wanted it?

because what's best for the planet isn't always the cheapest. I agree with dr who, people would prefer biodegradables, but it would be hard for biodegradable to compete with plastic bag industry because it's already established. It's classic mom's and pop's stores against wallmart. people want cheap and convenient.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 06:15 PM
because what's best for the planet isn't always the cheapest. I agree with dr who, people would prefer biodegradables, but it would be hard for biodegradable to compete with plastic bag industry because it's already established. It's classic mom's and pop's stores against wallmart. people want cheap and convenient.

Which is why bans make for a great equalizer in my opinion :smiley:

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 06:17 PM
because what's best for the planet isn't always the cheapest. I agree with dr who, people would prefer biodegradables, but it would be hard for biodegradable to compete with plastic bag industry because it's already established. It's classic mom's and pop's stores against wallmart. people want cheap and convenient.
It's only a matter of time. We as the dominant species on the planet, cannot continue to treat it like a garbage dump without eventually making the planet unhospitable to even ourselves, nevermind everything else that lives here.

Red Green
02-08-2013, 06:23 PM
Which is why bans make for a great equalizer in my opinion :smiley:

Next the environmentalists will complain about paper bags and deforestation .

Chloe
02-08-2013, 06:23 PM
Next the environmentalists will complain about paper bags and deforestation .

i'm pretty sure most already do but ok. Deforestation is a huge problem.

Chris
02-08-2013, 06:59 PM
Because fewer and fewer places want to take garbage. Any large municipality must take their trash somewhere, unless they decide to go with gasification plants that incinerate their garbage, but that is another discussion. Most municipalities have to truck their trash to a dump. Dump sites are much harder to come by these days, as an increasing number of rural areas don't want them. Hence a large move toward recycling. The average plastic bag will not degrade for hundreds of years unless exposed to sunlight, thus sucking up space in trash dumps. If you separate out the recylables and put the pure garbage in biodegradable bags, and also make all the superfluous bags degradable, your dump space will last longer. Trash will not increase your tax bill as quickly. Municipalities will not be left in the position of having no place to dump the trash.

Come on, back to the question, why are these so good they require laws for force people to use them?

Chris
02-08-2013, 07:02 PM
because what's best for the planet isn't always the cheapest. I agree with dr who, people would prefer biodegradables, but it would be hard for biodegradable to compete with plastic bag industry because it's already established. It's classic mom's and pop's stores against wallmart. people want cheap and convenient.


because what's best for the planet isn't always the cheapest.

Let's assume you're right, you, somehow divined what's best for the planet and everyone else--not a very good assumption, but for the sake of argument, and it's expensive, very expensive, more expensive than we can afford, then what?



I agree with dr who, people would prefer biodegradables, but it would be hard for biodegradable to compete with plastic bag industry because it's already established. It's classic mom's and pop's stores against wallmart. people want cheap and convenient.

Read that again, you've contradicted yourself on what people want.

Chris
02-08-2013, 07:03 PM
Which is why bans make for a great equalizer in my opinion :smiley:

Except they cause unforeseen problems. Think out a bit down the causal chain, please.

Red Green
02-08-2013, 07:18 PM
i'm pretty sure most already do but ok. Deforestation is a huge problem.

No it's not there is more forest in America than there was a century ago.

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 07:26 PM
Come on, back to the question, why are these so good they require laws for force people to use them?
This will only happen at least initially on a municpal level. If a city is pushed to the wall with respect to getting rid of garbage and at the same time does not want to increase taxes exponentially to truck municipal garbage thousands of miles, they will undertake recycling measures. Depending on the cost of plastics disposal to that municipality's budget, you may see a ban on regular plastic bags. It is unlikely that the biodegradable bag would be mandated except in conjunction with recycling of biodegradables (i.e. vegetables, meat, other spoiled items from the refrigerator etc.) which you might be unlikely to put in a paper bag. The citizens of the municipality will then have the choice of paper bags - often excessively susceptible to liquids, or biodegradable plastic, which offers a more hygienic outcome. The people will choose.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 07:44 PM
No it's not there is more forest in America than there was a century ago.

Yeah you are going to have to prove that one just for safety sake. A credible source too please, not wikipedia or some far right wing info site that is funded by the logging industry or something. Also deforestation is not just the about the trees. Deforestation affects wildlife. When you cut down a forest you kill and relocate wildlife into scattered areas around buildings, neighborhoods, highways, and so on. Just because you plant a tree farm nearby does not mean it's justifiable or ok. Just because there are more trees now than 100 years ago does not mean that the forests are healthy and wildlife is safe.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 07:44 PM
Except they cause unforeseen problems. Think out a bit down the causal chain, please.

There will always be unforeseen problems regardless

Guerilla
02-08-2013, 07:51 PM
Let's assume you're right, you, somehow divined what's best for the planet and everyone else--not a very good assumption, but for the sake of argument, and it's expensive, very expensive, more expensive than we can afford, then what?




Read that again, you've contradicted yourself on what people want.

I mean people would prefer what's best for the environment but some can't get what they would prefer, they only get what they can afford. Since plastic bag industry is already established it's hard for the other companies to grow because they cannot compete with low prices that only big businesses can offer. As chloe said, bans level the playing field. What are these unforeseen problems? Do you think we should sacrifice the good of the planet because it's cheaper? And how is switching to biodegradable things not better for the planet? Please tell me where this opinion is flawed.

Red Green
02-08-2013, 07:53 PM
Yeah you are going to have to prove that one. A credible source too please, not wikipedia or some far right wing info site that is funded by the logging industry or something. Also deforestation is not just an American problem.

Yeah thanks to forest fires because treehuggers lobbied and they don't allow the forest service to do it's job anymore so instead of hundreds of trees and brush being cleared tens of thousands of trees burn because that disease
rridden redwood is historic and we gotta save the trees oh no the forest yeah btw the logging industry is required to plant three trees for each
tree cut so we got plenty and logging provides good paying jobs too.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 07:55 PM
Yeah thanks to forest fires because treehuggers lobbied and they don't allow the forest service to do it's job anymore so instead of hundreds of trees and brush being cleared tens of thousands of trees burn because that disease
rridden redwood is historic and we gotta save the trees oh no the forest yeah btw the logging industry is required to plant three trees for each
tree cut so we got plenty and logging provides good paying jobs too.

Fire is not a horrible thing for a forest since it helps clear out a lot of dead stuff for new life to form. Wild fires are natural, loggers are not. Also I added to my previous comment to you. Deforestation is not just about how many trees are in the ground. It affects more than just a count.

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 08:03 PM
Fire is not a horrible thing for a forest since it helps clear out a lot of dead stuff for new life to form. Wild fires are natural, loggers are not. Also I added to my previous comment to you. Deforestation is not just about how many trees are in the ground. It affects more than just a count.

The problem with logging company reforestation is that they only plant what they want to harvest in the future. The new forest lacks the biodiversity to support natural wildlife. It is as artificial as a Christmas tree farm.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:05 PM
The problem with logging company reforestation is that they only plant what they want to harvest in the future. The new forest lacks the biodiversity to support natural wildlife. It is as artificial as a Christmas tree farm.

Exactly. It's not just about replacing the tree. When you cut down a forest you destroy the ecosystem in an unnatural way.

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:08 PM
Which is why bans make for a great equalizer in my opinion :smiley:

And the drive up the price of things and make people sick, but we really don't need to worry about them as long as our agenda is promoted do we?

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:09 PM
i'm pretty sure most already do but ok. Deforestation is a huge problem.

Do you know what mother nature does with old growth forests?

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:11 PM
And the drive up the price of things and make people sick, but we really don't need to worry about them as long as our agenda is promoted do we?

That's not very fair. I don't want to make people sick or anything like that.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:11 PM
Do you know what mother nature does with old growth forests?

Other than fire a lot of the trees will eventually fall and decompose and provide life for future plants.

Red Green
02-08-2013, 08:15 PM
Which is why bans make for a great equalizer in my opinion :smiley:

And it's people like you who make me want to burn my trash and change my oil and dump it down the sewer.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:15 PM
And it's people like you who make me want to burn my trash and change my oil and dump it down the sewer.

Why would I want you to do that?

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:15 PM
Yeah you are going to have to prove that one just for safety sake. A credible source too please, not wikipedia or some far right wing info site that is funded by the logging industry or something. Also deforestation is not just the about the trees. Deforestation affects wildlife. When you cut down a forest you kill and relocate wildlife into scattered areas around buildings, neighborhoods, highways, and so on. Just because you plant a tree farm nearby does not mean it's justifiable or ok. Just because there are more trees now than 100 years ago does not mean that the forests are healthy and wildlife is safe.

Actually Old growth forests are only good for the rodent families. Deer, Rabbits, Pheasants, Grouse, Bears, and other wild life are creatures of the edge. Old growth forests have little brouse, and offer animals little thermal cover. So the starve in the winter. They need the low hanging branches, and grasses of the edge. Not to mention that the limbs and leaves are totally shaded in old growth forests, and are easily set on fire. Thus you have the amssive forest fires we have every year. Selective Harvest of Trees, allows the sun to penitrate the canopy and cause new growth.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:17 PM
Actually Old growth forests are only good for the rodent families. Deer, Rabbits, Pheasants, Grouse, Bears, and other wild life are creatures of the edge. Old growth forests have little brouse, and offer animals little thermal cover. So the starve in the winter. They need the low hanging branches, and grasses of the edge. Not to mention that the limbs and leaves are totally shaded in old growth forests, and are easily set on fire. Thus you have the amssive forest fires we have every year. Selective Harvest of Trees, allows the sun to penitrate the canopy and cause new growth.

Many of those trees have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. Who are we to determine what's good for that forest?

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:19 PM
That's not very fair. I don't want to make people sick or anything like that.

But that is what happens! we know it cost more and we know that people will not clean there bags and some will become sick?

So are we better of trying to educate, or forcing people to act a certain way?

Now understand that I don't necessarily thing that you are wrong, I am just trying to get you to think of the concequences of actions.

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 08:19 PM
Do you know what mother nature does with old growth forests?
Fires rarely destroy old growth forests. The are more likely to destroy the smaller trees and plant life, but in the process create a nutrient rich soil that is good for the forest which in the long run is better for the longevity and biodiversity of that forest. Forest fires have been happening since the dawn of time.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:23 PM
But that is what happens! we know it cost more and we know that people will not clean there bags and some will become sick?

So are we better of trying to educate, or forcing people to act a certain way?

Now understand that I don't necessarily thing that you are wrong, I am just trying to get you to think of the concequences of actions.

But see there will always be someone that doesn't listen, doesn't know, doesn't care, or doesn't do the right thing. You can educate people all you want but it doesn't mean that they will wash their bags, let alone their hands, and so years could go by and we are still educating people on how to wash after themselves and how to handle food. Nobody is forcing them to use contaminated bags with a plastic bag ban, but they will have to make a choice between what type of bags they would need to use after that and would have to take on some responsibility of having good hygiene.

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:26 PM
Many of those trees have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. Who are we to determine what's good for that forest?

I thought that you were concerned about the wildlife?

And does the fire caused by lightning not burn the old trees?

Now selective harvest does not have to harvest the oldest trees, as a matter of fact they tend to be hollow and not that desireable for lumber.

but if you take the right amount of trees, and leave a fair amount of trees, you have a forest with under gorwth that actually supports wildlife and hold moisture.

I know that you do not like hunting but we have our property logged every 5 years. and we have a very healthy forest, they come in a remove the trees that have outgrowth there usefulness, those that are wind damaged, twisted and crooked. And leave a healthy forest that actually grows much faster and is able to support a healthy and thriving deer heard, as well as many other form of wildlife.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:28 PM
I thought that you were concerned about the wildlife?

And does the fire caused by lightning not burn the old trees?

Now selective harvest does not have to harvest the oldest trees, as a matter of fact they tend to be hollow and not that desireable for lumber.

but if you take the right amount of trees, and leave a fair amount of trees, you have a forest with under gorwth that actually supports wildlife and hold moisture.

I know that you do not like hunting but we have our property logged every 5 years. and we have a very healthy forest, they come in a remove the trees that have outgrowth there usefulness, those that are wind damaged, twisted and crooked. And leave a healthy forest that actually grows much faster and is able to support a healthy and thriving deer heard, as well as many other form of wildlife.

yes i'm concerned about wildlife. Why are you twisting my words around like that?

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:30 PM
But see there will always be someone that doesn't listen, doesn't know, doesn't care, or doesn't do the right thing. You can educate people all you want but it doesn't mean that they will wash their bags, let alone their hands, and so years could go by and we are still educating people on how to wash after themselves and how to handle food. Nobody is forcing them to use contaminated bags with a plastic bag ban, but they will have to make a choice between what type of bags they would need to use after that and would have to take on some responsibility of having good hygiene.

I think that you are going to be mad at me, because you went right where I hoped that you would go. I agree that you can only do so much and then it becomes personel responsiblity, like with healthcare and Insurance, With Gun right you can only talk about safty so much, and still you will have criminals. And then there is the abortion thing, they can be told to use birth control and taught to use birth control and still some refuse to use it, they need to have some responsibility do they not?

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:32 PM
yes i'm concerned about wildlife. Why are you twisting my words around like that?


I am sorry I am really tired tonight and that came out wrong.

I should ahve said that your first post addressed wildlife and your second post talked about old trees?

I am saying that we can have both.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:33 PM
I think that you are going to be mad at me, because you went right where I hoped that you would go. I agree that you can only do so much and then it becomes personel responsiblity, like with healthcare and Insurance, With Gun right you can only talk about safty so much, and still you will have criminals. And then there is the abortion thing, they can be told to use birth control and taught to use birth control and still some refuse to use it, they need to have some responsibility do they not?

Well no I understand that there is a certain amount of personal responsibility for everything I know that, but that doesn't mean that there can't be ways to encourage people to do the right thing and stuff like that.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:35 PM
I am sorry I am really tired tonight and that came out wrong.

I should ahve said that your first post addressed wildlife and your second post talked about old trees?

I am saying that we can have both.

Well yes of course we can have both, but a tree farm is not the same type of wilderness in my opinion. It's still a tree which is great, but animals get displaced all the time by human beings cutting down forests for development.

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:38 PM
Well no I understand that there is a certain amount of personal responsibility for everything I know that, but that doesn't mean that there can't be ways to encourage people to do the right thing and stuff like that.

:highfive: Now you are getting it, we can encourage people to safly use reusable bags, and we can encourage stores to use biodegradable bags for those that do not want to use the reusables, and as we get more and more companies to use these, the cost will come down, and eventually the plastic bag will be the most expensive and undesireable.

But we do not have to force people to use what you want them to use. Do you see the difference?

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 08:40 PM
Actually Old growth forests are only good for the rodent families. Deer, Rabbits, Pheasants, Grouse, Bears, and other wild life are creatures of the edge. Old growth forests have little brouse, and offer animals little thermal cover. So the starve in the winter. They need the low hanging branches, and grasses of the edge. Not to mention that the limbs and leaves are totally shaded in old growth forests, and are easily set on fire. Thus you have the amssive forest fires we have every year. Selective Harvest of Trees, allows the sun to penitrate the canopy and cause new growth.

Have you determined that you know more than Mother Nature, which has worked for millenia. Everything on this planet has a purpose, whether that purpose may evade you. In winter, the edge dwellers enter the forest. The predators hunt the rodents, the herbivors eat bark and exposed vegetation.

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:42 PM
Well yes of course we can have both, but a tree farm is not the same type of wilderness in my opinion. It's still a tree which is great, but animals get displaced all the time by human beings cutting down forests for development.

tree farms are a little different as they are usually clear cut and then replanted by the owners, These are usually paper trees and they grow very fast!

this is a type of farming if you will.

Also remember that old growth forests will displace wildlfe as well because there is no cover and no food!

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 08:45 PM
tree farms are a little different as they are usually clear cut and then replanted by the owners, These are usually paper trees and they grow very fast!

this is a type of farming if you will.

Also remember that old growth forests will displace wildlfe as well because there is no cover and no food!
Sigh.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:46 PM
:highfive: Now you are getting it, we can encourage people to safly use reusable bags, and we can encourage stores to use biodegradable bags for those that do not want to use the reusables, and as we get more and more companies to use these, the cost will come down, and eventually the plastic bag will be the most expensive and undesireable.

But we do not have to force people to use what you want them to use. Do you see the difference?

The problem is that the majority of companies that use them are not going to switch over to something else when they can get plastic bags for like a penny each and have that as their main bag source at checkout. When you say that "eventually" things will get better that could be like 20 years down the road, which is just not acceptable to me i'm sorry. A ban, even just like a ban on the amount that the store can buy, would be better than waiting for a company to have a change of conscience and voluntarily choose to not pay less for cheap plastic bags over reusable bags or biodegradable bags. I just don't have that much faith in a lot of companies who make it well known that profit is their primary concern.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:48 PM
tree farms are a little different as they are usually clear cut and then replanted by the owners, These are usually paper trees and they grow very fast!

this is a type of farming if you will.

Also remember that old growth forests will displace wildlfe as well because there is no cover and no food!

I'm sorry but I'm just not understanding the logic. Old growth forests have been sustaining life for centuries, tree farms have not. Plus tree farms do not exist for the benefit of the environment or animals, they exist for OUR benefit and for industry.

Peter1469
02-08-2013, 08:48 PM
Why do we have to train people to use reusable bags safety? What are we, apes?

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:48 PM
Have you determined that you know more than Mother Nature, which has worked for millenia. Everything on this planet has a purpose, whether that purpose may evade you. In winter, the edge dwellers enter the forest. The predators hunt the rodents, the herbivors eat bark and exposed vegetation.

Want to come to MI right now and see how many tracks are in the old growth forests, there is no thermal cover and no food, and they can't get through the snow well, they animlas are in the heavey cover of the swamps, they are in the slashings created by the block clear cutting, you will find squirrel track in the old growth forests, but little else.

Now I know why mother nature burns forests, to restart them and create the habitat for animals to thrive. So now is it better fo harvest some trees, put people to work, in the USA, instead of Canada, have cheaper lumber that will lead to cheaper homes. Or is it better to start a fire and let all of that smoke and polution go into the air! either way you are going to generate new growth. It is just one way you benifit mankind, and the other you feel godd about saving all of the trees that just were burnt to the ground.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 08:49 PM
Why do we have to train people to use reusable bags safety? What are we, apes?

I was kind of thinking that earlier but couldn't think of how to say it. :)

If we wait till everybody is educated on washing their hands after going to the bathroom and washing a bag that had raw meat in it then we will be waiting a very long time.

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:51 PM
I'm sorry but I'm just not understanding the logic. Old growth forests have been sustaining life for centuries, tree farms have not. Plus tree farms do not exist for the benefit of the environment or animals, they exist for OUR benefit and for industry.

I guess that I dont agree that they sustain life, as there are few that live there, so we can just disagree on this.

As far as the tree farms, they were usually not forest to begin with, they were fields. that were planted into treesl And the tree farms actually are very responsible for the return of the wild turkey. But the fact that they were not forest to begin with is what I was trying to say.

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 08:54 PM
I was kind of thinking that earlier but couldn't think of how to say it. :)

If we wait till everybody is educated on washing their hands after going to the bathroom and washing a bag that had raw meat in it then we will be waiting a very long time.

If you go to Youtube and watch Colin Quinn, long story short? there is a funny part about washin your hands.

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 08:59 PM
Want to come to MI right now and see how many tracks are in the old growth forests, there is no thermal cover and no food, and they can't get through the snow well, they animlas are in the heavey cover of the swamps, they are in the slashings created by the block clear cutting, you will find squirrel track in the old growth forests, but little else.

Now I know why mother nature burns forests, to restart them and create the habitat for animals to thrive. So now is it better fo harvest some trees, put people to work, in the USA, instead of Canada, have cheaper lumber that will lead to cheaper homes. Or is it better to start a fire and let all of that smoke and polution go into the air! either way you are going to generate new growth. It is just one way you benifit mankind, and the other you feel godd about saving all of the trees that just were burnt to the ground.

The problem is that your reforesters have a profit motive. They do not reproduce the biodiversity of the forest, thus the wildlife becomes less biodiverse. Every action on this planet produces and effect which has an effect on something else. This is how species become extinct.

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 09:04 PM
The problem is that your reforesters have a profit motive. They do not reproduce the biodiversity of the forest, thus the wildlife becomes less biodiverse. Every action on this planet produces and effect which has an effect on something else. This is how species become extinct.


If you manage it that way you are correct, but I have one of the few huntable witl populations of quail and pheasants. We have duck ponds that hatch ducks every year, a great small game, populations, as well as turkeys and deer. because of this we have the preditors as well.

But there are some that manage there properties of ronly deer, or only waterfowl. and they are less diverse,

zelmo1234
02-08-2013, 09:09 PM
The problem is that the majority of companies that use them are not going to switch over to something else when they can get plastic bags for like a penny each and have that as their main bag source at checkout. When you say that "eventually" things will get better that could be like 20 years down the road, which is just not acceptable to me i'm sorry. A ban, even just like a ban on the amount that the store can buy, would be better than waiting for a company to have a change of conscience and voluntarily choose to not pay less for cheap plastic bags over reusable bags or biodegradable bags. I just don't have that much faith in a lot of companies who make it well known that profit is their primary concern.

And that is when you devide people and make them want to use plastic bags just to spite people. You educate people and they start to shop at the stores that support there belief, and as the movment grows, then you have the price of biodegradalbes go down and plastic go up.

If the enviromentalist would set a goal to get rid of plastics through educations in 10 years, they could accomplish that goal by taking it one step at a time. It is the lead a horse to water thing.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 09:12 PM
And that is when you devide people and make them want to use plastic bags just to spite people. You educate people and they start to shop at the stores that support there belief, and as the movment grows, then you have the price of biodegradalbes go down and plastic go up.

If the enviromentalist would set a goal to get rid of plastics through educations in 10 years, they could accomplish that goal by taking it one step at a time. It is the lead a horse to water thing.

hmmm. I don't have that kind of patience :sad:

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 09:14 PM
If you manage it that way you are correct, but I have one of the few huntable witl populations of quail and pheasants. We have duck ponds that hatch ducks every year, a great small game, populations, as well as turkeys and deer. because of this we have the preditors as well.

But there are some that manage there properties of ronly deer, or only waterfowl. and they are less diverse,

Biodiversity is more than the huntable animals on your property. It also includes the primitive one and two celled creatures in the ponds. The diversity of insect life, how many different toad species you have, how many insect species abound. All of these things affect some other creature and ultimate lead to the success or failure of species.

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 09:17 PM
hmmm. I don't have that kind of patience :sad:
The price of biodegradables is not that high. Certainly if you can afford to buy a Starbuck's coffee once or twice a week, you can afford biodegradable bags.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 09:18 PM
The price of biodegradables is not that high. Certainly if you can afford to buy a Starbuck's coffee once or twice a week, you can afford biodegradable bags.

No I completely agree. People act like a couple of dollars will put them into poverty or something while at the same time they spend that same amount of money on random things every single day.

Chris
02-08-2013, 09:41 PM
This will only happen at least initially on a municpal level. If a city is pushed to the wall with respect to getting rid of garbage and at the same time does not want to increase taxes exponentially to truck municipal garbage thousands of miles, they will undertake recycling measures. Depending on the cost of plastics disposal to that municipality's budget, you may see a ban on regular plastic bags. It is unlikely that the biodegradable bag would be mandated except in conjunction with recycling of biodegradables (i.e. vegetables, meat, other spoiled items from the refrigerator etc.) which you might be unlikely to put in a paper bag. The citizens of the municipality will then have the choice of paper bags - often excessively susceptible to liquids, or biodegradable plastic, which offers a more hygienic outcome. The people will choose.

Such paternalistic governing does not offer free choice. It offers only what a few governing elites dictate the choices will be. Question still stands, if these ideas are so good why do they need to be mandated by law?

Chris
02-08-2013, 09:44 PM
Except they cause unforeseen problems. Think out a bit down the causal chain, please.


There will always be unforeseen problems regardless

Ah, so don't thing ahead to possible consequences just rush blindly to a solution. As the OP demonstrates, that leads to more problems.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 09:46 PM
Such paternalistic governing does not offer free choice. It offers only what a few governing elites dictate the choices will be. Question still stands, if these ideas are so good why do they need to be mandated by law?

If not for law I wouldn't be able to vote. Just because it isn't currently law doesn't mean that it shouldn't be law.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 09:48 PM
Ah, so don't thing ahead to possible consequences just rush blindly to a solution. As the OP demonstrates, that leads to more problems.

there aren't any problems in the OP. Wash your hands and use good judgement when carrying raw foods. Just because some people don't isn't a reason to wait on being responsible in my opinion. The bigger problem is over a billion plastic bags that will not leave the planet for thousands of years.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 09:56 PM
Chris you don't honestly believe that bags cause food poisoning do you? You can substitute the bag for really anything and the effect would be the same if someone doesn't wash their hands or take care in what they are doing with raw food. Put raw chicken in a tupperware and it will do the exact same thing as a bag, but the thing is that people wash their tupperware and don't wash their bags. Simple fix is to wash the bag that carried food that could carry bacteria. Same goes for washing your hands after you use the bathroom or handle something gross. The bag is actually the victim in this case.

Chris
02-08-2013, 10:25 PM
No I completely agree. People act like a couple of dollars will put them into poverty or something while at the same time they spend that same amount of money on random things every single day.

Who's money is it? Your argument here is, principally, the exact opposite of your abortion argument.

Chris
02-08-2013, 10:27 PM
Chris you don't honestly believe that bags cause food poisoning do you? You can substitute the bag for really anything and the effect would be the same if someone doesn't wash their hands or take care in what they are doing with raw food. Put raw chicken in a tupperware and it will do the exact same thing as a bag, but the thing is that people wash their tupperware and don't wash their bags. Simple fix is to wash the bag that carried food that could carry bacteria. Same goes for washing your hands after you use the bathroom or handle something gross. The bag is actually the victim in this case.

We've been around this corner already. The use of nondisposables has increased risk over disposables. The solution is a problem.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 10:28 PM
Who's money is it? Your argument here is, principally, the exact opposite of your abortion argument.

I don't understand I'm sorry. What do you mean that it's the opposite of my abortion argument? As for money it's the person's own money that would buy the bags, just like it's their money that buys the donuts they had for breakfast.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 10:29 PM
We've been around this corner already. The use of nondisposables has increased risk over disposables. The solution is a problem.

Disposables are wasteful though. Whereas the non disposables require simple cleaning.

Chris
02-08-2013, 10:29 PM
If not for law I wouldn't be able to vote. Just because it isn't currently law doesn't mean that it shouldn't be law.

Voting laws gives you choices, the paternalistic law who posted about reduces choices.

Chris
02-08-2013, 10:32 PM
there aren't any problems in the OP. Wash your hands and use good judgement when carrying raw foods. Just because some people don't isn't a reason to wait on being responsible in my opinion. The bigger problem is over a billion plastic bags that will not leave the planet for thousands of years.

The very fact that you need to suggest another solution demonstrates the ban caused additional problems. I'm not arguing that plastic bags are not a problem, I'm arguing that the solution should not force choices and should not lead to more problems.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 10:33 PM
Voting laws gives you choices, the paternalistic law who posted about reduces choices.

I think though that it's a choice that people can live without. Not to make fun of people but if someone truly misses a plastic bag at the grocery store then they have some issues in my opinion.

Chris
02-08-2013, 10:33 PM
Disposables are wasteful though. Whereas the non disposables require simple cleaning.

Again, not arguing which is better. Arguing a good solution would not force choice or cause more problems.

Chris
02-08-2013, 10:35 PM
I think though that it's a choice that people can live without. Not to make fun of people but if someone truly misses a plastic bag at the grocery store then they have some issues in my opinion.

And you are who to decide this for others? --Back to my point about you contradicting your abortion stance: There you argue my body, my choice, here you argue your life, my choice. Be consistent in principles.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 10:37 PM
And you are who to decide this for others? --Back to my point about you contradicting your abortion stance: There you argue my body, my choice, here you argue your life, my choice. Be consistent in principles.

It's a contradiction but they aren't the same thing. One affects the environment and the other affects one person's body.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 10:42 PM
Also why can't I be someone to decide something like that? If I put an idea out there and people like it and make it a rule then that's normal and ok I think.

Chris
02-08-2013, 10:54 PM
It's a contradiction but they aren't the same thing. One affects the environment and the other affects one person's body.

One should have a single set of principles, not conflicting one...I think. Just saying. It's an aside, distraction from main topic, sorry.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 10:57 PM
One should have a single set of principles, not conflicting one...I think. Just saying. It's an aside, distraction from main topic, sorry.

I guess I just don't consider those two things to be related or of equal importance I don't know. I know I'm not perfect and I'm sure I'm a hypocrite in some ways that I don't see, but I think you can be for one thing and against another in spite of some similarities.

Chris
02-08-2013, 10:59 PM
Also why can't I be someone to decide something like that? If I put an idea out there and people like it and make it a rule then that's normal and ok I think.

Sure, if you come up with an idea and PERSUADE people to voluntarily adopt it, great!! But your solution seems to say you decide and then ask government to impose your opinion on others. This goes back to who's idea and my asking do you think it would sell, and he saying government should offer only two of three choices. Convince people, persuade them, that's better. Heck I was persuaded enough to tell the cashier don't plastic bag some of my groceries today. So I'mnot arguing against the idea, just how it's implemented--and whether it leads to more problems.

Chris
02-08-2013, 11:01 PM
I guess I just don't consider those two things to be related or of equal importance I don't know. I know I'm not perfect and I'm sure I'm a hypocrite in some ways that I don't see, but I think you can be for one thing and against another in spite of some similarities.

They're not. I'm talking about the principle you apply to arrive at a choice, at a decision, a solution. One embraces liberty--free choice--and the other coercion, force--no choice.

Chloe
02-08-2013, 11:03 PM
Sure, if you come up with an idea and PERSUADE people to voluntarily adopt it, great!! But your solution seems to say you decide and then ask government to impose your opinion on others. This goes back to who's idea and my asking do you think it would sell, and he saying government should offer only two of three choices. Convince people, persuade them, that's better. Heck I was persuaded enough to tell the cashier don't plastic bag some of my groceries today. So I'mnot arguing against the idea, just how it's implemented--and whether it leads to more problems.

Fair enough. I don't completely agree but I'm happy you didn't do all plastic :)

I know I want to impose my opinion and not a lot of people like that, but I just think that sometimes things like that have to be done otherwise it will never happen on its own, and if it does happen on its own then it could be too late.

Guerilla
02-08-2013, 11:05 PM
We've been around this corner already. The use of nondisposables has increased risk over disposables. The solution is a problem.

Seriously we are still on this? They are non disposable bags. that means you use it more than once. If you use anything more than once (especially when handling food) you should probably wash it. Most people wash their clothes after wearing them one time. If they didn't, their clothes would be gross. Same thing with nondisposable bags! If plastic bags were reused and not washed, i'm sure they would have bacteria in them to.

Chris
02-08-2013, 11:08 PM
Yes, we disagree, but that's OK, good in fact.

Peter1469
02-08-2013, 11:13 PM
If society determines that plastic bags cause more harm than good, then society should eliminate plastic bags. If the lesser intelligent (dim) get sick because they can't manage to clean their reusable bags, that is just natural selection. I don't see the problem.

Dr. Who
02-08-2013, 11:25 PM
Such paternalistic governing does not offer free choice. It offers only what a few governing elites dictate the choices will be. Question still stands, if these ideas are so good why do they need to be mandated by law?
Let's not be naive, people are most prone to do what is easiest. If it requires a departure from what is their norm, they don't want to do it. Recycling involves more effort than chucking everything in the same garbage can. The only way to make people recycle is to mandate it. Similarly, the only way to make people choose the more expensive option of using biodegradable bags is to ban regular plastic bags. People will begin bringing/buying reusable purpose made bags to grocery stores.. For garbage, depending on the municipality, they may or may not be able to use regular plastic garbage bags. For recyclables, the city may mandate biodegradable. It all depends on what processes the city puts in place.

The bottom line is that municipality is telling the citizens of the city that they won't be raising their taxes by an extra $100 or $200 per year, which would be the new cost of eliminating the garbage, by virtue of buying into the new plan. This is probably not a big factor for cities with populations under a million, but for the bigger cities it has a huge impact on taxes. I live in one of those larger cities where garbage disposal became critical. I have one large bin for general recycling (paper and plastics), one small bin for garbage - non recyclables, and an even smaller bin for biological matter. I don't mind knowing that we are recycling 60% plus percent of our waste.

donttread
11-11-2018, 08:44 AM
Concern for the environment is good but without concern for consequences it can go awry.



@ The Disgusting Consequences of Plastic-Bag Bans (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-04/the-disgusting-consequences-of-liberal-plastic-bag-bans.html)

Paper bags is what we used to use and each could actually hold more than a couple of pounds. Today you sometimes get bags with one damned item in them! So maybe part of the solution would be bigger plastic bags

Chris
11-11-2018, 09:29 AM
Let's not be naive, people are most prone to do what is easiest. If it requires a departure from what is their norm, they don't want to do it. Recycling involves more effort than chucking everything in the same garbage can. The only way to make people recycle is to mandate it. Similarly, the only way to make people choose the more expensive option of using biodegradable bags is to ban regular plastic bags. People will begin bringing/buying reusable purpose made bags to grocery stores.. For garbage, depending on the municipality, they may or may not be able to use regular plastic garbage bags. For recyclables, the city may mandate biodegradable. It all depends on what processes the city puts in place.

The bottom line is that municipality is telling the citizens of the city that they won't be raising their taxes by an extra $100 or $200 per year, which would be the new cost of eliminating the garbage, by virtue of buying into the new plan. This is probably not a big factor for cities with populations under a million, but for the bigger cities it has a huge impact on taxes. I live in one of those larger cities where garbage disposal became critical. I have one large bin for general recycling (paper and plastics), one small bin for garbage - non recyclables, and an even smaller bin for biological matter. I don't mind knowing that we are recycling 60% plus percent of our waste.


3 cheers for central planning telling the people what's good for them!!!