The Rise and Fall of the Plastic Bag

[British Red]

Theres a actually a lot of pertinent observations there Swallow.

If you want to stop people wasting food, food wrappings and bags, get them to grow their own food, so the waste that occurs is their effort, rather than hydrocarbons used in transport, wrapping etc.

Makes complete sense to me.

 

[Macaroon]

That's a good post #160, Swallow............Too many links in a chain, so to speak, creates a separation from the reality of things and when reality is at a remove human nature will always find a way to ignore it; this is then fostered by those who profit from this separation from the reality of food, fuel and energy etc.

There's been some interesting debate on this thread, who'd have thought it would have such legs?..........................atb mac

 

[Rod Paradise]

I suspect you will find it is ignoring the published scientific evidence that shows a closed mind there Rod

I took that out deliberately Red, I didn't want to let the argument degenerate, you saw it though, so I apologise.

Red, where is the scientific evidence that the bag tax doesn't reduce litter?

You're throwing up a smokescreen of science when it's not a scientific problem (unless sociology is a science) - as a society our attitude to litter sucks - other societies with the same problem addressed a small part of it, namely the free carrier bag, and have seen a marked improvement. Where does a scientific evidence requirement appear in there?

Apart from the scientific evidence red herring you're throwing out a list of other components of the litter problem, if the bag tax only reduced the littering of carrier bags then there wouldn't be the marked reduction in litter overall. It's NOT the tax on bags, or the lowered use of them, it's the change of society's attitude caused by needing to think about their actions that makes the difference.

And in the end, if it's a small step, you don't not make it because it doesn't fix everything, you make the small step and look to the next one.

 

[British Red]

The point is Rod that the change being forced upon the consumer results in the utilisation of more environmentally destructive alternatives - the cotton bag or paper bag are examples that the report goes into. I think the red herring is the lack of clear focus as to why this is being done. It is clearly not an environmental improvement - indeed it makes things worse - the report proves this. It is clearly not the worse item - or even the most solvable - item of litter - so why choose bags? Because its a silly "cause celebre" and a piece of "me too" legislation that lacks logic and foundation. This why it is bad law. Good law will address and reduce or solve a problem - bad law is "feel good" law or "be seen to be doing something" law.

Littering is already illegal. So if this law is about littering, its basic raison d'etre is to say "because people don't obey the law we will pass more laws". That is the height of absurdity. It also punishes the innocent because we cannot find the guilty. That is bad law.

The scientific evidence shows this law does not improve environmental concerns. So it has no validity on environmental grounds.

 

[rik_uk3]

The point is Rod that the change being forced upon the consumer results in the utilisation of more environmentally destructive alternatives - the cotton bag or paper bag are examples that the report goes into. I think the red herring is the lack of clear focus as to why this is being done. It is clearly not an environmental improvement - indeed it makes things worse - the report proves this. It is clearly not the worse item - or even the most solvable - item of litter - so why choose bags? Because its a silly "cause celebre" and a piece of "me too" legislation that lacks logic and foundation. This why it is bad law. Good law will address and reduce or solve a problem - bad law is "feel good" law or "be seen to be doing something" law.

Littering is already illegal. So if this law is about littering, its basic raison d'etre is to say "because people don't obey the law we will pass more laws". That is the height of absurdity. It also punishes the innocent because we cannot find the guilty. That is bad law.

The scientific evidence shows this law does not improve environmental concerns. So it has no validity on environmental grounds.

Don't give a rats bottom so long as my town and countryside is tidy to be honest.

 

[Swallow]

A forced change is a "maintained from the outside" change. Sometimes the situation is bad enough for that to be necessary. Sometimes it is thought to be so.

Regardless of whether it is necessary or not, it's nature is that because it is forcing compliance in, it is not drawing responsibility or love for one's world out.


So what you end up with is a short term solution with two kinds of responses.

One group of people embrace/want the change. So they haven't changed because they were already like that in first place.

One resist and oppose the change. So they haven't changed because they were already like that in first place.


So the only change is on the surface and it's impact is limited. It can't grow beyond what it is and that leads to denial of the nature of the problem or further forced change.

 

[Rod Paradise]

Final words because beating my head against a brick wall is more fun.

An inability to see logic and foundation does NOT mean there is not logic or foundation.

Logically - a bag tax has caused a notable reduction in litter in general in Ireland, Germany & Wales - it would cause same here is a logical thing to assume.

There's a missing logic in saying it is environmentally unsound, because you are taking a straight substitution, cheap free bags for alternatives, and ignoring the knock-on effect of other forms of litter which have been shown to be reduced as a consequence.

The law against Littering patently is a failure, so either it is made stricter, or a change of approach is required. Oh look, these countries tried a different approach and it works.

I'll be honest & say that the anti's here strike me as bloody rude in ignoring those who say the tax has had a positive impact in favour of continuing argue as if it's all theoretical thinking.

Enough for me - I'm pig sick of it now.

 

[British Red]

I'll be honest & say that the anti's here strike me as bloody rude in ignoring those who say the tax has had a positive impact in favour of continuing argue as if it's all theoretical thinking.

Enough for me - I'm pig sick of it now.

Amazing how having an opinion and not towing the line (and providing evidence as to why it wont work) is seen as "bloody rude". Lets not have freedom of speech eh? It might expose bad ideas.

And they wonder why young people don't care about politics. If they get shouted down for having an opinion, why would they?

Personally I find the swearing rude - not having a different opinion. But that's just me.

 

[rik_uk3]

The recent methanol thread and this one are true classics Anyone go on bushcraftliving? They used to have these sorts of threads but not these days as nobody uses the place.

 

[pastymuncher]

It was "scientific" fact that the world was flat, until "scientists" proved otherwise.

The only thing this proves is that scientists are only right until proven wrong, peer reviewed or not.


Carry on................

 

[Swallow]

Final words because beating my head against a brick wall is more fun.

An inability to see logic and foundation does NOT mean there is not logic or foundation.

Logically - a bag tax has caused a notable reduction in litter in general in Ireland, Germany & Wales - it would cause same here is a logical thing to assume.

There's a missing logic in saying it is environmentally unsound, because you are taking a straight substitution, cheap free bags for alternatives, and ignoring the knock-on effect of other forms of litter which have been shown to be reduced as a consequence.

The law against Littering patently is a failure, so either it is made stricter, or a change of approach is required. Oh look, these countries tried a different approach and it works.

I'll be honest & say that the anti's here strike me as bloody rude in ignoring those who say the tax has had a positive impact in favour of continuing argue as if it's all theoretical thinking.

Enough for me - I'm pig sick of it now.

@Rod,

I think there is a difference between being anti and trying to go for a bigger more important piece of the puzzle, or at least make sure you have the right one, which is how I've interpreted BR's line.

@BR

I always thought it was "toe the line".

 

[Rod Paradise]

Amazing how having an opinion and not towing the line (and providing evidence as to why it wont work) is seen as "bloody rude". Lets not have freedom of speech eh? It might expose bad ideas.

And they wonder why young people don't care about politics. If they get shouted down for having an opinion, why would they?

Personally I find the swearing rude - not having a different opinion. But that's just me.

As yet Red you seem to have ignored any argument, or any request to further explain yours and instead have ranted on. You've managed to ignore arguments and instead selectively quoted attacking my frustration and my 'bad' language. I appologise for hurting your frail sensibilities & hope at some point you consider the many points you've managed to so politely ignore.

 

[mountainm]

It was "scientific" fact that the world was flat, until "scientists" proved otherwise.

Scientists hypothised the world was flat. Although I wouldn't say it became an accepted theory as a lot of ancient scientists, mathematicians and mariners thought it was spherical. Only when we went to space were we able to 'prove' the round earth theory and it became fact or law.

Back to bags.

 

[British Red]

As yet Red you seem to have ignored any argument, or any request to further explain yours and instead have ranted on. You've managed to ignore arguments and instead selectively quoted attacking my frustration and my 'bad' language. I appologise for hurting your frail sensibilities & hope at some point you consider the many points you've managed to so politely ignore.

I haven't ignored any points Rod, read back over my posts. The environmental argument is spurious. The litter argument may decrease "visible" litter but causes more environmental damage than the status quo.

The argument that "it works" whilst admitting that it cynically targets people who have done, and are doing, nothing wrong is not a good argument. Many breaches of existing legislation could be reduced by punishing the guilty and innocent alike - but that not the type of oppressive society I choose to live in.

Any other points you would like me to consider?

 

[Rod Paradise]

I haven't ignored any points Rod, read back over my posts. The environmental argument is spurious. The litter argument may decrease "visible" litter but causes more environmental damage than the status quo.

The argument that "it works" whilst admitting that it cynically targets people who have done, and are doing, nothing wrong is not a good argument. Many breaches of existing legislation could be reduced by punishing the guilty and innocent alike - but that not the type of oppressive society I choose to live in.

Any other points you would like me to consider?

No Red - away and report the crime to Amnesty International. I'm done before you break Godwin's Law.

 

[pastymuncher]

Scientists hypothised the world was flat. Although I wouldn't say it became an accepted theory as a lot of ancient scientists, mathematicians and mariners thought it was spherical. Only when we went to space were we able to 'prove' the round earth theory and it became fact or law.

Back to bags.

I think you are probably quite correct in your statement.

But this thread has only proved one unequivocal fact to me (peer reviewed by myself)....


Life is too short for forums

 

[mountainm]

I think you are probably quite correct in your statement.

But this thread has only proved one unequivocal fact to me (peer reviewed by myself)....


Life is too short for forums

Shhhh! I'm running interference.

 

[Midnitehound]

Scientists hypothised the world was flat. Although I wouldn't say it became an accepted theory as a lot of ancient scientists, mathematicians and mariners thought it was spherical. Only when we went to space were we able to 'prove' the round earth theory and it became fact or law.

Back to bags.

Scientists hypothesize in our day that the Sun is powered by thermonuclear fusion whereas all the evidence and observation now shows that it is blatantly electrical in nature and that it is powered from without not from within. Now when that rattles the cage of the the 'hundredth monkey' nobody is going to be spending time discussing plastic bags or carbon pinkieprints.

 

[Midnitehound]

No Red - away and report the crime to Amnesty International. I'm done before you break Godwin's Law.

Technically he would be confirming Godwin's Law, not breaking it. Even Hitler would have known that!

First!!!!

Anyway, the Nazi's developed and enacted many laws that worked, they didn't do much to also maintain the Principles of Freedom and Common Law though did they? I'm sure Deutschland was really tidy after they cleansed all those filthy litter and corruption spreading Juden! (tongue planted firmly in cheek!). okenest:

Godwin's Law stands for another day unlike the Big Bang, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Einsteinian Relativity, a Gravity Driven Universe and a Thermonuclear Sun, oh and Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

[Tengu]

Mountainman you are correct; only prescientifics believe the world is flat, because they are pig ignorant.

When scientists got to examine it, they quickly realised the world was round and their atlases were problematic.

And Midnitehound, you are also correct, the Nazis had many good ideas, however they were utopianists and so therefore wrong, because people are pig ignorant. (but not so pig ignorant as to want to be equal to dogs.)