SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
In an effort to reduce plastic bag pollution, Kenya has introduced tough laws that will result in a prison term of up to 4 years or a maximum of $40,000 for any Kenyan producing, selling or even using plastic bags, although initial enforcement will target manufacturers and suppliers.
"The East African nation joins more than 40 other countries that have banned, partly banned or taxed single use plastic bags, including China, France, Rwanda and Italy."
Bags can take 500-1000 years to decompose, in the mean time killing or harming wildlife and entering the human food chain.
What is being done about plastic bag pollution where you live?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Kenya Introduces Big Penalties for Plastic Bags
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 124 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
94% of the women in America are beautiful and the rest hang out around here.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:37PM (28 children)
My reusable paper bag was so worn out and torn from overuse, the clerk took it away and gave me a new bag. If you're not reusing your bags until they literally tear apart, you're murdering the planet.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:59PM (6 children)
Get lost, hippie. SN is news for millionaire boomers whose life goal is to rape and pillage and whoever dies with the most money wins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:04PM (5 children)
TMB stop posting AC we know it is you.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:46PM (4 children)
Lol, tmb & co. got twiggahd.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:57PM
Lol! AC got spammodded for Lol.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:01PM (2 children)
Ok it isn't TMB, he doesn't have the attention span for this sustained level of downmodding. It must be the kmorrollow faction. Teeny tiny snowflakes melting in the hot Kenyan sun, afraid for their lives as they get surrounded by dark skinned people.
(Score: -1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:07PM (1 child)
Suck an olive-skinned Elon cock. Anythung darker is too darkie.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:11PM
Too late, this one is a puddle. Looks like a piss snowflake too, all yellow and homophobic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:06PM (9 children)
I can't tell if this is serious or joking. If serious, buy a $2 durable and reusable bag, then you can plea down from murder to planetslaughter.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:59PM (8 children)
How many natural resources are used and how much emissions are created in the production of the $2 bag compared to that of the recently prohibited bag? And how many natural resources are used and how much emissions are created when a $2 bag is washed after every use [ctvnews.ca]?
And if a dog owner can no longer reuse one-way carrier bags to dispose of dog waste, what should a dog owner use instead?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:08PM (2 children)
Poop bags are a problem, I don't see an easy solution there.
For grocery shopping, a decent reusable bag should last decades. If you are a responsible person and manage to use that bag the majority of the time then in a single year you will already have saved on the physical material side. Each reusable bag load is 2-5X the capacity of the crappy plastic bags, and often those crappy bags are doubled up anyway to prevent them from breaking. So in some cases 4-10 shitty plastic bags are saved per use of the reusable. Over the lifetime of the reusable bag (which can also be used in other situations) I can't imagine this argument as being even slightly plausible.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:03PM
The solution is simple: don't own a dog, especially in an urban setting.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:46PM
My girlfriend uses biodegradable bags for her dog. I mean I guess they're still plastic of some form, but if the point is to prevent environmental impact those should work.
People have no faith in the strength of modern plastics. I pile those disposable bags full until literally nothing else will fit, and I've never had one break. And I never double-bag. I'll throw three 64oz juice bottles in one bag, and toss a six-pack of small glass bottles on top of them, and carry it up three flights of stairs. Those bags are a hell of a lot stronger than you think.
The reusable bags use as many resources to produce and supply as a couple hundred disposable ones. I'd have to use that thing every time I go shopping for several decades (I got shopping about once a month) before it would break even. I'd almost certainly lose or break the bag before then. A better approach is to reuse the disposable plastic bags, although you *might* want to start double-bagging them after a couple uses if you use them the way I do... ;)
http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/reusable-bags-only-superior-to-plastic-if-you-reuse-them-a-lot/ [opb.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:23PM (1 child)
> And if a dog owner can no longer reuse one-way carrier bags to dispose of dog waste, what should a dog owner use instead?
I carry a 7-iron along with on walks.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:13AM
This is Kenya. That is not a "dog owner". That is a restauranteur.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:07PM (1 child)
The people who scream the most about the alleged environmental impact of plastic bags are always the kind of people who own at least a couple of vanity dogs.
These people are incapable of realizing that their dogs are far more harmful to the environment than a few plastic bags are.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:14PM
The people who get hysterical and make fales accusations are always the kind of assholes you hope are living a few states away. Stereotypes, while often containing some validity, are bad mmkay? They encourage you to shut off your brain and make false equivalencies that make you feel good / righteous / whatever.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:43PM
It seems like you have a couple [flushdoggy.com] choices [amazon.com] in degradable/flushable dog poop bags, with some caveats.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:14PM (2 children)
Reusable paper bags are crap, for that very reason. They're not durable; paper cannot be. Paper falls apart as soon as it gets wet. That's why we have reusable plastic shopping bags now: they're made from recycled plastic, they're cheap, but they last a really long time because they're plastic, and they can handle a lot of weight too.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:00PM (1 child)
You're wrong about paper bags. I reuse them constantly when I forget to have the extremely durable reusable bags with me. For that matter, some are canvas and a lot tougher. Trader Joe's sells some pretty damn tough bags.
The paper bags are useful in all kinds of ways, and are more reusable then you think. I fold mine after use and keep a collection of folded paper bags. Anytime I need to go somewhere I find myself often grabbing one and putting my stuff in it. Probably have 50-60 by now. If you have kids or projects, you can find use for them too. Not to mention kindling for starting fires, and probably a ton of other stuff I'm forgetting like covering school books.
Paper bags come in 100% recycled materials too, so we aren't chopping down forests getting the things anymore. I'd be interested to see the numbers crunched, but I disagree that paper bags are clearly that inferior. Although, on a rainy day, I would spend the effort to find the Trader Joe's bag.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:22PM
For that matter, some are canvas and a lot tougher.
Um, no. Canvas is not a type of paper, it's a type of cloth. It's not a paper bag at all. Canvas makes a pretty good bag I'll admit, but it's no more closely related to paper than reusable plastic bags are.
The paper bags are useful in all kinds of ways, and are more reusable then you think. I fold mine after use and keep a collection of folded paper bags. Anytime I need to go somewhere I find myself often grabbing one and putting my stuff in it
Yeah, I do the exact same thing with my reusable plastic shopping bags. And unlike your crappy paper bags, when mine get wet (either because of rain or because something spilled in the bag), it's no big deal since plastic is impervious to water. They sell the things for less than a dollar, so I have a bunch of them.
Not to mention kindling for starting fires
If I want to start a fire, I've got plenty of waste paper for that; I certainly don't need a paper bag.
If you have kids or projects, you can find use for them too. ... like covering school books.
No kids here, and no school books. I never really saw the point of covering books when I was in school either; they stay in good shape just find as long as you don't abuse them.
I'd be interested to see the numbers crunched, but I disagree that paper bags are clearly that inferior. Although, on a rainy day, I would spend the effort to find the Trader Joe's bag.
Or you can just keep waterproof bags around instead, and not have to check the weather report before you decide which bags to bring with you. (I keep my plastic bags folded in my car trunk.) I'm sorry, I just don't see any advantage to paper bags at all, once you've spent a few dollars and gotten a decent collection of the plastic ones.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:02PM (6 children)
Ugh single use paper bags are better for combating climate change as they sequester carbon, especially if they are dump in a landfill and covered over with garbage so they don't decompose. New trees are grown to make the next batch of bags.
You are an idiot for thinking complex environmental things are simple.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:10PM (5 children)
Grocery stores and other shops used to use paper bags. Often they were made out of recycled paper, too. But then lefty environmentalist sorts threw a shit fit about this, so that's why plastic bags started to be used instead. "Save the trees!" and all that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:11PM (2 children)
The parent comment isn't trolling.
Paper bags were eliminated from supermarkets after protests from environmentalists who objected to the consumption of trees to produce these bags.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:36PM (1 child)
The environmentalists caused the whole plastic bag crisis by complaining about trees. Environmental Idiots.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:51PM
This is actually pretty typical for them. They often completely fail to understand economics. This causes them to completely misunderstand the costs and benefits associated with various courses of action. It doesn't matter who you are, you can't make good decisions when you don't understand the costs and the benefits involved.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:24AM (1 child)
"Save the trees" is one of the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Trees grow back. They literally grow on trees.
Plastic, on the other hand, is mostly made from petroleum, which does not grow on trees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:48AM
the "trees grow on trees" bit is funny, thank you. very fractal.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:31PM
A good plastic bad is quite durable and reusable. Indeed, I'd say even more so than a paper bag. It's only after disposal that paper is better.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:39PM
These stupid niggers are too worried about micromanaging shopping bags instead of worrying about eliminating nigger corruption or making their infrastructure reliable. Niggers need to learn about priorities.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:56PM (25 children)
It would be helpful if someone could train dog-owners not to leave plastic bags of dog fæces lying about hidden in long grass or tied to trees and bushes. Throwing them in domestic waste disposal is also a bad idea - the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is flush the contents down the toilet, then burn the bag (composting the fæces in special composters is also a possibility, but not everyone can do that). About the same amount of space in landfill sites is taken up by bags of dog fæces as nappies for human babies.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:12PM (4 children)
What we need is proper waste infrastructure. The simple fact is most people operate on convenience, so if they have to take a poop bag back home in their car and then separate the poop out you are just not going to have many people participate.
Similarly, recycling has many problems. Some waste companies have recycling bins yet they throw all recyclables into the landfill anyway because it is too expensive for them to separate and deal with the inevitable mixed garbage/recycling issues. I've seen my own garbage service toss both bins into the same truck, so at least my recycling bin is a PR prop only.
These are issues that must be tackled by the community since proper waste handling is not profitable.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:08PM (3 children)
I understand the Germans have some very impressive and convenient waste-handling facilities - dump in unsorted garbage and it gets mechanically sorted for recycleables (metals, glass, and I think plastic), while organics gt incinerated for energy. Profitable enough that they're importing huge quantities of other countries trash. Whether it would be profitable in the US with our cheaper energy and much laxer pollution regulations... I have no idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:47PM (2 children)
Not true! Germany is filthy. Dogs shit everywhere and people don't clean it up. The cheating diesel cars were illegal in the US but not Germany. And Gemany heavily burns brown coal, which is the dirtiest kind.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:06AM (1 child)
The US gets though 3.5kg of brown coal per capita per year.
Stop trying to pollute SoylentNews with your Fox-News-style "truths".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:31PM
How many kg per square mile?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:19PM (17 children)
Even better is if people just didn't have dogs in cities. They're nasty animals: they smell bad, they shit everywhere, many of them are huge and consume an inordinate amount of food (and then generate a lot of shit), they shed, they scratch up your car seats and car paint, they can't be left alone at home for too long, they're just a giant pain in the ass. I have no idea why Americans love them so much, especially women. Honestly, looking through online dating profiles, it seems like about 80% of white American women (generally liberal city-dwelling ones) have some giant dog.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:27PM (6 children)
Dogs provide companionship and security, and many people grow up with dogs and enjoy having them around. I've never noticed any partisan trend with pet ownership, perhaps you're just running into the fact that most urban dwellers happen to be liberal.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:28PM (3 children)
Dogs provide companionship and security, and many people grow up with dogs and enjoy having them around
Cats and other pets provide companionship too, and without being such a giant pain in the ass and needing constant 24x7 attention. Dogs need even more attention than kids (once the kids are past about 4yo).
Many people grow up with abusive parents and then become abusers when they're adults; that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Many people enjoy smoking, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I've never noticed any partisan trend with pet ownership, perhaps you're just running into the fact that most urban dwellers happen to be liberal.
Well yes, but considering how much of a PITA dogs are in the city (compared to rural areas where you can just let them outside to run around on their own instead of having to take your time to take them to a dog park and walk them), I guess I'm befuddled why so many liberal city-dwelling women love giant dogs so much when I would have expected them to be a clear minority. Maybe the ones who are single and over 30 are more likely to be big-dog-lovers and that's why I'm seeing this? (And maybe there's more factors here: maybe the fact that they all demand any men courting them to also be dog-lovers drives men away so they're stuck single, and maybe the dog has taken the place of them having kids, since most of these women are also childless.)
(Score: 2, Informative) by qzm on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:23PM (2 children)
Ah, Cats you say?
These would be the animals that spend all night hunting and torturing to death any small wildlife that is in the area?
The ones that have a high rate of going feral, and then breed like rodents?
The ones that carry CSD (cat scratch disease, a rather nasty bacterial infection that happily infects humans, carried by around 40% of all cats..)
The ones that carry Toxoplasmosis, a parasitic disease easily spread to humans, but carried primarily through cats, that infects 23% of Americas, and can cause psychological problems?
Yes, much much better than Dogs..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @11:41PM (1 child)
Are you stupid? You're comparing pet dogs (mainly indoor) to outdoor and feral cats?
No, indoor pet cats do not hunt and torture small wildlife, unless perhaps your house is infested by rodents.
No, cats don't "go feral" unless you leave them outside all the time. Abandon a dog in the woods and it's going to go feral too.
CSD? Citation needed. I've had and been around cats for decades and never heard of such a thing being a problem with pet cats. Feral cats are a different matter.
Toxoplasmosis is overblown, and again not a problem with indoor cats.
You seem to be forgetting that cats are normally kept inside (and if they aren't, they should be; outdoor cats don't live very long, and are bad for wild birds. Similarly, feral dogs end up forming wild dog packs and attacking other animals and even humans). And indoor cats *stay* inside, so they don't bring problems into the house. Dogs, on the other hand, have to go outside regularly to shit and piss because they're too stupid to use a litterbox, so at the very least they'll be tracking mud and dirt into your house, if not fleas and other pests and parasites.
Next time, try comparing apples to apples.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:04PM
You're replying to someone who obviously has an irrational hatred of cats. Changing his mind is like trying to get a klansman to love black people.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:23PM (1 child)
Unless it's a dog to assist the visually impaired or hearing impaired, it's fucking idiotic to have a dog in an urban or even a suburban setting.
It's fucking idiotic in the same way that having a multi-stop subway system in a rural farming area would be fucking idiotic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:46PM
You can always tell an urban neighborhood is being gentrified when white folks bring their dogs. I live in a city and there are certain streets I just don't walk down anymore because the sidewalks are too narrow to accommodate foot traffic in two directions when there's a dog walker taking up the entire sidewalk. It's especially bad when a narrow sidewalk is fenced in or up against a wall so there's no way to walk around the dog walker.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
And yet from what I can tell they're still probably better company than you are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:09PM
To be fair, so is my pet cactus.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spook brat on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:53PM (3 children)
I'd guess that these young, single, liberal, city-dwelling women are morally opposed to firearms and are looking for a suitable replacement for self-defense. If she wants to go for a jog outside, having a fiercely loyal 100+lbs carnivore along for company is probably a good way to avoid being mugged and/or raped.
In many ways the dog is a more rational choice for self-defense in a city setting than a gun would be:
a) the gun won't keep you company if you're living alone
b) the dog serves as both defense weapon and security alarm
c) a dog is very unlikely to harm/injure bystanders in the case of an attack, unlike poorly aimed or over-penetrating shots from a firearm.
Cowboys would say that Sam Colt made all men equal; it's fair to say that Herr Dobermann [wikipedia.org] did the same for city-dwelling women in the U.S.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:12PM (1 child)
Unfortunately the police will shoot your dog if they decide to enter your yard or house for any reason.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Touché) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:52PM
Yes, much better if you have a gun, then they'll just shoot YOU.
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:12PM
Although, counterpoint, a gun won't shit on the rug when you're at work.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:06PM
Muslims to the rescue! They cannot stand dogs, and will gladly poison them.
But then again you will replace one filthy, disgusting animal with another.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:33PM (2 children)
When she can't find a man who earns more money than she does, she fucks her dog instead.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:31PM
I have actually seriously wondered at times how many of these big-dog-loving women actually do this. Also notice most of these peoples' dogs seem to be purebreds, which you get from breeders, and can be obtained un-neutered, unlike shelter dogs that only come neutered.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:53PM
We're talking white american women, not jewesses. Jewesses are known to sleep with all kinds of animals, including giraffe. Being animals themselves, they find it comes naturally. They also let rats (jews) up their vaginas. Rats like company of rats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:54PM
Burn the bag? If you burn the dog, the dog won't shit in your shopping bag again!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:47PM
The most environmentally friendly thing to do with shit is leave it in the long grasses, bushes and trees without a plastic bag: it decomposes rapidly and becomes food for the plants.
Any other treatment requires energy, maybe lots of energy, and contributes nothing to the environment.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by isj on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:58PM (24 children)
In Denmark plastic bags with a capacity of at least 5 liters and with handles get taxed at $0.25
So I use my cotton bag or my rucksack. In the cases where I forget them and have to buy a plastic bag I reuse it for kitchen garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:04PM (23 children)
However, the only reason the government taxes plastic bags is because it's yet another revenue stream; why should this one particular organization receive money just because you use a plastic bag? It makes no sense.
I mean, why isn't the government giving people $0.25 for each plastic bag they bring to a recycling center? Think about it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:17PM (10 children)
This is how I picture you, "think about it!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNuQDxnECU [youtube.com]
The reason they tax the bags is in order to reduce the waste stream. In case you never learned the three Rs of recycling, it goes Reduce Reuse Recycle in that order. Stop generating waste, reuse what you can so it doesn't go in the landfill, recycle whatever can't be reused.
I am thinking about it, and I quickly come to the conclusion that paying people to recycle ends up being the same thing since that money would come from taxes. I prefer to tax those who are using the plastic bags instead of taxing everyone so we can pay for doing the right thing.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:24PM (9 children)
You'll notice that my subject is "That tax is portrayed as a way to reduce waste." Telling me it's to reduce waste is a waste of time.
You neglect to explain why this particular organization that calls itself "government" should be the one receiving revenue.
Why can't a person be taxed $0.25 for using a new plastic bag, but then receive back ~$0.25 for returning it to a recycling center?
Think about it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:30PM (8 children)
1. I think explaining the purpose of a law is an admirable thing, but I'm just craaaazy
2. Who else? Seriously?
3. Because the point is to change people's habits so they buy reusable bags and stop filling the landfill with throw away plastic ones.
You obviously have an axe to grind and could care less about thinking, good day sir.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:44PM (5 children)
Carrying produce and animal products in a reusable bag means there will be a greater transfer of disease-causing organisms.
It would be better to ensure that such items are carried in the kinds of bags that have a well-defined path from clean-to-recycling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:49PM
You can wash the bags, you can get separate small bags to put such items in, and besides I have yet to see any stores in the US ban produce bags.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:14PM (3 children)
Bags can be cleaned - and it's entirely up to the user whether they are or not.
Besides which - the outsides of anything you buy at the store is going to be covered in germs anyway - and unlike the germs in your bag, they won't all be germs you've already been living alongside of.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:14PM (2 children)
Cleaning a reusable bag once is more harmful than using several disposable bags.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:27PM
I would like to see some evidence on this. They are small and take up little room in the washer or dryer.
Its not like anyone washes a load of just these bags and I wont be doing more loads just due to the facts.
Its also not the energy the bag needs to be produced its the fact that it probably ends up in the great pacific plastic patch if you don't recycle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:40PM
Wrong, the resource use in creating a single bag is much higher than you think. Start to finish it will use more water and other resources than washing will.
SO MUCH FUD TODAY!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:46PM (1 child)
YHBT
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:25PM
You Have Been Taxed is a very good way of describing this situation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:23PM (5 children)
Because governments don't work that way. Governments modify society with taxes; if you want to reduce something, you tax it. They wanted to reduce smoking (due to all the health problems it causes), so they slapped big taxes on it. Fast-forward a few decades and smokers are pariahs, having to stand outside in the rain in humiliation to get their fix, just as they should be.
Don't want to pay a tax on plastic bags? No problem, don't use one. Get some inexpensive reusable shopping bags and bring those to the supermarket. Same thing with smoking: don't want to pay cigarette taxes? No problem, don't smoke. Don't like it when the government does social engineering? Tough shit, that's part of living in a society. Don't like it? Go move to the wilderness and grow your own tobacco and don't complain when you get an easily-treated disease and die from it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:29PM (4 children)
After all, if a government taxes something in order to reduce its presence in society, then I guess government is intent on reducing productivity—that's one of the most taxed aspects of society!
Anyway, see here. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:58PM (3 children)
Good point:
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:02PM (2 children)
This is a good point [soylentnews.org]:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:27PM (1 child)
How is my parent "Redundant", but my grandparent isn't?
Biased jerks.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:01PM
The "Redundant" mod should be removed. Any time I've seen it used, it has been totally misused.
(Score: 2) by tekk on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:23PM (3 children)
If you change it from a disincentive to get plastic bags to an incentive to recycle them, then you have people trying to get as many plastic bags as they can for the maximum value; the incentive goes the wrong way (more plastic bags used).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:27PM (2 children)
That's just an incentive for beggars to pick up plastic bags blowing down the street.
Also, why couldn't a person be taxed for a new bag, but then receive [almost all of] that tax money back when taking that bag (or some minimum number of bags) to a recycling center?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:34PM (1 child)
Because that would not do a whole lot to REDUCE the number of bags, and most plastic grocery bags are not even recyclable since they are very low grade plastic.
The obvious rebuttal to giving .25 for returned bags is that someone would buy plastic bags in bulk and get probably 5x the return by taking them to the recycling center. Have a few people just shut their brains off today???
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:56PM
In that case, the bag manufacturer itself would have an incentive just to recycle its own bags immediately after making them, thereby proving once again the ineptitude of your government.
Of course, if there's a "tax" on such bags (paid to the organization, possibly the government, that will return some money for recycling the bag), then such a perverse incentive would be removed; the manufacturer would just receive back slightly less than he paid, making it uneconomical to do so.
Furthermore, people want to use bags to carry their damn stuff (especially gross stuff like raw meat), so their might well be a market of people who want to purchase those bags for a price that allows the manufacturer pass on the costs of that "tax" to consumers—thereby pushing the burden of dealing with the "tax" to each person who wants a bag.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:05PM
In the UK, the mandatory plastic bag charge is donated to charity by the retailer. They need to provide evidence that they have done so, but the money never goes through the government's hands.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:15AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:00PM (15 children)
... than Kenya does all year.*
Yet, the U.S. needs no such draconian law about plastic bags.
This "law" of theirs is not fixing the fundamental problem in Kenya, which is a problem with people and their culture.
* I'm not necessarily being literal.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:05PM (10 children)
Nobody tells American billionaires what to do! Say, those noggers look like they need something to do. Let's open a phone factory in Kenya and work them to death just like slaves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:15PM (9 children)
Basically, you're saying that before American billionaires showed up with their factories,* those people were living under conditions even worse than being worked to death like slaves—otherwise, the factories wouldn't be able to operate there, because nobody would want to be employed by them.
So... Thanks, American billionaires! Thanks for improving the lives of these people.
* I doubt many such tycoons are looking to Kenya to put their factories.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:51PM (8 children)
China is getting expensive, chonks want a middle class for some reason, we're going to need to manufacture in Africa sooner or later, to exploit the cheap noggers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:58PM (7 children)
Here [soylentnews.org] is a really good discussion of that issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:35PM (6 children)
Ah yes, better thank those billionaires for providing the bare minimum opportunities for people in need. They saved a ridiculous amount of money on wages and could easily afford to pay those workers double, but being greedy fucking pigs they paid them as little as they could get away with. Sure it is an improvement, but it could easily have been a massive blessing instead of a barely noticeable blip. The profit margins would have hardly been affected, but yes, lets bend over backwards to thank such greedy fuckers.
Your ethics are defective, perhaps a brain replacement?
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:18PM (5 children)
Pay your workers too much in a third world country and people will kill them to try to take their jobs.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:42PM (4 children)
Oh I see, the megacorps are doing them a favor, uh huh riiiiight. You sound like a corporate shill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:43PM (2 children)
Would it be better if megacorps pulled out of the region, and closed down their factories?
YOU'RE NOT MAKING SENSE!!!!1111
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:59PM (1 child)
Actually yes, it probably would have been better for many countries. They would have developed their own factories or alternative economic models instead of being sucked into the highly consumer based western lifestyles. The regions are still suffering from massive poverty and such factories increased the wealth disparity.
The method of globalization is not altruistic and corporations should not get laurels for the meager bits of cash that get infused into these poverty stricken areas. My point was that the corps could have easily been the best employers around, but my guess is every bit of savings CEOs extracted through slave wages went right into their yearly bonuses.
I'm not a proponent of doing away with private enterprises, but the current system is badly broken.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @11:10PM
Could it be that their average IQ is what would be considered "retarded" in the US. Nah....
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:25PM
You sound like you don't know history.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:24PM
Umm the US DOES need such a draconian law going by your logic. Hopefully you realize the US has the same problem, although more of our bags probably wind up in landfills since we have ubiquitous trash services. The bags are still an environmental problem when in a landfill. Quite a few places in the US have put similar ideas to work: http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx [ncsl.org]
* you're not being liberal in the slightest, quite the opposite with a touch of hypocrisy about "people and culture"
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:07PM
Who says the US needs no such draconian law? That it doesn't have one is not the same thing.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:14PM
Seattle has a similar law.
(Score: 2, Informative) by LAV8.ORg on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:17AM
You forgot to clarify that the people who are the problem in Kenya are the tourists who receive and subsequently discard the plastic bags, be it by flagrant littering or by tossing it in a bin and it later escaping the fire pit. Kenyans by and large can't afford a culture of single-use, disposable goods.
I was in Kenya a few years ago and the roads were practically delineated by the half buried plastic bags along the sides, it was a tragic sight in a country of otherwise astounding natural beauty. (As for me, I tried to refuse the plastic bag with my token souvenirs, but the merchant wouldn't allow it; I ultimately exported the damn bag).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:07PM (5 children)
Where to begin?
Plastic bags don't last 500 years unless buried deep. Especially the modern ones designed to decompose, perhaps Kenya should have simply 'encouraged' the use of what is now twenty year old unpatented tech?
Then there is the ban on USING them. So you have all these plastic bag you don't want entering the waste stream, so you ban people from reusing them until they fall apart? Either that is truly dumb or it proves I'm not smart enough to work at an elite NGO drafting 'model laws' for 3rd world countries to adopt on pain of losing western welfare. My money is on it just being dumb though because I haven't seen too many smart people at NGOs, mostly sinecures for the spawn of 0.01%ers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:40PM (1 child)
Ok, jmorris too? Is this corporate astroturfing day or are you conservative types just triggered by any "hippy" ideal like reducing human waste production?
The law seems a bit severe but hey, I don't live in Kenya. If you only ban using new bags how easily can you enforce the law? "I was just reusing this bag, I got it before the law started officer!"
Where are youg etting this NGO nonsense? Western welfare? It always bears repeating, you're fucking nuts.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:07AM
I'd rather they reduced wasting my time. Time is valuable since I only live so long, landfill space not so valuable since we have so much land area and we can use it for other things before and after we use it for a landfill. Yet you will see again and again clueless "hippy" thinking about preserving some ridiculously common thing like glass by wasting our time (such as with pointless, complex recycling procedures).
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:29PM (1 child)
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I've read that the decomposing plastic bags don't really decompose. They just disintegrate. So instead of 1 plastic bag... you've get a 10 million tiny flakes of plastic instead; and its not really much of a win for the environment; since they contaminate the water supply and get into the food chain etc.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:50AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:41AM
Plastic bags don't decompose, they simply break up into tiny pieces. These tiny bits of plastic make up a larger volume in some areas of the ocean than plankton:
https://www.exploratorium.edu/blogs/spectrum/more-plastic-plankton-ocean [exploratorium.edu]
Plastic for practical purposes, is forever. Even "biodegradable" plastics do not degrade in the natural environment:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/23/biodegradable-plastic-false-solution-for-ocean-waste-problem?CMP=share_btn_tw [theguardian.com]
Good for Kenya, Rwanda, most cities outside the agricultural central valley in California, etc., for outlawing disposable plastic bags. A canvas bag will last for years, with the only inconvenience being the need to remember to bring it with you shopping (I live in a California city where plastic bags have been outlawed for many years, and the ban has caused no negative impact on my life).
We also need to outlaw disposable plastic containers and packaging. Making single use, disposable, items out of one of the most durable materials known to man is simply insane.