Here in the UK the trend now is to use stronger plastic bags that are more easily reusable as opposed to cloth. We have several in a drawer at home, and I keep one in my rucksack at all times so it gets a lot of use. But I'd be interested to know how much more efficient it is than the cheap thin plastic. While I do my best to reuse it, I'd be surprised if it lasts 100 shops.
But what I think the article fails to mention is that it's not about stopping the use of plastic bags, but more about encouraging their reuse instead of just throwing them away. The idea being that if fewer are produced, fewer are likely to end up in the environment.
As you point out, an issue is that sometimes we don't plan in advance so when we pop in a store/supermarkets we don't have any bags. We end buying one of those strong plastic bags because that's what's available and because they are only 10p (and single-use bags cost only 5p). We basically use these bags as single use ones.
IMHO, supermarkets should have continued to dispense single-use bags (could be paper instead of plastic) but sold at a price that really made people try to avoid them, say £1.
Reusable bags should then be priced higher.
Problem is politics and pissing off customers/voters...
Now I just have the option to buy a "bag for life" or nothing. Bags need to be priced at £1-2 to get people to get in the habit of carrying a suitable bag to the shop.
> Since 2015, when a 5p charge was introduced to tackle plastic pollution, the number being used is down by 90%.
My (anecdotal) evidence is before they were charged, people were using multiple bags without any consideration of whether they were necessary or not, whereas now people may still buy one bag every time they shop - is that better than the 4 they were getting before, as people might bring them occasionally? (I had a short look, but couldn't find any numbers to the number of times the 15p bags in sainsburys have to be reused, or the number of times it's estimated people reuse them).
This is such an important point! A relatively tiny charge had a massive impact on consumer behavior. This is real-world efficient market theory. If you put 5 cents on the counter and say "take it if you want it" then people will take it. What we have learned is that 90% of bags were essentially not needed, and so only the lightest touch was required.
Punitive measures ("we should charge $1-2 for a bag") are counter-productive because the harm to society actually exceeds the benefit to society. We are not trying to eliminate every plastic bag at any cost. This is not a plastic bag crusade. The goal cannot be absolutism, it must be based on efficient market economics where the new regulation actually benefits society.
I think you are missing the point of my comment above.
Many, if not most supermarkets in the UK no longer have single-use bags at all. The 5p charge has become irrelevant because there are no longer any such bags.
BUT now they have reusable plastic bags, that are much sturdier and thus made of more plastic, that they sell for 10p.
Most people do bring their own reusable bags with them but some don't, and as said sometimes you simply did not plan to shop and simply don't have a bag with you. In such cases people end up paying 10p for these reusable bags and probably throw them away.
Therefore, I think that single-use bags are still have a valid use: Sometimes you need a bag just for this one time and it would be best if such a bag could use the least material possible. They don't have to be plastic.
The more expensive price is intended at ensuring that people buy them only in emergency cases. Reusable bags should also be sold for more than 10p so that people care enough to actually keep them for a long time.
Note also that the article mentions statistics about single-use bags. Those 10p bags are not single-use so don't appear at all in the figures! A cynic would suspect supermarkets have found a loophole here...
Given the scale of environmental challenges facing the planet, that some people are so ignorant that bringing a bag to the shops with then is too much hassle really boils my piss.
It's really not hard. I have a couple of bags in my laptop bag and always carry a reusable folding bag in my jacket. We have a few in the boot of the car. That accounts for 90% of time I might need one.
>>I have a couple of bags in my laptop bag and always carry a reusable folding bag in my jacket. We have a few in the boot of the car. That accounts for 90% of time I might need one.
you must shop frequently.
I shop 1 to 2 times a month, and buy a large qty when I shop. I absolutely despise going to the store. It is not uncommon for me to need 20+ bags per shopping trip
When I go there are also often people that with 2+ carts, having had to wait in line behind such people using the reusable bags it increased the check out time by a factor of at minimum 2, and sometimes 5x what would be normal due to people attempting to shove as much as they can in a limited number of bags, and they often times have far fewer bags than are need which delay's everyone as they mess around with moving things to maximize space
Why not deliver to your home in that case? You won't use up bags, and it's more environmentally friendly than driving yourself to the shop because the drivers are making multiple stops. It's wonderfully convenient and you can choose how specific of time you want (price for delivery will vary)
I gave up ordering online because where I live they deliver the goods in disposable shopping bags. They even use more bags than I would because they separate the products by type. But I'm glad to see that in other places they seem to be smarter about it.
Can confirm. From the UK here and most supermarkets will now only sell 10p strong plastic bags rather than flimsy single-use bags.
I have maybe 10 or so in a cupboard and I'll take 4 or 5 along on a shop. Maybe I'll be a bag short and have to pay another 10p for a bag, but that's better than 5 or 6 single-use bags.
This prompts a question I'd like to know the answer to. One of these thick new bags is equivalent to how many of the skinny old single-use ones in terms of environmental impact?
The supermarket Iceland (I think it was) said that after they stopped selling single-use bags they were now selling far fewer bags in total but the total amount of plastic sold had actually increased because the new bags are so much thicker.
Same here and every so often we end up with so many that they get thrown away to make space.
Sometimes it's just not convenient to carry a bag around with you, especially not the 'bag for life' kind that are bulky and can't be carried discreetly in a trouser pocket.
Absolutely. I've had one similar to these for about 5 years and used it for almost every shopping trip, including hanging down from my bikes handlebar where they sometimes got into the spokes but still were fine after some cleaning. After those 5 years I lend it to my grandma and she lost the smaller bag you wrap it in and the handle got a bit lose so it needed some sewing. It may not last for 7000 times as others have claimed in this thread but 500 is easily doable. Anyways, absolutely recommended.
> so often we end up with so many that they get thrown away to make space.
Please consider donating these instead of throwing them away.
At worst, they'll be shredded by the Goodwill machine, at best they'll be given to people when using a charity, whether that means a bag for shopping, schools, or to hold dog supplies in.
Mind if I ask how old these friends are? This seems like more of a general age thing. I'm 26 and wouldn't even begin to compare watching a concert on Youtube to actually being there. I've watched Stop Making Sense 1,000 times but it would still be my first stop in a time machine.
Yep, he basically says that he knew the only thing that would damage his eyes would be UV-B, so he just went for it. Long time since I read the book but that's what I remember.
Yeah, I'm wondering how it should work when you say the wake word too. Like if I say "Sister Assumpta, what's the weather like?" is it just going to repeat the same command but replace "Sister Assumpta" with "Hey Google?" Thus slowing the whole thing down?
Seems to me based on the description that it only says "Hey Google" to the device and then lets your voice through by cutting off the white noise. That would mean the only delay would be between when you say the wake word and when Google starts listening.
The article says that after your keyword it deactivates the white noise wall for a while, and whispers the original keyword. So alexa / google / siri will hear you directly.
Also this would probably end up with a high majority remain vote, since the leave voters would be split between options A and B. Similar to the issues with First Past the Post.
There's no reason, in theory, that it couldn't be a ranked vote (so people could vote, e.g. 1) Leave the EU with this deal, 2) Remain in the EU).
While ever there's the prospect of no deal, there's probably a bias towards Remain anyway (as many who want to leave probably don't want to leave without a deal). This avoids that.
1. Do you want to remain?
2. Do you accept the negotiated deal?
As a remainer, the idea of a vote split is nice, I don't think its fair or defensible and just stores issues for later as Brexiteers wont accept the result.
I'm not sure how that would work - say you get Do you want to remain? -> no; Do you accept the negotiated deal? -> no. Does that mean we should leave without a deal, OR does it mean we should negotiate for a different deal? Likewise, Do you want to remain -> yes; Do you accept the negotiated deal? -> yes - does that mean we should remain OR that we should accept the deal (you can't do both). You could _want_ to remain, but also find the negotiated deal acceptable. I don't think it gives a clear answer.
Obviously if we choose to remain, the negotiated deal wouldn't be needed.
That's just an issue with the current wording.
I'm not in favour of an open ended renegotiate option, we've had that, its a bit of a mess, but if parliament wants to put forward an actionable, achievable plan then I would be happy to vote on that.
I believe this approach is also present in the UK where the patient isn't paying for their treatment directly. So I doubt it is to do with making money.
Spreading behaviour is so important. Which means it's important to make it "cool" to be environmentally conscious. I think people sometimes underestimate the cool factor when it comes to spreading ideas.
You can do all the cool but it is going to have no result when industry is responsible for a third of GHG, agriculture about a fourth and transportation a fifth.
To stop those takes regulations and laws. Major investments too which won't happen if not forced either.
Best targeted results for efficacy of behaviour modification at a fifth. Good luck. This with self-efficacy training. You cannot do that with everyone so you're bound to fail. Worse if people cannot adapt at all. Tell a guy they now go 50 miles to work by bike is not going to work at all.
You cannot destroy a mountain by removing a few shovels of ground. The action and change has to be both forced and massive.
There’s a lot of market research readily available, admittedly of questionable quality. But the more reliable weather vane is estimating when Apple will launch their smartglasses. Add 5 years to that for when glasses disrupt smartphones. At the rate Apple is buying up AR and VR companies you can expect them to launch in late 2019 or 2020.
But I can't turn my smartglasses around and show someone the memes I'm looking at. I don't see how it could replace my phone. Compliment perhaps, but having used Google Glass Enterprise I don't think it's as big of a game changer as you might think.
But what I think the article fails to mention is that it's not about stopping the use of plastic bags, but more about encouraging their reuse instead of just throwing them away. The idea being that if fewer are produced, fewer are likely to end up in the environment.