|
On November 14 2013 04:11 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 03:47 DarkNetHunter wrote:
This is a tax on the lazy, the stupid and the environmentally unconscious, so I approve.
nice to see the true bourgeoise face of nominally left of center european politics here
Problem?
|
On November 14 2013 04:31 DarkNetHunter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 04:11 itsjustatank wrote:On November 14 2013 03:47 DarkNetHunter wrote:
This is a tax on the lazy, the stupid and the environmentally unconscious, so I approve.
nice to see the true bourgeoise face of nominally left of center european politics here Problem?
Its best to cecede our argument. It is nigh impossible to sway the judgement of a martyr from his own thinking
|
I'll refrain from feeding him
|
On November 14 2013 05:53 DarkNetHunter wrote:
It's also better to argue your own opinion than spout philosophical platitudes or prejudiced generalizations.
i think those prejudcied generalizations ARE his opinion sadly
|
On November 14 2013 06:06 Smurfett3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 05:53 DarkNetHunter wrote:
It's also better to argue your own opinion than spout philosophical platitudes or prejudiced generalizations.
i think those prejudcied generalizations ARE his opinion sadly
Well that is unfortunate, but the blog and topic merit more than his contribution
|
On November 13 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2013 11:41 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 13 2013 11:18 IgnE wrote:
I think you are vastly overestimating how many people reuse the plastic bags. If you grocery shop every week for a family of four there's no possible way you can use all those bags up. Especially when people ask for "double bags" because they don't think the bags are strong enough.
I also think you are vastly overestimating the cost savings to "big companies" who "don't want to pay for plastic bags." Your rage is misplaced. We manage to keep a stockpile of bags and I use them constantly for bathroom trashbags as well as my room. And if we ever want to give away fruit from our trees or need a bag, we got one. Most people I know, also do the same things with their bags as almost everyone has a place where they keep old grocery bags, it's almost weird if someone doesn't these days. I would say the average house has anywhere from 15-50 bags saved at any given time. Since my estimates are close to about a million a year here (not counting visitor sales or small trash bag sales increase) in just this one city alone, imagine what the cost saved could be over the entire country if they followed suit. And I think you underestimating the bottom line for big companies. There is a documentary on wal-mart that is relevant to this. There is also a movie called 'the corporation' among numerous other documentaries (I can't remember the names right now. + Show Spoiler +One had emphasis on how shopping works economically with animations and stuff. IIRC, found on TL, pretty good. ). It's not unreasonable to assume big companies are trying to profit any way they can and reduce cost and loss any way they can. The only time the line is drawn, is when the action created to reduce costs has a diminishing return by creating irate costumers which will lose the company business. On November 13 2013 11:29 tognix wrote:
Nothing has happened in SoCal. They tried banning fire pits in a specific beach, can't remember which one, but they didn't go through with it. Clearly read the thread. A million what? For all the businesses in the city where you are? That's a pittance compared to even one day's wages. It's great that you, your suburban friends, and all of the families you know in the immediate area, reuse all those bags to take out the heaping mounds of trash you produce every day. It does seem like quite an imposition for you guys to pay a couple dollars for reusable cloth bags. It must be a conspiracy by the companies in the area to shave off a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their operating budget. Just carry your own bag around. How is this not better? Don't you have a car? In D.C. people carry bags around for shopping and they walk/use public transit to get to the store.
By my rough estimation of the people who live here it's a million dollars yearly. That doesn't take into account of the 16million visitors a year, or more importantly, the increase in sales of small trash bags that will take place.
Also, if more cities follow suit, it's a million dollars here, a million there, that adds up. And company or not, any money saved is always a primary interest.
Arguably, the small trash bags that people will buy are going to have more plastic than standard cheap grocery bags and cost more money to the consumer of course. Effectively being worse and having no plus side for anyone but the businesses.
This is not about grocery bags for their primary purpose. It's not about the environment.
It's about money. If these companies really cared, they would have switched to biodegradeables years ago.
I actually do not have a car atm no. This isn't about me anyways. Which is another point, how does one or even thousands of individuals who throw trash bags on the environment compare at all to a large corporation who does the same thing on huge (semi)national scale?** Look at wal-mart's track record for example. Besides you shouldn't punish the many, for the 'crimes' of the few. Something that happens way too much in all aspects of life these days.
This is just bullshit disguised as a 'step in the right direction' in order for the big business to save money and pretend they are being environmentally conscious while really achieving nothing and deflecting cost to individual consumers.
**They continue to support and produce many products wrapped in wasteful plastic, packing/shipping in huge amounts of wasteful plastic, create generic products with wasteful plastic. etc. etc. Water bottles are a much larger concern.
|
On November 13 2013 14:40 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2013 11:48 Smurfett3 wrote:
its for the environment, not for money because you know, not using plastic bags is going to undo all the damage humanity does by existing and continuing to exist, right.
I would love to live a day in your world, where you don't do anything unless it solves every problem you have forever.
I imagine it's a very unproductive existence.
|
On November 14 2013 06:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:On November 13 2013 11:41 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 13 2013 11:18 IgnE wrote:
I think you are vastly overestimating how many people reuse the plastic bags. If you grocery shop every week for a family of four there's no possible way you can use all those bags up. Especially when people ask for "double bags" because they don't think the bags are strong enough.
I also think you are vastly overestimating the cost savings to "big companies" who "don't want to pay for plastic bags." Your rage is misplaced. We manage to keep a stockpile of bags and I use them constantly for bathroom trashbags as well as my room. And if we ever want to give away fruit from our trees or need a bag, we got one. Most people I know, also do the same things with their bags as almost everyone has a place where they keep old grocery bags, it's almost weird if someone doesn't these days. I would say the average house has anywhere from 15-50 bags saved at any given time. Since my estimates are close to about a million a year here (not counting visitor sales or small trash bag sales increase) in just this one city alone, imagine what the cost saved could be over the entire country if they followed suit. And I think you underestimating the bottom line for big companies. There is a documentary on wal-mart that is relevant to this. There is also a movie called 'the corporation' among numerous other documentaries (I can't remember the names right now. + Show Spoiler +One had emphasis on how shopping works economically with animations and stuff. IIRC, found on TL, pretty good. ). It's not unreasonable to assume big companies are trying to profit any way they can and reduce cost and loss any way they can. The only time the line is drawn, is when the action created to reduce costs has a diminishing return by creating irate costumers which will lose the company business. On November 13 2013 11:29 tognix wrote:
Nothing has happened in SoCal. They tried banning fire pits in a specific beach, can't remember which one, but they didn't go through with it. Clearly read the thread. A million what? For all the businesses in the city where you are? That's a pittance compared to even one day's wages. It's great that you, your suburban friends, and all of the families you know in the immediate area, reuse all those bags to take out the heaping mounds of trash you produce every day. It does seem like quite an imposition for you guys to pay a couple dollars for reusable cloth bags. It must be a conspiracy by the companies in the area to shave off a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their operating budget. Just carry your own bag around. How is this not better? Don't you have a car? In D.C. people carry bags around for shopping and they walk/use public transit to get to the store. By my rough estimation of the people who live here it's a million dollars yearly. That doesn't take into account of the 16million visitors a year, or more importantly, the increase in sales of small trash bags that will take place. Also, if more cities follow suit, it's a million dollars here, a million there, that adds up. And company or not, any money saved is always a primary interest. Arguably, the small trash bags that people will buy are going to have more plastic than standard cheap grocery bags and cost more money to the consumer of course. Effectively being worse and having no plus side for anyone but the businesses. This is not about grocery bags for their primary purpose. It's not about the environment. It's about money. If these companies really cared, they would have switched to biodegradeables years ago. I actually do not have a car atm no. This isn't about me anyways. Which is another point, how does one or even thousands of individuals who throw trash bags on the environment compare at all to a large corporation who does the same thing on huge (semi)national scale?** Look at wal-mart's track record for example. Besides you shouldn't punish the many, for the 'crimes' of the few. Something that happens way too much in all aspects of life these days. This is just bullshit disguised as a 'step in the right direction' in order for the big business to save money and pretend they are being environmentally conscious while really achieving nothing and deflecting cost to individual consumers.**They continue to support and produce many products wrapped in wasteful plastic, packing/shipping in huge amounts of wasteful plastic, create generic products with wasteful plastic. etc. etc.
achieving .5% cleaner environment from not using plastic bags is not equal to nothing.\
also stop bashing wal-mart and ONLY wal-mart based on a documentary you saw.
HP is a very very environmentally conscious company.
http://h30507.www3.hp.com/t5/Data-Central/HP-is-Highest-Ranked-Electronics-Company-in-Best-Global-Green/ba-p/116737#.UoP1cuKc670
they are more green then the company that made the prius.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/02/01/walmart-rockets-from-15th-to-third-on-epa-green-power-rankings/
http://greenrankings2009.newsweek.com/companies/view/wal-mart
wal-mart also isn't so shitty to the environment as you might think.
|
On November 13 2013 10:56 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2013 10:50 Firnafth wrote:
I live in a city that does this to at least some degree.
It's not that bad IMO. I always took in way more grocery bags than I ever used for trash. The bags would accumulate over time. Now I just use the cloth bags and I'm pretty sure my plastic bag consumption is substantially reduced overall. Yes, it costs me slightly more because I have to buy garbage bags, but I find the expense to be negligible. I don't know if this is good or bad for the stores, but I don't really care much either way. What city do you live in? How long has this been in effect?
I am in SoCal (don't want to be more specific). I moved here in January and it has been this way since I moved here. I am not sure when the rule was originally instituted.
|
Who cares why they did it. It's undeniably better for the environment, and if you're smart about it you can pay them like $1 every year (10 bags a year).
I've always thought plastic bags should be banned or severely disincentivized. So easy and pretty effective.
|
On November 14 2013 06:57 Smurfett3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 06:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 13 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:On November 13 2013 11:41 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 13 2013 11:18 IgnE wrote:
I think you are vastly overestimating how many people reuse the plastic bags. If you grocery shop every week for a family of four there's no possible way you can use all those bags up. Especially when people ask for "double bags" because they don't think the bags are strong enough.
I also think you are vastly overestimating the cost savings to "big companies" who "don't want to pay for plastic bags." Your rage is misplaced. We manage to keep a stockpile of bags and I use them constantly for bathroom trashbags as well as my room. And if we ever want to give away fruit from our trees or need a bag, we got one. Most people I know, also do the same things with their bags as almost everyone has a place where they keep old grocery bags, it's almost weird if someone doesn't these days. I would say the average house has anywhere from 15-50 bags saved at any given time. Since my estimates are close to about a million a year here (not counting visitor sales or small trash bag sales increase) in just this one city alone, imagine what the cost saved could be over the entire country if they followed suit. And I think you underestimating the bottom line for big companies. There is a documentary on wal-mart that is relevant to this. There is also a movie called 'the corporation' among numerous other documentaries (I can't remember the names right now. + Show Spoiler +One had emphasis on how shopping works economically with animations and stuff. IIRC, found on TL, pretty good. ). It's not unreasonable to assume big companies are trying to profit any way they can and reduce cost and loss any way they can. The only time the line is drawn, is when the action created to reduce costs has a diminishing return by creating irate costumers which will lose the company business. On November 13 2013 11:29 tognix wrote:
Nothing has happened in SoCal. They tried banning fire pits in a specific beach, can't remember which one, but they didn't go through with it. Clearly read the thread. A million what? For all the businesses in the city where you are? That's a pittance compared to even one day's wages. It's great that you, your suburban friends, and all of the families you know in the immediate area, reuse all those bags to take out the heaping mounds of trash you produce every day. It does seem like quite an imposition for you guys to pay a couple dollars for reusable cloth bags. It must be a conspiracy by the companies in the area to shave off a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their operating budget. Just carry your own bag around. How is this not better? Don't you have a car? In D.C. people carry bags around for shopping and they walk/use public transit to get to the store. By my rough estimation of the people who live here it's a million dollars yearly. That doesn't take into account of the 16million visitors a year, or more importantly, the increase in sales of small trash bags that will take place. Also, if more cities follow suit, it's a million dollars here, a million there, that adds up. And company or not, any money saved is always a primary interest. Arguably, the small trash bags that people will buy are going to have more plastic than standard cheap grocery bags and cost more money to the consumer of course. Effectively being worse and having no plus side for anyone but the businesses. This is not about grocery bags for their primary purpose. It's not about the environment. It's about money. If these companies really cared, they would have switched to biodegradeables years ago. I actually do not have a car atm no. This isn't about me anyways. Which is another point, how does one or even thousands of individuals who throw trash bags on the environment compare at all to a large corporation who does the same thing on huge (semi)national scale?** Look at wal-mart's track record for example. Besides you shouldn't punish the many, for the 'crimes' of the few. Something that happens way too much in all aspects of life these days. This is just bullshit disguised as a 'step in the right direction' in order for the big business to save money and pretend they are being environmentally conscious while really achieving nothing and deflecting cost to individual consumers.**They continue to support and produce many products wrapped in wasteful plastic, packing/shipping in huge amounts of wasteful plastic, create generic products with wasteful plastic. etc. etc. achieving .5% cleaner environment from not using plastic bags is not equal to nothing.\ also stop bashing wal-mart and ONLY wal-mart based on a documentary you saw. HP is a very very environmentally conscious company. http://h30507.www3.hp.com/t5/Data-Central/HP-is-Highest-Ranked-Electronics-Company-in-Best-Global-Green/ba-p/116737#.UoP1cuKc670they are more green then the company that made the prius. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/02/01/walmart-rockets-from-15th-to-third-on-epa-green-power-rankings/http://greenrankings2009.newsweek.com/companies/view/wal-martwal-mart also isn't so shitty to the environment as you might think.
I actually worked for wal-mart at one point. I know what goes on.
|
On November 14 2013 11:59 Swede wrote:
Who cares why they did it. It's undeniably better for the environment, and if you're smart about it you can pay them like $1 every year (10 bags a year).
I've always thought plastic bags should be banned or severely disincentivized. So easy and pretty effective.
Missing the point. This isn't going to change much if anything at all as far as plastic waste. The problem is much deeper, this surface level change doesn't do anything.
|
On November 14 2013 16:10 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 11:59 Swede wrote:
Who cares why they did it. It's undeniably better for the environment, and if you're smart about it you can pay them like $1 every year (10 bags a year).
I've always thought plastic bags should be banned or severely disincentivized. So easy and pretty effective. Missing the point. This isn't going to change much if anything at all as far as plastic waste. The problem is much deeper, this surface level change doesn't do anything.
And you are fucking pissed off that you don't have your precious plastic bags anymore. There's just nothing you could possibly do to remedy that.
|
I really like USA and all the freedoms their citizens used to have.
Well, on a bright side you can still own and carry guns.
|
People will get used to living without plastic bags pretty quickly. The world will be a little bit of a better place.
|
On November 14 2013 16:09 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 06:57 Smurfett3 wrote:On November 14 2013 06:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 13 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:On November 13 2013 11:41 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 13 2013 11:18 IgnE wrote:
I think you are vastly overestimating how many people reuse the plastic bags. If you grocery shop every week for a family of four there's no possible way you can use all those bags up. Especially when people ask for "double bags" because they don't think the bags are strong enough.
I also think you are vastly overestimating the cost savings to "big companies" who "don't want to pay for plastic bags." Your rage is misplaced. We manage to keep a stockpile of bags and I use them constantly for bathroom trashbags as well as my room. And if we ever want to give away fruit from our trees or need a bag, we got one. Most people I know, also do the same things with their bags as almost everyone has a place where they keep old grocery bags, it's almost weird if someone doesn't these days. I would say the average house has anywhere from 15-50 bags saved at any given time. Since my estimates are close to about a million a year here (not counting visitor sales or small trash bag sales increase) in just this one city alone, imagine what the cost saved could be over the entire country if they followed suit. And I think you underestimating the bottom line for big companies. There is a documentary on wal-mart that is relevant to this. There is also a movie called 'the corporation' among numerous other documentaries (I can't remember the names right now. + Show Spoiler +One had emphasis on how shopping works economically with animations and stuff. IIRC, found on TL, pretty good. ). It's not unreasonable to assume big companies are trying to profit any way they can and reduce cost and loss any way they can. The only time the line is drawn, is when the action created to reduce costs has a diminishing return by creating irate costumers which will lose the company business. On November 13 2013 11:29 tognix wrote:
Nothing has happened in SoCal. They tried banning fire pits in a specific beach, can't remember which one, but they didn't go through with it. Clearly read the thread. A million what? For all the businesses in the city where you are? That's a pittance compared to even one day's wages. It's great that you, your suburban friends, and all of the families you know in the immediate area, reuse all those bags to take out the heaping mounds of trash you produce every day. It does seem like quite an imposition for you guys to pay a couple dollars for reusable cloth bags. It must be a conspiracy by the companies in the area to shave off a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their operating budget. Just carry your own bag around. How is this not better? Don't you have a car? In D.C. people carry bags around for shopping and they walk/use public transit to get to the store. By my rough estimation of the people who live here it's a million dollars yearly. That doesn't take into account of the 16million visitors a year, or more importantly, the increase in sales of small trash bags that will take place. Also, if more cities follow suit, it's a million dollars here, a million there, that adds up. And company or not, any money saved is always a primary interest. Arguably, the small trash bags that people will buy are going to have more plastic than standard cheap grocery bags and cost more money to the consumer of course. Effectively being worse and having no plus side for anyone but the businesses. This is not about grocery bags for their primary purpose. It's not about the environment. It's about money. If these companies really cared, they would have switched to biodegradeables years ago. I actually do not have a car atm no. This isn't about me anyways. Which is another point, how does one or even thousands of individuals who throw trash bags on the environment compare at all to a large corporation who does the same thing on huge (semi)national scale?** Look at wal-mart's track record for example. Besides you shouldn't punish the many, for the 'crimes' of the few. Something that happens way too much in all aspects of life these days. This is just bullshit disguised as a 'step in the right direction' in order for the big business to save money and pretend they are being environmentally conscious while really achieving nothing and deflecting cost to individual consumers.**They continue to support and produce many products wrapped in wasteful plastic, packing/shipping in huge amounts of wasteful plastic, create generic products with wasteful plastic. etc. etc. achieving .5% cleaner environment from not using plastic bags is not equal to nothing.\ also stop bashing wal-mart and ONLY wal-mart based on a documentary you saw. HP is a very very environmentally conscious company. http://h30507.www3.hp.com/t5/Data-Central/HP-is-Highest-Ranked-Electronics-Company-in-Best-Global-Green/ba-p/116737#.UoP1cuKc670they are more green then the company that made the prius. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/02/01/walmart-rockets-from-15th-to-third-on-epa-green-power-rankings/http://greenrankings2009.newsweek.com/companies/view/wal-martwal-mart also isn't so shitty to the environment as you might think. I actually worked for wal-mart at one point. I know what goes on.
working for wal-mart as a cashier and working for wal-mart as a corporate exec are two different things...shit goes on differently on thos two levels
|
On November 14 2013 16:10 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 11:59 Swede wrote:
Who cares why they did it. It's undeniably better for the environment, and if you're smart about it you can pay them like $1 every year (10 bags a year).
I've always thought plastic bags should be banned or severely disincentivized. So easy and pretty effective. Missing the point. This isn't going to change much if anything at all as far as plastic waste. The problem is much deeper, this surface level change doesn't do anything.
I just don't buy your argument that it won't change much with regards to plastic waste. And the problem isn't much deeper. If the problem you're talking about is damage to the environment, then things like this are that problem. Climate change isn't caused solely by one extremely powerful force. It's caused by thousands and thousands of little things that humans do every day, like driving your car to work or getting a few extra plastic bags. If you think the problem is deeper than that then you literally just don't understand the problem.
People supposedly want shit to be done about environmental issues, but then when they're given an opportunity to make a simple, easy change to the way they live they say that it won't work or it's too insignificant. That's because they're thinking about it incorrectly. Most people think: "well, everybody else is using plastic bags so why shouldn't I? I'm just one more person, after all" (or they just don't think about it at all). When they should be thinking: "what would happen if everybody stopped using plastic bags today? Well, it would be amazing! On the off chance that everybody else is thinking the same thing, I should totally do that!"
If only!
|
On November 15 2013 08:09 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 16:10 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 14 2013 11:59 Swede wrote:
Who cares why they did it. It's undeniably better for the environment, and if you're smart about it you can pay them like $1 every year (10 bags a year).
I've always thought plastic bags should be banned or severely disincentivized. So easy and pretty effective. Missing the point. This isn't going to change much if anything at all as far as plastic waste. The problem is much deeper, this surface level change doesn't do anything. I just don't buy your argument that it won't change much with regards to plastic waste. And the problem isn't much deeper. If the problem you're talking about is damage to the environment, then things like this are that problem. Climate change isn't caused solely by one extremely powerful force. It's caused by thousands and thousands of little things that humans do every day, like driving your car to work or getting a few extra plastic bags. If you think the problem is deeper than that then you literally just don't understand the problem. People supposedly want shit to be done about environmental issues, but then when they're given an opportunity to make a simple, easy change to the way they live they say that it won't work or it's too insignificant. That's because they're thinking about it incorrectly. Most people think: "well, everybody else is using plastic bags so why shouldn't I? I'm just one more person, after all" (or they just don't think about it at all). When they should be thinking: "what would happen if everybody stopped using plastic bags today? Well, it would be amazing! On the off chance that everybody else is thinking the same thing, I should totally do that!" If only!
Problems are not fixed or changed from the surface in, no. They are always fixed from the inside out. It is systemic. The biggest polluters should be the ones forced to make changes and setting example for everyone else who is smaller. Coincidentally, if the businesses made changes; people's only choice then is to shop somewhere else or not at all. This backwards shit is just about money.
|
lol side note, my mom forgot to put the bags back in the car after using them last. Went to the store with my nephew and had to carry all the shit out without bags. So convenient
|
On November 15 2013 08:18 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 08:09 Swede wrote:On November 14 2013 16:10 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 14 2013 11:59 Swede wrote:
Who cares why they did it. It's undeniably better for the environment, and if you're smart about it you can pay them like $1 every year (10 bags a year).
I've always thought plastic bags should be banned or severely disincentivized. So easy and pretty effective. Missing the point. This isn't going to change much if anything at all as far as plastic waste. The problem is much deeper, this surface level change doesn't do anything. I just don't buy your argument that it won't change much with regards to plastic waste. And the problem isn't much deeper. If the problem you're talking about is damage to the environment, then things like this are that problem. Climate change isn't caused solely by one extremely powerful force. It's caused by thousands and thousands of little things that humans do every day, like driving your car to work or getting a few extra plastic bags. If you think the problem is deeper than that then you literally just don't understand the problem. People supposedly want shit to be done about environmental issues, but then when they're given an opportunity to make a simple, easy change to the way they live they say that it won't work or it's too insignificant. That's because they're thinking about it incorrectly. Most people think: "well, everybody else is using plastic bags so why shouldn't I? I'm just one more person, after all" (or they just don't think about it at all). When they should be thinking: "what would happen if everybody stopped using plastic bags today? Well, it would be amazing! On the off chance that everybody else is thinking the same thing, I should totally do that!" If only! Problems are not fixed or changed from the surface in, no. They are always fixed from the inside out. It is systemic. The biggest polluters should be the ones forced to make changes and setting example for everyone else who is smaller. Coincidentally, if the businesses made changes; people's only choice then is to shop somewhere else or not at all. This backwards shit is just about money.
The biggest polluters are just regular people though. Oil is mined because you and I drive cars. Non-reusable packaging is created because you and I buy it. Of course businesses are part of the problem too, but assigning them full responsibility doesn't reflect reality. None of these products which damage the environment would exist if everybody just stopped buying them.
That said, I agree that the most effective solutions will be systemic ones, but I think that you're presenting a false dichotomy. Just because it will most likely be government intervention or what have you that sorts these issues out doesn't mean that not using plastic bags or not driving as much aren't effective solutions in their own right. There's just no reason not to do these things, and there's no reason why both solutions can't be implemented simultaneously.
I don't see how it matters that money is involved either. In fact, what better motivation to be environmentally friendly is there for businesses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
