On January 25 2020 00:42 JimmiC wrote: While 8 states have banned single use plastic bags, many other states have made it impossible for municipalities to ban bags.
My country banned plastic bags and I can't say it's an improvement. People used their plastic shopping bags to wrap house trash and then drop it to the local container. Now people buy this "rehusable" plastic bags for shopping; they are a lot more resource intensive to produce, you need to use them close to 100 times to reach the same footprint as the old disposable bags and most bags never see that use. Paper bags suck and are not rehusable more than a few times before they get holes.
Moreover, on poor areas mostly, now that plastic bags are not free and easily available, littering has increased a lot.
It is a double edged sword, I'm in the midst of trying to draw up policy around it right now. To me I think a charge is what works best and limiting the thinness of the bags. Because as you say as long as they are not ripped they can provide a second and even 3rd use. There is also many reasons that Paper bags for example are as bad or worse than plastic.
With charging for bags (even the nominal 5 cents) can show up to a 90% reduction, which I think shows both it is effective, and there was way to many plastic given out. Many stores are also donating that charge to green charities which is kind of a win win.
All these single use items need to be carefully thought about because there was reasons for bringing them in when they were first introduced.
Blanket bans and blanket protections are not going to help. If you are going to go the Ban route you should specify what type of reusable bags are allowed because as you mention some of them take more uses than they realistically can preform for to become a carbon positive over the single use.
A big issue with the single use is people put them in their "blue bins" and while the material when source separated is recyclable, when they are sent to MRF's (material recovery Facilities) they just gum up the machines, shred into tiny pieces and contaminate other commodities. There is a lot of talk in the industry of changing the message from "Don't put them into the blue bins they are not recyclable" to "They are recyclable, but damage MRF's please take them to public drop-offs or retail sponsored recyclable programs"
The recycling industry for a long time just wanted to get as much possible and didn't care about the quality of the materials because they thought if it was complicated people just wouldn't do it. What they are realizing is this created a lot of mixed messaging, missinformation and no unity between different areas. The industry and associations are working hard to be better.
I guess this is a long way of saying, blanket rules to not allow municipalities to regulate ban's is a over reaction to an over reaction. Plastic bags can be really good, they have a low carbon foot print, they can keep food waste down because they are strong and immune to weather (lots of problems with paper ripping in rain and high humidity). But there was a excessive amount given out at a low quality that did not allow for reuse. They also are super light (which is good for logistics) which means they can blow far and end up in waterways. So regulate the use, the thickness and the cost. Don't flat out ban and also don't ban regulation.
Interestingly enough the Retail Council of Canada(RCC) supports mandatory charges and thicknesses. Once they are "forced" to charge it levels out the playing field and they can gain marketing advantages by promoting green initiatives with a level playing field. No regulation lead to a race to the bottom in quality and giving out way to many. What the RCC hates is every city or province having different rules. Because then just trying to comply becomes a huge burden. They have told us they prefer the charge, but would settle for any rule that was uniform across the country.
its an educational measure. If people wouldn't throw their waste anywhere they like, there'd be no need for a plastic bag ban. But unfortunately they end up everywhere, ocean, landscape, street, thus we need to help people in that way to behave correctly.
On January 25 2020 00:42 JimmiC wrote: While 8 states have banned single use plastic bags, many other states have made it impossible for municipalities to ban bags.
My country banned plastic bags and I can't say it's an improvement. People used their plastic shopping bags to wrap house trash and then drop it to the local container. Now people buy this "rehusable" plastic bags for shopping; they are a lot more resource intensive to produce, you need to use them close to 100 times to reach the same footprint as the old disposable bags and most bags never see that use. Paper bags suck and are not rehusable more than a few times before they get holes.
Moreover, on poor areas mostly, now that plastic bags are not free and easily available, littering has increased a lot.
It is a double edged sword, I'm in the midst of trying to draw up policy around it right now. To me I think a charge is what works best and limiting the thinness of the bags. Because as you say as long as they are not ripped they can provide a second and even 3rd use. There is also many reasons that Paper bags for example are as bad or worse than plastic.
With charging for bags (even the nominal 5 cents) can show up to a 90% reduction, which I think shows both it is effective, and there was way to many plastic given out. Many stores are also donating that charge to green charities which is kind of a win win.
All these single use items need to be carefully thought about because there was reasons for bringing them in when they were first introduced.
Blanket bans and blanket protections are not going to help. If you are going to go the Ban route you should specify what type of reusable bags are allowed because as you mention some of them take more uses than they realistically can preform for to become a carbon positive over the single use.
A big issue with the single use is people put them in their "blue bins" and while the material when source separated is recyclable, when they are sent to MRF's (material recovery Facilities) they just gum up the machines, shred into tiny pieces and contaminate other commodities. There is a lot of talk in the industry of changing the message from "Don't put them into the blue bins they are not recyclable" to "They are recyclable, but damage MRF's please take them to public drop-offs or retail sponsored recyclable programs"
The recycling industry for a long time just wanted to get as much possible and didn't care about the quality of the materials because they thought if it was complicated people just wouldn't do it. What they are realizing is this created a lot of mixed messaging, missinformation and no unity between different areas. The industry and associations are working hard to be better.
I guess this is a long way of saying, blanket rules to not allow municipalities to regulate ban's is a over reaction to an over reaction. Plastic bags can be really good, they have a low carbon foot print, they can keep food waste down because they are strong and immune to weather (lots of problems with paper ripping in rain and high humidity). But there was a excessive amount given out at a low quality that did not allow for reuse. They also are super light (which is good for logistics) which means they can blow far and end up in waterways. So regulate the use, the thickness and the cost. Don't flat out ban and also don't ban regulation.
Interestingly enough the Retail Council of Canada(RCC) supports mandatory charges and thicknesses. Once they are "forced" to charge it levels out the playing field and they can gain marketing advantages by promoting green initiatives with a level playing field. No regulation lead to a race to the bottom in quality and giving out way to many. What the RCC hates is every city or province having different rules. Because then just trying to comply becomes a huge burden. They have told us they prefer the charge, but would settle for any rule that was uniform across the country.
If you could ask for a few at the cashier, instead of having them pushing them on you, it would go a long measure. I store food on the bridge regularly and after a few years I still miss those damn readily available bags. I would use them for shopping, then for my food, and then for trash.
I think it's important to point out that trash is more of a distribution than production issue. I read somewhere a small hole (relatively) in the dessert could hold all human trash for the next few hundred years; problem is garbage going other places mostly.
On January 25 2020 00:42 JimmiC wrote: While 8 states have banned single use plastic bags, many other states have made it impossible for municipalities to ban bags.
My country banned plastic bags and I can't say it's an improvement. People used their plastic shopping bags to wrap house trash and then drop it to the local container. Now people buy this "rehusable" plastic bags for shopping; they are a lot more resource intensive to produce, you need to use them close to 100 times to reach the same footprint as the old disposable bags and most bags never see that use. Paper bags suck and are not rehusable more than a few times before they get holes.
Moreover, on poor areas mostly, now that plastic bags are not free and easily available, littering has increased a lot.
It is a double edged sword, I'm in the midst of trying to draw up policy around it right now. To me I think a charge is what works best and limiting the thinness of the bags. Because as you say as long as they are not ripped they can provide a second and even 3rd use. There is also many reasons that Paper bags for example are as bad or worse than plastic.
With charging for bags (even the nominal 5 cents) can show up to a 90% reduction, which I think shows both it is effective, and there was way to many plastic given out. Many stores are also donating that charge to green charities which is kind of a win win.
All these single use items need to be carefully thought about because there was reasons for bringing them in when they were first introduced.
Blanket bans and blanket protections are not going to help. If you are going to go the Ban route you should specify what type of reusable bags are allowed because as you mention some of them take more uses than they realistically can preform for to become a carbon positive over the single use.
A big issue with the single use is people put them in their "blue bins" and while the material when source separated is recyclable, when they are sent to MRF's (material recovery Facilities) they just gum up the machines, shred into tiny pieces and contaminate other commodities. There is a lot of talk in the industry of changing the message from "Don't put them into the blue bins they are not recyclable" to "They are recyclable, but damage MRF's please take them to public drop-offs or retail sponsored recyclable programs"
The recycling industry for a long time just wanted to get as much possible and didn't care about the quality of the materials because they thought if it was complicated people just wouldn't do it. What they are realizing is this created a lot of mixed messaging, missinformation and no unity between different areas. The industry and associations are working hard to be better.
I guess this is a long way of saying, blanket rules to not allow municipalities to regulate ban's is a over reaction to an over reaction. Plastic bags can be really good, they have a low carbon foot print, they can keep food waste down because they are strong and immune to weather (lots of problems with paper ripping in rain and high humidity). But there was a excessive amount given out at a low quality that did not allow for reuse. They also are super light (which is good for logistics) which means they can blow far and end up in waterways. So regulate the use, the thickness and the cost. Don't flat out ban and also don't ban regulation.
Interestingly enough the Retail Council of Canada(RCC) supports mandatory charges and thicknesses. Once they are "forced" to charge it levels out the playing field and they can gain marketing advantages by promoting green initiatives with a level playing field. No regulation lead to a race to the bottom in quality and giving out way to many. What the RCC hates is every city or province having different rules. Because then just trying to comply becomes a huge burden. They have told us they prefer the charge, but would settle for any rule that was uniform across the country.
If you could ask for a few at the cashier, instead of having them pushing them on you, it would go a long measure. I store food on the bridge regularly and after a few years I still miss those damn readily available bags. I would use them for shopping, then for my food, and then for trash.
I think it's important to point out that trash is more of a distribution than production issue. I read somewhere a relatively small hole (relatively) in the dessert could hold all human trash for the next few hundred years; problem is garbage going other places mostly.
Yes, as Artisreal points out the issue is not people who use them correctly as you are describing but rather those that do not.
With proper waste management, things like glass (which is really just sand) and even plastic are not a problem in a landfill if properly managed. There are some life cycling exercises that people have done that show that in fact depending on logistics and the process used to recycle it is likely to be a net positive to put them in the landfill. So if there was a glass recycling plant within 200 miles (made up distance just as a example) it is worth it, but if you have to truck it all across the country than it is not.
The real issues for landfills are the organics and fibers (paper and cardboard), the fibers are easy to recycle and sort and there is a big savings on tree's. Then with both organics and fibers, in a landfill they do not break down naturally because of the compression and like of oxygen creating Methane and other harmful gasses and leachate. Before I got into the industry I thought throwing away a apple was not a big deal but a glass jar must always be recycled, turns out it is almost always bad for the apple, and sometimes better with the glass jar.
They are all pretty complex questions and logistics tends to be a big factor on whether or not the recycling is a net benefit to the environment or not. This is why in the waste hierarchy Avoid, Reduce and Reuse are higher than recycle but we often get focused on the recycling end because we feel good when we drop something in a blue bin or at a recycling depot.
Bonus of things is there is a lot of passionate educated people working on making all those systems better and trying to provide good information about what is best with much less green washing. Though like everything in this day and age it is hard to get good info and hard to trust it.
Relative to their size, leaf-blowers are among the most polluting machines ever invented. 1/3 of their fuel is released into the air unburned, as an aerosol; and the amount of pollutants released from running one for 30 minutes is equivalent to that of an F-150 driving from Texas to Alaska.
Leafblowers blow disintegrated brake dust, vulcanized rubber, and animal feces back into the air, but nobody really seems to care.
Relative to their size, leaf-blowers are among the most polluting machines ever invented. 1/3 of their fuel is released into the air unburned, as an aerosol; and the amount of pollutants released from running one for 30 minutes is equivalent to that of an F-150 driving from Texas to Alaska.
Leafblowers blow disintegrated brake dust, vulcanized rubber, and animal feces back into the air, but nobody really seems to care
Soooo, what do you suggest there is to be done in addition to what's already happening. AFAIK there's a lot of blowback against these machines already.
Relative to their size, leaf-blowers are among the most polluting machines ever invented. 1/3 of their fuel is released into the air unburned, as an aerosol; and the amount of pollutants released from running one for 30 minutes is equivalent to that of an F-150 driving from Texas to Alaska.
Leafblowers blow disintegrated brake dust, vulcanized rubber, and animal feces back into the air, but nobody really seems to care
Soooo, what do you suggest there is to be done in addition to what's already happening. AFAIK there's a lot of blowback against these machines already.
It's also incredibly lazy, I mean it's one thing if you're 75 years old, but adults using them to clean their parking or their lawn when it's not even faster than taking a broom or a rake is sad to see.
Relative to their size, leaf-blowers are among the most polluting machines ever invented. 1/3 of their fuel is released into the air unburned, as an aerosol; and the amount of pollutants released from running one for 30 minutes is equivalent to that of an F-150 driving from Texas to Alaska.
Leafblowers blow disintegrated brake dust, vulcanized rubber, and animal feces back into the air, but nobody really seems to care
Soooo, what do you suggest there is to be done in addition to what's already happening. AFAIK there's a lot of blowback against these machines already.
What perfect word choice, well played even if not intended!
Relative to their size, leaf-blowers are among the most polluting machines ever invented. 1/3 of their fuel is released into the air unburned, as an aerosol; and the amount of pollutants released from running one for 30 minutes is equivalent to that of an F-150 driving from Texas to Alaska.
Leafblowers blow disintegrated brake dust, vulcanized rubber, and animal feces back into the air, but nobody really seems to care
Soooo, what do you suggest there is to be done in addition to what's already happening. AFAIK there's a lot of blowback against these machines already.
"blowback" I see what u did there.
They could follow the lead of Hawaii by banning gas powered blowers outright, fining people stiffly for breaking the sound level ordinance, or the government could offer financial incentives to landscaping companies to switch from gas to electric powered blowers like they did with Tesla's electric car rebates. Company's will change when they are financially motivated to do so or the government requires it of them. https://igin.com/print-article-1622-print.html
The state of Hawaii recently passed a law which bans all gasoline-powered leaf blowers and restricts electric leaf blower use in residential areas to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
In addition to the restrictions, the new regulations also state that noise levels generated by the leaf blowers cannot exceed 70 decibels beyond boundaries of the property being cleaned. Leaf blowing operations are also prohibited from blowing debris onto adjacent property.
The law doesn’t apply to other power equipment, such as string trimmers and lawnmowers. Violators will be fined $50 for first violation and up to $500 for repeat violations.
On January 29 2020 22:03 Artisreal wrote: I wish countries were as proactive in implementing climate change mitigation strategies as they are with virus containment.
I don't.
It seems like a massive waste of resources, which could be used for better things, to me.
Some not at all surprising but still disappointing that the trouble recycling plastic was known in the 70’s. These misinformation campaigns are so destructive because real changes that could have been made(and now slowly are) could have been implemented long long ago at this point. Also many single use options would have never been allowed.
Brazil has experienced a lot of rain forest deforestation since Bolsonarno took over, but at least for now he has deployed the army in an attempt to stop, or slow it. Hopefully it works as this is something that impacts the entire world.
Came across this cool company Rubicon.com they use machine learning and the newest technology to save municipalities money and make them more sustainable by increasing efficiency and using the garbage trucks to "see" other problem like pot holes. They are attempting to make cities proactive and better environmentally all while saving them money. Pretty cool stuff.
Also this was posted on the US pol thread but there is a evangelical environmental network, pretty cool because generally Christians fall on the "right" side of center which is often the side against environmentalism. These people a christian and care about the planets long term health.
The Donald takes aim at one of the older environmental.laws in the US. One that was put in by Nixon to give residents a say in the pipelines highways and chemical plants to in their neighborhoods. If you are for the planet do not vote trump.
A cool pilot from starbucks on using reusable cups. Single use coffee cups create Tonnes of waste so anything that can help is a good thing. Hopefully the pilot will be a success.