Tree huggers want to stop the cutting down of trees to save the environment.
Paper is made from trees that have been cut down.
If plastic bags are banned ,that means that more paper bags will be required.
That means that more trees will have to be cut down in order to meet the increased need for more paper bags .
So tree huggers are now calling for a ban on the one thing[plastic bags] that would require less trees to be cut down.
Does that make any sense at all to anyone??
Yes. It makes sense because the trees we use for paper are grown for paper.We grow more of them each year. The treehuggers are not worried about that, because it is self-sustaining. Their concern is about e.g. the clearing of valuable rainforest for timber or simply to free land for agriculture.
In San Francisco ,the environmentalists have pressured the San Francisco City Council into passing a law outlawing the use of plastic bags.
The same group is now pressuring the Los Angeles City Council to do the same.
Does that make any sense at all to anyone???
Are tree huggers nuts ???
hippolips
Yes, it makes sense. You may not like it, but it makes sense. First of all, they're called "environmentalists", not "tree huggers". Second, I hadn't heard about this before now, but I can certainly believe it. The reasons being that plastic bags are non-biodegradeable. Meaning, that they fill up the landfill, and never do they break down naturally and return to base elements, as plastic is man-made, not natural (as paper is natural). Trying to burn plastic is just as bad, if not worse, as it releases poisonous gas into the atmosphere, which causes further deterioration of the ozone layer.
Also, paper is not just made from any old kind of trees or wood. There are specially grown crops for producing new paper. Most paper, however, is recycled from old used paper. Even most toilet paper, as hard as this is to believe, is in fact, made from recycled materials! It is getting harder and harder to find any paper products which are 100% new, these days. As the industries have caught on to the need for environmentalism, as many people have. Not just people who like to hug trees. But rather, anyone who is environmentally responsible.
It's about time a U.S. City has passed a law like this, as that is usually the only way to make people conform (even then, it takes time). What better City to lead the way than San Francisco? That's where most of the U.S. trends begin.
'The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates Americans use 380 billion plastic bags a year. About 20 percent of paper bags and just 1 percent of plastic bags are recycled.
Biodegradable plastic bags, typically made from corn or potato starch, are considered to have less of an impact on the environment.
Marine creatures also choke on, or get caught in, discarded plastic bags, and that was one the reasons for San Francisco's City Council banning them.
San Francisco residents can recycle the biodegradable bags alongside food waste in special curbside bins.' www.msnbc.msn.com
You may or may not agree with the law, but it's a bit much to call its supporters 'nuts' without doing a little research into the background. There are entirely sensible arguments on both sides of the question.
Talking of which, here's a balanced view:
'The answer to the "paper or plastic"? dilemma is: Neither. They're roughly equal in pros and cons. While convenient addictions, they both gobble up natural resources and cause significant pollution...'www.reusablebags.com
And so the Blairite third way...
'So, what is the answer, paper or plastic? NEITHER! Look into purchasing reusable bags or reusing your paper or plastic bags at the store. Reusing a bag meant for just one use has a big impact. A sturdy, reusable bag needs only be used 11 times to have a lower environmental impact than using 11 disposable plastic bags.
In New York City alone, one less grocery bag per person per year would reduce waste by five million pounds and save $250,000 in disposal costs.
When one ton of paper bags is reused or recycled, three cubic meters of landfill space is saved and 13 - 17 trees are spared! In 1997, 955,000 tons of paper bags were used in the United States.
When one ton of plastic bags is reused or recycled, the energy equivalent of 11 barrels of oil are saved.
Many grocery stores now offer for sale sturdy cloth grocery bags. Some of these stores even give you a little discount (e.g., five cents per bag) if you bring your own bag. So, keep a stash of reusable bags in your pantry.'www.epa.gov
In San Francisco ,the environmentalists have pressured the San Francisco City Council into passing a law outlawing the use of plastic bags.
The same group is now pressuring the Los Angeles City Council to do the same.
Does that make any sense at all to anyone???
Are tree huggers nuts ???
hippolips
Yes, it makes sense. You may not like it, but it makes sense. First of all, they're called "environmentalists", not "tree huggers". Second, I hadn't heard about this before now, but I can certainly believe it
Also, paper is not just made from any old kind of trees or wood. There are specially grown crops for producing new paper. Most paper, however, is recycled from old used paper.
It's about time a U.S. City has passed a law like this, as that is usually the only way to make people conform (even then, it takes time). What better City to lead the way than San Francisco? That's where most of the U.S. trends begin.
Hi Val:
I've seen many news stories of those who chain themselves to trees or live in trees...if that ain't tree hugging ,I don't know what you would call it.
How many times can you recycle old paper before it is no longer recycleable???
How many times before your nose or your butt will scream."No more,no more "???
I see you're all for making people "Conform".
What type of uniform will we all be wearing when everyone "Conforms"???
Will you be telling us when to go to bed and what time to wake up in the morning???
What kind of a car will we be required to drive in order to "Conform???
Will we all be required to eat nothing but Veggies to "Conform".
I can hardly wait for your brave new world.
I'm afraid that I must choose not to "Conform".
It's called Freedom.
hippolips
Edited to remove line causing page distortion
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Karrow,
How many times before your nose or your butt will scream."No more,no more "???
...I can hardly wait for your brave new world.
I'm afraid that I must choose not to "Conform".
It's called Freedom.
Think for a minute...there are 6,588,169,243 (that's billion) people in the world as of today. In the US there are 301,588,087 (that's million) . Population If we don't conserve our natural resources, what is going to happen to our environment? Since people don't seem willing to conserve voluntarily, perhaps laws will be necessary. But, personally, I would like to see more effort made to get people to conserve voluntarily.
Perhaps tax incentives to the grocery stores who support reusable bags, etc. Bait with honey instead of vinegar.
I'm a product of the baby boom generation and I have seen our lives changed over the years by the nanny-police, too. Our family tries to reduce our consumption of disposable goods because we believe it is necessary, if we are going to leave a liveable world to our kids and grandkids.
Re-using a bag by itself is meaningless, but think; if only 25% of the US population participated, how much difference would that make? I don't know the actual amount, but I know it would amount to a lot less pollution. And it would save our society money, too.
Posts: 4343 | Location: Anchorage, AK | Registered: 06-05-02
That's quite a leap from banning a pollution nuisance to Brave New World. And no, I doubt there's a conspiracy to promote corn in advance of ethanol taking over. Ethanol isn't a very good solution - it might actually take more oil to produce than it replaces.
There seems to be a libertarian assumption that any law protecting the common good is - almost by definition - bad, but any law protecting the freedom of the individual Walmart to do what he or she it likes is good. It strikes me as corporate propaganda, simply seeking deregulation to increase profits, but dressing things up with slogans about 'Freedom'.
Plastic bags are a problem, a pollutant and a danger to wildlife, and they're not necessary to anyone's freedom or quality of life. Without legislation, or some other community/government intervention however, they will continue to be used.
Ban them. It isnt the beginning of a tree-hugger dictatorship, it's just another of those helpful little rules that might make life better for everyone (including animals and trees).
But it will mean that many more trees will have to be cut down,and that won't be good for either the trees or the animals.
I've seen women come out of grocery stores pushing a shopping cart containing a dozen or more plastic bags.
Do you really think that the government can force every woman in the U.S. to go out and purchase a dozen cloth bags ,just so that she can go shopping???
If you want to p#$s off every woman in this country,just try ramming that one through.
And do you really think that every plastic bag company is going to take this goofy legislation lying down ...without putting up a fight.This is restraint of trade.
Originally posted by hippolips: This is restraint of trade.
Wrong. You are misunderstanding the term "restraint of trade".
Restraint of trade is a restriction on a person's freedom to do business in a location for a period of time. This restriction would be enacted by a contract between two parties, not by legislation
Posts: 2006 | Location: Boise, Idaho, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
We have come to the point where if we are to survive, many unpleasant choices will need to be made. Getting rid of plastic bags may be one of them. It seems pretty small, but, as has been well-stated above, it does add up. Sorry hippolips; freedom, as they say, isn't free.
On a lighter note: a friend of mine likes to say, at the supermarket when asked "paper or plastic,"
"Either one. I'm bi-saxual."
Posts: 1505 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Yes, the environmentalists are a nutty bunch. Claiming to try to save the planet yet in many cases doing more harm than good.
The thing we need to remember about trees, is trees live yet they eventually die. It comes to a certain point in the life of a tree it is practical to cut it down and get some good out of it. I remember a few years ago President Bush making proposals to do some clearing and cleaning out in our National forests. The objective to reduce forest fires. These environmentalists flared up on that proposal. Seems they would rather see Mother Nature burn down a million acres of trees than to see man cut down a thousand and do some good with them.
Then there is the use of plastic bags. The problem being petroleum based bags do not decompose in land fills. They promote the use of corn starch bas plastic. Problem here is they don't decompose in the landfills either. So what's the difference???
I remember when people cleaning up the Exxon Valdez disaster, using different cleaners & chemicals in the process. Turned out some of these chemical compounds used for cleaning were actually more harmful to the environment than the oil that was spilled.
Then there was the banning of freon for use in air conditioning. The fear of making the o-zone hole bigger. Never mind the patent had run out and a new product was developed to take its place. Never mind the company who developed the stuff was hand in hand with the right government agencies to do away with the old reliable freon which had kept us cool for many years.
Also I shall ask...How much money does Al Gore spend every month on utilities every month on his Tennessee mansion??? I'm sure he can afford it.
Environmentalism is not about saving the planet. It is about politics, power & money, just like everything else. And its always the little guy at the bottom who suffers because of the high costs that is evolved in the process of new changes that take place.
The bottom line is the bottom dollar.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by hippolips: Do you really think that the government can force every woman in the U.S. to go out and purchase a dozen cloth bags ,just so that she can go shopping???
Some stores give you a discount if you reuse your old paper bags. It saves the store money and the customer too. Everybody wins. I think people will do more than you think to save a buck these days.
The biggest problem with plastic bags is purely aesthetic - they blow out of landfills and end up in neighborhoods, countryside and everywhere else that they shouldn't be. The national flower of Argentina(?) is the plastic bag and Tierra del Fuego is virtually littered with the buggers.
If you think about how many plastic bags we get in a week, it's pretty crazy. I try to avoid putting all my produce in individual bags, and try to avoid them double bagging everything. Then I try to reuse those bags that I get for other purposes, but my god... In just a few months I've accumulated about 400 bags that fill up a pretty sizable box. I would appreciate it if the grocers reused the bags if I could take them and drop them off, I know some places do this. I would also not have a problem if quality cloth bags became available.
And what I really want to know is why use of grocery bags has taken on a gender role in this thread. Every man that I know goes to the grocery store just like every woman I know.
I love how the most basic of responsibility issues can become about those nasty environmentalists. Try living in an urban area that sees bags floating in the streets, river and lake. It's very pretty.
Posts: 3062 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
.
