Hate to be the party pooper on this thread, but these bags are priceless to a dog owner. I need an average of 1095 of these bags a year and some days each walk is a double bagger.

Please save your plastic bags for me or time for me to grocery shop in Hoboken.

There is no such thing as cloth diaper service for dogs (barf)


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for saving the environment, but dog poop (especially when your dog is 100+ pounds) is serious business. Sorry for the visual.... *grin*

So buying bags is ok then - it seems to defeat the purpose of eliminating bags.........I'm not even sure if we are allowed to place raw waste in trash cans.

This idea just means that instead of the stores giving us bags to carry goods home with the added benefit of re-using them, we now need to buy them for waste removal and to carry goods.

Buying shares in a plastic bag company isn't such a stupid idea after all !

Quote:

Wait a sec... you depend on small plastic grocery bags to use for garbage bags in your kitchen... and oppose this ordinance because you'd have to start buying your own garbage bags? What! Sorry I don't feel for you.

Stupid idea.

I re-use those bags for waste collection under in my kitchen before placing it in the trash cans for collection.

If this idea goes ahead, the uncontained raw waste will attract rodents and stink up the place in my trash cans - not to mention the health dramas of attracting flys and other germ spreading insects !

Or am I expected to buy plastic bags to contain my raw kitchen waste before placing it in trash cans ?

It might be worth buying shares in plastic bag companies - better still, bring back those degradable paper bags !

Quote:

Yeah, I'm with you parkman. There are about 3,432 issues that are more important than bags.

This is a prime example of government 'bossing' instead of 'managing'.

A manager prioritizes important tasks to be completed and leads and enables everyone to work together to achieve the goals at hand.

A boss sits back, does nothing him/herself and only gives orders.

Dictating that we can no longer use plastic bags doesn't accomplish a whole lot except for adding a to-do item for shop owners to deal with.

Shoprite has been giving $0.05 rebates per bag for bringing your own, but they game the system by charging by YOUR bags not the number you've not taken from them. What we fit in a canvas bag they would put in 2-3 plastic, DOUBLE bagged!

Quote:

This is a reason why cellulosic ethanol is a great idea. The entire organic waste stream from grass clippings to waste lumber can be turned into fuel without the smokestack of an incinerator/generator.

Quote:

Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. - book reviews

Whole Earth Review, Summer,
1993 by Stewart Brand

The material evidence of our civilization, lovingly preserved in landfill, diverges considerably from our image of ourselves. This book is full of amazing news gathered in two decades by the Tucson-based Garbage Project. The debris accumulation in Troy raised the city 4.7 feet per century. New York City has risen 6 to 30 feet since its founding. The methane generated in landfills is being used in some places as a power source, but there is relatively little actual rotting going on landfills, and "biodegradable" products (including even fresh food) are preserved perfectly for decades.

Environmentalist have persuaded the American public that landfill is made up of 20-30 percent fast-food packaging, 25-40 percent expanded foam, and 25-45 percent disposable diapers. ("The Disposable Diaper Myth," in Whole Earth Review #60, Fall 1988, declared in a tone of outrage that 3-4 percent of landfill was diapers.) The actual figures: 0.59-1.28 percent disposable diapers; 1 percent foam; 0.33 percent fast-food packaging. The real villains are paper (40 percent); construction debris (12 percent); and food and yard waste (7 percent).

http://www.amazon.com/Rubbish-Archaeo ... liam-Rathje/dp/0816521433

If compostable bags aren't composted and are just put in the trash, do they really make a difference?

Now if they could figure out a way to stop raising our taxes and make this city the great place it could be, I?d be impressed.

Thank you councilman Fulop for your leadership on this important issue. These things are among the biggest contributors to the city's insane litter problem. Anything we can do to reduce/eliminate their use is a winner!

Series of blunders turned the plastic bag into global villain

The Times
March 8, 2008
Alexi Mostrous

Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims.

The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds.

Gordon Brown announced last month that he would force supermarkets to charge for the bags, saying that they were ?one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste?. Retailers and some pressure groups, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, threw their support behind him.

But scientists, politicians and marine experts attacked the Government for joining a ?bandwagon? based on poor science.

Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science, said: ?The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence. This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn?t achieve anything.?

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, The Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.

They ?don?t figure? in the majority of cases where animals die from marine debris, said David Laist, the author of a seminal 1997 study on the subject. Most deaths were caused when creatures became caught up in waste produce. ?Plastic bags don?t figure in entanglement,? he said. ?The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands. Most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag.?

He added: ?The impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals ranges from nil for most species to very minor for perhaps a few species.For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either.?

The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.

Fifteen years later in 2002, when the Australian Government commissioned a report into the effects of plastic bags, its authors misquoted the Newfoundland study, mistakenly attributing the deaths to ?plastic bags?.

The figure was latched on to by conservationists as proof that the bags were killers. For four years the ?typo? remained uncorrected. It was only in 2006 that the authors altered the report, replacing ?plastic bags? with ?plastic debris?. But they admitted: ?The actual numbers of animals killed annually by plastic bag litter is nearly impossible to determine.?

In a postscript to the correction they admitted that the original Canadian study had referred to fishing tackle, not plastic debris, as the threat to the marine environment.

Regardless, the erroneous claim has become the keystone of a widening campaign to demonise plastic bags.

David Santillo, a marine biologist at Greenpeace, told The Times that bad science was undermining the Government?s case for banning the bags. ?It?s very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags,? he said. ?The evidence shows just the opposite. We are not going to solve the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags.

?It doesn?t do the Government?s case any favours if you?ve got statements being made that aren?t supported by the scientific literature that?s out there. With larger mammals it?s fishing gear that?s the big problem. On a global basis plastic bags aren?t an issue. It would be great if statements like these weren?t made.?

Geoffrey Cox, a Tory member of the Commons Environment Select Committee, said: ?I don't like plastic bags and I certainly support restricting their use, but plainly it?s extremely important that before we take any steps we should rely on accurate information. It is bizarre that any campaign should be endorsed on the basis of a mistranslation. Gordon Brown should get his facts right.?

A 1968 study of albatross carcasses found that 90 per cent contained some form of plastic but only two birds had ingested part of a plastic bag.

Professor Geoff Boxshall, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum, said: ?I?ve never seen a bird killed by a plastic bag. Other forms of plastic in the ocean are much more damaging. Only a very small proportion is caused by bags.?

Plastic particles known as nurdles, dumped in the sea by industrial companies, form a much greater threat as they can be easily consumed by birds and animals. Many British groups are now questioning whether a ban on bags would cost consumers more than the environmental benefits.

Charlie Mayfield, chairman of retailer John Lewis, said that tackling packaging waste and reducing carbon emissions were far more important goals. ?We don?t see reducing the use of plastic bags as our biggest priority,? he said. ?Of all the waste that goes to landfill, 20 per cent is household waste and 0.3 per cent is plastic bags.? John Lewis added that a scheme in Ireland had reduced plastic bag usage, but sales of bin liners had increased 400 per cent.

Though many think the ban on plastic bags in just based on poor science - Jersey City moves to ban them:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news ... onment/article3508263.ece



Jersey City Mayor Healy and Councilman Fulop agree on requiring businesses to phase out use of single-use plastic bags

Friday, October 22, 2010
By MELISSA HAYES
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Two unlikely partners are joining forces for the betterment of the environment.

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy is supporting Ward E Councilman Steven Fulop's effort to require businesses in the city to phase out single-use, disposable plastic bags.


Fulop, who is hoping to run for mayor in 2013, plans to introduce an ordinance next week requiring the use of compostable plastic, recyclable paper or reusable checkout bags.

"We have a responsibility to take care of the world around us," Fulop said in a statement.

"This legislation will force many necessary changes to protect our environment and lessen any negative impact."

Fulop estimates that each person in the city uses 350 bags a year; multiply that by the number of residents and that's over 84 million bags annually.

"Reducing the use of plastic bags in this city is an initiative that I have been passionate about and which this administration has been working on for some time," Healy said in a statement.

"We think this ordinance is a reasonable approach to that goal and look forward to working with Councilman Fulop on moving this concept forward."

The mayor has not said if he intends to run for re-election.

Fulop's legislation would require large chain and retail stores in the city to comply within six months or one year.