Plastic Floating in the Pacific!

[Jeff Strickland]

"V-for-Vendicar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote
>> The point I was making though is the unintended consequence of Paper or
>> Plastic. Paper takes trees, and this is an environmental concern and the
>> customary way to get groceries home for more than half of my life, and
>> all of my grand parent's lives. We recognize one environmental problem,
>> and remedy it by going to a different material at the checkstand. The
>> remedy has an unintended consequence that is just now being recognized,
>> 20-ish years later.
>
> God I'm getting old. I remember when Paper bags were the only thing
> availble (at the grocery)
>
> They worked poorly, ripping regularly and dumping their content on the
> floor. Plastic was an improvement -
> at least initially - new plastic bags are so thin that they are about as
> unreliable as the paper - so much for corporations providing optimal
> products.
>
> In any case, it was patently obvious as the plastic bags became more
> popular that they were and would continue to be a burden on the
> environment. The solution of course is to recycle them. But at the time
> no infrastructure existed for recycling anything but metals.
>
> Today, the Grocery store I go to has a nice little cylindrical container
> into which old plastic bags can be placed, and that is where the plastic
> bags that I receive - automatically - go.
>
> If you find a source for some appropriate canvas bags that can be carried
> on the sholder, let me know. After 15 to 20 years the ones I have now are
> not long for this world.
>
>


We do not recycle grocery bags, we reuse them. They are perfect to clean the
cat box and pick up the dog **** from the lawn.

It is good practice to tie any plastic grocery bag into a knot if you throw
it away because the knot makes the bag so it won't easily blow away. It
won't float in the air if it is tied in a knot.

 

[pmh]

On Feb 9, 3:41 pm, Siskuwihane <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:03 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > > Back then, the problem was paper bags eating up trees at an alarming rate,
> > > so they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL concerns --
> > > paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the environment, so let's use
> > > plastic and save the trees. Not a bad argument as arguments go, and I
> > > generally answered the question, "paper or plastic?" with, "plastic,
> > > please."
>
> > Virtually all of my groceries come home in cloth (probably hemp) bags, and
> > have done for the last 15 years. Same bags every time.
>
> > They are great because they clasp shut and can be carried on the sholder.
> > They are the perfect size, capable of holding about 20 lbs each - extremely
> > strong, durable, washable, and usable for a variety of other purposes.
> > Unfortunately they have become worn and I can't find similar replacements.
>
> > A few days ago I picked up a reusable tarp like plastic bag. Inferior but
> > still reusable and made from 100% recycled materials.
>
> > Bag cost me a buck.
>
> While I am no fan of Wal-Mart, reps came to my childrens school and
> gave a propaganda speech and each child recieved a reusable shopping
> bag that is (according to the tag) "100% recylable, is made from 85%
> recyled materials, is made from approximately 4 plastic soad bottles,
> can replace 50 shopping bags and can carry the same weight as2-3
> plastic shopping bags". Wal-mart states they have "a goal of zero
> waste by 2025 in all Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores." It's a start I
> guess.

 

[pmh]

On Feb 9, 3:41 pm, Siskuwihane <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:03 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > > Back then, the problem was paper bags eating up trees at an alarming rate,
> > > so they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL concerns --
> > > paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the environment, so let's use
> > > plastic and save the trees. Not a bad argument as arguments go, and I
> > > generally answered the question, "paper or plastic?" with, "plastic,
> > > please."
>
> > Virtually all of my groceries come home in cloth (probably hemp) bags, and
> > have done for the last 15 years. Same bags every time.
>
> > They are great because they clasp shut and can be carried on the sholder.
> > They are the perfect size, capable of holding about 20 lbs each - extremely
> > strong, durable, washable, and usable for a variety of other purposes.
> > Unfortunately they have become worn and I can't find similar replacements.
>
> > A few days ago I picked up a reusable tarp like plastic bag. Inferior but
> > still reusable and made from 100% recycled materials.
>
> > Bag cost me a buck.
>
> While I am no fan of Wal-Mart, reps came to my childrens school and
> gave a propaganda speech and each child recieved a reusable shopping
> bag that is (according to the tag) "100% recylable, is made from 85%
> recyled materials, is made from approximately 4 plastic soad bottles,
> can replace 50 shopping bags and can carry the same weight as2-3
> plastic shopping bags". Wal-mart states they have "a goal of zero
> waste by 2025 in all Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores." It's a start I
> guess.

Sorry for empty post; possibly more fodder for Mikey!

But consider - "...Wal-mart states they have "a goal of zero
waste by 2025..."

Step one: create a monumental and growing problem. Yep, Wally's
plastic trash.

Step two: identify the problem as a "goal."

Step three: pat yourself on the back as you ineffectually fall short
of even remaining in sight of that goal.

 

[Jym Dyer]

> ... they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL
> concerns -- paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the
> environment, so let's use plastic and save the trees.

=v= This is not accurate. Certainly plastic bags were HYPED
as tree-saving, but enviromentalists at the time were opposed
to all disposables and suggested reusable canvas tote bags.
Which are still the solution.

=v= Certainly there was a vaguely-countercultural trend towards
anything hypermodern in the 1970s, which accepted pretty much
anything new and plastic, but that wasn't environmental at all.
<_Jym_>

 

[Jym Dyer]

>> We recognize one environmental problem, and remedy it by
>> going to a different material at the checkstand.

=v= Plastic bags were not introduced to handle an environmental
problem. Plastic bags were introduced because they're cheaper.
The reason they're cheaper is that their environmental impact
is more easily shuffled aside for somebody else to pay the
costs of.

> In any case, it was patently obvious as the plastic bags
> became more popular that they were and would continue to be
> a burden on the environment. The solution of course is to
> recycle them.

=v= That's no solution at all. Plastic is "downcycled," not
really recycled. Most of the plastic taken for recycling is
shipped overseas and dumped into landfill, commingled with
other plastics that render it totally useless (and often quite
toxic). When they actually do achieve downcycling, you end up
with a flimsy plastic **** product, also destined for landfill.
<_Jym_>

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:48:03 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 7, 8:05 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://marine-litter.gpa.unep.org/documents/World's_largest_landfill.pdf
>> --
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
>Mikey....
>
>Maybe you can help me with something you specialize in....everytime I
>read your posts I get sick to my stomach and puke. Since your true
>specialty has nothing to due with real science or ecology or
>naturalism...and deals with being a dietary lunchlady...I figured you
>might be able to help me.
>
>~Magua~

Stop eating your own turds. Glad to be of service.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:47:18 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"V-for-Vendicar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Back then, the problem was paper bags eating up trees at an alarming
>>> rate, so they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL
>>> concerns -- paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the environment,
>>> so let's use plastic and save the trees. Not a bad argument as arguments
>>> go, and I generally answered the question, "paper or plastic?" with,
>>> "plastic, please."
>>
>> Virtually all of my groceries come home in cloth (probably hemp) bags, and
>> have done for the last 15 years. Same bags every time.
>>
>> They are great because they clasp shut and can be carried on the sholder.
>> They are the perfect size, capable of holding about 20 lbs each -
>> extremely strong, durable, washable, and usable for a variety of other
>> purposes. Unfortunately they have become worn and I can't find similar
>> replacements.
>>
>> A few days ago I picked up a reusable tarp like plastic bag. Inferior but
>> still reusable and made from 100% recycled materials.
>>
>> Bag cost me a buck.
>>
>
>
>That's great. I can see this -- canvas bags -- happening at my house soon
>as well.
>
>The point I was making though is the unintended consequence of Paper or
>Plastic. Paper takes trees, and this is an environmental concern and the
>customary way to get groceries home for more than half of my life, and all
>of my grand parent's lives. We recognize one environmental problem, and
>remedy it by going to a different material at the checkstand. The remedy has
>an unintended consequence that is just now being recognized, 20-ish years
>later.

Smart people recognized that from the start.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Eugene Miya]

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> I would like to direct your attention to the '70s, if I may.

OK.

> Back then, the problem was paper bags eating up trees at an alarming
> rate, so they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL
> concerns -- paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the environment,
> so let's use plastic and save the trees. Not a bad argument as arguments
> go, and I generally answered the question, "paper or plastic?" with,
> "plastic, please."

Paper resource ONE problem. I don't know the people you associated with
but the first thing any knowledgeable environmentalist back in the 70s
that I remember would have known that most plastic bags came from oil.
Trees were at least renewable. Plastic bags didn't come to save trees,
they are merely cheaper. Stay away from the touchy warm fuzzy feelie granola
types and stay with the more scientifically knowledgeable ones.

It's bad enough that Moore, who led the the sci.env* proposal didn't
listen to me and make the group moderated and elevate talk.environment
for discussion. In his hindsight, he recanted and regretted it.

> Now, I am the bad guy again because plastic floats.

Just is. You are going to consume whatever you do on your time on Earth.

> Environmentalism comes with a wealth of unintended consequences -- we
> save a tree but spoil the water, make electricity from wind but chop up
> a bird, (leaping forward a few decades ... ) drive fuel cell cars and
> flood the side of the road -- that seem to be worse than the problem we
> wanted to remedy when we embarked on the environmentalist agenda.

Garrett Hardin once said you can't just do one thing.


> Having said that, it is refreshing to see Vandeman get excited about a
> real issue ...

That doesn't let him off the hook.

Reduce follow ups.

--