Garrett considers banning plastic bags (1 Viewer)

[Slidey]

slidey doesnt do autoerotic.

homoerotic yes, autoerotic no. he doesnt like asphyxia.

It's only homoerotic since you had the sex change.

 

[Kirsty Xx]

Garrett says no to plastic bags right? So do we use paper bags that come from continuous logging and deforestation or do we use those green cotton bags that require the growth of cotton fields where chemicals and great water usage is involved?
Plastic?
Paper?
Cotton?

However, a minority of supermarkets already are plastic bag free. So are the green cotton bags our future? Most likely.

Just a thought.

 

[chicky_pie]

That's a pretty shit UAI, quixote.

not as shit as what i got before, 30..

 

[Slidey]

No, I really was kidding. My UAI was only 0.05 higher than his 96.30.

 

[Silver Persian]

Garrett says no to plastic bags right? So do we use paper bags that come from continuous logging and deforestation or do we use those green cotton bags that require the growth of cotton fields where chemicals and great water usage is involved?
Plastic?
Paper?
Cotton?

However, a minority of supermarkets already are plastic bag free. So are the green cotton bags our future? Most likely.

Just a thought.

I think the idea would be to use reuseable shopping bags

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I think the idea would be to use reuseable shopping bags

yeah. theoretically you'd only ever need to buy one set of shopping bags and just use them over and over and over. the benefits of that would cancel out any environmental damage done by growing cotton, or whatever. i can't think of any material we could use that would be totally completely 100% environment friendly, anyway. so we might as well choose the lesser evil. as for garbage bags, do we really need them? we've already got the plastic container which is the bin itself, the plastic bag thing is just people wanting to be tidy. we can sacrifice that a little, surely? just hose out the bin quickly every so often.

 

[Slidey]

Doris, you do realise you just said:

Since we can't achieve a 100% environmentally friendly solution, we should opt for the 0% environmentally friendly solution.

Does that argument not strike you as, well, really, really stupid?

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Doris, you do realise you just said:

Since we can't achieve a 100% environmentally friendly solution, we should opt for the 0% environmentally friendly solution.

Does that argument not strike you as, well, really, really stupid?

im sure i didnt say that. im saying that since we cant achieve a 100% environmentally friendly solution we should go for the one that is closer to that. imo that's the reusable bags, since they're more environmentally friendly than plastic.

 

[Slidey]

Ah, I misread. I thought you were in support of the status quo. Pardon me.

 

[Cerry]

yeah. theoretically you'd only ever need to buy one set of shopping bags and just use them over and over and over. the benefits of that would cancel out any environmental damage done by growing cotton, or whatever. i can't think of any material we could use that would be totally completely 100% environment friendly, anyway. so we might as well choose the lesser evil. as for garbage bags, do we really need them? we've already got the plastic container which is the bin itself, the plastic bag thing is just people wanting to be tidy. we can sacrifice that a little, surely? just hose out the bin quickly every so often.

I don't know about everyone else's families, but even if we didn't have bags in our bins inside, the rubbish would end up in bags in the wheelie bin. Not because we don't want to make the bin grotty, but because it means that if the bin gets knocked over on the kerb or something (and if I try to reverse out of the driveway on garbage day, you can pretty much bet on that happening), the rubbish is less likely to blow away in the wind before you get it back in the bin, and it's much faster to get put in, as well. The rubbish is also less likely to come out of the back of the truck that way.
Also, rubbish bags in lanfill aren't as bad for the environment as things like plastic rings from 6 packs of cans blowing around where animals can get caught in them, or mistake them for food and choke to death.

 

[katie_tully]

lol @ environment damage caused by cotton.

as opposed to petrochemicals which are used to make just about everything else including plastic bags .

 

[katie_tully]

Also, rubbish bags in lanfill aren't as bad for the environment as things like plastic rings from 6 packs of cans blowing around where animals can get caught in them, or mistake them for food and choke to death.

thats the animals fault for thinking 6 rings of plastic looks edible. even the starving marvins in Africa aren't that silly.

 

[chicky_pie]

Shoppers face $1 plastic bag tax


BIG grocery retailers have warned consumers the Rudd Government will introduce a compulsory charge of between 25 cents and $1for each plastic checkout bag.

As families are being hit by spiralling interest rates and inflation, Labor's Environment Minister Peter Garrett is moving to introduce the charge on shoppers in a bid to protect the environment.

But Coles and Woolworths believe the ``shopping tax'' will cost shoppers anywherebetween $650 million and $2.5 billion a year, depending on the extent to which consumers phase out their use of the plastic bags.

The $650 million figure is based on a charge per bag of 25 cents to be levied by the retailer at the checkout.

While this is believed to be the cost Federal Treasury and Mr Garret are proposing, some state governments in private discussions have raised the prospect of a $1 charge per bag, which would net some $2.5 billion.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that former NSW environment minister Phil Koperburg had told senior grocery industry figures a charge of $1 was preferred in this state.

Retailers believe the levy would force only 30 per cent of shoppers to immediately cease use of all plastic bags, with 70 per cent continuing to use the bags and being forced to pay the charge.

The average weekly family shop, according to the supermarket giants, involves a dozen plastic bags. At 25 cents a bag it would mean an extra $156 a year minimum on the household budget. At $1 a bag, the figure spirals to $624.

The costs are based on Clean Up Australia's estimates, which suggest there are 3.76 billion plastic bags issued a year. Environment group Planet Ark puts it at more than five billion.

The grocery chains are concerned they will face the brunt of any consumer backlash against the new charge, which is on the agenda for a state and federal ministerial council meeting of environment ministers on April 17.

The Rudd government went to the election witha policy to ``use economic instruments'' to reduce the use of plastic bags.

Laws requiring the supermarket chains to impose the charge would come at state level, but with wall-to-wall Labor governments, this is regarded as a fait accompli.

The Rudd Government is wary that the industry and consumers will label the levy a "new tax'' so it will force the supermarkets to impose it, rather than the government.

This raises questions as to where the huge windfall to the retail giants would be spent, and where the money would go in the case of smaller supermarkets.

But the industry says there has been no discussion with the government on this aspect of the issue.

They say at a time when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised to do all he can to bring down family living costs, it is an extra impost.

"People are already focussed on the price of what's going in the bag,'' said one industry figure. "Now they'll need to worry about the costs of the bag itself.''

Another senior industry source said: "Even if everyone switched immediately to green bags - which they won't - at $1 a bag this will add around $12 a shop for the average working family for their initial shop after the plastic charge is introduced.

But there will be ongoingcosts each time they've forgotten (to take) their bags to the supermarket.

The life cycle of the green bags is also over-stated - so one would assume that many families would be replacing them regularly during the year.''

Industry sources also say the environmental concerns over plastic bags have to be weighed against the much bigger carbon impact of producing and transporting heavier material green bags.

Rather than a ban or a levy, the supermarket giants would prefer that the government funds a research and development study into the use of biodegradable plastic bags.

Senior government sources declined to respond directly to the industry claims, saying a number of options would be on the table at the April 17 ministerial council meeting.

But they confirmed that a compulsory bag charge would be among them.

They said Mr Garrett's preferred option did not involve a "new tax'' and that a "compulsory charge'' would be much simpler for supermarkets to administer than acquitting a tax.

"It would be much simpler for them (the supermarkets) to administer than a tax and they could still blame governments for the charge,'' a government source said.

"The whole point would be to set the price of plastic bags so that consumers very rapidly stopped buying them and adopted reusable bags.''

The source also suggested that supermarkets could use the revenue raised to set up environmental funds.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23342669-5001021,00.html

while we're facing high inflations, this bald bastard who dances like a mental patient having a seizure, wants us to pay $1 for shopping bags, rip off!

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

But Coles and Woolworths believe the ``shopping tax'' will cost shoppers anywherebetween $650 million and $2.5 billion a year, depending on the extent to which consumers phase out their use of the plastic bags.

well isn't the point of the charge to make sure people do start phasing out plastic bags? i know i'd rather pay $10 for a few green bags i could use over and over and over than pay $30 extra every time i went to the supermarket to do my groceries. people are only complaining because they're too accustomed to the 'convenience' of plastic bags which is a bullshit argument anyway because green bags are just as easy to use and they last longer.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

We've been using old bags (paper ones from the uni bookshop for instance) to carry our groceries in for years now - IT'S NOT THAT HARD!

 

[boris]

Garret's head is a major source of albedo.

So he should really just shut the fuck up or grow some hair.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

FACT: if plastic bags are banned or made to cost money, the mothers and crazy old people will riot, parliament house will be in flames and ruddkip and his bald sidekick will be lynched

 

[boris]

Yeah.
Instead what do they propose? We make some more nylon bags or some other cheap and shitty man made fibre which require the use of PETROCHEMICALS TO MANUFACTURE. FUCK OFF WITH YOUR BULLSHIT RUDDKIP.

 

[chicky_pie]

Peter Garret embarrassed on plastic bag charge

FEDERAL Environment Minister Peter Garrett has been forced to admit the Government is considering a checkout charge on plastic shopping bags.

Last week, Mr Garrett said reports the charge was being considered were "incorrect".

But, after The Sunday Telegraph presented Mr Garrett's office with transcripts of his own departmental officials outlining the plan, an embarrassed Environment Minister yesterday conceded the supermarket slug on shoppers was on the table.

The transcripts, from Senate Estimates hearings on February 19, reveal his department had undertaken detailed costings of the plan.

Mr Garrett sought to shut down the story last Sunday by issuing a press release, saying the Government would not be introducing any Commonwealth "levy".

But the transcripts show the Government has been considering both a levy, or tax, and a checkout charge of 25c to $1 a bag to fulfil its election pledge to phase out single-use plastic shopping bags "using economic instruments".

While Mr Garrett was trying to pretend no such plan existed, it was being confirmed by Environment Department officials at the Senate Estimates hearings.

The Department's First Assistant Secretary in the Environment Quality Division, Mary Harwood, told the hearings four options were on the table for the environment ministers' council meeting on April 17.

She said: "They (the four options) are: a litter amelioration strategy; banning plastic bags outright; applying a mandated retailer charge, or a Commonwealth levy on bags."

Given Mr Garrett has ruled out a Commonwealth levy, and that the litter-reduction plan would not meet Labor's election promise, the Environment Minister is left with two proposals: an outright ban, which is regarded as impractical, or a checkout charge for each bag.

Major retailers have calculated a minimum 25c charge would add an annual $650 million to the national shopping bill - or at least $156 for each shopper.

The NSW Government is known to have discussed a charge of as much as $1 a bag.

Ms Harwood confirmed to the Senate committee that, no matter what decision was made, eradication of plastic bags would cost consumers.

After being presented with Ms Harwood's testimony, a spokeswoman for Mr Garrett confirmed a checkout charge was on the agenda for the April 17 ministerial council meeting.

"All environment ministers - state, territory and commonwealth - will sit down on April 17 to consider these options and the associated benefits and costs," she said.

"The Minister will not speculate on what the outcomes of that discussion will be, but he's made it clear this Government will not support or introduce a Commonwealth levy on plastic bags," she said.

"We don't favour a Commonwealth tax or levy. We don't see the phase-out of plastic bags as a revenue-raising exercise for the Commonwealth. Working families want a sensible approach that delivers for them and for the environment.

"The fact is, plastic bags have a documented impact on the environment and we have a ready replacement in re-usable green or calico bags."

The Australian National Retailers Association has condemned the plan for a checkout charge.

"Imposing an extra cost on consumers for bags they already use responsibly can't be justified," ANRA CEO Margy Osmond said.

Britain last week moved to implement its own plastic bag charge. Finance Minister Alistair Darling said legislation would be introduced to impose a charge on single-use carrier bags unless retailers took action voluntarily.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23380863-2,00.html

This bald monkey, just last week he said no, but look now.

 

[scarybunny]

Meh. So use reusable bags (which are stronger and bigger anyway), and use those biodegradable garbage bags. They're not expensive and are also bigger than plastic bags from the store.

They're plastic bags. Hardly the cornerstone of civilisation.