Showing posts with label plastic bags. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plastic bags. Show all posts

Wednesday, 9 October 2019

Getting rid of single-use plastics? What a joke



Getting rid of single-use plastics? What a joke. Coles pretend they are so wonderful because they no longer issue those supremely useful plastic bags (that never were single-use) but have now made the packaging for meat products with far more plastic than before. And heavier plastic, which is worse for the environment. So it's 10 times worse than it was a couple of years ago. So much for their virtue-signalling!

Purchased at Coles, this morning.  (October, 2019)  

 




Sunday, 24 June 2018

Environmentally conscious? Or just pretending?



I am feeling irked right now. In order to be 'environmentally conscious,'  our local supermarkets have banned the supremely useful plastic bag.  You know, the one we get our groceries in, then, almost always,  use again for something else, and finally, use to enclose some smelly rubbish for the bin.  They call it the 'single-use' plastic bag, but they are seldom 'single use.' Nearly all of the truly single use plastic bags are still there, from those flimsy plastic bags for fruits and vegetables, to the black plastic bags that come in rolls at beaches in the hope that dog owners will pick up after their dogs.

So much other plastic that we could do without.  I had a takeaway lunch.  It came in a cardboard box in a paper bag, but the plastic knife and fork I didn't want was in a sliver of plastic. Of course.

If I thought that banning this particular item of all the other plastic we use daily would do the slightest good for the environment, I would not be so annoyed.  Yes, if you are on the coast, it could get into the ocean and a turtle could make itself sick on it.  But I live hundreds of miles from the coast, and as far as I can see, all it will do is increase the unenclosed rubbish that flies breed in, and rats thrive on.

It is the hypocrisy that annoys me most!  It is like they just wave the banner and pretend they care about the environment while not actually doing anything effective.

There are many examples of virtue-signalling about the environment - except that, so often, the overall effect is negative, not positive.  It appears that effectiveness is not important to those who push various initiatives - just the appearance of caring.


A new Recycling system:

For a long time, we have had recycling bins for drink containers as well as other recyclables such as newspapers.  It was successful, recycling rate around 80%,  so they always said,  and it was convenient.

So now, our council has put in, at colossal expense, a much more elaborate system for recycling drink containers. There was publicity, all with a very positive slant, and they say it is 'successful' because people are using it - far more people than I had expected.  That is probably because all of our cans and bottles now cost more to cover the cost of the new initiative, and people can get a refund of 10c each, provided the can or bottle can still be scanned.  So it must not be crushed, and it must still have the label. Does it sound good?  How has it turned out?



The recycling of cans and bottles is now a combination of the new and old systems.  Overall results - around 80%.
But with the new system, people have to keep their cans and bottles intact, they must be conveyed to the recycling centre, (by car, and usually contained in plastic bags)  inserted into the machine, one by one, and the person then claims a refund of 10c each - which involves more time and trouble. 
But people are using it. I guess they don't like being defrauded 10c for every can or bottle they buy.

Others of us consider the small refund not worth the trouble, and still drop the cans and bottles into the recycling bin at home, the way we have for the past twenty years or so.

Overall effect of the new system?  It costs more to the council, it costs more for the individual, it takes more time, and is more of an effort for individuals, for council, and for the retailers where the credits are redeemed.  It has made no difference to the litter around.  The rate of recycling is unchanged.

But it looks good, and that appears to be all that matters.

And maybe a factor is that it is acting as a de facto sugar tax - soft drinks cost more (though so does Diet Coke)  and an alcohol tax - cans of beer cost more. Could that have been a factor in its adoption?  There is always someone pushing for taxes on consumer goods deemed unhealthy, the sort of  'health police' who feel that other people cannot be trusted to make the 'right' choices.

There is actually one unforeseen benefit - at a caravan park, I saw a ragged couple going through the recycling bin and removing all the intact cans and bottles in order that they could claim the refund. It may have been little money for a lot of dirty work, but they explained that they didn't like dealing with Social Security.  So there is one good effect to put against the bad. It has nothing to do with recycling and the environment, however.

Update 28th December, 2018

An article in 'The Australian' today spoke of how it is going. The title -  'Bottle Refund Scheme Loses its Sparkle.' 

In summary:  
* rate of recycling before: 53%,  now 54%.  Negligible.  (A lot less than I had said, but no doubt it varies region by region, depending on how convenient the process is.)  
*Consumers have been charged around $250 million for the scheme,  and have been refunded around $100 million.  So a lot more cost for almost no benefit. 

So in summary, this expensive and unnecessary scheme is a bust - but I suppose it still looks good to those who choose not to do any actual thinking.

The full article, link below.

https://myaccount.news.com.au/sites/theaustralian/subscribe.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bottle-refund-scheme-loses-sparkle-with-higher-prices-little-benefit/news-story/996bb5b7765f7f2abcd9485cdfc1a572?memtype=anonymous






Remember 'Earth Hour?'

It started in Sydney in 2007. We were all supposed to switch off all lights for one hour in a year, in order so save electricity and to advertise how virtuous we were in caring for the environment.  Enthusiasm spread, and many cities around the world adopted it.  I never thought it would make any difference except maybe to increase the likelihood of muggings in that hour, so never bothered with it.  It is now over ten years later, and I don't think that many bother with it any more, though it does continue to limp along.


But now, we have 'Vivid,' a festival where light is used lavishly in order to make wonderful effects. It runs not for an hour,  but for over three weeks!  It is beautiful, but what of the electricity consumed?  Even if they use modern lighting that uses less electricity than older types, the electricity consumed makes the amount saved by 'Earth Hour' look laughable.

It is another example of hypocrisy.  It doesn't seem to matter if something actually does good, as long as one can boast about it as if it did.


Trying too hard

Most of us try to do the right thing, but sometimes it is better to understand that recycled goods are not actually worth that much.

*  I am thinking of an old, old lady I knew, fragile skin at risk as she conscientiously scrubs out cat food tins, jagged edged, in order to put them, clean, into the recycling bin, as the council requires.  But a tear in that skin would not quickly heal. There would be extra visits from the district nurse, extra dressings, maybe antibiotics.  For a tin that is worth almost nothing, sometimes less than nothing.

*  On the local news was an item about a family who boasts that almost nothing goes into the rubbish bin. Everything is recycled, including tiny scraps of paper. They were applauded, and obviously thought they were being oh, so virtuous!

But the contents of those recycling bins are sorted by hand, by lines of workers wearing gloves, picking out plastic to put into one bin, glass into another, paper into another. None of it is worth very much, and to pick out every small piece of  'recyclable' is a waste of time and effort. Large pieces, sure.  Tiny bits of paper?  No. All that family was doing was making the job more difficult for the sorters.

*  Some time ago, I saw a feature about those wonderful people far out in the remote drylands of Western Australia, carefully preserving all their glass recyclables. Then it was shipped all the way back to civilisation where it was finally processed.

Sadly, the fuel required and the wear and tear on the trucks and the roads would be far more than the tiny amount that the glass could be sold for. Since then, the market for recycled glass has further collapsed.  No-one wants it.

*  Trucks of recycled goods are sent interstate, or sometimes just dumped. No-one wants it, and those who agree to accept it, charge for the disposal.  There are scandals when it turns out that it ends up either in illegal dumps, or sometimes simply stored - indefinitely. Think fire risk as well as everything else. What has anyone gained? 

Trade and Commerce

There are some things that appear to make no sense at all. Shipping Australian prawns off to Asia to be processed and then returned to Australia. Buying things as mundane as disposable nappies that
come from across the world.  And yet, somehow, it helps the economy.

Washed up
Does it?  It is far from common sense, and far from environmentally friendly when one considers the cost of handling and the cost of fuel used.

There is also the risk of accidents. A ship ironically named 'Efficiency' has lost over eighty containers overboard, now creating a hazard to shipping and a mess onshore. (left)

Imported cars, stacks of containers

But those in authority will not consider these environmental hazards. They prefer to focus on little things that might inconvenience people, but have no actual positive impact on the environment. It is all about the appearance of things. It is hypocrisy.


So what can individuals do that is actually useful? 

One could try thrift, but that is not a modern virtue. Those of us who are older are the ones who re-use rather than buying new. At the same time as the useless plastic bag ban, we happened to have a household rubbish collection day.  People put out their unwanted items, and council kindly collects it for us. And while a lot of it is truly rubbish,  there are also things that only need a coat of paint and maybe a bit of repair, and they are useful again.

One could almost furnish a house from what is left to be collected, and if no-one finds it first, it will be crushed and buried as rubbish. And that waste grieves me.  Surely, if the council was really interested in being 'green,' they would make an effort to allow these things to be re-used, not by the sort of  'recycling' that results in mounds or bales of plastic or glass or paper than no-one wants to buy, but real recycling - re-using.  Making and mending rather than discarding.

So what do we have, right now, in my neighbourhood, left around for those of us willing to recycle in the best way possible?

There are colourful children's toys, appearing new,  numerous chairs, some of them
repairable, two washing machines that appear new, a new-looking fan, presumably no longer wanted,  wardrobes and desks, and plenty of timber for the home handyman.  The items in the picture left are merely those within a few houses of us. There are treasures further afield.


Dirty, with a rusted tap.
Now a garden ornament










The garden bench only needed a bit of a repair and a re-paint



The inside coating was too rough for cooking,
fine as a planter once a few holes were added.   

It is actually the trendies who are so adamant that others should be inconvenienced who are the worst for unnecessary consumption. Throw out the old, buy new.  A coat of paint for that table?  Never.  Second-hand toys or clothes for your special child?  Don't be silly.  There's a piece of standard advice that goes "Check your wardrobe and if you have not worn it in the last year, throw it out."  They have to have the new, the fashionable, the latest upgrade with never a thought that this,  THIS!  is bad for the environment.  

Every new item has to be made, has to be shipped, has to be sold, has to be brought home. And all of this is expense, it causes pollution, and if you think carbon emissions are a sinister new thing, it causes that too.



The economy:



Buying things is good for the economy, we are told. It seems to me that there is something wrong with our way of life if waste is good. Maybe we should even measure how well we are doing by individual happiness instead of production, as I am told a certain country does.

But we have to have 'Growth.'  The GDP must rise every year, and in that cause, our government ensures that we have a rapidly growing population. Australia has one of the fast growing populations in the world, though by immigration rather than by a high birth rate.



But continual growth is NOT good. We are like a person already obese, who continues to eat in order to grow bigger and bigger and bigger until they are useless to themselves and to everyone else.













A new theory of economics is needed

We need a way of managing our affairs that promotes stability, and does not depend on an  ever-increasing population with an ever-increasing consumption of the earth's resources.

Until this happens, gestures like the banning of plastic bags will be just that - futile gestures.








More about plastic bags

Since the ban on plastic bags has come into effect, there have been several commentators pointing out a few relevant facts, such as that the ordinary plastic bag is actually more 'environmentally friendly' than a cloth bag.  And such that re-using bags can result in the harbouring of bacteria and the cross contamination of food.

Craig Kelly,
https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/posts/946208842240417

Andrew Bolt   "Maximum politics for minimum gain."
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/a-bag/news-story/426e02208ea9545e339886af48760231

And here is an interesting excerpt:

"Assessment of the Potential for Cross-Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags, was conducted by researchers from Loma Linda and Arizona universities. He is the abstract (with emphasis and a link added):

The purpose of this study was to assess the potential for cross-contamination of food products by reusable bags used to carry groceries. Reusable bags were collected at random from consumers as they entered grocery stores in California and Arizona. In interviews, it was found that reusable bags are seldom if ever washed and often used for multiple purposes. Large numbers of bacteria were found in almost all bags and coliform bacteria in half. Escherichia coli were identified in 8% of the bags, as well as a wide range of enteric bacteria, including several opportunistic pathogens.
When meat juices were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours, the number of bacteria increased 10-fold, indicating the potential for bacterial growth in the bags. Hand or machine washing was found to reduce the bacteria in bags by > 99.9%. These results indicate that reusable bags, if not properly washed on a regular basis, can play a role in the cross-contamination of foods. It is recommended that the public be educated about the proper care of reusable bags by means of printed instructions on the bags or through public service announcements.
The same study found no bacterial presence whatsoever in single-use plastic bags." 
https://www.facebook.com/dallas.beaufort/posts/10155757485359370

And just a small fact to finish: 
Brown paper bags cost 7 times more in 'emissions' than a plastic bag
Cotton bags cost 327 times more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCL7nKCwtc

So don't criticize those of your acquaintances who claim that what you see as a nice thing for the environment - 'Save the planet' etc,  is maybe not as useful as you thought.   We all care for the environment. So many beautiful places to see, and no-one wants it ruined. But when there are initiatives marketed as helping to 'save the planet,' it is a good idea to first think about whether its overall impact is positive or negative.













Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Banning plastic bags? Just stupid!!!


It's been announced that Tasmania in joining South Australia and the ACT in banning the sale of the supremely useful plastic bag. I thought Queensland were planning on the ridiculous ban as well, but maybe they had an attack of common sense.


So what effect does the banning of plastic bags have?  Well, in South Australia, they banned them some years ago.  On our last trip, I noticed they seemed to have a lot more blowflies than they used to - they're almost an endangered species in NSW and Victoria, and I think largely because almost all rubbish is in plastic bags, making it too difficult for them to find places to breed.

What environmental benefits does the ban have?  (Aside from encouraging rats and flies.) 

They used to say that plastic bags last 10,000 years or some such nonsense. These days, a plastic bag is lucky to see three uses before falling to bits.  I bought one from Target once, a nice big one, but it dissolved into a million tiny pieces before it could be re-used even once. Useless!





So what are their uses and how much will we miss them? 


1. To line the kitchen bin.  So instead of tipping a mess of filth into a bigger bin and then having to scrub a smelly bin, now we tie off the top, sealing inside the smells and the wettish things, (like chop bones) and dump it in the bigger outside bin.

2. Been swimming? Use a plastic bag to keep the wet swimmers from making everything else wet.


3. Have a dog?  Make sure and take a crumpled plastic bag in your pocket. It takes very little space, and if you need to, you have something to pick up your dog's droppings. A plastic bag is impervious, and you can get rid of it at the next convenient spot. You don't even have to worry about getting your fingers dirty if you take care.







4. For your lunch. Sandwiches go stale when wrapped in paper (no matter what some will pretend.) They stay fresh much longer in a sealed plastic bag.




5. At the beach?  Keep a plastic bag in your pocket in case you see shells that you want to keep.  This applies to all sorts of other things - a plastic bag has the property of folding up small and being there when needed.






6. Doing the washing?  Kids been playing in the mud?  Use a plastic bag to keep dirty, wet things from contaminating the whole wash. 

7. Ants around?  Seal off the leftover crust with honey in a plastic bag, otherwise the ants will find it for sure.

8. Would you like to take some fresh flowers to someone?  Yes, the obvious thing. A plastic bag will keep them in a moist environment so they won't wilt before you get there.


9. Propagating flowers?  Put your cutting in the soil, a few sticks around and a plastic bag over.  (Though a cut-down plastic bottle is more convenient.)




There are numerous other uses. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself. Here are just two more for your consideration.

The most interesting use - It was in a book called 'Vector' by Robin Cook. (good book)
The character used 'impermeable plastic bags' to safely hold the Anthrax spores. 


The most important use, and the one that most definitely benefits the environment.  Note that I said 'benefits.'   Young women's used sanitary pads, old people's used incontinence pants, used baby-wipes and baby nappies, the gross end-product after someone has cleaned their abscessed wound...
We need plastic bags. These things are not suitable to just toss in with the other rubbish. And those hopeful people who say we should simply use newspaper?  Have they never noticed that newspapers get wet and soggy and then fall to bits? 


Plastic bags are supremely useful.  It is just stupid to ban them.


 I cannot actually remember why plastic bags have become the scapegoat for all sorts of environmental problems.  They are an infinitesimal part of the harm that people do, and play a substantial part in minimising the harm that people do.

No.  If  you are concerned for the environment, have two children instead of three, one instead of two, and vey definitely, four instead of fourteen (but preferably two.)  

Over-population is the root cause of almost every environmental problem we have.  It is over-population we need to tackle, not the humble and supremely useful plastic bag.



Just too many people,
not too many plastic bags.
















Friday, 15 February 2013

Plastic bags are good for the environment:


Remember the olden days – metal garbage bins filled with unmentionable and very smelly rubbish – food scraps, meat, fish, vegetable – and sometimes worse. If left for very long, there would be maggots starting to appear, and always – blowflies circling the bin, looking for entry.
Then along came plastic bags, free with the groceries, and food started being enclosed in plastic bags as a routine. Smells vastly reduced, and no more breeding of blowflies. You may not have noticed, but there are far fewer flies around than there used to be. (Though in South Australia there are still a lot – they’ve banned the giving away of plastic bags in South Australia.)

But you cry  – they are bad for the environment. They kill fish, do not decompose, are around forever,  take up too much space in landfill…

So, one by one.

Killing fish.  We kill far, far more ourselves, both to eat and others that get caught as a by product of the catch. I don’t know how many fish are so stupid as to eat plastic bags,  but like most other animals, fish are more intelligent than they are given credit for. Certainly do not throw plastic bags into the sea – or any other rubbish. But they are an infinitesimal proportion of the rubbish that goes into oceans. The problem has been vastly exaggerated.

They do not decompose?  Maybe twenty years ago they were slow to decompose, but this nonsense about them lasting 10,000 years or whatever... Well, really!  These days you’re lucky sometimes to get your groceries home without the plastic bag falling to bits. And so many have holes in them so that they cannot be re-used. Plastic bags are one of the most useful things around  -  for holding groceries, for storing things, for containing rubbish, especially smelly rubbish – think of not just meat or fish scraps, but babies’ nappies, women’s sanitary pads, old people’s incontinence pants, sick people’s stoma bags…   We are told to use paper instead, maybe old newspapers.  Maybe those who tell us this have not noticed that wet newspapers fall to bits?

They take up space in a landfill.  Well, yes, they do – enclosing lots of other rubbish. I bet those who work at a tip are grateful for plastic bags – the work would be a lot more horrible without them.

No. The fuss about plastic bags is just a way of pretending to care for the environment while never tackling any of the actual problems. Most things we do to 'save the planet' are either futile or worse, have the opposite effect.

Example:  Take the older cars off the roads. They give off more ‘greenhouse gases’ and use more petrol.  But:  Making a single new car sends out more greenhouse gases and uses more resources than the tiny amount of difference between the running costs of a new car as opposed to an old car.   Balance sheet – better to keep the old car.

Example:  Make the old-fashioned light globes impossible to obtain, therefore forcing people to buy the new ones that are supposedly more energy efficient. But: the old light globes were very efficient. Even in rooms where they were used all the time, they lasted years, and accounted for a very small proportion of electricity used by a household. And the new ones  have problems – they take a while to be bright enough, meaning that in places like toilets and bathrooms where you need the light for only a short time, it is not efficient.
More seriously, they are a safety hazard. The new ones can’t be used with dimmer switches, touch lamps or sensor lights.  (I have heard that there are new varieties though now.)  I have seen smoke issuing from a light with a dimmer switch when a new light bulb was put in, but then luckily the bulb blew, too soon for it to start a fire. But if even one house fire was started like this, the smoke put into the atmosphere would exceed the emissions supposedly reduced by the switch.  There have been a lot of  fires in recent years blamed on ‘electrical problems.’ It is a few years since the old-fashioned light globes became unobtainable, just about the time when some of them finally blow. (They usually lasted between 3 and 20 years, depending on what room they were in and how much used.)  So how many of these ‘electrical problems’ are caused by using the new light bulbs with an  older fitting that is unsuited to it. As far as I know, there have never been any warnings about this.
One more thing – a lot of light fittings simply would not accommodate the new globes, meaning that people had to buy new light fittings – which had to be manufactured, using various resources, and then moved to where they were needed, using trucks or ships or trains, all of which require power. 
Balance sheet -  very much on the negative side.


Water savings. 
Water is a finite resource, they tell us. Use it wisely. But actually – water goes around and around. It gets evaporated, it condenses and returns purified as rain. I learned that in primary school. Could we be making a mistake trying too hard to conserve water? 

Example:  closing over bore-drains.  Open bore drains for irrigation used to ‘lose’ a lot of water to evaporation. They were also a resource for wild animals and birds. They are being closed over, so no more evaporation and no more watering points for the animals. Swimming pools are supposed to be covered, watering of gardens and laws strictly limited, all to reduce ‘losses’ from evaporation. Could it be contributing to reduced rainfall?  I do not have the answers, I have not done the studies, but maybe it’s time to at least ask the question.   

There are other ways that trying to reduce water use has a poor effect:

Example: dual flush toilets. I don’t know about every dual flush toilet, but I am far from impressed with ours. It was a few years ago now that we needed new toilets, and it’s the only type they seem to sell these days. They are inefficient, Too often, two or even three flushes are required to do the job, which uses more water than a single efficient flush. 
Example:  Not always flushing:  There was a new saying put about last drought - ‘If  it’s yellow, let it mellow, if it’s brown, flush it down.’  Think of the smell, think of the yellow stains, requiring more powerful chemical to make your toilet clean again, - it's poor on the balance sheet for that alone.  But also, it is apt to cause problems with the sewer pipes -  if there is not enough water to sufficiently flush the pipes, then there will be blockages which require more power and more water just to clear the blockage and flush the pipes.   
Example: Save water by collecting water in the kitchen sink. We saved water that way and put it on the garden – until we noticed how the water pipes were beginning to smell. ‘Environmental flows’ are needed for water and sewer pipes as much as they are needed for rivers. 
Example: Save water by having a bucket in your shower to try and collect some of the wasted water.  I tried this once, didn’t collect much, and nearly tripped over the dammed thing. Never again. A few days later, a surgeon was on the news advising against it. Just one old person with a broken hip because of it, would use more water than was ever saved with this practice. Good intentions maybe, but risky and ineffective.

A few things utterly futile:

People want to do the right thing, but seize on things that are useless.  ‘Earth Hour.’  For one hour in the year, switch off lights.  It started in Australia and has spread overseas. I don’t know how many robberies are timed for ‘Earth Hour’ or how many people are hurt knocking over things in the dark, but in any case, how could anyone think that turning off the lights for an hour could have any effect when for every other hour, things are so very lit up. I saw an image of an American city not long ago, and it appeared that every square yard for every building was illuminated. Not that is wastage on a ground scale. 


So what can we do for the environment if whatever we try is either futile or has the opposite effect?

The root problems that we encounter are from two causes:

The first is that all countries are driven by the Economics theory that growth is good. It appears that economists do not believe that there could be any such thing as stability. So every year, GDP (Gross Domestic Product) has to be higher than the previous year. Every year, profits of every business should go up. Every year, people need to buy more things whether or not they are needed, spend more money, upgrade their mobile phone, their car, have a bigger house… When ‘consumer confidence’ drops, and spending is reduced, it is spoken of as a real concern. The economy, as it is at the moment, depends on everything being more and bigger and even more – every year.
And every year, there should be more people to drive more growth and give us a healthy economy. And this, of course, is the big, big, BIG problem that we have to cope with. There are too many of us – too many people needing electricity, too many people needing shelter and water and food. We need to develop a new theory of economics that does not depend on constant growth, and we need to convince people, especially religious leaders, that zero population growth, as was pushed fifty years ago, is essential. If it had been adopted then, we might have been getting closer to a stable population now.


THE BEST THING WE CAN DO FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IS TO HAVE FREE AND EASILY AVAILABLE CONTRACEPTION.

In third world countries and in first world countries, surely it is better to have two children you can rear properly than to have ten that you rear in poverty.

 There are too many people, and this is the cause of every single environmental problem that we have.




We can keep trying. Wind power's good, certainly better than the disastrous 'Hydraulic Fracturing' or 'Fracking' that is used to extract coal seam gas.