The NYT article doesn’t contradict me at all, flatly or otherwise. Look at what it actually says.

“Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent.”

Well, that’s not surprising. I bet if you banned them use would drop 100%. The point, that WRAP have recognised – I’m quite willing to believe they’re wrong but at the moment they’re our only source, is that it’s about what you replace plastic bags with. The replacements tend to create more waste – it appears they did in Ireland.

Stopping people dropping litter in the street is simply a matter of social sanction and community pride. I know that doesn’t translate clearly into policy but there are some problems that don’t have neat policy lever fixes.

Matt

I thought it was against your principles to start agreeing with govt funded quangoes?

That Irish example you’re so happy with didn’t turn out well.

I thought a man of your intellect would be able to tell that when a newspaper runs the “industry sources say…” line, it is basically pushing its own editorial agenda. The NYT article flatly contradicts your “industry sources”.

Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent.

Care to name these sources?

As for animals being killed. That can happen with a lot of human waste when just dropped on the street. The key is getting people to bin their litter rather than what that litter is or what happens next.

I agree, but plastic bags compound the problem and there isn’t any harm in dealing with issues that compound the damage, is there? And how exactly do you intend to change people’s habits on dropping litter on the street… that won’t involve taxes / incentives?

Janvrin / Publicansdecoy – well I went through his website and found very little on a coherent environmental policy. The priorities page on his website mentions almost nothing about the environment. As for Heathrow – I applaud that decision but even Boris Johnson has signed up to that. The question is – how does he take that agenda forward, not simply stick with the status quo.

john b – Agreed – if we’re going to use compulsory measures here, in-store packaging is a much better place to start.

Agreed, but one does not exclude the other. There have been repeated calls by environmental groups on packaging.

bags-for-life are great if your trip involves the home -> shop -> home drive but no bloody use if you’re going work -> shop -> home on public transport

Well I do that – use bags for life on the home->shop->home run and on the public transport / walking. Don’t see the problem. Instead of paper bags you could use the thicker plastic bags or the jute bags as seen in the NYT article.

Well, it’s not actually a problem for me, since I live 300 metres from a very large supermarket – but I don’t think that’s typical. But I’ve never in my life “planned to go to the shops” (is that a gender thing? ISTR when I worked in retail research that something like 80% of women go shopping with a Plan and a List, whereas 80% of men don’t). I suppose keeping a stock of bags under my desk on the off-chance would be a possibility.

The latter requires a lot less effort than forcing people to take their toddlers on public transport

Who’s forcing anyone to take their toddlers on PT? Just not bringing their toddlers to the supermarket would be a better plan for all concerned (have never worked out why the hell a non-single parent would want to put themselves and other shoppers through this – I suspect even most single parents with cars also have access to such things as nursery schools, day care centres, grandparents, neighbours for half an hour…)

And yet again where are the official calls for unnecessary packaging to be scrapped from supermarket shelves?

Agreed – if we’re going to use compulsory measures here, in-store packaging is a much better place to start.

I would love to see a modal shift away from cars but I really don’t see a bit of taxation on parking spaces as being the solution. Supermarkets will probably just end up offering to waive it for paying customers anyway, since one will do it and the rest will be forced to follow.

I have however realised another thing that the £2billion could be spent on instead of ID cards, very strong “bags for life” free for every household. In fact this would be a drop in the ocean of the £2billion budget so would be able to be sustained for decades to come.

To me this is the only way that banning can work, is for people to have enough bags that they can put some in their car, have some at home, etc. Even then some basic level of plastic bags are going to be needed, and environmentalists aren’t too hot on biodegradable because of the complications it can cause and inadvertently be worse for the environment than a non-biodegradable bag.

And yet again where are the official calls for unnecessary packaging to be scrapped from supermarket shelves? There are many other things that could be done, and for instance one thing that I’ve been pondering over here is these new “concentrated lenor” type adverts. If they are so good for the environment (half size bottle, half packaging, half the lorries needed to transport them, same amount of use as normal conditioner etc) then why don’t companies simply *stop* making the less environmentally friendly versions? Anyone can mix concentrated with tap water so there is really no excuse to continue with environmentally unfriendly practice…yet they are allowed to do so.

John B, why can’t you take bags to work if you plan to go to the shops on the way home? I do.

Taxing supermarket parking spaces would *actually help* the environment, but that might inconvenience Joe Mondeo so can never ever happen…

>>Brian Paddick has little in the way of environmental policies.

That’s a bit of lazy swipe though. I know you don’t like him since Rowangate, but his website promises he will launch detailed policies on the environment prior to the election, alongside those he has already put forward in other areas.

He also opposes Heathrow expansion, on environmental grounds:

http://www.brianpaddick.org/brian-pledges-to-fight-heathrow-extension-plans-293

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/28/eaplastic128.xml

“Industry sources say that Ireland’s levy on plastic bags led to five times more plastic being used.

WRAP doubts this estimate but says it calculates that a ban or a levy would still lead to more plastic being used than at present because one form of bag would be substituted by another.”

A ban would probably have even worse effects. Even if didn’t the idea that plastic bags (which are reasonably inert) being landfilled causes any serious damage is a bit stretched. They just sit there. As for animals being killed. That can happen with a lot of human waste when just dropped on the street. The key is getting people to bin their litter rather than what that litter is or what happens next.

It is a shame that, as with the Climate Camp, the Daily Mail is willing to indulge the greens on this. It is also a shame that you were willing to sign up to a campaign so hastily. Penn & Teller once got a load of lefties to sign up to a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide – i.e. water. You’re apparently little more discerning.

So it doesn’t need to be much, any action that stops me looking like a freak would be a good start. Admittedly there are other things about me that appear freakish, but let’s take it one step at a time.

That’s a bit much. Why not make it a consumer campaign? Make a fuss and shame stores into proving something biodegradable?

This could be something achievable without the cogs of government.