You’re not charged where I live, but reusable bags are so much better. They do not take up space, can be used for so many other things, and they’re prettier if you want.
Yeah, which is a generational issue at worst. One guy in my family keeps forgetting his bags and buying new ones, but he also has a mindset where he resists change. The rest of us have gotten into the habit of remembering them, leaving a few in the car, etc.
Kids growing up after the ban are just gonna see it as normal. You go buy groceries? You bring your bags, just like you need to remember to bring your wallet.
The issue is we have something that was complimentary which is now being charged a marked up price to generate further profit, at further expense to the customer. All the while we’re being told this change is for the environment, rather than for profit. It’s the deceit that annoys people.
It’s sad that kids growing up today will see it as normal. People shouldn’t be conditioned to serve profiteering corporations, we should be teaching people to demand better terms.
Why can’t something be both for profit and for the environment? Because frankly, after living with a plastic bag ban for years (Canada started the process in 2020), I haven’t seen random nasty plastic bags being blown around on the street. So it’s helped my immediate environment.
I feel we gotta reduce plastic use on all fronts. Yes, individual consumers pollute less than corps, but that doesn’t mean that consumerism as a culture doesn’t produce unnecessary waste. Think about a single store and just how much packaging there is in that one place, and where all of that will ultimately end up.
So like, I’m personally for bringing reusable containers to stores to fill up on things like say, shampoo or milk. Milk delivery was a thing for a long time, so there’s nothing saying our cultural approach to these things can’t or shouldn’t change, especially if it means less waste is generated.
And if reusable containers become a thing, I promise you there will be people whinging that it’s profitable for the groceries that they’re selling bottles that you used to get for free with the soap or whatever.
Why can’t something be both for profit and for the environment?
Because inevitably the pursuit of profit takes priority over better solutions. Case in point, recycling has also reduced the amount of plastic waste around, however really that’s just fuelling a waste processing industry that opposes re-using of materials - not without reprocessing through their business. Meanwhile, if you look to countries like Germany they’ve put business profits to the side and created a system that re-uses glass for almost all drinks, all now completely maintained by the income of its deposit system.
And if reusable containers become a thing, I promise you there will be people whinging that it’s profitable for the groceries that they’re selling bottles that you used to get for free with the soap or whatever.
Well, if they were charging you for the use, then yes that would be reasonable to complain about. They should be providing them with a fully refundable deposit - you return them, you get your money back. If you look at re-usable water bottles, that market has exploded with a bunch of over-priced crap, rather than the best solution being mass produced and distributed with the product.
They do make a profit. A plastic bag does not cost 20-45p to make. Instead of the business providing the bags complimentarily, instead of the customer paying for the cost of the old plastic bag, the businesses are selling a slightly nicer plastic bag for profit.
The reason they weren’t priced from the beginning is because plastic bags are ridiculously cheap, so they could afford to do it as a complimentary item. The reason they introduced them was to get people to shop more, as people would buy less when they didn’t have bags. So the business could write off the cost of cheap bags for the extra profit from increased sales.
Then, after a few decades’ conditioning, the businesses have taken what was complimentary and started charging a marked up price for it. People now know that it’s better for them to shop with bags, so businesses are taking advantage of that, all while pretending that they’re “doing the green thing”.
What the fuck kind of prices are you guys paying for plastic bags!? At my local grocery store they charge 5 cents for a plastic bag, and the other nearby one gives you recyclable paper bags for free. I thought about this for a bit but at a whole nickel per bag it’s probably not worth profiting off of, or if it is profitable, not enough for anyone to care.
Exactly. People bought far less when they didn’t have a bag to put their stuff in, so the shops started offering free bags so that people could buy more. Now, they’ve wrangled a way of getting the customer to pay for what was complimentary, and what’s more the business profits significantly from the sale of bags. It’s exploitative capitalism under the guise of environmentalism.
Meanwhile aircraft fly overhead burning jet fuel with no emissions controls. Chinese factory’s have no or little emissions controls. Gulf war oil well fires.
Hot take: the onus should be on everyone - both industry and people. Single use plastics is a real, very serious issue. It may be relatively small regarding global warming, but it’s not small at all regarding other serious problems we’re making for our planet.
Additionally if no one is buying products from heavy polluters then it doesn’t make sense to burn the fuels. It either requires people to take action and change their buying habits or for governments to tax carbon to both make the environmentally friendly options economically viable to most people and to get companies to reduce emissions so they can stay competitive.
Air travel is more difficult to get environmentally friendly at this time due to the limited options as electric consumer planes are still in the testing and development stage and would struggle with international flights however train travel in Europe can be a solid option over plane travel but from a US perspective air travel is still generally the best way to go as trains are just not the best in the US and a car trip will take longer then both planes and trains and emit more fossil fuels per trip per person.
People are acting like we don’t throw stuff away anymore. You’ve replaced one item for something else. But it is worst, because we used to REUSE the plastic bags we’d get from the grocery store and put our trash in them after we were done. Now we need to buy separate bags specifically manufactured for this purpose which use thicker plastic to throw our trash away. Reusing an item is almost always more environmentally friendly than making a new item.
The plastic bag ban is one of those feel-good rules pushed onto consumers to make certain folks think they accomplished something.
No worries California is going to save the planet by banning gas powered lawn equipment. If there’s one thing the environment loves, is more batteries and crap that doesn’t last so you have to keep buying new shit.
Yeah I tried going electric. I’m not mowing the lawn with a cord plus I cut a cord using electric hedgers once. Went back to gas and never looked back.
It was 2008, they were garbage at the time, and my awesome gas powered lawnmower is still going strong today that I got when I replaced the electric one 2008. But yeah thanks for the compliments.
that patriarchy might ostensibly benefit men – even while poisoning them in a myriad of ways – but it is upheld by all genders, particularly within spaces like romantic partnership
With this quote I was reminded of many retellings of men in hetero relationship who still vividly remembered hurtful moments of being shamed when opening up and being vulnerable.
As the article states I would argue it’s wrong to assume that just one gender is at fault for the status quo, but that it is maintained by multiple actors.
And yes I’ve seen a lot of heteropessimism online and even partially irl but I think it’s breeding ground are „taking things for granted“ and just assuming what partners would like or want in relationships. Needs can be so diverse and deeply personal that I’d argue while there is possibility to feel safe in following a relationship script we have to dare to explore each other in our uniqueness and thereby also share ourselves authentically and that’s a forever journey.
Thank you for the nice read spaduf! (by the way is that a pun on the pokemon or am I nerding out?)
I’ve experienced this many times myself. Been vegetarian for almost 3 years now. Male co-workers make unsolicited comments towards it when they find out I’m vegetarian.
It’s happened probably a dozen times or more. I am probably one of the most casual and tolerant non-meat eaters you’ll meet. I’ll chat openly with you about hunting, guns, best ways to cook bacon, steaks, burgers, etc.
I never preach or shame people for eating meat. Still, when guys find out, it’s a lot of:
“You’re a vegetarian? Ha, your girlfriend doesn’t have to know, we’ll let you eat meat here.”
“No wonder you’re always snacking, you only eat rabbit food!”
“Yeah, my wife tried that crap with me once, didn’t work.”
I even had a co-worker get in my face because he, “thought I said something about eating meat being unhealthy.” I didn’t say anything of the sort, but it was ironic coming from a guy who was pushing 350lbs and pounded 3-5 Mountain Dews a day.
Assumptions that I was only doing it because a woman was forcing me, or that I was implicitly shaming them for eating meat, or that I wasn’t getting my nutrition, blah blah.
The only step forward worth the name is the cancellation of all debt, and making higher education government paid. Anything else is an embarrassing stop-gap fine to avoid the only real solution to student debt and lack of access to higher ed. A educated workforce is a skilled and effective workforce, it is literally in our nation’s best interest to educate it’s citizenry as best it is capable, and it’s capable of a lot more than it is currently doing
just because it’s shit doesn’t make it untrue… what cdf12345 said isn’t wrong: conservatives challenged and rolled back previous debt forgiveness… they’d absolutely try and do the same with pretty much anything progressives do, so everything has to move in baby steps
blaming republicans for lack of progress is not their only play: you can be frustrated by the minimal progress, but to say they do nothing at all is incorrect and only helps conservatives move the US backward
The fact that the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had standing is what is so worrisome. I think everyone was shocked that a student loan management company in Missouri was found to have been damaged by the previous student debt plan.
That would strengthen America and make it a better, more competitive country that would have to worry a lot less about the new cold war, and also make even our military stronger in the long run... but oh no, it's "socialism" so half the voting population's too brainwashed to see how it'll help everyone, including the rich, who would have higher quality workers.
Because it's not about making life better, it's about control + sadism.
It’s like hailing the medical jubilee as some kind big policy step forward when medical debt is still a massive anchor on Americans. You’re not doing anything to fix the problem. This is just aesthetics (pr)
theguardian.com
Oldest