Plastic Bags and Bans

I came across this web page:

http://www.plasticbagfacts.com/default.aspx

This is a web page sponsored by the American Chemistry Council, who I presume represents plastic bag manufacturers.   I'm not going to say to much about what they say except that they are obviously promoting the benefits of plastic bags.  You can read what they say and draw your own conclusions. 

However,  I could not resist sending an email to them and venting about what they don't mention.  Here's what I sent.

In all your discussions on the web page "what you should know about plastic bags', you never mention reusable bags. You only compare plastic bags to paper bags. I will say to you, based on personal experience, our plastic bag consumption has been reduced significantly by not using plastic shopping bags, but rather by using reusable bags. I think you are misrepresenting what is actually occurring in the consumer market.

In addition to this, many of the stores in our area now ask "do you need a bag'. This is not only at grocery stores, but in many retail stores. At one time, convenience stores would even put a newspaper in a bag, even if that's all you purchased. Seemed quite silly to me. Now, that doesn't seem to happen. In fact, I almost have to ask for a bag if I have a bigger purchase that I can't carry in my bare hands.

My take on what is influencing this trend is twofold. One, retailers are becoming more aware and more corporately 'green' because of consumer patterns. Two, retailers are finding that their operating costs are reduced if they don't hand out bags for every purchase.

I do find your web page to be somewhat biased, but expectedly so. However, I think you do need to pause and recognize what is truly happening in the retail market place. It isn't all about 'bans'. In fact, I'm not much of supporter of regulatory bans, but for different reasons than you promote. What your are encountering a change in consumer awareness and buying habits, and a change in retailer practices. Of course, I don't have the luxury of knowing the trend is sales by the bag producers to know what the impacts of these changing attitudes are having.

County mulls paying man over landfill litter claim

<> 

<> 

Ag News - State Ag News

Wednesday, 17 August 2011 09:17

 Litter on Farmland (not from location in new clipping)  The News staff      Gary Bontrager wants Reno County to pay for the problems posed when trash blown from the Reno County Landfill littered his crop field. The county's insurance provider denied the $1,500 crop damage claim, but county commissioners are wrestling with their own response. Commissioners expressed concern Tuesday about the precedent they would set if they paid Bontrager. They requested he come to a commission meeting to explain how he established the $1,500 figure. Commission Chairman James Schlickau, a farmer, said he would expect litter if he farmed next to a landfill. He said he understood from Bontrager's comments at a previous meeting that the debris did not damage the combine, but there was a "pain-in-the-butt factor" because Bontrager had to get off the combine to pull plastic bags and other debris off the machinery, Schlickau said. Schlickau thought the county should deny the request, but Commissioners Brad Dillon and Dan Deming said they had mixed views on the issue.

MY VIEWS ON THIS NEWS CLIPPING

I posted this news clipping that I found to make a point about landfill litter affecting neighbouring farm land.  I did a little 'foiping' and block out names.  The names really aren't that important.  It's the story that is relevant. 

It seems to me that there is a litter issue with the farmer because he has to stop his equipment, get off, and clean off the litter that has blown onto his property.   If he was being paid by the hour, stopping and cleaning out the litter would be viewed as 'downtime' and a cost could be calculated.   Obviously, if you are operating equipment and have to stop and start to clean out litter that comes from your neighbour, there is a 'pain in the butt factor'.   I would agree with the Commission Chair that there needs to be some clarity in establishing the figure of $1,500.   In fact, considering the cost of a combine these days, the actual cost of lost time may be much higher. 

I don't agree with the Commission Chair that one should expect litter if he farms next to a landfill.   What that really tells me is that there is a weakness in the litter control program for that landfill.  I have no information on what litter controls may be in place, and it is entirely possible that the landfill operators do have an effective program on the landfill, but there is still litter escaping to the neighbours property.   The litter control program should also include retrieval of that litter from the neighbours property.   Perhaps that may require agreement between the landfill owner and the farmer for access, but putting in that effort to address the wayward litter would go a long way to building a positive relationship, than just saying 'litter should be expected".   After all, the farmer didn't put the litter there, so why should he bear the cost. 

I'm just saying.

LItter Pictures

I haven't posted anything lately about landfill litter. Perhaps its time I did that.  I thought I'd first post some copies of photographs of plastic bags and fences that I found searching around the web site.  I picked these photos for their artistic touch as much as making a point about issues with blowing plastic bags at landfills. 

Enjoy

Space Litter

I've been doing a bit a searching on the web for information on how broadly humans have spread litter around the globe.  On land it is quite perverse.  For example, litter and illegal dump sites are abound around Beijing China.  Many third word countries do not have the financial resources to solve waste disposal issues and it results in severely poorly managed waste systems.  Some of the litter in our oceans result from those poorly managed waste systems. 

In previous posts, I've discussed litter floating on the ocean surface.  Some of that litter sinks and is scattered across the ocean floor.  More to come on that at a later time. 

What I am now finding, is information on litter that is above our heads.  

Since the Russians launched the first sputnik satellite, space litter has been continually growing around the earth.  Space litter comes from spent rockets, satellites, and debris left by astronauts.  Much of this debris is tiny specs of various compounds, metal, and paint.  Some of it is larger pieces including a camera that was lost by an astronaut on a space walk.  Then there are the disable satellites that sometimes re-enter the earth's atmoshpere.  

Space Litter above the earth

Space scientists are becoming increasingly concerned about this space junk striking satellites or space vehicles, including the international space station.  This debris is tracked so that it can be avoided, but with the increase in space litter, it is becoming more likely. 

Since this debris is traveling at speeds up to 17,000 mph, even the smallest particle can create significant damage to space vehicles. 

A few sources of information that I have found, you can look up on your own. The links are below. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=on-the-trail-of-space-trash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/space-debris-is-getting-out-of-hand/2011/09/01/gIQArLHouJ_blog.html

http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/index.html

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Space_Debris/SEMQQ8VPXPF_0.html



Satellite panel damage from space debris
NASA Orbital Debris Program

Bottom line is: We humans have been very efficient in finding ways to leave litter at our feet, floating on the oceans, on the bottom of the oceans, and up in space.  What's left untouched by humans?