This will accomplish nothing.

It's total nonsense to say that plastic will never degrade. If that were so, the material would be too expensive to use for bags -- it would be used to make cars, houses, and other things exposed to the elements.

The notion that plastic doesn't degrade probably refers to plastic in landfills. Yet, even in landfills things eventually degrade. My city's landfill captures "landfill gas" (methane) and generates enough electricity with it to provide for over 4,000 homes.

If the stuff takes a very long time to degrade -- then, plastic bags are a way of sequestering carbon. That's supposed to be a "good thing" -- to prevent global warming.

A large proportion of plastic bags are reused -- for garbage bags, to pick up dog waste, etc. If they are banned -- then people will simply have to purchase alternatives.

The bags can easily be recycled -- most large grocery stores will take them back.

This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture -- the type politicians love, because they don't think it comes at any costs (other than the loss of personal freedom). Clearly, there will be a cost -- if existing alternatives were better, people would be using them of their own free will.

To Tundrasea,

For accuracy's sake, this article does not say that "plastic will never degrade," as you have written. Rather, the article states that plastic "will never biodegrade...." The difference between photodegradation (which plastic undergoes) and biodegradation is an important distinction and the link below highlights why.

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-04/why-trashing-oceans-mo...

obso1337:

Yes, let’s have some accuracy.

The proponents of bans on plastic bags take a factoid about the durability of bags in a sealed landfill -- then talk about them "floating in the pacific ocean" forever and forever. Clearly, they will quickly photo degrade -- contrary to the bag opponent's propaganda.

Just what are these bans supposed to accomplish?

Litter reduction? If that's the objective, at least be honest enough to admit that photodegradation will take care of the problem quite quickly. The bags will not last for hundreds of years -- the litter will not just keep building up forever. Besides, the vast majority of bags are already being reused, recycled, or disposed of in the trash.

Greenhouse gas reduction? If the bags did last forever, then the greenhouse gas has effectively been sequestered -- problem solved. If the article you linked to is to be believed -- even if the bags are reduced to molecules by photo degradation -- they remain molecules of plastic, and the carbon is still sequestered.

Plastics that 'degrade' may appear to be assimilated harmlessly into the environment, but, the link provided above has this to say:

"Even when they have been smashed into the tiniest bits physically possible, they are still plastics.
What’s worse, the plastics act as a kind of magnet for toxins in the water, accumulating chemicals on their surface. The worry now is those toxins will be transferred to the bodies of the animals eating the debris."

As for building plastic houses... I imagine the burning of one to the ground might release untold amounts of toxic fumes... not that a wood house burns cleanly mind you.

A large part of a car's makeup is plastic already, composites are used more and more.

Maybe I'm retarded, but maybe doing things that nature itself hasn't done might not be such a good thing for nature, and we're part of nature, like it or not. Nothing that's artificially produced should be produced without a way to unmake it. If you build a car factory, build a plant beside it to deconstruct those cars and recycle them.

Same goes for pretty much everything.

podboq

Another Popular Science article on this site describes the coating GM just developed for Corvettes -- at $1000/gallon.

Even the best plastics -- used to make Corvettes, for instance, degrade under the effects of sunlight and ozone.

Many houses are already covered in plastic -- i.e. vinyl siding. It lasts a long time, but it eventually degrades. It is also costs more than the plastic in plastic bags. My point was simply if plastic bags never degraded -- the material would be too valuable to use in disposable bags. It would be used to weatherproof valuable objects.

The self-proclaimed "environmentalists" who push for vacuous, symbolic gestures like bans on plastic shopping bags use a lot of deceptive propaganda. According to them, plastic bags take 1,000 years to degrade -- the clear implication being that they will pile up forever, until the world is covered in them -- like the picture accompanying this article.

In fact -- the bags do degrade, and outside they do degrade very rapidly. Saying that plastic bags "don't degrade" is just lying.

Also -- there are biodegradable plastic shopping bags. They cost several times more than the "non degradable" type -- but still only a fraction of the $0.20 levy that Seattle will put on all plastic bags. If the concern is with biodegradability, why not allow people to chose to use biodegradable bags? Just what is this ban supposed to accomplish?

BTW, if it weren't for "doing things that nature itself hasn't done" -- you wouldn't have been able to post your message. You would have had to keep your concerns about your possible retardation to yourself.

That's a provocative picture. Where is it? It wasn't labeled, and it doesn't look like Seattle or San Francisco to me.

first of all ireland hasn't banned plastic bags outright. we pay a fee, as is proposed for seattle. as the main article in the ny times shows, it just puts the problem in peoples minds, that constantly taking plastic bags, often just for the sake of it, is a waste.

people here now use reusable bags, and it has meant a reduction (90% according to the article) in wasted plastic bags. in short, it's a simple solution to a minor environmental problem. there's no need to get on high horses about how long it takes a bag to bio-degrade. if that's your main beef with the piece, you've completely missed the point.

podboq; massively agree on the subject of your last paragraph.

To porch:

What environmental problem?

If the bags never degraded -- as the proponents of banning (or exorbitant fees) would have us all believe -- then there might be a problem. Pictures, such as the one accompanying this article, would be truthful -- rather than part of a propaganda campaign.

The simple truth is -- the bags degrade. They won't cover the planet in liter. If people were told that simple truth – they would be unlikely to support bans (or confiscatory fees). For that reason – the people are lied to.

In addition, the vast majority of bags are reused, recycled, or at least properly disposed of.

This is a non-solution to a non-problem.

BTW -- the "Shift" key is located on both sides of your keyboard for a reason.

^^^^

so the picture in the article isn't truthful then. right, so zainub went to a lot of trouble to set up that little scene eh? tin foil hat time i think.

i don't think many people believe the planet is going to be covered in plastic bags. the bags degrade, yeah fine, but isn't it better to have no bags littering the place than some that will degrade in 20 years? as i said, it's a simple solution (that works!) to a small problem (that does exist!), but you just keep your fingers in your ears and watch the world go by.

bY tHe WaY, I FouNd thE SHifT buTTon. bUT I Can'T sEeM tO Get iT wOrKiNg ProPerLy. AnY HeLp wOulD be ApPreCiaTeD.

To porch,

Let me try to explain it so that even you can understand.

The picture used is far from a representative sample of what our environment looks like -- even urban environments. Even the landfill in our city is much neater looking than that scene.

Of the countless billions of pictures that could have been picked to go with the article, why was that one selected? Clearly, it was chosen for its potential impact. It is intended to reinforce the notion that plastic bags never degrade, and will therefore continue to accumulate, until the entire earth looks like the photograph.

Democracy needs truth to function. When self-righteous activists resort to propaganda techniques to achieve their goals; they are undermining democracy. People need facts to make good decisions -- instead, the activists are feeding us propaganda.

How much support would plastic bag bans (or fees) gain if people were truthfully told that the bags degrade in well under 20 years in the environment (rather than 500 years, or 1,000 years)?

How much support would the bans receive if people were told that most of them are reused, recycled -- or at least properly disposed of in landfills? Once in a landfill, the carbon used to make the bags is sequestered for a considerably long time -- thus removing a potential greenhouse gas. If the bags do last 1,000 years when buried in the ground, isn't that a good thing?

What is more important -- symbolic gestures to make you "feel good", or actual results? The bag bans are vacuous symbolic gestures.