Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)

On May 5^th 2014 I posted my latest commentary on my blog under the heading "Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have." This can be accessed here.

Almost immediately comments started coming in.

Nicole Scheller of Lawrenceville, NJ reacted with this:

An issue close to my heart. I even keep a stash of bags at school, so if I take the kids shopping, we're not forced to use plastic. I'm still considered weird for this, but I'm ok with that. I do hear a lot of folks excusing their use of plastic bags because they are recyclable now, but as you know recycling takes energy and the end product will find itself in a landfill eventually.

Joel Wiener of Arlington, Virginia expressed the view:

Some stores charge for plastic bags, while others give the customer a small credit for using their own bags.  I prefer to use paper bags since they decompose quickly and I use the empty bags for recycling newspapers.

Plastic bags can be recycled if disposed of properly.  

The problem, like with most things, is with compliance and a sense of personal responsibility.

To which I replied:

You are making an assumption that is commonplace. Please read the article here where you will find that paper bags don’t really have much of an advantage over plastic. To quote from part of the article:

“Before you brown bag it, consider these environmental disadvantages of paper:

•                Causes pollution: Paper production emits air pollution, specifically 70 percent more pollution than the production of plastic bags [source:Thompson]. According to certain studies, manufacturing paper emits 80 percent more greenhouse gases [source: Lilienfield]. And, consider that making paper uses trees that, instead, could be absorbing carbon dioxide. The paper bag making process also results in 50 times more water pollutants than making plastic bags [source:Thompson].

•                Consumes energy: Even though petroleum goes into making plastic, it turns out that making a paper bag consumes four times as much energy as making a plastic bag, meaning making paper consumes a good deal of fuel [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Consumes water: The production of paper bags uses three times the amount of water it takes to make plastic bags [source: Lilienfield].

•                Inefficient recycling: The process of recycling paper can be inefficient -- often consuming more fuel than it would take to make a new bag [source: Milstein]. In addition, it takes about 91 percent more energy to recycle a pound of paper than a pound of plastic [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Produces waste: According to some measures, paper bags generate 80 percent more solid waste [source: Lilienfield].

•                Biodegrading difficulties: Surprisingly, the EPA has stated that in landfills, paper doesn't degrade all that much faster than plastics [source: Lilienfield].

But that doesn’t mean that plastic is better, as the article goes on to say:

However, plastic didn't get a bad reputation for nothing. Here are some environmental disadvantages of plastic: (and then lists many).

There simply is no substitute for making use of re-usable bags, which we should all do voluntarily as I, my wife and my daughter do. 

But this issue is far too important to allow for voluntarism.  As my original post has indicated many governments have instituted action to discourage the use of disposable bags of any kind and that we need to do the same.

I personally would favor a significant tax on every bag issued by a retailer. I would urge a minimum of 25¢ per bag and preferably a $1.00 assessment. That would be an effective inducement to the use of re-usable bags. It is essential that we, as a society take action against the blight of waste and its devastation on the environment."

Which prompted this response from Wiener:

I suppose that canvas bags would also have an environmental impact due to their manufacture and the printing found on them:

The common message throughout all of these facts is to re-use bags, and the more they are re-used, whether paper, plastic, canvas or mesh, the less impact on the environment.

I think that the addition of a per bag tax would not be much of a deterrent, since even at a buck a bag, most people will forget to bring their bags and will have no choice but to pay the tax and get the bag, as opposed to carrying an armful of loose groceries. 

Which prompted this further observation on my part:

Your point is well taken. The key is "to re-use bags”.

But I don’t agree that a "buck a bag" would not be a deterrent. Even 25¢ a bag would be. We can see this from the extent to which people clip coupons and use store member cards to get discounts. But the common 2¢ or even less a bag does nothing.

The idea that "forgetting has its costs" is a wonderful way to jolt the memory.

(Some good slogans there.)

Albert Nikemkin of Vienna, Virginia chimed in with:

Thanks for sharing this.

IKEA has the solution to this problem. I was at a local store yesterday: it doesn't provide any bags at all for purchases. However, it does SELL reusable bags at the checkout counter for those who want them and/or forgot to bring one. I think that would certainly get the message across and solve the problem. However, a single merchant can't make this work. A municipality or state needs to outlaw the free distribution of plastic bags. That would either mean a return to paper, or adoption of the IKEA approach.

Prompting me to write:

Ikea is the correct solution. But as you point out an occasional responsible retailer or an occasional responsible consumer will not solve the problem. It is a societal issue and must be dealt with societally. Only a tax on disposable bags, both plastic and paper of at least 25¢ and preferably $1.- will begin to deal with this issue.

Elaine Krigsman of Montclair, NJ prompted this exchange by writing:

While I agree with you that a tax would be the best way to solve this problem, the chances of this actually happening are slim to none.  We can't even get a gas tax passed here in NJ that would begin to address our needs.  Stores should just stop providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe.  IKEA's system is not original but it is effective, even if it is just one customer at a time.  

Which caused me to reply:

Unfortunately, the likelihood of stores no longer "providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe” is also slim to none. First it is up to us to act individually to use re-usable bags, and second we need to keep working to achieve societal and political goals even if at the moment they seem out of reach. The stupidity of not raising the gas tax is beyond compare, as was the failure of Christie to allow new rail tunnels between NJ & NY even though the Federal government would pay for it, a project that was first proposed by Christie supporter, former mayor, Giuliani.

And then Christie won by a landslide. 

Simply throwing up ones hands accomplishes nothing.

Prompting this final concurrence:

I agree with you on all points!

And finally Joanna Cooke of Jackson, Wyoming expressed this view:

I haven't commented in years, largely because I feel way out of my league in terms of understanding the issues you've explored. But this one I have an opinion on. We regularly use cloth bags--some have been in use over eight years at this point. I also reuse the plastic bags for when we get things in bulk for new bulk purchases. Whatever bags we do use, plastic or paper, get reused in some fashion, for example, for garbage in the bathrooms (and I often simply empty out those bags and use them again for the same purpose).  I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic. Our local natural food store gives a credit that can be donated to local community foundations, and even the box grocery stores give some kind of credit, a few cents per bag or something. I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic (emphasis added).

To which I replied:

Allow me to address some of the concerns you raise. You "wonder about the economic concerns." I don’t see that there are any realistic ones. Even a dollar tax on each bag would not cause people to shop less, but it would, in most cases, cause them to bring their own bags.

As for your question as to "what the best forms of education are on this topic” I really don’t know. The environmental community must spend resources on education. Unfortunately they have not invested very much on this issue. I do not have any influence in this community. Those who do should use that influence to get them to speak out more aggressively.

The main obstacle to imposing a significant tax on disposable bags is the general aversion of the public to all taxes and the antigovernment mood created by Reagan’s slogan, “Government is not the solution, Government is the problem” and the anarchic anti-societal attitudes that have arisen from it, particularly within the Tea party, but within the Republican party in general. They have a no lose strategy, because the more outrageous their behavior in the councils of government, the more they bring government into disrepute, which strengthens their anarchic and anti societal agenda. Since the public instinctively hates taxes, this too feeds into their opposition to all tax increases and supports their constant call for fewer taxes until in the words of, Grover Norquist, "I just want to shrink it (the government) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Politics has its cycles, and in time the public may recognize that without government to regulate our food and drug supplies, to protect our environment and to guarantee competition, etc. capitalism cannot function.

I will be happy to entertain any further comments anyone else cares to make.

Health Care Reform – Facts and Fiction

 In a series of commentaries I have set forth the misconceptions, the distortions and the outright lies to which the American Public has been subjected.

  It is difficult to understand why this is being done. There are some business groups that have a stake in the status quo and I can understand their struggle to protect their profits and increase them, even if it is at the expense of the Nation's needs.

The Republican Party stands opposed, as they oppose all Democratic initiatives, because they see obstruction and denunciation as the means to further their own political fortunes. These positions are unpatriotic for even a “loyal opposition” should put the Nation’s needs ahead of their parochial ambitions.

It is harder to understand the rank and file Republicans who write columns and who write Letters to the Editor distorting the facts, for they have no “horse in the race.” They remind me of the Communists of the ‘30s and even the ’40s who followed the party line no matter where it led them.

In my posting entitled “Health Insurance Reform” posted on August 11, 2009, I set forth unassailable facts and figures to show that we do not have the “best medical care in the world.” In fact dollar for dollar we have one of the worst.

In my commentary, “Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies” posted on 8/19/09, I called attention to some of the lies being circulated and the viscous attacks being orchestrated against reform, running the gamut from unfounded claims of “death panels”, the use of swastikas and the word “Nazi”. I waited for some Republicans out of some sort of decency, some sort of honesty, some sort of responsibility to denounce these lies but instead found them using weasel words to defend them, and sadly this included that “maverick” John McCain. I looked for Republican columnists and Letter to the Editor writers to distance themselves from the worst of these outrages, but their loyalty apparently is to their party and not their country.

In my posting, “Health Reform - Reality” posted on August 25, 2009, I quoted at length from a major brokerage house that pointed out that if nothing is done about reforming our present system, we face economic disaster.

Among the commentaries to Health Reform Realities there are three particularly worth reading. Tanya Keith and her husband, professionals, and middle class earners who had insurance set forth the disasters that befell them because of our crazy quilt system.

Nicole Scheller, a recent mother, in another comment to Health Reform Realities related her horrific experiences with trying to gain coverage from her insurance company after she had her baby. No facts, no personal disasters, move these opponents. They keep inventing dangers from reform that must emanate from their own nightmares, or from the Right wing nut factory, for they have no basis in reality.

Roger Berkley is a small business man but with a business much larger than Tanya’s. He employs about 200 people. He tells at length what is happening to him under the present system. His is in the form of a podcast and I particularly commend the antepenultimate message entitled: Healthcare: The Great American Boondoggle, though the two following are also worth listening to.

One widely circulated e-mail about that the Democratic bill, claims that it “would cede vast powers to a “Health Choices Commissioner”. Where do they get such nonsense? I investigated these claims on the web. It appears that this one is just another one of the endless e-mails on all kinds of subjects that are circulated, and I have received many, that are out and out lies, but which naïve people are impressed with, and they hit the forward button. Snopes.com is a web site that specializes in exposing such e-mails. I suggest to the reader that they go here for the top 25. If nothing else it will be good for a laugh. But what about the “Health Choices Commissioner”? This one is dealt with at length by PolitiFact.com that won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009, and they point out that this lie originated in what may be the “longest chain e-mail ever received” filled completely with falsehoods about the bill pending in Congress.

The only part of this e-mail that is true is that the bill provides for the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. This is part of the Health insurance exchange that is to be set up to create a market place for insurance shoppers. The bill says that a Health Choices Commissioner will run the exchange, and that he or she will make sure that insurers are offering basic benefits and adhering to the regulations. Individuals then choose their own plan from offerings on the exchange. To the extent that insurance plans have to meet basic requirements, those instructions are ultimately coming from Congress. See here for a discussion of this, and for those who want to really know what is and what is not in the bill.

But as usual the liars are ahead of the game. The truth has to always play catch-up, and for many people the truth never catches up with the fears engendered.

I have been wanting to discuss the merits and demerits of the few suggestions that have been offered by Republicans, but so much space has to be devoted to rebutting lies, that there is little left for an honest discussion.

Is a public option desirable? What are the true pros and cons? But even beyond this, if this is the Republican main concern, as it appears to be, let them say, “if you take this off the table we will join you in reform.” But if no concessions will bring them on board, then action must proceed without them, or with such few as allow patriotism to trump partisanship.

If medical malpractice reform is the hang-up, Obama has already met them more than halfway. But except for space limitations, I could show this to be a red herring. What we need to do away with is malpractice, not the right to recover for those injured. This is not a right of lawyers, though to be sure they benefit; it is a right of the injured. If a surgeon amputates the wrong leg am I to be denied an adequate remedy?

Are we all agreed that people with medical pre-conditions should not be discriminated against? If not, let’s debate that.

But stop the lies! Stop the smears! Stop the innuendo!

Debate is good. But opponents of reform don’t want to debate, they don’t want to discuss, they don’t want to compromise. They want delay till hell freezes over. They want the status quo, and the status quo is not sustainable. The status quo spells disaster for the country.

Finally, I commend to the reader the article by Hendrick Herzberg in the curreent issue of the New Yorker.