should stores charge for plastic bags?

[Elaina]

For their reusable bags, yes. My argument was over the plastic ones.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

For their reusable bags, yes. My argument was over the plastic ones.

Nope.

Maybe the wording from the USA Today article is clearer.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-02-21-ikea-bag-charge_x.htm?csp=34


"Ikea, which has its U.S. headquarters in suburban Conshohocken, announced Tuesday that it will start charging customers a nickel for every plastic bag they use to carry their booty of Glasklar dishes and Bibbi Snurr blankets. Proceeds from the surcharge will go to an environmental conservation group.

"We really feel the timing is right," said Pernille Lopez, president of Ikea North America. "It's a small step, but we feel it's good for us as a company, and it reduces our impact on the environment."

Ikea's U.S. stores went through 70 million plastic bags last year — and officials want to cut that in half over the first year of the "bring your own bag" policy. That would equate to about 1.5 million trees being planted — an idea that got a favorable response from customers Ikea surveyed, Lopez said.

Proceeds from the surcharge will go to the non-profit group American Forests to plant trees, with dual goals of restoring forests and reducing carbon dioxide emissions, she said. Ikea also will sell its reusable bags for 59 cents, down from the current 99 cents, for customers who forget to bring their own."

 

[MrBern]

Well paying for the bag within the cost of the items is one thing.
What about the eventual cost to the environment?
Look at the RubberTire Reef thread & the cost of the cleanup.

The article states the concern over the pollution is the issue. These bags are banned in Ireland, Australia, Rwanda, Bangladesh.

Taiwan reports 80% fewer bags since stores began charging.

Ikea reports a 95% drop with its UK customers.

Ikea is cuttign the price for reusable bags.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

The problem with pollution though is that it is caused by people littering these things or dumping them where they don't belong. The problem isn't that they are dangerous in landfills, or that we are running out of landfill space.

Litter is just one of those problems which is a by-product of any society. The blame should be on the idiots who litter, not merchants or customers who use plastic bags.

 

[Orgetorix]

I smell more profits for Ingvar Kamprad, somewhere in the midst of all this.

 

[The Wingnut]

The problem with pollution though is that it is caused by people littering these things or dumping them where they don't belong. The problem isn't that they are dangerous in landfills, or that we are running out of landfill space.

Litter is just one of those problems which is a by-product of any society. The blame should be on the idiots who litter, not merchants or customers who use plastic bags.

...this man speaks the truth.

Furthermore, both plastic and paper bags alike will not biodegrade in a landfill. Very little does once buried. Combine this with the litter issue and stores charging for their plastic bags in order to encourage customers to use their own bags, it becomes little more than a 'feel-good' campaign. Not only that, but it reduces the store's overhead since they won't have to buy as many bags. It makes perfect sense for the store...good PR and good business sense.

You can stash a big canvas bag or two in your trunk. I've got room for them in the back of the Z. Do I use my own bags? No, I take the store's bags, and use paper bags lined at the bottom with the plastic bags for my kitchen garbage. The bags are also great if you're giving something to someone else and they need a bag to carry it in that you don't care about getting back.

 

[Elaina]

Then I misread, but it still doesn't change the fact that I'm paying to recycle in the end, so my money won't be spent anywhere for this sort of campaign.

I'd rather send my 5 cents somewhere I KNOW and approve of what it's going for.

 

[MrBern]

The problem with pollution though is that it is caused by people littering these things or dumping them where they don't belong. The problem isn't that they are dangerous in landfills, or that we are running out of landfill space.

Litter is just one of those problems which is a by-product of any society. The blame should be on the idiots who litter, not merchants or customers who use plastic bags.

Actually , there are some cities that have to send their garbage by barge to other states. So for some places landfill IS an issue.

 

[carebear]

Actually , there are some cities that have to send their garbage by barge to other states. So for some places landfill IS an issue.

Shipping is a "cost" which can be recovered by the fees charged to haul away your garbage in the first place, there is no lack of "space".

As long as fees bear a direct relation to the weight and cube each subscriber individually generates the additional shipping cost should be negligiable. After all, the consumers can choose to lower their output through recycling or negotiate pricing between competitive providers.

 

[MrBern]

Shipping is a "cost" which can be recovered by the fees charged to haul away your garbage in the first place, there is no lack of "space".

As long as fees bear a direct relation to the weight and cube each subscriber individually generates the additional shipping cost should be negligiable. After all, the consumers can choose to lower their output through recycling or negotiate pricing between competitive providers.

I think youre in Alaska where their is no space issue.
In NY, there are issues about space & shipping garbage & living near landfills.
Yes, absolutely, consumers can choose to lower their output thru recycling. Thats the point of motivating them by charging 5cents for a plastic bag.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Maybe ol' Carebear is sufferin' from cabin fever up there. I saw it in that Chaplin flick, The Gold Rush. Makes grown men think their roommates are chickens.

.

 

[carebear]

I think youre in Alaska where their is no space issue.
In NY, there are issues about space & shipping garbage & living near landfills.
Yes, absolutely, consumers can choose to lower their output thru recycling. Thats the point of motivating them by charging 5cents for a plastic bag.

A landfill doesn't have to be anywhere near the city that dumps there. There are NO absolute space issues nationally or worldwide, even in reasonable shipping distance from NYC.

If a person chooses not to live by a landfill they are free not to. If a county chooses to prohibit them by zoning based on a vote of the people they are likewise allowed. When having a landfill becomes lucrative enough to override voter's personal concerns one will be built and garbage will flow to it at a market rate.

Folks should be motivated to lower their output of trash by the ability to thus lower the bill to haul it away from their house, not by adding a tax to an item whose cost is already absorbed in the store's pricing, like the lights and electricity.

Think prices store or chain wide will go down $0.05 across a bag of groceries if this goes into effect more broadly?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Folks should be motivated to lower their output of trash by the ability to thus lower the bill to haul it away from their house, ...

Very true. :eusa_clap


.

 

[MrBern]

actually, I remember the NYC streets before the 5cent deposit tax was put on bottles & cans.
There is far less on hte street because of it.

The article reports that the UK had a 95% reduction of ikea bag comsumption.
I hope that the USA can match that.

We're free to buy bags. We're free to wheel the stuff out to our car& load it bag-free. We're free to bring our own bags.

Incidentally, NY has one of the largest landfills in th world.
And no one is happy about it
http://concernedcitizens.homestead.com/FKfacts.html

 

[carebear]

actually, I remember the NYC streets before the 5cent deposit tax was put on bottles & cans.
There is far less on hte street because of it.

The article reports that the UK had a 95% reduction of ikea bag comsumption.
I hope that the USA can match that.

We're free to buy bags. We're free to wheel the stuff out to our car& load it bag-free. We're free to bring our own bags.

Incidentally, NY has one of the largest landfills in th world.
And no one is happy about it
http://concernedcitizens.homestead.com/FKfacts.html

A deposit tax gives you back the tax money if you return the item, in fact it motivates people who didn't buy the item to return it. In essence it is privatized waste management. I can indirectly pay a bum 5 cents to clean up after me. That may be worth, in my mind, saving the time of taking the item back to the store. Privatization is good.

A 5 cent per bag state/city-mandated tax, with no return of deposit, is just additional money out of my pocket, especially if the prices are not dropped by the seller (who would have to get a tax break of some kind from the state to compensate them for that price break to me as well). (This presumes bringing my own bag is not an option, in which case it would be just another expense trade-off decision.)

As far as Fresh Kills, I sure wouldn't want to live next to it and I would probably vote against opening a new one nearby my home. Unless, of course, I could be shown that the revenue from the landfill would, say, decrease my tax burden enough to make up for the aesthetic losses. There's always someplace willing to make that trade. The folks agin' it, who lost the vote, are always free to move.

 

[MrBern]

Yes, all americans are free to move.
But not everyone can handle the expense.
Nor the desire to uproot their family life.

And remember, theres also 'eminent domain', so the Govt is free to uproot you as well. Like for a new basketball stadium that would benefit the investors in your area.

I think tht for some of us , when you say, 'free to move', its like the old saw , "America, love it or leave it" which is rather dismissive. Some people would prefer to stay & make their lives better, rather than picking up & leaving a neighborhood & life behind.

What would it say , if after 9/11 all the residents of NYC picked up & left?

 

[carebear]

Yes, all americans are free to move.
But not everyone can handle the expense.
Nor the desire to uproot their family life.

And remember, theres also 'eminent domain', so the Govt is free to uproot you as well. Like for a new basketball stadium that would benefit the investors in your area.

I think tht for some of us , when you say, 'free to move', its like the old saw , "America, love it or leave it" which is rather dismissive. Some people would prefer to stay & make their lives better, rather than picking up & leaving a neighborhood & life behind.

What would it say , if after 9/11 all the residents of NYC picked up & left?

I think it would say they made a poor risk assessment, if risk is why they were leaving. If they left Manhattan because they truly couldn't afford it, I'd say they made a wise decision financially.

Eminent domain, by the Fed, should be ruled by the 5th Amendment which requires "just compensation" which should be at least fair market value in a capitalist economy. State, county and lower eminant domain should be ruled by their various Constitutions and regulations and thus can be changed if onerous by the voters of those localities. After some of the recent travesties several state governments, at the will of their citizens, have explicitly restrained ED as is their responsibility.

If you live in a county that, under all existing rules, votes to allow a landfill, then you have the same choice as anyone else (under any circumstance). Change the situation, put up with the situation or leave the situation. If you lack the means or willingness to move you leave yourself only two choices. If you can't convince enough of your fellow voters to change the situation, then you are left with only one. That is life in a representative democracy.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

I think it would say they made a poor risk assessment, if risk is why they were leaving. If they left Manhattan because they truly couldn't afford it, I'd say they made a wise decision financially.

Eminent domain, by the Fed, should be ruled by the 5th Amendment which requires "just compensation" which should be at least fair market value in a capitalist economy. State, county and lower eminant domain should be ruled by their various Constitutions and regulations and thus can be changed if onerous by the voters of those localities. After some of the recent travesties several state governments, at the will of their citizens, have explicitly restrained ED as is their responsibility.

If you live in a county that, under all existing rules, votes to allow a landfill, then you have the same choice as anyone else. Change the situation, put up with the situation or leave the situation. If you lack the means or willingness to move you leave yourself only two choices. If you can't convince enough of your fellow voters to change the situation, then you are left with only one. That is life in a representative democracy.

or if you rent...and you lose in the voting process....you still lose your place of residence without the compensation to even cover relocating...

In other words, you are advocating the 'if you can't either convince or pay off (lobbying) enough people to get your way......you pretty much get to be a victim of society......

gotta love the middle class status quo....

 

[MrBern]

That is life in a representative democracy.

Or life in a capitalistic society w/ a real estate investment market that has boomed since the war began.

I can assure you, that when officially informed you that you must vacate your home for a new basketball stadium, financial compensation doesnt pay for a life of memories in a beloved home.

I'm sure paying 5 cents for a plastic bag must be annoying.

 

[carebear]

or if you rent...and you lose in the voting process....you still lose your place of residence without the compensation to even cover relocating...

In other words, you are advocating the 'if you can't either convince or pay off (lobbying) enough people to get your way......you pretty much get to be a victim of society......

gotta love the middle class status quo....

You can vote without owning property, in fact you can vote for higher property taxes on your landlord (which justly would be passed on to you in the rent) to provide more services, or you can vote to allow a new industry into the county to lower those property taxes (and thus hopefully your rent).

And you aren't barred by law from becoming a homeowner, I move people from renters to owners every day. If you can't afford to own in your town you might be able to save up and do it somewhere else. If you can't earn enough, think about changing jobs or moving where the wages are higher. Life is hard and nothing says you won't have to scrimp, save and suffer to get what you want. Or that even if you struggle your dreams will come true.

If renting and the underlying insecurity of living space is a problem, buy something yourself or plan ahead and put aside enough to cover the very foreseeable problem of your rental space being sold out from under you.

As far as "lobbying" goes... Voting is voting, convincing others to vote with you is what the political process is about. You can do it on street corners or by putting out flyers. You can write letters to the editor or start your own newspaper. Again, if most of the people don't agree with you and your rights under the various Constitutions aren't violated, then yes, the majority will rule. that's what a Constitutional representative democracy is all about.

It isn't "middle class status quo" it's just reality.

Owning has its own pitfalls, it isn't like landlords don't bear the same, in some cases, greater, risks than renters. Renters have to find a new place to live, as long as someone has a space that needs to be paid for there will be a place to rent. Landlords can lose an asset and income in one swoop, if they are underinsured they might not get anything back. But, like renters they voluntarily choose to take those risks.

No one is forced into anything, except perhaps by the vagaries of life itself. Those aren't compensatable.