Discussion in 'SF Lounge' started by Stamps Rule, Jun 8, 2012.
This is what happens when you elect leftists, Calgary.
So you think using millions upon millions of plastic bags a year and having most of them end up in the landfill is a good thing? What's wrong with a little progressive thinking? If we didn't continually look for better ways of doing things we'd still be trying to rub two twigs against each other to start a fire to keep warm.
Wake up indeed.
I do not like the council we have now. Too many bleeding heart lefties for my own good led by Druh Farrell. The other left wing turkey is this Gian-Carla guy. You knew this would be coming from them...
Plastic bags ARE the "progression". Remember how BAAAAAD paper bags were? So what do we do? We stop cutting down trees and replace it with plastic.
It's the slippery slope, my friend.
First they want to ban garbage bags, and we cave. Then maybe they want to ban vehicles that don't get 25MPG. Then maybe they want to ban trucks altogether.
Do you really want to play this game? It's a short, steep ride from "ban plastic bags for the environment" to something far more....umm...sinister.
I'm not sure how the most "Conservative" large city in the country keeps electing these liberal bozos, but we do.
What I would like to know is how did we go from a center right council to a left of center council? When is the next civic election? Can't come soon enough...
When Calgary starts taking "hints" about public policy from....TORONTO CITY COUNCIL....you know it's time to pull the pin on ALL of them.
Something more sinister? What ban breathing because it produces CO2? I don't follow.
Like SR says, you don't use plastic so more trees will be cut down for paper bags. You can't win for losing. Politicians are becoming social engineers & I don't like that.
I really doubt that the solution would be to go back to paper bags anyway. It shouldn't be the solution anyway because as you point out paper bags require cutting down additional trees. There are already reusable bags that are sold at the checkouts of most grocery stores. Sure they're less convenient but sometimes we need that little push to do the slightly less convenient, but far smarter thing.
Take seat belts. They are apparently a minor inconvenience (although I've never understand how), but in the years since the seat belt law was passed they've become widely accepted and putting one on when getting into a vehicle is, for almost everyone, a given. It's completely automatic.
Now look at the bigger picture. How many lives has that minor nuisance saved? Likewise, how much damage to the environment is the minor nuisance of bringing reusable grocery bags with you to the grocery store going to save? Not to sound hypocritical, but I'll be the first to admit I don't use them (much the same as how most people didn't where seat belts until pushed to by law). I probably need that push myself. But to say that banning plastic bags is stupid because stores might have to hire a few more employees to stand by the door strikes me as little more than an excuse. A cop out. If anything, given today's economy creating a few extra jobs seems like a welcome side effect.
Besides, where I live in downtown Edmonton there's a full contingent of security at the door of every grocery store anyway, so outside of small towns and low crime areas I doubt it would effect things much at all.
How about this... http://eponline.com/articles/2010/07/01 ... -says.aspx
Perhaps they should test kids lunch kits too! Those would be far worse.
You know the simple solution to this problem would be to use antibacterial fabrics that contain silver.
Or, you know, avoid licking the bags. Most food has its own packaging. Perhaps produce would touch the bag itself but it needs to be washed before eating anyway. Besides the fact that it touched a fabric grocery bag is probably the least of your worries. Apples fall on the floor and get put back. They just do. Strawberrries grow on the ground. Whoop de doo.
Whoop de doggy doo...at least in my yard...
Oh yeah, here we go with the "how many lives has XXXXXX saved" argument. :-/
Maybe we should just ban cars altogether, how many lives would that save.
Or maybe we should ban water. Lot's of people drown!
Do you really want to live in a society where stores have to "hire someone" (A.K.A - the plastic bag police) to monitor what type of bag you're using while shopping, as you assert?
So, if no paper for bags & no plastic, then what?
I didn't assert they monitor what type of bag you use while shopping at all. In fact I wasn't even the one who stated that more staff would be needed.
And illogical hyperboles are hardly valid or relevant counter arguments.
Agree to disagree.