Under the measure to take effect in 2026, shoppers will still be able to purchase bags made of thicker plastic that purportedly makes them reusable and recyclable
Which isn’t the individual single use plastic bags every single item comes in.
It’s just the one final plastic bag, all the other plastic bags are carried in.
I don’t have a problem with the move myself. I’m single, with a supermarket just up the street. I use my own hand basket for my groceries. I never even use a cart.
But this policy always strikes me a tackling the smallest, least effective part of the problem. Banning plastic packaging would be FAR more effective. But also much harder. So this is just a way for politicians to seem like they are doing something, when they really aren’t. In other words it’s pandering.
No, no, they’ve expended their political capital on this and that’s about all we’ll get from them, but just as long as someone tells you to not let perfect be the enemy of good, you must be satisfied with the outcome even if it achieves little to nothing.
Arguing against it or pointing out flaws means that you’re now arguing against “what’s good” and that’s morally and ethically wrong and shows that you’re an outsider to the in-group.
Think like what? Think this is just one small pice. Small enough that it almost doesn’t matter, and shouldn’t take any energy or news inches from the larger problem of plastic packaging? Because honestly, it sounds like we’re on the same page there.
Also plastics aren’t much of a climate issue. They’re part of a more broad environmental issue.
California has been working toward legislation that reduces plastic in packaging. It’s not as good as it should be, but it represents about as much departure from the status quo I think California can reasonably get when people raise so much fuss over even superfluous things like plastic straws and grocery bags (and because California is already really throwing around their weight here in compelling out-of-state producers to change their manufacturing). And this new law is just closing a loophole on a 2014 law that at worst was actively making things worse or at best was making the law fail to address the issue. This isn’t “pandering”; it’s addressing a real, ongoing, actual issue in a sensible way.
Firstly, you’re entirely correct - it’s a tiny part of the problem.
Secondly, it shifts the “blame” for plastic on to consumers. “Oh we’ve been so bad all this time using plastic shopping bags”.
Thirdly, it provides a feeling of resolution. “I’m so happy now we’ve done the hard work to buy these $0.10 reusable shopping bags and solved the plastic problem”.
Fourthly, you have to wonder how many plastic shopping bags were actually single use. For example, a lot of them were made from recycled plastic, and a lot of them were re-used as garbage bags, which are now purchased anyway.
On balance, I think it’s within the realm of possibility that these laws do more harm than good. Honestly, just tax plastic producers and see how quickly producers using plastic to package their products magically fine innovative new alternatives.
This literal exact sentence tells me you didn’t read past the headline; those shitty $0.10, thicker “reusable” plastic bags are exactly the loophope in the 2014 ban that this 2024 law is designed to close. The thing you’re accusing this law of allowing people to do is the one thing it expressly outlaws. Media literacy is dead.
On balance, I think it’s within the realm of possibility that these laws do more harm than good. Honestly, just tax plastic producers and see how quickly producers using plastic to package their products magically fine innovative new alternatives.
Seriously. The way to solve this is to simply put a tax on all plastic packaging. Use those funds to subsidize plastic recycling. Set the tax at whatever level is necessary to make recycling viable. And if the most viable ‘recycling’ method is to just burn the plastic in an incinerator, so be it. Yeah, it’s expensive to build an industrial incinerator that can properly scrub and filter out all the nasty fumes plastic gives off when it’s burned. But it can be done. It’s more expensive than just stuffing the plastic in a landfill, but by burning it, we solve our plastic problem in the here and now, rather than letting it slowly leach out into the environment for future generations to deal with.
Recycling plastic will always be difficult, and it may never be practical for some cases. But all plastics burn. And if you have the right incinerator, they can be burned without releasing toxic fumes into the air. Tax plastic packaging, all of it. Tax it, and use the funds to subsidize plastic waste incineration. Plastic is made from oil, and it still can be used as a fuel. Burn it and be done with it.
Packaging is more effective to ban but also a lot more nuanced. Plastic packaging was developed over a lot of years and the products are designed for it so it would need to be a much longer term project.
Looking at comments outside of Lemmy, I’m appaled by the number of people shocked by this already. Apparently, “just reuse your f-ing bags” is already too hard for a lot of people. We need to start from the easiest.
Which isn’t the individual single use plastic bags every single item comes in.
It’s just the one final plastic bag, all the other plastic bags are carried in.
I don’t have a problem with the move myself. I’m single, with a supermarket just up the street. I use my own hand basket for my groceries. I never even use a cart.
But this policy always strikes me a tackling the smallest, least effective part of the problem. Banning plastic packaging would be FAR more effective. But also much harder. So this is just a way for politicians to seem like they are doing something, when they really aren’t. In other words it’s pandering.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Like @[email protected] said, this is closing a loophole that was in the original grocery bag reduction law.
I’m saying it shouldn’t be praised as a solution, but recognized as a very small step forward. Afterwhich we ramp up the pressure for real solutions.
I don’t think anyone is calling this the single solution to anything.
It’s simple another small step on the path.
Take enough steps and you’ll keep moving towards a goal
No, no, they’ve expended their political capital on this and that’s about all we’ll get from them, but just as long as someone tells you to not let perfect be the enemy of good, you must be satisfied with the outcome even if it achieves little to nothing.
Arguing against it or pointing out flaws means that you’re now arguing against “what’s good” and that’s morally and ethically wrong and shows that you’re an outsider to the in-group.
We can’t afford to think like this. Climate is such an unthinkably massive issue that we need all of it, and then some more, and then some more.
There is no project big enough that we don’t need 50,000 more projects of equivalent scope to get things where they need to be.
Think like what? Think this is just one small pice. Small enough that it almost doesn’t matter, and shouldn’t take any energy or news inches from the larger problem of plastic packaging? Because honestly, it sounds like we’re on the same page there.
Also plastics aren’t much of a climate issue. They’re part of a more broad environmental issue.
It might be unclear if you’re advocating a comprehensive plastic policy, or whataboutism directed at just one other use of plastic.
California has been working toward legislation that reduces plastic in packaging. It’s not as good as it should be, but it represents about as much departure from the status quo I think California can reasonably get when people raise so much fuss over even superfluous things like plastic straws and grocery bags (and because California is already really throwing around their weight here in compelling out-of-state producers to change their manufacturing). And this new law is just closing a loophole on a 2014 law that at worst was actively making things worse or at best was making the law fail to address the issue. This isn’t “pandering”; it’s addressing a real, ongoing, actual issue in a sensible way.
Excellent! That should be bigger news than this little stuff.
Yeah. The whole shit-show is depressing really.
Firstly, you’re entirely correct - it’s a tiny part of the problem.
Secondly, it shifts the “blame” for plastic on to consumers. “Oh we’ve been so bad all this time using plastic shopping bags”.
Thirdly, it provides a feeling of resolution. “I’m so happy now we’ve done the hard work to buy these $0.10 reusable shopping bags and solved the plastic problem”.
Fourthly, you have to wonder how many plastic shopping bags were actually single use. For example, a lot of them were made from recycled plastic, and a lot of them were re-used as garbage bags, which are now purchased anyway.
On balance, I think it’s within the realm of possibility that these laws do more harm than good. Honestly, just tax plastic producers and see how quickly producers using plastic to package their products magically fine innovative new alternatives.
This literal exact sentence tells me you didn’t read past the headline; those shitty $0.10, thicker “reusable” plastic bags are exactly the loophope in the 2014 ban that this 2024 law is designed to close. The thing you’re accusing this law of allowing people to do is the one thing it expressly outlaws. Media literacy is dead.
Seriously. The way to solve this is to simply put a tax on all plastic packaging. Use those funds to subsidize plastic recycling. Set the tax at whatever level is necessary to make recycling viable. And if the most viable ‘recycling’ method is to just burn the plastic in an incinerator, so be it. Yeah, it’s expensive to build an industrial incinerator that can properly scrub and filter out all the nasty fumes plastic gives off when it’s burned. But it can be done. It’s more expensive than just stuffing the plastic in a landfill, but by burning it, we solve our plastic problem in the here and now, rather than letting it slowly leach out into the environment for future generations to deal with.
Recycling plastic will always be difficult, and it may never be practical for some cases. But all plastics burn. And if you have the right incinerator, they can be burned without releasing toxic fumes into the air. Tax plastic packaging, all of it. Tax it, and use the funds to subsidize plastic waste incineration. Plastic is made from oil, and it still can be used as a fuel. Burn it and be done with it.
I wouldn’t limit it to plastic packaging. Micro-plastics come from all plastic.
Packaging is more effective to ban but also a lot more nuanced. Plastic packaging was developed over a lot of years and the products are designed for it so it would need to be a much longer term project.
All the more reason to advocate for it, and not be distracted by a nearly meaningless win.
What do you do wrt vegetables? I always end up using those thin plastic bag to wrap them, even uf I bring a big reusable bag to carry it all out
I have a hand-held basket I got more than a decade ago from Staples. I just put all the loose fruit and veg in that.
Banning these plastics is not about environmentalism. It’s about litter and having visually cleaner cities.
It seems easy to argue liter is part of environmental concerns and policy. Environment is a very flexible term.
Looking at comments outside of Lemmy, I’m appaled by the number of people shocked by this already. Apparently, “just reuse your f-ing bags” is already too hard for a lot of people. We need to start from the easiest.
deleted by creator