Advertising starts for the plastic bag ban

Anyway, Back on topic;

One thing johnboy mentioned, that has been missed in the discussion, is the choice to advertise only on FM and WIN, that does seem odd to me.

Anyone able to come up with an idea as to why Just WIN for the telly, and no AM on the radio??

00davist said :

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

If you don’t want to do a THOROUGH amount of research before you make claims, that’s your choice, and it is my choice whether i take what you have to say seriously, which i don’t, as you cant seem to provide more than your own PERSONAL interpretation of some ABS stats.

Thats hilarious; apparently my ‘personal’ interpretation of those oh-so insignificant ABS stats is exactly the same as major news organisations (how odd, what a frightening coincidence):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/claims-cost-of-living-is-undermined-by-abs-report/2875194
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/earning-150000-and-whingeing-heres-a-reality-check-20110607-1fqsu.html

Of course, we can safely ignore the ABS and the ABC and the Age and the rest, because you’ve done all that really thorough research, which consists of … I dunno, maybe you asked your dog or something.

No, I just did my own research, and came to a different conclusion to you, which your mind seems to be having trouble with.

I’m bored with you now, you seem to me to be nothing more than the type of person who thinks all those who have a differing opinion are beneith him, the kind who rather than saying “I disagree” says “Your Wrong”.

The kind of person it’s not really worth having a discussion with, becase they will just keep telling you they are right, and you are wrong.

I have done My research, I have read countles editorials as well (which are opinions, beleive it or not) and I have come to a different conclusion to you, that does not make me stupid, less reaserched, or uneducated, and it certainly does not make me wrong.

Good Bye Gerry!

That’s awesome – more ‘evidence’!

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

If you don’t want to do a THOROUGH amount of research before you make claims, that’s your choice, and it is my choice whether i take what you have to say seriously, which i don’t, as you cant seem to provide more than your own PERSONAL interpretation of some ABS stats.

Thats hilarious; apparently my ‘personal’ interpretation of those oh-so insignificant ABS stats is exactly the same as major news organisations (how odd, what a frightening coincidence):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/claims-cost-of-living-is-undermined-by-abs-report/2875194
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/earning-150000-and-whingeing-heres-a-reality-check-20110607-1fqsu.html

Of course, we can safely ignore the ABS and the ABC and the Age and the rest, because you’ve done all that really thorough research, which consists of … I dunno, maybe you asked your dog or something.

No, I just did my own research, and came to a different conclusion to you, which your mind seems to be having trouble with.

I’m bored with you now, you seem to me to be nothing more than the type of person who thinks all those who have a differing opinion are beneith him, the kind who rather than saying “I disagree” says “Your Wrong”.

The kind of person it’s not really worth having a discussion with, becase they will just keep telling you they are right, and you are wrong.

I have done My research, I have read countles editorials as well (which are opinions, beleive it or not) and I have come to a different conclusion to you, that does not make me stupid, less reaserched, or uneducated, and it certainly does not make me wrong.

Good Bye Gerry!

Anyway, Back on topic;

One thing johnboy mentioned, that has been missed in the discussion, is the choice to advertise only on FM and WIN, that does seem odd to me.

Anyone able to come up with an idea as to why Just WIN for the telly, and no AM on the radio?

00davist said :

If you don’t want to do a THOROUGH amount of research before you make claims, that’s your choice, and it is my choice whether i take what you have to say seriously, which i don’t, as you cant seem to provide more than your own PERSONAL interpretation of some ABS stats.

Thats hilarious; apparently my ‘personal’ interpretation of those oh-so insignificant ABS stats is exactly the same as major news organisations (how odd, what a frightening coincidence):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/claims-cost-of-living-is-undermined-by-abs-report/2875194
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/earning-150000-and-whingeing-heres-a-reality-check-20110607-1fqsu.html

Of course, we can safely ignore the ABS and the ABC and the Age and the rest, because you’ve done all that really thorough research, which consists of … I dunno, maybe you asked your dog or something.

Whoops, here’s the link to where the roo was spotted.

http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=-35.250911,149.035163&spn=0.013055,0.027466&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=-35.250841,149.034974&panoid=gnl2OYEJXKWpecQxAJotdg&cbp=12,311.34,,0,15.21

00davist said :

zippyzippy said :

My irritation is this:

Look at your average grocery shop, there is allot of plastic, chook wrapped in it, biscuits sealed in it, panadol box protected in a little tamper wrap, plenty of plastic, and then some!

Now, out of all that plastic headed for landfill, which was the only item that would actually be re-used by someone?

Sadly I think a certain amount of protective overpackaging is good in this day and age, not necessarily just for sinister reasons but because some people seem to think the nearest store shelf is a good place to discard their lunch leftovers (I’ve even seen fried chicken bones in one department store). Nevertheless I think there’s huge potential for intelligent reduction of useless plastic. Do mens formal shirts need so many pieces of reinforcing in the collar and cuffs? Sometimes they’re duplicated in both plastic and cardboard. Does every box of washing powder need to come with a scoop? They’re so flimsy they’re sometimes cracked before you even open the box and they’re certainly not suitable to reuse for example in the garden or the kids sandpit, and strangely enough it is in fact possible to buy a measuring scoop that you can reuse for years. Making the plastic bag the big villain while ignoring the rest makes no sense to me.

GardeningGirl said :

Seems to me there’s an environmental issue and there’s a littering issue and the ban doesn’t adequately address either.
Btw there have been recalls overseas of reusable bags because some have been found to contain lead. I think it’s daft to expect an endless supply of one-use plastic bags whenever you go shopping but the solution shouldn’t simply introduce different problems.

+1!

zippyzippy said :

Bit worried about contributing to this thread because of the invective, but I want to chime in and say:

1. plastic bag ban is good. Not monumental, bu good. Billions of bags used, they’re made from oil, they don’t break down, they make a lot of waste. Good research around showing that if plastic bags are replaced with reuseable bags (even the ones made of plastic) there is a positive environmental impact provided the bags are actually reused.
2. shops swapping over to slightly thicker bags is a bummer; wouldn’t be surprised if govtco tweaks legislation to get rid of thicker bags too. Eventually it would be good if we end up with everyone using reuseable bags. that’ll make a pretty good difference.
3. Don’t forget the bigger picture: Plenty of other jurisdictions doing this, and the more that do it the bigger the impact. It’s growing.
4. Bin liners – go buy composible bin liners. Work fine. Newspaper’s good too.
5. The stuff I read on here where all these people are so vehemently against even the smallest changes… I’d ask you: would you ever do anything at all tha might be a sacrifice or a slight inconvenience for the sake of others, or the environment?
6. Don’t worry Jim Jones.

Your points are all good and well, but like this legislation, there ability relies on too much good will, I’m happy to be slighly inconveninced, you are, and some others are too, but the fact remains, most people will not buy biodegradeable bin liners, they will buy the Cheapest ones, which will automatically take the place of these bags in landfill.

My irritation is this:

Look at your average grocery shop, there is allot of plastic, chook wrapped in it, biscuits sealed in it, panadol box protected in a little tamper wrap, plenty of plastic, and then some!

Now, out of all that plastic headed for landfill, which was the only item that would actually be re-used by someone?

They have gone for the easy road, not the most effective road…AGAIN!

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

CLooey said :

Instead of doing something so stupid and short-sighted as this, why don’t they get stores to provide biodegradable plastic bags like the ones already available in places with more common sense?

This is going to be so inconvenient because who just happens to be carrying around shopping bags EVERY time they are out shopping or go to the shops spur of the moment?

This ploy is nothing short of grandstanding by the local Gov’t and trying to LOOK like they are doing something useful! We ALWAYS reuse our shopping bags to either store things in or for our smaller garbage bins. Now we’ll have to waste extra money in this tight economy by BUYING plastic bags! so who does this new rule help exactly?

Watch out, you mentioned inconvenience, and a tight economy, Gerry Harvey (using the screen name Jim Jones) will be all over you mate!

You are doing it great, didnt you realise how well off you are, you should be loving how much money you have spare to spend in his stores!

That’s right 00davist, you can ignore all the evidence about the strength of the Australian economy, because whinging and moaning is all the evidence you need that the battlers are doing it tough.

As I said, I base my argument on MORE evidence than you, as I take into account more than just the ABS statistics, mind you, you seem to have dropped that discussion, about the time you relised it might lead to evidence aginst your argument, therfore raising the possiblity that not only those who dont know what they are talking about would ever have a different opinion to yourself, and infact the statistics you tout are not ‘conclusive’ they just seem that way when viewed from your perspective, however other perspectives, and the inclusion of further evidence can lead to different conclusions being drawn, therefore adding credible argument against your opinion.

IE, “oh sh*t, i’d better ignore that, becase it’s a credible alternative to what I think”

Oh yeah, more evidence. All that wonderful evidence you’ve presented.

I have put up references and information for enough of my claims for this thread, I never said i had provided you with sources, nor have i made any actual claims about the economic standings of Australians, i have simply re-enforced the fact that statistics are only a small, and inconclusive part of the picture, and suggested you try doing a little more research before you throw your claims around, as you have only provided one source, and one that is in no way conclusive, as it is open to a wide variety of different interpretation.

If you don’t want to do a THOROUGH amount of research before you make claims, that’s your choice, and it is my choice whether i take what you have to say seriously, which i don’t, as you cant seem to provide more than your own PERSONAL interpretation of some ABS stats.

nobody said :

I will be hiring a gang of street level dealers to commence work on November 1, to hang around outside supermarkets around Canberra to supply this high demand for these <35 micron plastic bags.

No experience is required, but you must be madly passionate about the continued supply and use of these bags. If you deal well, then you can satisfy your own plastic bag desires from your profits.

Godfather, I am willing to act as Consigliere.

I have some nephews who would make excellent Caporegimes, 20 plastic bags each per week should ensure their loyalty.

As the Boss of this family you need to be insulated.

Seems to me there’s an environmental issue and there’s a littering issue and the ban doesn’t adequately address either.
Btw there have been recalls overseas of reusable bags because some have been found to contain lead. I think it’s daft to expect an endless supply of one-use plastic bags whenever you go shopping but the solution shouldn’t simply introduce different problems.

Bit worried about contributing to this thread because of the invective, but I want to chime in and say:

1. plastic bag ban is good. Not monumental, bu good. Billions of bags used, they’re made from oil, they don’t break down, they make a lot of waste. Good research around showing that if plastic bags are replaced with reuseable bags (even the ones made of plastic) there is a positive environmental impact provided the bags are actually reused.
2. shops swapping over to slightly thicker bags is a bummer; wouldn’t be surprised if govtco tweaks legislation to get rid of thicker bags too. Eventually it would be good if we end up with everyone using reuseable bags. that’ll make a pretty good difference.
3. Don’t forget the bigger picture: Plenty of other jurisdictions doing this, and the more that do it the bigger the impact. It’s growing.
4. Bin liners – go buy composible bin liners. Work fine. Newspaper’s good too.
5. The stuff I read on here where all these people are so vehemently against even the smallest changes… I’d ask you: would you ever do anything at all tha might be a sacrifice or a slight inconvenience for the sake of others, or the environment?
6. Don’t worry Jim Jones.

00davist said :

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

CLooey said :

Instead of doing something so stupid and short-sighted as this, why don’t they get stores to provide biodegradable plastic bags like the ones already available in places with more common sense?

This is going to be so inconvenient because who just happens to be carrying around shopping bags EVERY time they are out shopping or go to the shops spur of the moment?

This ploy is nothing short of grandstanding by the local Gov’t and trying to LOOK like they are doing something useful! We ALWAYS reuse our shopping bags to either store things in or for our smaller garbage bins. Now we’ll have to waste extra money in this tight economy by BUYING plastic bags! so who does this new rule help exactly?

Watch out, you mentioned inconvenience, and a tight economy, Gerry Harvey (using the screen name Jim Jones) will be all over you mate!

You are doing it great, didnt you realise how well off you are, you should be loving how much money you have spare to spend in his stores!

That’s right 00davist, you can ignore all the evidence about the strength of the Australian economy, because whinging and moaning is all the evidence you need that the battlers are doing it tough.

As I said, I base my argument on MORE evidence than you, as I take into account more than just the ABS statistics, mind you, you seem to have dropped that discussion, about the time you relised it might lead to evidence aginst your argument, therfore raising the possiblity that not only those who dont know what they are talking about would ever have a different opinion to yourself, and infact the statistics you tout are not ‘conclusive’ they just seem that way when viewed from your perspective, however other perspectives, and the inclusion of further evidence can lead to different conclusions being drawn, therefore adding credible argument against your opinion.

IE, “oh sh*t, i’d better ignore that, becase it’s a credible alternative to what I think”

Oh yeah, more evidence. All that wonderful evidence you’ve presented.

I will be hiring a gang of street level dealers to commence work on November 1, to hang around outside supermarkets around Canberra to supply this high demand for these <35 micron plastic bags.

No experience is required, but you must be madly passionate about the continued supply and use of these bags. If you deal well, then you can satisfy your own plastic bag desires from your profits.

Bluey said :

00davist said :

CLooey said :

Instead of doing something so stupid and short-sighted as this, why don’t they get stores to provide biodegradable plastic bags like the ones already available in places with more common sense?

This is going to be so inconvenient because who just happens to be carrying around shopping bags EVERY time they are out shopping or go to the shops spur of the moment?

This ploy is nothing short of grandstanding by the local Gov’t and trying to LOOK like they are doing something useful! We ALWAYS reuse our shopping bags to either store things in or for our smaller garbage bins. Now we’ll have to waste extra money in this tight economy by BUYING plastic bags! so who does this new rule help exactly?

Watch out, you mentioned inconvenience, and a tight economy, Gerry Harvey (using the screen name Jim Jones) will be all over you mate!

You are doing it great, didnt you realise how well off you are, you should be loving how much money you have spare to spend in his stores!

Im going to release my stored plastic bags which ive been hoarding to use as bin liners in the middle of northbourne on November 1. Purely to spite GovCo.

It wont work, the fact that they have chosen to push this token cr*p only proves they really dont care!

Jim Jones said :

CLooey said :

this tight economy

Bollocks.

See, Gery just cant let something like that past, Now, crab all your pay, and go by a plasma or 12 from him!

Bluey said :

00davist said :

CLooey said :

Instead of doing something so stupid and short-sighted as this, why don’t they get stores to provide biodegradable plastic bags like the ones already available in places with more common sense?

This is going to be so inconvenient because who just happens to be carrying around shopping bags EVERY time they are out shopping or go to the shops spur of the moment?

This ploy is nothing short of grandstanding by the local Gov’t and trying to LOOK like they are doing something useful! We ALWAYS reuse our shopping bags to either store things in or for our smaller garbage bins. Now we’ll have to waste extra money in this tight economy by BUYING plastic bags! so who does this new rule help exactly?

Watch out, you mentioned inconvenience, and a tight economy, Gerry Harvey (using the screen name Jim Jones) will be all over you mate!

You are doing it great, didnt you realise how well off you are, you should be loving how much money you have spare to spend in his stores!

Im going to release my stored plastic bags which ive been hoarding to use as bin liners in the middle of northbourne on November 1. Purely to spite GovCo.

Why not have a convoy?

You could probably get Alan Jones to support you.

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

CLooey said :

Instead of doing something so stupid and short-sighted as this, why don’t they get stores to provide biodegradable plastic bags like the ones already available in places with more common sense?

This is going to be so inconvenient because who just happens to be carrying around shopping bags EVERY time they are out shopping or go to the shops spur of the moment?

This ploy is nothing short of grandstanding by the local Gov’t and trying to LOOK like they are doing something useful! We ALWAYS reuse our shopping bags to either store things in or for our smaller garbage bins. Now we’ll have to waste extra money in this tight economy by BUYING plastic bags! so who does this new rule help exactly?

Watch out, you mentioned inconvenience, and a tight economy, Gerry Harvey (using the screen name Jim Jones) will be all over you mate!

You are doing it great, didnt you realise how well off you are, you should be loving how much money you have spare to spend in his stores!

That’s right 00davist, you can ignore all the evidence about the strength of the Australian economy, because whinging and moaning is all the evidence you need that the battlers are doing it tough.

As I said, I base my argument on MORE evidence than you, as I take into account more than just the ABS statistics, mind you, you seem to have dropped that discussion, about the time you relised it might lead to evidence aginst your argument, therfore raising the possiblity that not only those who dont know what they are talking about would ever have a different opinion to yourself, and infact the statistics you tout are not ‘conclusive’ they just seem that way when viewed from your perspective, however other perspectives, and the inclusion of further evidence can lead to different conclusions being drawn, therefore adding credible argument against your opinion.

IE, “oh sh*t, i’d better ignore that, becase it’s a credible alternative to what I think”

00davist said :

CLooey said :

Instead of doing something so stupid and short-sighted as this, why don’t they get stores to provide biodegradable plastic bags like the ones already available in places with more common sense?

This is going to be so inconvenient because who just happens to be carrying around shopping bags EVERY time they are out shopping or go to the shops spur of the moment?

This ploy is nothing short of grandstanding by the local Gov’t and trying to LOOK like they are doing something useful! We ALWAYS reuse our shopping bags to either store things in or for our smaller garbage bins. Now we’ll have to waste extra money in this tight economy by BUYING plastic bags! so who does this new rule help exactly?

Watch out, you mentioned inconvenience, and a tight economy, Gerry Harvey (using the screen name Jim Jones) will be all over you mate!

You are doing it great, didnt you realise how well off you are, you should be loving how much money you have spare to spend in his stores!

Im going to release my stored plastic bags which ive been hoarding to use as bin liners in the middle of northbourne on November 1. Purely to spite GovCo.

00davist said :

CLooey said :

Instead of doing something so stupid and short-sighted as this, why don’t they get stores to provide biodegradable plastic bags like the ones already available in places with more common sense?

This is going to be so inconvenient because who just happens to be carrying around shopping bags EVERY time they are out shopping or go to the shops spur of the moment?

This ploy is nothing short of grandstanding by the local Gov’t and trying to LOOK like they are doing something useful! We ALWAYS reuse our shopping bags to either store things in or for our smaller garbage bins. Now we’ll have to waste extra money in this tight economy by BUYING plastic bags! so who does this new rule help exactly?

Watch out, you mentioned inconvenience, and a tight economy, Gerry Harvey (using the screen name Jim Jones) will be all over you mate!

You are doing it great, didnt you realise how well off you are, you should be loving how much money you have spare to spend in his stores!

That’s right 00davist, you can ignore all the evidence about the strength of the Australian economy, because whinging and moaning is all the evidence you need that the battlers are doing it tough.

CLooey said :

this tight economy

Bollocks.

Ben_Dover said :

From The Times
March 8, 2008
Series of blunders turned the plastic bag into global villain

But scientists, politicians and marine experts attacked the Government for joining a %u201Cbandwagon%u201D based on poor science.

Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science, said: %u201CThe Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence. This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn%u2019t achieve anything.%u201D

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, The Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3508263.ece

Lord Taverne…Sounds like a good place for a drink.
Sorry, but I can’t work myself up into the proper state of outrage over this bag ban, one way or the other.

Postalgeek said :

A lot of talk here about’ token’ environmental schemes, so I’m curious as to what it takes for a scheme not to be defined as ‘token’.

Can someone outline for me the sort of environmental action Government needs to take that wouldn’t be token?

How about something that actually DOES something for the environment instead of a basically useless ploy like this one!

This why this plan is considered ‘token’ by so many people, just so you know: 1. Most people re-use plastic bags for storage or bin liners, 2. There are BIODEGRADABLE plastic bags already available that could be used instead instead. Does that answer your question?

CLooey said :

Instead of doing something so stupid and short-sighted as this, why don’t they get stores to provide biodegradable plastic bags like the ones already available in places with more common sense?

This is going to be so inconvenient because who just happens to be carrying around shopping bags EVERY time they are out shopping or go to the shops spur of the moment?

This ploy is nothing short of grandstanding by the local Gov’t and trying to LOOK like they are doing something useful! We ALWAYS reuse our shopping bags to either store things in or for our smaller garbage bins. Now we’ll have to waste extra money in this tight economy by BUYING plastic bags! so who does this new rule help exactly?

Watch out, you mentioned inconvenience, and a tight economy, Gerry Harvey (using the screen name Jim Jones) will be all over you mate!

You are doing it great, didnt you realise how well off you are, you should be loving how much money you have spare to spend in his stores!

Instead of doing something so stupid and short-sighted as this, why don’t they get stores to provide biodegradable plastic bags like the ones already available in places with more common sense?

This is going to be so inconvenient because who just happens to be carrying around shopping bags EVERY time they are out shopping or go to the shops spur of the moment?

This ploy is nothing short of grandstanding by the local Gov’t and trying to LOOK like they are doing something useful! We ALWAYS reuse our shopping bags to either store things in or for our smaller garbage bins. Now we’ll have to waste extra money in this tight economy by BUYING plastic bags! so who does this new rule help exactly?

shadow boxer said :

A levy on “companies and manufacturers not using biodegradable packaging would probably work wonders. banning bags for consumers is just lazy policy playing around the edges.

Such a levy would be great – it would obviously have to be federal though. You can’t very well criticise local government for not taking action at a Federal level.

shadow boxer said :

Waiting For Godot said :

Postalgeek said :

A lot of talk here about’ token’ environmental schemes, so I’m curious as to what it takes for a scheme not to be defined as ‘token’.

Can someone outline for me the sort of environmental action Government needs to take that wouldn’t be token?

None.

Well if the issue is plastic packaging and its effect on wildlife the best place to start would be with the manufacturers.

When I look around the plastic I see flying around is almost invariably from building products. We probably need to work hard with that industry to look at alternatives.

With regard to shopping I think you will find 10 times as much plastic wrapping the products inside than the actual bag itself (which gets re-used).

A levy on “companies and manufacturers not using biodegradable packaging would probably work wonders. banning bags for consumers is just lazy policy playing around the edges.

Now that’s a much more effective line of thinking, Plastic shopping bags get, for the most part, re used, for storage, as bin liners, or by popping back at the supermarket, when they pop out the collection bins.

However the plastic wrappings on most products are far less re-usable, and contribute to a much greater amount of waste. They would make a much better target for such legislation changes, as opposed to the miniscule issue of the plastic shopping bag.

However, tackling industry in such a way, would be amuch tougher path, and require more time, effort, and money, which are just the kind of think the Govt. is trying to skimp out on here, by going down the token path, and trying to convince us they have done what they need to, so lets not push them for more!

Stevian said :

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

stats dont always paint a very clear picture.

And what do you think paints a clearer picture: an argument founded on statistical evidence, or an argument based on no evidence?

Hierarchy of Lies: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics.

+1

BTW, you havent told me what ‘Type’ I am yet???

Waiting For Godot said :

Postalgeek said :

A lot of talk here about’ token’ environmental schemes, so I’m curious as to what it takes for a scheme not to be defined as ‘token’.

Can someone outline for me the sort of environmental action Government needs to take that wouldn’t be token?

None.

Well if the issue is plastic packaging and its effect on wildlife the best place to start would be with the manufacturers.

When I look around the plastic I see flying around is almost invariably from building products. We probably need to work hard with that industry to look at alternatives.

With regard to shopping I think you will find 10 times as much plastic wrapping the products inside than the actual bag itself (which gets re-used).

A levy on “companies and manufacturers not using biodegradable packaging would probably work wonders. banning bags for consumers is just lazy policy playing around the edges.

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

stats dont always paint a very clear picture.

And what do you think paints a clearer picture: an argument founded on statistical evidence, or an argument based on no evidence?

Hierarchy of Lies: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics.

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

Jim Jones said :

Jethro said :

Jim Jones said :

Jethro said :

Australia is one of the most heavily regulated democratic countries on Earth

Lol. What less heavily regulated country would you prefer to live in?

I’m more than happy living in Australia, but in comparison to a lot of other countries out there we are very heavily regulated. This is a criticism of Australia, but it is a big leap to assume that because I am required by law to wear a bike helmet when riding my pushy, or am prohibited by law to smoke in an empty beer garden, I would therefore rather live somewhere else.

Fair enough.

You don’t like legislation about biike helmets and smoking bans in public places? What about other ‘for your own good’ legislation: seatbelts in cars, ban on alcohol sale to minors, and so on?

I think that a better term for the vast bulk of this legislation is ‘for the public good’.

Interesting to note that the countries that are regarded as having a high amount of regulation (social democracies such as the Scandinavian and Northern European countries, etc.) all rank exceedingly highly when it comes to ‘happiness’ indicators , livability, wealth and overall economic health, relative lack of social disjunction, etc. Countries that pride themselves on being unhindered by such regulation (America, as a prime example, but also a lot of Southern American countries, and a f$ckload of third-world countries) all have problems with entrenched poverty and social disjunction.

There is a point where ‘for your own good’ legislation goes too far though, and a line needs to be drawn to allow us our freedoms.

Or should we just lie down and take whjatever comes?

I agree.

But I do wonder how, exactly, a local government getting rid of free plastic bags is an example of “denying your freedoms”?

That seems, dare I say, a bit of a hysterical response to some fairly innocuous legislation. And let’s face it, the bulk of complaints against the legislation have nothing to do with ‘freedom’ or anything so noble. By and large its just people whinging about having to pay 10 cents or something for a bag because they forget to bring a green bag – boo hoo.

I think the nanny state argument is comming up here becase the overall effect of the bag scheme is negligable, and it’s implimentation is nothing more than a meaningless token gesture.

Therfore people feel ‘Controlled’ for no particular reason what so ever, just so the Govt. can get it’s wark & fuzzy kick, at the needless expense of public convenience.

I doubt many people would be complaining near as hard if they felt thh new legislation would actually acheive a positive outcome, People seem more willing to adapt, if there is a need to do so, but with such pointless legislation, thas so many can see as a thinly veiled attampt at avoiding action, they just feel inconvenience for the sole purpose of the Govt. trying to pull the wool over.

It really is a negligable and miniscule inconvenience, and the 10c bags when greenbags are forgotten does not really bother me, but I am bothered by the fact that tis will be another ‘Achevement’ by the Govt. and therefore one less real acheivment, as they will tote this, to get out of real change.

00davist said :

Jim Jones said :

Jethro said :

Jim Jones said :

Jethro said :

Australia is one of the most heavily regulated democratic countries on Earth

Lol. What less heavily regulated country would you prefer to live in?

I’m more than happy living in Australia, but in comparison to a lot of other countries out there we are very heavily regulated. This is a criticism of Australia, but it is a big leap to assume that because I am required by law to wear a bike helmet when riding my pushy, or am prohibited by law to smoke in an empty beer garden, I would therefore rather live somewhere else.

Fair enough.

You don’t like legislation about biike helmets and smoking bans in public places? What about other ‘for your own good’ legislation: seatbelts in cars, ban on alcohol sale to minors, and so on?

I think that a better term for the vast bulk of this legislation is ‘for the public good’.

Interesting to note that the countries that are regarded as having a high amount of regulation (social democracies such as the Scandinavian and Northern European countries, etc.) all rank exceedingly highly when it comes to ‘happiness’ indicators , livability, wealth and overall economic health, relative lack of social disjunction, etc. Countries that pride themselves on being unhindered by such regulation (America, as a prime example, but also a lot of Southern American countries, and a f$ckload of third-world countries) all have problems with entrenched poverty and social disjunction.

There is a point where ‘for your own good’ legislation goes too far though, and a line needs to be drawn to allow us our freedoms.

Or should we just lie down and take whjatever comes?

I agree.

But I do wonder how, exactly, a local government getting rid of free plastic bags is an example of “denying your freedoms”?

That seems, dare I say, a bit of a hysterical response to some fairly innocuous legislation. And let’s face it, the bulk of complaints against the legislation have nothing to do with ‘freedom’ or anything so noble. By and large its just people whinging about having to pay 10 cents or something for a bag because they forget to bring a green bag – boo hoo.

Jim Jones said :

Jethro said :

Jim Jones said :

Jethro said :

Australia is one of the most heavily regulated democratic countries on Earth

Lol. What less heavily regulated country would you prefer to live in?

I’m more than happy living in Australia, but in comparison to a lot of other countries out there we are very heavily regulated. This is a criticism of Australia, but it is a big leap to assume that because I am required by law to wear a bike helmet when riding my pushy, or am prohibited by law to smoke in an empty beer garden, I would therefore rather live somewhere else.

Fair enough.

You don’t like legislation about biike helmets and smoking bans in public places? What about other ‘for your own good’ legislation: seatbelts in cars, ban on alcohol sale to minors, and so on?

I think that a better term for the vast bulk of this legislation is ‘for the public good’.

Interesting to note that the countries that are regarded as having a high amount of regulation (social democracies such as the Scandinavian and Northern European countries, etc.) all rank exceedingly highly when it comes to ‘happiness’ indicators , livability, wealth and overall economic health, relative lack of social disjunction, etc. Countries that pride themselves on being unhindered by such regulation (America, as a prime example, but also a lot of Southern American countries, and a f$ckload of third-world countries) all have problems with entrenched poverty and social disjunction.

There is a point where ‘for your own good’ legislation goes too far though, and a line needs to be drawn to allow us our freedoms.

Or should we just lie down and take whjatever comes?

Jethro said :

Jim Jones said :

Jethro said :

Australia is one of the most heavily regulated democratic countries on Earth

Lol. What less heavily regulated country would you prefer to live in?

I’m more than happy living in Australia, but in comparison to a lot of other countries out there we are very heavily regulated. This is a criticism of Australia, but it is a big leap to assume that because I am required by law to wear a bike helmet when riding my pushy, or am prohibited by law to smoke in an empty beer garden, I would therefore rather live somewhere else.

Fair enough.

You don’t like legislation about biike helmets and smoking bans in public places? What about other ‘for your own good’ legislation: seatbelts in cars, ban on alcohol sale to minors, and so on?

I think that a better term for the vast bulk of this legislation is ‘for the public good’.

Interesting to note that the countries that are regarded as having a high amount of regulation (social democracies such as the Scandinavian and Northern European countries, etc.) all rank exceedingly highly when it comes to ‘happiness’ indicators , livability, wealth and overall economic health, relative lack of social disjunction, etc. Countries that pride themselves on being unhindered by such regulation (America, as a prime example, but also a lot of Southern American countries, and a f$ckload of third-world countries) all have problems with entrenched poverty and social disjunction.

Back on point.

Theres a lot of research and articles out about how the humble plastic bag is not the giant murderer of dolphins its been labelled, also how the green reusuable bags have to used ~45 times to outweigh the carbon price of making them compared to the humble plastic bag, cotton bags need to be used around 200 times to outweigh their carbon footprint of manufacturing compared to the plastic bag. (Note: carbon footprint to me is a load of BS but we’re using greenie terms here arent we?)

Especially in Canberra where we are landlocked and where the ban does not truly ban ALL plastic bags this is truly the most tokenistic green policy in history and is merely an impost on businesses and consumers so ActGovCo can go to bed feeling all green and fuzzy.

If you want to feel green and fuzzy the national arbotetum has some great moss samples im sure theyll let you touch.

Postalgeek said :

A lot of talk here about’ token’ environmental schemes, so I’m curious as to what it takes for a scheme not to be defined as ‘token’.

Can someone outline for me the sort of environmental action Government needs to take that wouldn’t be token?

There is alot of things that could be done, and slowly, they are being researched, but getting them more acceptance is harder whan the cheap and easy geustures are taken, and people stop bothering becase they think the work is done.

A huge amount of headway has been made in the way of Hydrogen fuelled cars (both Fuel Cell, and Hydrogen Combustion) if more focus could be put in areas like this, to help bring down the manufacturing footprint, and create greener ways of collecting hydrogen, we could move towards compleatly pollution free thansport. However, the infrastructure needed for this would require a much greater upgrade to our servicestations, than say, E10, which has no real impact whatsoever (10% remewable weighed against increased wear to engine resulting in more cars and parts in landfill, added to the enviromental cost of ethanol production)

CFL (energysave lights) are another example, in some applications, over there lifespan, they will save energy, and are good for applications where lights will be on for at least 2-3 hours at a time, however, they have a huge number of components (sometimes close to 100) as opposed to the 7 or 8 compnents to a standard bulb, they have a much more intensive, and environmentally costly manufacturing process, and when used in applications such as in your toilet, the high current drawn to start the bulb outweighs the current saved in the breif time the bulb is on. Not to mention, the shorter the lifespan, the less the benifit per bulb, and while the box gives amazingly high lifespan figures, the tru lifespan will be effected by: Vibrtion, cold, heat, usage cycle, power fluctuations, manufacturing faults, oh, and using the bulb upside down (glass below fitting, like in a roof light) will also impact the lifespan negitivly, the number on the box is also based on the chemical reaction in the bulb, and soes not relfect the lifespan of the electrical components. Not to mention, the murcury content (the light is created by a hich current vaporisation of murcury inside the glass, which a low current then causes to react with the white phosphorus lining of the glass, creating light)

The money and time and attention wasted on the CFL movement, could have been put into bringing down the manufacturing impact, and overall costs of LED lighting, and improving its versatility to make it an easier choice (I use LED in some rooms at home, Much better than CFL for short cycle rooms)

And then theres the Prius, Which has such a huge manufacturing footprint, it’s low fuel consumption still cant make up the damage to the environment… But hey, it’s the most bizzare looking hybrid, so it’s a great ‘look at me’ car.

Postalgeek said :

A lot of talk here about’ token’ environmental schemes, so I’m curious as to what it takes for a scheme not to be defined as ‘token’.

Can someone outline for me the sort of environmental action Government needs to take that wouldn’t be token?

None.

Jim Jones said :

Jethro said :

Australia is one of the most heavily regulated democratic countries on Earth

Lol. What less heavily regulated country would you prefer to live in?

I’m more than happy living in Australia, but in comparison to a lot of other countries out there we are very heavily regulated. This is a criticism of Australia, but it is a big leap to assume that because I am required by law to wear a bike helmet when riding my pushy, or am prohibited by law to smoke in an empty beer garden, I would therefore rather live somewhere else.

A lot of talk here about’ token’ environmental schemes, so I’m curious as to what it takes for a scheme not to be defined as ‘token’.

Can someone outline for me the sort of environmental action Government needs to take that wouldn’t be token?

00davist said :

stats dont always paint a very clear picture.

And what do you think paints a clearer picture: an argument founded on statistical evidence, or an argument based on no evidence?

Jethro said :

Australia is one of the most heavily regulated democratic countries on Earth

Lol. What less heavily regulated country would you prefer to live in?

Jethro said :

Jim Jones said :

And my response to the ‘nanny state’ rhetoric stands.

‘Nanny state’ is the catch-cry of anyone who doesn’t like a particular law. It’s such an easy game to play – pick any law you don’t like and cry ‘NANNY STATE NANNY STATE’. It means absolutely nothing.

One more time for the dummies – governments make laws. If you don’t like laws, go live somewhere where they don’t have any laws.

“A lot of people who would call themselves left, I would regard as proto-fascists.” (Noam Chomsky)

The nanny-state label applies to governments (usually left-leaning ones) that overly regulate people’s behaviour, ostensibly to protect these people from themselves. Australia is one of the most heavily regulated democratic countries on Earth, and the nanny state label can be reasonably applied to a lot of our unnecessary regulations.

Well Put!!!

Jethro said :

I go for a 6-7km walk every day and take a couple of plastic shopping bags with me, using them to pick up rubbish as I go. Living close to Ginninderra Creek, I am aware most of this rubbish will end up in our waterways unless someone picks it up. I guess this will be coming to and end.

On a side note, I hardly ever come across plastic bags as litter, and can’t help but feel that they are simply being made a scapegoat so we can not worry too much about our recklessly high levels of consumption.

Yep, it’s a cheap and easy ban, that means the Govt. can get all the glory of looking like they are doing good, while saving the time, money and effort that real change requires.

Jim Jones said :

And my response to the ‘nanny state’ rhetoric stands.

‘Nanny state’ is the catch-cry of anyone who doesn’t like a particular law. It’s such an easy game to play – pick any law you don’t like and cry ‘NANNY STATE NANNY STATE’. It means absolutely nothing.

One more time for the dummies – governments make laws. If you don’t like laws, go live somewhere where they don’t have any laws.

“A lot of people who would call themselves left, I would regard as proto-fascists.” (Noam Chomsky)

The nanny-state label applies to governments (usually left-leaning ones) that overly regulate people’s behaviour, ostensibly to protect these people from themselves. Australia is one of the most heavily regulated democratic countries on Earth, and the nanny state label can be reasonably applied to a lot of our unnecessary regulations.

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

They are in no way conclusive

And given this statement, I’d wager anything you haven’t looked at the stats.

If you want to compare cost of living today against any period in the recorded past, then the stats are absolutely conclusive.

As above Gerry, I have looked at them, I just dont see them as conclusive, becase i relaise that stats dont always paint a very clear picture.

I go for a 6-7km walk every day and take a couple of plastic shopping bags with me, using them to pick up rubbish as I go. Living close to Ginninderra Creek, I am aware most of this rubbish will end up in our waterways unless someone picks it up. I guess this will be coming to and end.

On a side note, I hardly ever come across plastic bags as litter, and can’t help but feel that they are simply being made a scapegoat so we can not worry too much about our recklessly high levels of consumption.

It is rather tiresome to live in such a ‘progressive for the sake of progressive’ town.

Frankly, I dont really care about smoking bans, public art or plastic bags.

How about some decent roads for a start? Govern by governing, not by pushing cause de jour rubbish down our collective throats.

00davist said :

They are in no way conclusive

And given this statement, I’d wager anything you haven’t looked at the stats.

If you want to compare cost of living today against any period in the recorded past, then the stats are absolutely conclusive.

00davist said :

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

the stats alone dont create a clear enough picture to undermine that argument,

Yes. Yes they do. Very conclusively.

I’d suggest you actually have a look at them.

The ‘argument’ that Australia has some sort of a cost of living crisis is confected nonsense from politicians and the media, desperate to assure the Australian public that they’re doing it tough. There was never an ounce of truth in it in the first place.

I have looked at them, I just take them for what they are, statistics, only part of the picture, not the whole thing.

They are in no way conclusive, they are eaisily mis-interpreted, skewed, and create an unrealistic generalisation.

As opposed to those who argue that we are having a cost of living crisis, who don’t even bother using any pesky ‘stats’, ‘facts’, ‘figures’ or ‘facts’.

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

the stats alone dont create a clear enough picture to undermine that argument,

Yes. Yes they do. Very conclusively.

I’d suggest you actually have a look at them.

The ‘argument’ that Australia has some sort of a cost of living crisis is confected nonsense from politicians and the media, desperate to assure the Australian public that they’re doing it tough. There was never an ounce of truth in it in the first place.

I have looked at them, I just take them for what they are, statistics, only part of the picture, not the whole thing.

They are in no way conclusive, they are eaisily mis-interpreted, skewed, and create an unrealistic generalisation.

00davist said :

the stats alone dont create a clear enough picture to undermine that argument,

Yes. Yes they do. Very conclusively.

I’d suggest you actually have a look at them.

The ‘argument’ that Australia has some sort of a cost of living crisis is confected nonsense from politicians and the media, desperate to assure the Australian public that they’re doing it tough. There was never an ounce of truth in it in the first place.

00davist said :

harveybones said :

Life without plastic bags can be really easy with a little effort.

The vast majority of our household waste is either composted or recycled. The remainder of waste goes to garbage, this equates to approximately 1 small (15L) sized bin per week for a 2 adult, 1 kelpie household. We do not line our bin as what goes into it is dry, non-food waste. We rinse the bin with white vinegar and water when we empty it.

There is absolutely nothing hard about picking up a cloth bag on the way to do your shopping. It is not rocket surgery. Everybody can do this.

Agreed, this is not a massivly inconvenient problem.

My issue with it, is the fact it will be overall innefective, as firstly, while a few may do as you are, many will just head to the bin liner section of woolies, and buy a roll of plastic bags, to chuck out.

Further, time any money wasted on this (OK, so it’s not much money, like all token gestures, it’s the cheapest alternative) could be focussed on making further improvemments to degradable plastics (not just bags) including focusing on what could be done to make the production of these items less destructive.

This kind of change could produce solutions that could be applied not only to supermarket checkouts, but also to the rolls of bin liners that will replace most shopping bags in landfill, and chinese food containers, chip packets, etc.

I applaud your personal efforts, if we had more pople like you, then perhaps token gestures like this would be more effective.

I agree that there will always be those that think using plastic bags and other such disposable plastic is easier. When really, forking out a bit for decent, chemically stable food storage containers is all you need to do to stop relying on plastic bags and other ‘glad’ type products. It’s cheaper in the long run and does not contribute to landfill nor does it contribute to horrors such as the Pacific Gyre.

ConanofCooma is correct when stating that his older plastic bags degrade. Many plastics will degrade given enough time/ light/ heat/ humidity. It depends on the ability of the polymer to hydrolyse. The problem is that such plastics do not fully degrade, they merely disintegrate and the resulting particles, continuing harmful additives such as plasticisers, flame retardants, slipping agents and known hormone disruptor Bisphenol-A (promotes estrogenic activity) end up in places like our soil and water supply, and hence our food, blood, genetic material etc.

There are fully BIOdegradable plastics such as PHA and POA on the market which will essentially compost in the presence of micro-organisms, heat and humidity, however there is little demand for the mass production these products due to the comparative inexpense in the production of non-biodegradable plastics.

I believe that the use of biodegradable and recyclable plastics can make a significant impact within communities, but it is the responsibility of consumers like you and me to demand these products by turning away from the so called convenience of disposable junk plastic.

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

johnboy said :

Jim Jones said :

One more time for the dummies – governments make laws. If you don’t like laws, go live somewhere where they don’t have any laws.

And there’s never been a bad law?

He never said that, what he is saying, is that even if a law is not thought through properly, and is in practise a bad law, we, as the people governed by our rulers, should shut up, and learn to live with what it is decreed we should live with.

Oh yeah, that’s completely it. :rolls eyes:

Good, we are in agreement, you are compleatly out of touch with reality!

Nice to see eye to eye on something!

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

He’ll keep posting them in lieu of a real argument until we tire of his nonsense and stop responding..

Let me get this straight – it’s proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Australian standard of living is really really high: the envy of the free world. If anything, we have a problem with unchecked overconsumption. And there are a bucketload of comprehensive stats that not only prove this, but also put the lie to the popular notion that we’re somehow suffering from a ‘cost of living’ problem.

And yet, you don’t believe this is a ‘real argument’? Presumably you want to consider moaning about how bad everything is and use it an excuse to not do things?

Gerry,

1) Whenever someone mentions something about their particular living circumstances, you bring in your tirade about the ABS stats, as if to say “The stats say Aus has it good, so Your life is perfect!” without any regard for the specifics of the people in question, who you decide to lump into a ‘whingers’ basket, rather than ever considering listening to.

2) Statistics can be read a number of ways, and will often show a variety of different pictures, depending on what light you cast them, they also show average situations, based on how numbers stack up, not by going into your average house, and assessing then income against the expenses, they are an indicator, but they are far from gospel.

3) There are many factors that can influence statistics in a manner that will cause them to show a result that is not necessarily fitting to the situation and relying solely on statistics can result in poor decision making, as statistical averages, and real-world scenarios differ quite greatly.

4) I refuse to shop at your stores, they are over priced, always cause issues with warranty claims, and the customer service is usually pathetic, your attempt to convince us that we are all “Pigs in Mud” and should be in your stores with our wallets open are see-through, and pathetic, if you cant manage to compete in a modern world, then your time is over.

Firstly, my name isn’t Gerry.

Secondly, none of your points address anything that I’ve said. I’ve used the ABS stats solely to undermine the ‘cost of living’ argument that people are so fond of using as an excuse not to do anything.

Of course some people (indeed, many people) aren’t wealthy. This doesn’t alter the fact that the ‘cost of living’ argument is nothing more than a red herring. Australian society is not suffering from a cost of living crisis.

And as I said Gerry, the stats alone dont create a clear enough picture to undermine that argument, as only part of australian society is not having troble with the cost of living, not “Australian Society” the stats are not enough on there own to back up your claims that ‘all is well’.

Now, get back to trying to market your overpriced cr*p!

00davist said :

johnboy said :

Jim Jones said :

One more time for the dummies – governments make laws. If you don’t like laws, go live somewhere where they don’t have any laws.

And there’s never been a bad law?

He never said that, what he is saying, is that even if a law is not thought through properly, and is in practise a bad law, we, as the people governed by our rulers, should shut up, and learn to live with what it is decreed we should live with.

Oh yeah, that’s completely it. :rolls eyes:

00davist said :

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

He’ll keep posting them in lieu of a real argument until we tire of his nonsense and stop responding..

Let me get this straight – it’s proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Australian standard of living is really really high: the envy of the free world. If anything, we have a problem with unchecked overconsumption. And there are a bucketload of comprehensive stats that not only prove this, but also put the lie to the popular notion that we’re somehow suffering from a ‘cost of living’ problem.

And yet, you don’t believe this is a ‘real argument’? Presumably you want to consider moaning about how bad everything is and use it an excuse to not do things?

Gerry,

1) Whenever someone mentions something about their particular living circumstances, you bring in your tirade about the ABS stats, as if to say “The stats say Aus has it good, so Your life is perfect!” without any regard for the specifics of the people in question, who you decide to lump into a ‘whingers’ basket, rather than ever considering listening to.

2) Statistics can be read a number of ways, and will often show a variety of different pictures, depending on what light you cast them, they also show average situations, based on how numbers stack up, not by going into your average house, and assessing then income against the expenses, they are an indicator, but they are far from gospel.

3) There are many factors that can influence statistics in a manner that will cause them to show a result that is not necessarily fitting to the situation and relying solely on statistics can result in poor decision making, as statistical averages, and real-world scenarios differ quite greatly.

4) I refuse to shop at your stores, they are over priced, always cause issues with warranty claims, and the customer service is usually pathetic, your attempt to convince us that we are all “Pigs in Mud” and should be in your stores with our wallets open are see-through, and pathetic, if you cant manage to compete in a modern world, then your time is over.

Firstly, my name isn’t Gerry.

Secondly, none of your points address anything that I’ve said. I’ve used the ABS stats solely to undermine the ‘cost of living’ argument that people are so fond of using as an excuse not to do anything.

Of course some people (indeed, many people) aren’t wealthy. This doesn’t alter the fact that the ‘cost of living’ argument is nothing more than a red herring. Australian society is not suffering from a cost of living crisis.

johnboy said :

Jim Jones said :

One more time for the dummies – governments make laws. If you don’t like laws, go live somewhere where they don’t have any laws.

And there’s never been a bad law?

Yeah, there are plenty of bad laws. The proper response to this, however, is not to whine about the ‘nanny state’ as if that somehow explains anything.

johnboy said :

Jim Jones said :

One more time for the dummies – governments make laws. If you don’t like laws, go live somewhere where they don’t have any laws.

And there’s never been a bad law?

He never said that, what he is saying, is that even if a law is not thought through properly, and is in practise a bad law, we, as the people governed by our rulers, should shut up, and learn to live with what it is decreed we should live with.

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

He’ll keep posting them in lieu of a real argument until we tire of his nonsense and stop responding..

Let me get this straight – it’s proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Australian standard of living is really really high: the envy of the free world. If anything, we have a problem with unchecked overconsumption. And there are a bucketload of comprehensive stats that not only prove this, but also put the lie to the popular notion that we’re somehow suffering from a ‘cost of living’ problem.

And yet, you don’t believe this is a ‘real argument’? Presumably you want to consider moaning about how bad everything is and use it an excuse to not do things?

Gerry,

1) Whenever someone mentions something about their particular living circumstances, you bring in your tirade about the ABS stats, as if to say “The stats say Aus has it good, so Your life is perfect!” without any regard for the specifics of the people in question, who you decide to lump into a ‘whingers’ basket, rather than ever considering listening to.

2) Statistics can be read a number of ways, and will often show a variety of different pictures, depending on what light you cast them, they also show average situations, based on how numbers stack up, not by going into your average house, and assessing then income against the expenses, they are an indicator, but they are far from gospel.

3) There are many factors that can influence statistics in a manner that will cause them to show a result that is not necessarily fitting to the situation and relying solely on statistics can result in poor decision making, as statistical averages, and real-world scenarios differ quite greatly.

4) I refuse to shop at your stores, they are over priced, always cause issues with warranty claims, and the customer service is usually pathetic, your attempt to convince us that we are all “Pigs in Mud” and should be in your stores with our wallets open are see-through, and pathetic, if you cant manage to compete in a modern world, then your time is over.

Jim Jones said :

One more time for the dummies – governments make laws. If you don’t like laws, go live somewhere where they don’t have any laws.

And there’s never been a bad law?

From The Times
March 8, 2008
Series of blunders turned the plastic bag into global villain

But scientists, politicians and marine experts attacked the Government for joining a “bandwagon” based on poor science.

Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science, said: “The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence. This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything.”

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, The Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3508263.ece

Mysteryman said :

He’ll keep posting them in lieu of a real argument until we tire of his nonsense and stop responding..

Let me get this straight – it’s proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Australian standard of living is really really high: the envy of the free world. If anything, we have a problem with unchecked overconsumption. And there are a bucketload of comprehensive stats that not only prove this, but also put the lie to the popular notion that we’re somehow suffering from a ‘cost of living’ problem.

And yet, you don’t believe this is a ‘real argument’? Presumably you want to consider moaning about how bad everything is and use it an excuse to not do things?

Jim Jones said :

One more time for the dummies – governments make laws. If you don’t like laws, go live somewhere where they don’t have any laws.

Or what? You’ll cry at us and refuse to eat your supper for a week?

And my response to the ‘nanny state’ rhetoric stands.

‘Nanny state’ is the catch-cry of anyone who doesn’t like a particular law. It’s such an easy game to play – pick any law you don’t like and cry ‘NANNY STATE NANNY STATE’. It means absolutely nothing.

One more time for the dummies – governments make laws. If you don’t like laws, go live somewhere where they don’t have any laws.

Ben_Dover said :

Jim Jones said :

‘Nanny state’ – the argument of people who don’t actually have an argument. Kinda like the whole ‘political correctness’ shebang (always the favored talking point of bigots).

If you don’t want the government to make laws for the betterment of society, then perhaps you could form your own anarchist utopian commune somewhere in Farkoffistan.

There is no evidence that this law is for the betterment of society.

” If you don’t like us making stupid laws then leave” has always been the argument of the soft wet left, the people of no personal probity, who rely on nanny state interventions to make them feel safe and assuage their middle class lefty guilt.

“There is no evidence that this law is for the betterment of society.”

Bollocks.

Also, why would anyone bother with ‘evidence’ when discussing something with someone who’s only going to respond with ‘RA RA EVIL LEFTY RA RA TERK ER JERBS’?

Jim Jones said :

‘Nanny state’ – the argument of people who don’t actually have an argument. Kinda like the whole ‘political correctness’ shebang (always the favored talking point of bigots).

If you don’t want the government to make laws for the betterment of society, then perhaps you could form your own anarchist utopian commune somewhere in Farkoffistan.

There is no evidence that this law is for the betterment of society.

” If you don’t like us making stupid laws then leave” has always been the argument of the soft wet left, the people of no personal probity, who rely on nanny state interventions to make them feel safe and assuage their middle class lefty guilt.

Jim Jones said :

Jim Jones said :

And what ‘Kind’ am I?

Selfish.

Ignore me – that was directed at entirely the wrong person. My bad.

No worries Jim.

00davist said :

Mate, how many times are you going to tote a bunch of ABS statistics about how ‘good’ we all have it?

ARE YOU GERRY HARVEY?

I think you are!

He’ll keep posting them in lieu of a real argument until we tire of his nonsense and stop responding.

The ban was a waste of time, in my opinion. Every supermarket I’ve been to is now supplying heavier plastic bags which I, and just about everyone else, continues to use.

Although the democratic dream has always been government of, for, and by the people.

Ben_Dover said :

Nanny Govt knows what is best for you. Now sit in the corner and eat your fairtrade lentil and garlic porridge, and watch some interesting state approved documentaries on the plight of the aborigine, and don’t bother your silly little heads with ideas of freedom of choice and free enterprise. Nanny Govt will do all your thinking for you.,

‘Nanny state’ – the argument of people who don’t actually have an argument. Kinda like the whole ‘political correctness’ shebang (always the favored talking point of bigots).

If you don’t want the government to make laws for the betterment of society, then perhaps you could form your own anarchist utopian commune somewhere in Farkoffistan.

shadow boxer said :

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

Jim Jones said :

How scary is it that the Australian public is so spolit and self-indulged that even something as small as removing free plasic bags is met with howls of self-righteous indignation.

Well you can yell at us and call us names as much as you want (this does appear to be the approach of the day when people question green flights of fancy) but our minds wont change until you present cogent arguments on why this is good policy. Same as the Carbon tax really, admirable goal but poor policy.

If we are serious about plastic packaging it’s industry that needs to be targetted, not the ever suffering consumer who is sick of paying for all these green ideas.

Jesus f$%cking Christ on a pogo stick – every economist on the globe has stated categorically that a carbon tax is the best way of addressing carbon pollution. How did you miss that one? Hell, even the right wing crazies like Henry Ergas don’t argue about that.

The same amount of information is available about plastic bag consumption. You’d have to be willfully closing your eyes to miss it.

Can you not read or something?

Every single one on the globe Jim ;),

My problem is not pricing carbon per se, it is that 10% of the population are being asked to fund it as some sort of wedge politics and wealth distribution exercise.

Oh yeh that and the fact that it is absolute tokenism. As I said, admirable goal but poor policy.

Dude – I can only assume from such statements as ‘10% of the population are being asked to fund it’ and ‘absolute tokenism’ that you don’t have the foggiest idea about the carbon tax whatsoever.

Don’t get me wrong, I loathe this government with the hate of a thousand burning suns, but they have had some vaguely decent policies amongst all the crap – carbon tax and NBN, most notably.

Nanny Govt knows what is best for you. Now sit in the corner and eat your fairtrade lentil and garlic porridge, and watch some interesting state approved documentaries on the plight of the aborigine, and don’t bother your silly little heads with ideas of freedom of choice and free enterprise. Nanny Govt will do all your thinking for you.,

Jim Jones said :

And what ‘Kind’ am I?

Selfish.

Ignore me – that was directed at entirely the wrong person. My bad.

harveybones said :

Life without plastic bags can be really easy with a little effort.

The vast majority of our household waste is either composted or recycled. The remainder of waste goes to garbage, this equates to approximately 1 small (15L) sized bin per week for a 2 adult, 1 kelpie household. We do not line our bin as what goes into it is dry, non-food waste. We rinse the bin with white vinegar and water when we empty it.

There is absolutely nothing hard about picking up a cloth bag on the way to do your shopping. It is not rocket surgery. Everybody can do this.

Agreed, this is not a massivly inconvenient problem.

My issue with it, is the fact it will be overall innefective, as firstly, while a few may do as you are, many will just head to the bin liner section of woolies, and buy a roll of plastic bags, to chuck out.

Further, time any money wasted on this (OK, so it’s not much money, like all token gestures, it’s the cheapest alternative) could be focussed on making further improvemments to degradable plastics (not just bags) including focusing on what could be done to make the production of these items less destructive.

This kind of change could produce solutions that could be applied not only to supermarket checkouts, but also to the rolls of bin liners that will replace most shopping bags in landfill, and chinese food containers, chip packets, etc.

I applaud your personal efforts, if we had more pople like you, then perhaps token gestures like this would be more effective.

00davist said :

Stevian said :

00davist said :

madamcholet said :

I’m so thoroughly disappointed by what seems like a total lack of desire for people to extend themselves to do something a little better.

All the comments on here sound like my mother in law -“it’s inconvenient TO ME, therefore we shouldn’t be doing it”…well DIDDUMS, GET OVER IT.

It’s not about the inconveinience, it’s about the fact that it’s another pointless token gesture, to try and apease a bunch of fools that would rather this, than real action.

Thanks to people jumping at the bit for useless cr*p like this, we have E10, CFL’s and the damn Prius, a bunch of token gestures, that look good for the govt, and the companies involved, but once you actually do your homework, turn out to have negligable impact, or in some cases, cause more damage to the envronment.

Actually research the impact of the choices you make, before jumping on the “Look at me, I drive a prius on E10” bandwagon!

And if any thing substantial were done you and your kind would be manning the barricades and rioting in the streets for your right to despoil as you please. Don’t try to claim any high ground it won’t work, w’re onto you.

And what ‘Kind’ am I?

Selfish.

00davist said :

Mate, how many times are you going to tote a bunch of ABS statistics about how ‘good’ we all have it?

As many times as spoilt, lazy whingers keep whining about ‘cost of living pressures’.

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

Jim Jones said :

How scary is it that the Australian public is so spolit and self-indulged that even something as small as removing free plasic bags is met with howls of self-righteous indignation.

Well you can yell at us and call us names as much as you want (this does appear to be the approach of the day when people question green flights of fancy) but our minds wont change until you present cogent arguments on why this is good policy. Same as the Carbon tax really, admirable goal but poor policy.

If we are serious about plastic packaging it’s industry that needs to be targetted, not the ever suffering consumer who is sick of paying for all these green ideas.

Jesus f$%cking Christ on a pogo stick – every economist on the globe has stated categorically that a carbon tax is the best way of addressing carbon pollution. How did you miss that one? Hell, even the right wing crazies like Henry Ergas don’t argue about that.

The same amount of information is available about plastic bag consumption. You’d have to be willfully closing your eyes to miss it.

Can you not read or something?

Every single one on the globe Jim ;),

My problem is not pricing carbon per se, it is that 10% of the population are being asked to fund it as some sort of wedge politics and wealth distribution exercise.

Oh yeh that and the fact that it is absolute tokenism. As I said, admirable goal but poor policy.

Life without plastic bags can be really easy with a little effort.

The vast majority of our household waste is either composted or recycled. The remainder of waste goes to garbage, this equates to approximately 1 small (15L) sized bin per week for a 2 adult, 1 kelpie household. We do not line our bin as what goes into it is dry, non-food waste. We rinse the bin with white vinegar and water when we empty it.

There is absolutely nothing hard about picking up a cloth bag on the way to do your shopping. It is not rocket surgery. Everybody can do this.

Stevian said :

00davist said :

madamcholet said :

I’m so thoroughly disappointed by what seems like a total lack of desire for people to extend themselves to do something a little better.

All the comments on here sound like my mother in law -“it’s inconvenient TO ME, therefore we shouldn’t be doing it”…well DIDDUMS, GET OVER IT.

It’s not about the inconveinience, it’s about the fact that it’s another pointless token gesture, to try and apease a bunch of fools that would rather this, than real action.

Thanks to people jumping at the bit for useless cr*p like this, we have E10, CFL’s and the damn Prius, a bunch of token gestures, that look good for the govt, and the companies involved, but once you actually do your homework, turn out to have negligable impact, or in some cases, cause more damage to the envronment.

Actually research the impact of the choices you make, before jumping on the “Look at me, I drive a prius on E10” bandwagon!

And if any thing substantial were done you and your kind would be manning the barricades and rioting in the streets for your right to despoil as you please. Don’t try to claim any high ground it won’t work, w’re onto you.

And what ‘Kind’ am I?

Jim Jones said :

00davist said :

madamcholet said :

I’m so thoroughly disappointed by what seems like a total lack of desire for people to extend themselves to do something a little better.

All the comments on here sound like my mother in law -“it’s inconvenient TO ME, therefore we shouldn’t be doing it”…well DIDDUMS, GET OVER IT.

It’s not about the inconveinience, it’s about the fact that it’s another pointless token gesture, to try and apease a bunch of fools that would rather this, than real action.

Thanks to people jumping at the bit for useless cr*p like this, we have E10, CFL’s and the damn Prius, a bunch of token gestures, that look good for the govt, and the companies involved, but once you actually do your homework, turn out to have negligable impact, or in some cases, cause more damage to the envronment.

Actually research the impact of the choices you make, before jumping on the “Look at me, I drive a prius on E10” bandwagon!

Precisely how does taking small environmental steps (such as plastic bag bans, driving electric cars, etc.) preclude anyone from being involved in more substantial, large-scale action?

If any of these actually ’cause more damage to the environment’ as you seem to be claiming, could you please provide evidence of this?

Small steps are fine, as long as they are not corporate ‘token’ gestures, that acheive nothing more than diverting funding and attention from causes that will see real change, but require more time and investment that X govt. or corporation is willing to get behind.

Heres a little evidence of the prius, it’s overall no better than your average car for the environment, and even has a bigger footprint than an number of much larger, non-hybrid cars.

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf

You can do your won damn reaserch into the negative impacts of the CFL, when you do, make sure to look into the environmental factors that attribute to its ACTUAL lifspan, the chemical compsition at disposal, and the environmental cost of it’s manufacture.

My local IGA has just replaced the lightweight bags with heavier bags still given away free.

Not sure how that’s a win for the environment but whatevs.

Jim Jones said :

Kdowgg said :

Taking away the ‘free/single use’ plastic bags from the super markets only serves to increase my spend @ the supermarket – ultimately increasing cost of living pressures. Not sure if it has (maybe I’ve just missed it), but I why has this plastic bag issue never been included in the equations?
Like most of the population (statistics are coming from my own observation which I presume to reasonably representative) I use the single use bags as bin liners @ home. Obviously from now on I will have to purchase bin liners. I am a single male who lives alone so generally to do not generate much waste (open to opinion!!) yet @ an average of one bag every two days, @ $2.61 per 10 bag pack (current Coles price for the cheapest bags) that works out @ an extra $95.25 per year. While that is easily absorbable in my budget and lifestyle, extrapolate that for a family with 2 or 3 children and you’re getting into significant additional costs.
Furthermore, include the cost of paying for plastic bags to carry your groceries in – 10c-25c per pag seems to be the standard from IGA to Target to Aldi – every time you either forget to bring your reusable bags or just don’t have enough to carry what you’ve just bought. I know many of us carry one of two in the car, but how often to you run in to buy milk and come out with arm loads of junk?!?
Very few people I know are organised enough to always have the green bags every time the pop into the store.
Since EVERY ONE can see through the BS that this policy is, how did it get through? The only reasonable explanation I can see is collusion between the powerful and omnipotent GLAD BAGS Co. and the government….

Firstly – ‘cost of living pressures’ = utter bollocks. The ABS have released stats that prove conclusively that Australians have never had it so good: our spending on entertainment and general household luxury consumption is through the roof, and spending on transport and the usual crap is less than it was 6 years ago. If you’re complaining about ‘cost of living pressures’ then you’re engaged in pointless whining.

Secondly, your entire argument is presaged upon the assumption that everyone in Australia is the same as you “Like most of the population (statistics are coming from my own observation which I presume to reasonably representative”. They’re not.

Just because you’re too disorganised to have some spare bags to pop to the store doesn’t mean that the rest of the country suffers from the same affliction.

Also, as has been pointed out innumerable times – the proportion of plastic bags that are used as bin liners is statistically insignificant. They’re a very small proportion of the total amount of plastic bags that are actually produced.

Finally, instead of basing everything upon what an appalling inconvenience it is to you (and such a shocking impact spending 10 cents to buy a plastic bag will have on your lifestyle – surely you won’t be able to afford to actually put food in that bag given how tight everything is financially), how about thinking a little more broadly. You are aware that you’re actually part of a wider community, right?

Mate, how many times are you going to tote a bunch of ABS statistics about how ‘good’ we all have it?

ARE YOU GERRY HARVEY?

I think you are!

shadow boxer said :

Jim Jones said :

How scary is it that the Australian public is so spolit and self-indulged that even something as small as removing free plasic bags is met with howls of self-righteous indignation.

Well you can yell at us and call us names as much as you want (this does appear to be the approach of the day when people question green flights of fancy) but our minds wont change until you present cogent arguments on why this is good policy. Same as the Carbon tax really, admirable goal but poor policy.

If we are serious about plastic packaging it’s industry that needs to be targetted, not the ever suffering consumer who is sick of paying for all these green ideas.

Jesus f$%cking Christ on a pogo stick – every economist on the globe has stated categorically that a carbon tax is the best way of addressing carbon pollution. How did you miss that one? Hell, even the right wing crazies like Henry Ergas don’t argue about that.

The same amount of information is available about plastic bag consumption. You’d have to be willfully closing your eyes to miss it.

Can you not read or something?

00davist said :

madamcholet said :

I’m so thoroughly disappointed by what seems like a total lack of desire for people to extend themselves to do something a little better.

All the comments on here sound like my mother in law -“it’s inconvenient TO ME, therefore we shouldn’t be doing it”…well DIDDUMS, GET OVER IT.

It’s not about the inconveinience, it’s about the fact that it’s another pointless token gesture, to try and apease a bunch of fools that would rather this, than real action.

Thanks to people jumping at the bit for useless cr*p like this, we have E10, CFL’s and the damn Prius, a bunch of token gestures, that look good for the govt, and the companies involved, but once you actually do your homework, turn out to have negligable impact, or in some cases, cause more damage to the envronment.

Actually research the impact of the choices you make, before jumping on the “Look at me, I drive a prius on E10” bandwagon!

And if any thing substantial were done you and your kind would be manning the barricades and rioting in the streets for your right to despoil as you please. Don’t try to claim any high ground it won’t work, w’re onto you.

Canberra, Australia. Home of the selfish. No different to almost any other place but since this is the Riot-Act, I will home in on the local self-obsessed population.

You petty puerile posters here bemoaning any and all attempts to do anything, even tokenistic, for the environment. You really are little more than overgrown kindergarten kids aren’t you. You know, kids of that age throw tanties when everything doesn’t go their way, when they even slightly inconvenienced. And so it seems do half or more of the Canberra population if this forum is anything to go by.

In a world that is struggling to cope with our impact on almost every corner of the environment, where we are currently using the resources of the equivalent of two planets, and our own Aussie lifestyle is way above that figure, where millions of creatures suffer from the ingestion of plastic bags, particularly in marine environments, the simplistic whingeing posts here are a sad reflection on our supposed ‘humanity’. For gawds sake, having a few re-usable bags around and training yourself to remember them is being portrayed as an intolerable impost on society. Dickheads. Get used to it. Your grandparents and their grandparents benefitted from the use of re-usable containers, and now your children and grandchildren will also get to inhabit a better world, and all you lot can do is whinge about the tiny inconvenience of it all. Suck it up princesses, the world does not revolve around your petty little tanties or supposed needs, it is a bigger place than your little brain can grasp, but for those of us with more than a few selfish brain cells still active the plastic bag ban can only be good for the planet, which is our only home.

Jim Jones said :

How scary is it that the Australian public is so spolit and self-indulged that even something as small as removing free plasic bags is met with howls of self-righteous indignation.

Well you can yell at us and call us names as much as you want (this does appear to be the approach of the day when people question green flights of fancy) but our minds wont change until you present cogent arguments on why this is good policy. Same as the Carbon tax really, admirable goal but poor policy.

If we are serious about plastic packaging it’s industry that needs to be targetted, not the ever suffering consumer who is sick of paying for all these green ideas.

How scary is it that the Australian public is so spolit and self-indulged that even something as small as removing free plasic bags is met with howls of self-righteous indignation.

Kdowgg said :

Taking away the ‘free/single use’ plastic bags from the super markets only serves to increase my spend @ the supermarket – ultimately increasing cost of living pressures. Not sure if it has (maybe I’ve just missed it), but I why has this plastic bag issue never been included in the equations?
Like most of the population (statistics are coming from my own observation which I presume to reasonably representative) I use the single use bags as bin liners @ home. Obviously from now on I will have to purchase bin liners. I am a single male who lives alone so generally to do not generate much waste (open to opinion!!) yet @ an average of one bag every two days, @ $2.61 per 10 bag pack (current Coles price for the cheapest bags) that works out @ an extra $95.25 per year. While that is easily absorbable in my budget and lifestyle, extrapolate that for a family with 2 or 3 children and you’re getting into significant additional costs.
Furthermore, include the cost of paying for plastic bags to carry your groceries in – 10c-25c per pag seems to be the standard from IGA to Target to Aldi – every time you either forget to bring your reusable bags or just don’t have enough to carry what you’ve just bought. I know many of us carry one of two in the car, but how often to you run in to buy milk and come out with arm loads of junk?!?
Very few people I know are organised enough to always have the green bags every time the pop into the store.
Since EVERY ONE can see through the BS that this policy is, how did it get through? The only reasonable explanation I can see is collusion between the powerful and omnipotent GLAD BAGS Co. and the government….

Firstly – ‘cost of living pressures’ = utter bollocks. The ABS have released stats that prove conclusively that Australians have never had it so good: our spending on entertainment and general household luxury consumption is through the roof, and spending on transport and the usual crap is less than it was 6 years ago. If you’re complaining about ‘cost of living pressures’ then you’re engaged in pointless whining.

Secondly, your entire argument is presaged upon the assumption that everyone in Australia is the same as you “Like most of the population (statistics are coming from my own observation which I presume to reasonably representative”. They’re not.

Just because you’re too disorganised to have some spare bags to pop to the store doesn’t mean that the rest of the country suffers from the same affliction.

Also, as has been pointed out innumerable times – the proportion of plastic bags that are used as bin liners is statistically insignificant. They’re a very small proportion of the total amount of plastic bags that are actually produced.

Finally, instead of basing everything upon what an appalling inconvenience it is to you (and such a shocking impact spending 10 cents to buy a plastic bag will have on your lifestyle – surely you won’t be able to afford to actually put food in that bag given how tight everything is financially), how about thinking a little more broadly. You are aware that you’re actually part of a wider community, right?

00davist said :

madamcholet said :

I’m so thoroughly disappointed by what seems like a total lack of desire for people to extend themselves to do something a little better.

All the comments on here sound like my mother in law -“it’s inconvenient TO ME, therefore we shouldn’t be doing it”…well DIDDUMS, GET OVER IT.

It’s not about the inconveinience, it’s about the fact that it’s another pointless token gesture, to try and apease a bunch of fools that would rather this, than real action.

Thanks to people jumping at the bit for useless cr*p like this, we have E10, CFL’s and the damn Prius, a bunch of token gestures, that look good for the govt, and the companies involved, but once you actually do your homework, turn out to have negligable impact, or in some cases, cause more damage to the envronment.

Actually research the impact of the choices you make, before jumping on the “Look at me, I drive a prius on E10” bandwagon!

Precisely how does taking small environmental steps (such as plastic bag bans, driving electric cars, etc.) preclude anyone from being involved in more substantial, large-scale action?

If any of these actually ’cause more damage to the environment’ as you seem to be claiming, could you please provide evidence of this?

Taking away the ‘free/single use’ plastic bags from the super markets only serves to increase my spend @ the supermarket – ultimately increasing cost of living pressures. Not sure if it has (maybe I’ve just missed it), but I why has this plastic bag issue never been included in the equations?
Like most of the population (statistics are coming from my own observation which I presume to reasonably representative) I use the single use bags as bin liners @ home. Obviously from now on I will have to purchase bin liners. I am a single male who lives alone so generally to do not generate much waste (open to opinion!!) yet @ an average of one bag every two days, @ $2.61 per 10 bag pack (current Coles price for the cheapest bags) that works out @ an extra $95.25 per year. While that is easily absorbable in my budget and lifestyle, extrapolate that for a family with 2 or 3 children and you’re getting into significant additional costs.
Furthermore, include the cost of paying for plastic bags to carry your groceries in – 10c-25c per pag seems to be the standard from IGA to Target to Aldi – every time you either forget to bring your reusable bags or just don’t have enough to carry what you’ve just bought. I know many of us carry one of two in the car, but how often to you run in to buy milk and come out with arm loads of junk?!?
Very few people I know are organised enough to always have the green bags every time the pop into the store.
Since EVERY ONE can see through the BS that this policy is, how did it get through? The only reasonable explanation I can see is collusion between the powerful and omnipotent GLAD BAGS Co. and the government….

madamcholet said :

I’m so thoroughly disappointed by what seems like a total lack of desire for people to extend themselves to do something a little better.

All the comments on here sound like my mother in law -“it’s inconvenient TO ME, therefore we shouldn’t be doing it”…well DIDDUMS, GET OVER IT.

It’s not about the inconveinience, it’s about the fact that it’s another pointless token gesture, to try and apease a bunch of fools that would rather this, than real action.

Thanks to people jumping at the bit for useless cr*p like this, we have E10, CFL’s and the damn Prius, a bunch of token gestures, that look good for the govt, and the companies involved, but once you actually do your homework, turn out to have negligable impact, or in some cases, cause more damage to the envronment.

Actually research the impact of the choices you make, before jumping on the “Look at me, I drive a prius on E10” bandwagon!

madamcholet said :

I’m so thoroughly disappointed by what seems like a total lack of desire for people to extend themselves to do something a little better.

All the comments on here sound like my mother in law -“it’s inconvenient TO ME, therefore we shouldn’t be doing it”…well DIDDUMS, GET OVER IT.

+1

Ahh the get over it argument, a staple of the internet like build a bridge.

Usually trotted out when the argument you are proposing fails to pass scrutiny.

I’m so thoroughly disappointed by what seems like a total lack of desire for people to extend themselves to do something a little better.

All the comments on here sound like my mother in law -“it’s inconvenient TO ME, therefore we shouldn’t be doing it”…well DIDDUMS, GET OVER IT.

bigfeet said :

If we had to import a feel good token environmental scheme from South Australia why couldn’t it have been the 10c refund on bottles and cans?

Smugglers.
No, seriously.
We’re close enough to a border to make it easy.

Wonders how they are going to package bread. Can’t remember what they did in the olden days, wrapped it in paper I think, but that was before sliced bread became the rage and health regulations went mad about touching food with your hands.

House hold garbage now gets wrapped up in the Chronicle like we did back to the 70’s.

I really believe this is just another feel good exercise for the government that is going to have zero effect on plastic production.

If we had to import a feel good token environmental scheme from South Australia why couldn’t it have been the 10c refund on bottles and cans?

At least then it would be a good pocket money earner for the children.

Won’t someone think of the children?

Glad to see most people can see through the BS this ban is. Its the ultimate “do nothing feel good” policy. No cost to the government, thats passed on to businesses and customers and GovCo gets another green star on its merit board.

Useless.

Why do we pay these people if they are just going to sit on their asses all day and be stupid?

Ban plastic bags? No. Ban Simon Corbell.

Can anyone show me a plastic bag that has been sitting out in the elements for the last 5 years?

No? You know why? They degrade – Naturally.

Even the bags I used in the late 90s to wrap up collectables has degraded to the point where the slightest touch results in that section falling apart.

I recently cleaned out a deceased estate, and there may have been some plastic bags containing objects, although it no longer looked like plastic, or bags.

Sure, if the bags hit wildlife BEFORE they degrade, it will cause issues, but most people deal with their bags responsibly. No mention of the 1000+ bags that come flying out of any Canberra landfill everyday, is there?

Environmental tokenism I think is the term to be used here Shaodw Boxer.

shadow boxer said :

Tangible outcomes are not important at the moment, it’s about pretending to do something ( hopefully with someone else’s money) so you can feel smug.

Cases in point

The Carbon tax
Solar power/ massive electricity bills
Pokie pre-commitment
Public transport/bike lanes
Plastic bag bans

Toyota Prius

Tangible outcomes are not important at the moment, it’s about pretending to do something ( hopefully with someone else’s money) so you can feel smug.

Cases in point

The Carbon tax
Solar power/ massive electricity bills
Pokie pre-commitment
Public transport/bike lanes
Plastic bag bans

I dont understand what this ban is going to achieve. Everywhere ive shopped recently and needed a bag (except Coles and WW) has swapped to the thicker plastic bags or the degradable plastic bags which arent covered in the ban. So I still get a plastic bag and i still throw it out in the rubbish when Im done with it.

Keen to see if Coles/WW switch to a thicker plastic bag also when the ban kicks in in earnest.