it would seem that after all of the effort and some cashing in by many of the big stores, that the whole bag for life / plastic bag issue has been one big con.

we are reminded over and over how a bag for life is so much better than using those nasty evil plastic bags and some businesses, such as B&Q who now charge you for a plastic bag under the environmentalism-guise.

pop over to the bbc here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17027990 and have a read, then play with the info-graphic.

just use a rucksack

we are reminded over and over how a bag for life is so much better than using those nasty evil plastic bags and some businesses, such as B&Q who now charge you for a plastic bag under the environmentalism-guise.


How's about charging you under the "they cost money" guise?

it would seem that after all of the effort and some cashing in by many of the big stores, that the whole bag for life / plastic bag issue has been one big con.

How so? The BBC graphic says that a "bag for life" starts showing a saving after 4 uses - that seems pretty good to me.

Oh, waitaminit - there's some special science stuff there as well. It turns out that you can, actually, re-use ordinary plastic bags! Well I never. Plus, it turns out that if you re-use them then it takes more uses before a "bag for life" shows an eco-saving. Well, flippin' Eureka.

Remind me - how is this a con?

How so? The BBC graphic says that a "bag for life" starts showing a saving after 4 uses - that seems pretty good to me.

If you just reuse the plastic bags you have you use 4 times less carbon. If you reuse them as bin liners as most do, you also save.

The largest and most worrying comparison is the cotton bags, and I suppose if you add on the cost to the environment for washing them too, they become even worse.

personally I think we should have the option for paper bags in the UK, just like they do in the US. This has made their costs come down and if they are recycled, they are much better for the environment.

Its strange how the gas guzzling US are more economically friendly then us Europeans when it comes to shopping bags.

I dont think paper bags would work as well here as we tend to carry our shopping home on foot or on the bus more instead of always in the back of our cars. The choice would be nice though.

Its strange how the gas guzzling US are more economically friendly then us Europeans when it comes to shopping bags.The italian government have banned plastic bags

I think that'd be a step in the right direction here too - along with ANY non-biodegradable take-away food packaging, including confectionery items

You're never going to cure the litterbug problem, but remove the objects of the problem, and we win both environmentally and financially

If you just reuse the plastic bags you have you use 4 times less carbon. If you reuse them as bin liners as most do, you also save.

The largest and most worrying comparison is the cotton bags, and I suppose if you add on the cost to the environment for washing them too, they become even worse.

personally I think we should have the option for paper bags in the UK, just like they do in the US. This has made their costs come down and if they are recycled, they are much better for the environment.

Its strange how the gas guzzling US are more economically friendly then us Europeans when it comes to shopping bags.

Yep... Got all that.

So, which bit is the con, then?

Yep... Got all that.

So, which bit is the con, then?

we are told they are better for the environment, but they are not. Companies have started to use this excuse to charge you for plastic bags, this is the con.

we are told they are better for the environment, but they are not. Companies have started to use this excuse to charge you for plastic bags, this is the con.

Then don't buy them.

jb

we are told they are better for the environment, but they are not. Companies have started to use this excuse to charge you for plastic bags, this is the con.


"Bags for life" are better for the environment. The BBC info-graphic you sent me to says so. Have you conned me?

Bags for life don't contribute to the plastic soup the size of Texas currently floating around the Pacific.

Bags for life don't contribute to the plastic soup the size of Texas currently floating around the Pacific.

They will if you use them once and then throw them away. It's a con I tell you.

They will if you use them once and then throw them away. It's a con I tell you.

Surely if you throw them away that defeats their object. Unless, of course, you put them over your head and tie a shoelace found the necks, yours and its, and throw yourself, and it, in the Pacific. Then it would be for life.

H&S Warning: Do not try this.

Surely if you throw them away that defeats their object. .

I guess that must be the con then.

Perhaps, though, it's a con - dom that Wex was getting at. Maybe he is suggesting that the bag for life be placed over the appendage mentioned in the thread title. I'd heard those Eco-martyrs had big ones.

Well, it makes as much sense as the OP.

Bags for life don't contribute to the plastic soup the size of Texas currently floating around the Pacific.

They do, because contrary to the claim they do not last for life. It's false advertising I tells ya.
Me, I carry all my shopping home it baskets woven from eagles nests lined with the soft downy fur of baby seals (and I only use them once before burning).

jb

just use a rucksack

Cause you can fit your weekly shop in a rucksack. Bright idea.

If a mandatory charge is introduced it will hit the poorest again.

A single mom who can't afford a car has to lug her shopping home on the bus and now she has left to spend on food because they're charging for plastic bags.

(A charge which is already reflected in the food she bought at the shop, one of the reasons why places like Aldi are cheaper in the first place)

Another tax that would hit the poorest hardest once again.

They do, because contrary to the claim they do not last for life. It's false advertising I tells ya.


They're not supposed to last for life, the point was supposed to be that you can take them back for a free replacement & get the old one recycled when it breaks. I think very few people do.

They're not supposed to last for life, the point was supposed to be that you can take them back for a free replacement & get the old one recycled when it breaks. I think very few people do.

I was being facetious. Also didn't know you could take them back to be replaced.

jb

I was being facetious. Also didn't know you could take them back to be replaced.

jb

That's why they call them 'bags for life', they just weren't very good at advertising it & for the 4p they cost nobody cares.

personally I think we should have the option for paper bags in the UK, just like they do in the US. This has made their costs come down and if they are recycled, they are much better for the environment.

Its strange how the gas guzzling US are more economically friendly then us Europeans when it comes to shopping bags.

You missed the part about paper bags costing 3 times as much in CO2 (probably in money too)? They'd have to last over 3 times longer than a plastic bag to be any saving, they don't. They might be better for wildlife & biodegrading, but that's about all. I don't think they'd last any longer than a plastic bag either & plastic bags can also be recycled, I think all supermarkets have plastic bag recycling.

You missed the part about paper bags costing 3 times as much in CO2 (probably in money too)? They'd have to last over 3 times longer than a plastic bag to be any saving, they don't. They might be better for wildlife & biodegrading, but that's about all. I don't think they'd last any longer than a plastic bag either & plastic bags can also be recycled, I think all supermarkets have plastic bag recycling.

Also paper bags only get used the once, whereas plastic bags get used again for a few jobs around the house.