Following in China's footsteps, Australian Environment Minister Peter Garrett has announced a goal to phase out plastic bags in the country by the end of 2008.
source: The Sydney Morning Herald, Reuters
How Do You Say "Plastic Bag" in Australian?
Australia will phase out plastic bags 14
Related Stories
“Historic consensus” at G8 on climate change, says Obama
Australia’s real climate on climate change
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments View as Flat
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:37 am
10 Jan 2008
An outright ban...
...would be better than a levy (especially if the promotion of cloth and reusable bags was made over paper bags), but for now, either would be a great improvement.
Permalink
kimberleywoelich Posted 1:53 pm
10 Jan 2008
Good example to the rest of the world!
I think that's great. Plastic bags are waste. They do so much damage.
I see so many people in stores in the USA that use bags but then just thrown them away. Stores in the US state on the bottom on the bag in very tiny writing - "recyclable". Hence the stores are not responsible for the waste, but the people rarely recylce the bags. Sure a few percentage do, but its not enough!
I think if this works in the Aus. Maybe the US will follow! - hopefully!
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:11 pm
10 Jan 2008
n
If plastic bags are creating shared-problems, then why not tax them? An outright ban would be sensible if the shared-problems were infinite. Are the shared-problems of plastic bags indeed infinite?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:17 pm
10 Jan 2008
Question...
Are the shared-problems of plastic bags indeed infinite?
I'm havin' some trouble tryin' to understand your question. Could ya be just a little bit more specific please?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:41 pm
10 Jan 2008
n
Tasermons Partner,
Shared problems are also known as tragedies of commons. Does that help you to understand?
Permalink
eriqa Posted 1:27 am
11 Jan 2008
a ban makes sense
The problem with "just tax the externalities" is that then you have to spend time, money, and energy administering the tax. A tax makes sense for greenhouse gas emissions because there's no way to reduce them to zero and people should be free to make their own choices about which technologies they adopt and which sacrifices they make to stay within budget. There are valid arguments for most forms of fossil fuel consumption on an individual level, it's the aggregate that's the problem.
But is there any justification for the ubiquitous plastic bag, other than habit? When they are banned people's habits will change and no one will miss them. Forgetful people like me can buy some other type of bag at the checkout. A ban is simpler and cheaper to administer than a tax.
Permalink
portiafaceslife Posted 4:09 pm
11 Jan 2008
Don't ban the bags!
While I agree plastic bags are a menace to the environment in all sorts of yucky ways, banning plastics is a knee-jerk reaction, & I'm sorry our 'Minister for Wombats' has gone down this path.
I take cloth bags with me whenever I go shopping, yet once in a while, especially when buying frozen food, meat, milk or yoghurt, I REQUEST a plastic bag. Why? So I can reuse it to line my rubbish bin. My bin doesn't hold much ( I recycle as much as I can), but what it does hold is usually runny, smelly or otherwise unpleasant to handle.
Instead of banning plastic bags, Minister Garret should be mandating biodegradable ones. That way everyone is happy.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:00 am
12 Jan 2008
The maning of infinite...
Nucbuddy, I understand the shared-problems portion, it was "infinite" portion I have trouble with? Are ya asking if the problems with bags would continue even if a tax was implemented?
'Cause though the problems may decrease significantly under a tax (since bag use would also decrease), they would still be large enough to warrant a ban, in my personal opinion.
Sorry if I sound ignorant on this, I get into way many philosophical debates and words like "infinite" suddenly take on waaayyy to many meanings for me. I get easily confused when I'm not aware of the specifics in which the word is set up for. Sorry.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:51 pm
12 Jan 2008
Taxes to compensate for finite social-costs
Tasermons Partner: Are [you] asking if the problems with bags would continue even if a tax [were] implemented?
No. I am telling you that with a tax problems with bags would continue, and I am asking if those problems are infinitely-costly and therefore justify a complete-ban instead of a tax (of a level sufficient to cover the costs to society of plastic-bags).
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:41 pm
12 Jan 2008
It would depend upon...
...how much the tax was, how much the tax reduced use of plastic bags, how much of the (remaining) plastic bags used were eventually recycled, thrown away, thrown out as litter, etc.
In some countries/places, taxes seem to have reduced the usage significantly. In other areas, not so much.
Ultimately, I think an important fact to remember is that plastic bags (like almost all modern plastic products), is derived from fossil fuels, and that we only have a limited amount to use. Given recent price increases (and supply decreases) in crude oil stocks, I think it's fairly safe to assume that eventually the cost of manufacturing plastic bags (in the current state) would become so cost-prohibitive that they would no longer be offered complimentary at stores, and would eventually have to phased out altogether as crude supplies dwindled further still.
So why not go ahead and ban 'em now, rather than wait for the inevitable and suffer all of the potential environmental drawbacks in the meantime?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:04 pm
12 Jan 2008
Covering the costs vs. banning out of bigotry
Tasermons Partner wrote: why not go ahead and ban 'em now, rather than wait for the inevitable and suffer all of the potential environmental drawbacks in the meantime?
...Because the environment can be cleaned-up of plastic bags by using the revenue from the tax.
This is essentially the same issue as with coal-fired electricity. If a carbon-tax can provide sufficient means to clean up all of coal's environmental costs, there are no reasons -- other than bigotry and irresponsibility -- to ban coal-fired electricity production.
Would you ban something out of sheer bigotry? By the way:
That article was from Summer of 2007. Oil prices are higher today. However, even at $100/bbl of oil, it only takes around one penny's worth of oil to make a plastic grocery bag (11 barrels per tons of bags; ~100,000 bags per ton). I would not count on plastic grocery bags getting too-expensive-to-produce anytime soon.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:07 am
13 Jan 2008
As I said...
...it would depend on the tax. If the tax raises enough money to help deal with the environmental consequences, and if the tax reduces bag use enough that the funds from the tax support a clean-up effort that outweighs the further impact from the bags, then a tax may be viable.
But like I pointed out, in some areas (that instituted a tax) the tax has worked, but in other areas it hasn't had much effect. In areas where it wouldn't have much effect, or where bag use would plummet to such low levels that it be almost as if a ban had been in place, then I believe a ban would be better, overall.
If it does work in this particular situation, then a tax would obviously be acceptable, at least in the short term, compared to the current conditions.
Permalink
kimberleywoelich Posted 4:44 am
13 Jan 2008
tax or not to tax!
The problems with taxing:
Permalink
kimberleywoelich Posted 4:45 am
13 Jan 2008
to tax or not to tax
The problems with taxing:
Permalink