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!

I'm havin' some trouble tryin' to understand your question.  Could ya be just a little bit more specific please?

Shared problems are also known as tragedies of commons. Does that help you to understand?

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.

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.

portiafaceslife

'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.

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).

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?

...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:

Conventional plastic bags cost about a penny

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.

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.

1. Using plastic bags is easy of operation, meaning using plastic bags does not essential to way of life, its just convenient to use for a few minutes.

2. Many companies + people would be happy to pay for the taxes.. with little regard to the real reasons for not needing plastic bags.

3. A tax may bring a negative reaction, - "another tax..." and the real point maybe lost as to why plastic bags are not good for the world around us.

4. Maybe by banning plastic bags, people would take a few moments thinking about all the other things we can improve upon too.

4. Using cloth bags may reduce the number of items we buy... many times we buy things form impulse versus, do I really need that. Especially in developed

1. Using plastic bags is easy of operation, meaning using plastic bags does not essential to way of life, its just convenient to use for a few minutes.

2. Many companies + people would be happy to pay for the taxes.. with little regard to the real reasons for not needing plastic bags.

3. A tax may bring a negative reaction, - "another tax..." and the real point maybe lost as to why plastic bags are not good for the world around us.

4. Maybe by banning plastic bags, people would take a few moments thinking about all the other things we can improve upon too.

4. Using cloth bags may reduce the number of items we buy... many times we buy things form impulse versus, do I really need that. Especially in developed countries where cost of living is very good. - sorry I keep having flashes of Walmart shopping cart!