Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County hasn’t met a tax idea it won’t pass.
This. Why tax paper bags 10 cents? They are usually made from recycled paper, and can easily be recycled or composted.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s fine and your right to support it, of course. Understand it’s just purely performative environmentalism that likely does more harm than good while costing the taxpayers money. Read the article for a little nuance.
LOL. Explain how it does ANY harm.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There’s real debate over whether the multi use bags are actually better for the environment. Evidence is very mixed on that; heavier bags require greater resources to produce and they usually fall apart before you can “break even.” I know it feels like you’re doing something for the environment by reusing a bag, but very likely, it’s doing nothing.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s fine and your right to support it, of course. Understand it’s just purely performative environmentalism that likely does more harm than good while costing the taxpayers money. Read the article for a little nuance.
Small actions are bad: too small. Large actions are bad: too large. Somewhere there must be an action that's juuuuuuust right? My advice for you is to get in the habit of bringing bags when you go shopping. Lots of people are able to do this, and likely you are too.
I’ve been using the same bags for almost 20 years. How many uses does it take to “break even” exactly?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s fine and your right to support it, of course. Understand it’s just purely performative environmentalism that likely does more harm than good while costing the taxpayers money. Read the article for a little nuance.
LOL. Explain how it does ANY harm.
The plastic bag tax has actually increased the amount of plastic bags that are used. This is because the new bags are ultra flimsly and thus break more often, require double bagging and are reused less. It's one of those ironic unintended consequences situations that arise when well meaning theory meets the reality of real life use.
Ban the bags if you want but don't tax them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s fine and your right to support it, of course. Understand it’s just purely performative environmentalism that likely does more harm than good while costing the taxpayers money. Read the article for a little nuance.
LOL. Explain how it does ANY harm.
The plastic bag tax has actually increased the amount of plastic bags that are used. This is because the new bags are ultra flimsly and thus break more often, require double bagging and are reused less. It's one of those ironic unintended consequences situations that arise when well meaning theory meets the reality of real life use.
Ban the bags if you want but don't tax them.
Wut?
Just bring your own damn bags, that aren’t flimsy. Duh.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s fine and your right to support it, of course. Understand it’s just purely performative environmentalism that likely does more harm than good while costing the taxpayers money. Read the article for a little nuance.
LOL. Explain how it does ANY harm.
The plastic bag tax has actually increased the amount of plastic bags that are used. This is because the new bags are ultra flimsly and thus break more often, require double bagging and are reused less. It's one of those ironic unintended consequences situations that arise when well meaning theory meets the reality of real life use.
Ban the bags if you want but don't tax them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s fine and your right to support it, of course. Understand it’s just purely performative environmentalism that likely does more harm than good while costing the taxpayers money. Read the article for a little nuance.
LOL. Explain how it does ANY harm.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s fine and your right to support it, of course. Understand it’s just purely performative environmentalism that likely does more harm than good while costing the taxpayers money. Read the article for a little nuance.
LOL. Explain how it does ANY harm.
Read the article in the OP. There are a lot of studies that show how mixed the evidence actually is on plastic bag bans that drive people to paper and reusable cotton and plastic use more resources to produce.
Anonymous wrote:There’s real debate over whether the multi use bags are actually better for the environment. Evidence is very mixed on that; heavier bags require greater resources to produce and they usually fall apart before you can “break even.” I know it feels like you’re doing something for the environment by reusing a bag, but very likely, it’s doing nothing.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s fine and your right to support it, of course. Understand it’s just purely performative environmentalism that likely does more harm than good while costing the taxpayers money. Read the article for a little nuance.
Small actions are bad: too small. Large actions are bad: too large. Somewhere there must be an action that's juuuuuuust right? My advice for you is to get in the habit of bringing bags when you go shopping. Lots of people are able to do this, and likely you are too.
Anonymous wrote:The current bag tax (5 cents, on paper and plastic) has drawn criticism from the county's auditors in terms of implementation:
https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/06/15/inspector-general-county-has-poor-enforcement-of-bag-tax/
Why will they do any better just by increasing the tax? How about they fix the problems administering the existing tax first?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s fine and your right to support it, of course. Understand it’s just purely performative environmentalism that likely does more harm than good while costing the taxpayers money. Read the article for a little nuance.
LOL. Explain how it does ANY harm.
Anonymous wrote:That’s fine and your right to support it, of course. Understand it’s just purely performative environmentalism that likely does more harm than good while costing the taxpayers money. Read the article for a little nuance.