Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the extra $0.05 retailers are supposed to charge doesn't actually go to clean anything up. Thanks nanny state.

Just think of it as similar to the carbon tax Tom Stayer wants state governments to buy into which directly benefits his companies.
Sick liberals....

Anonymous wrote:So the extra $0.05 retailers are supposed to charge doesn't actually go to clean anything up. Thanks nanny state.

Anonymous wrote:I always take a bag now, which is something I didn't do in the past. So that means it is working (at least on me.) I don't really care where the .05 goes.

Anonymous wrote:Why does subway charge 5 cents for their teeny plastic sleeve to put sandwiches in? It's like the thin plastic bag you put veggies and fruit in at the grocery store.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The goal of the the fee is behavior modification, i.e. reducing the number of bags people take, not fundraising.

People aren't taking bags, they are given bags. When a cashier at Target puts one item in each bag and I have to tell her not to, the problem isn't me.

Where do you live? Every time I shop at Target or anywhere in the city, the cashier asks if I would like a bag first. They never go straight to bagging, and certainly don't use multiple bags without me specifying it.

Virginia. The problem is with who these big box stores are hiring. I often don't get all my items either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did this in MoCo a few years ago. If it was about the environment, they would have exempted paper bags (which are made from recycled paper, and are recyclable and biodegradable) and the new biodegradable plastic bags. They didn't.

Was there some problem with brown paper bags clogging up the Bay? No, because they biodegrade rapidly. Why did they tax those also?

There is a heavy energy toll to making paper bags. It doesn't make sense to exempt them on enviro grounds. Biodegradable bags often don't degrade either.

I have no problem with how the District has implemented the plan. The amount of plastic bags used has decreased dramatically and youth education is a good use of funds, as is paying people.

"Heavy energy toll"? If they were concerned about that, they'd instead require stores to install energy-efficient lighting and turn up their thermostats a bit. THat would have a greater energy impact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did this in MoCo a few years ago. If it was about the environment, they would have exempted paper bags (which are made from recycled paper, and are recyclable and biodegradable) and the new biodegradable plastic bags. They didn't.

Was there some problem with brown paper bags clogging up the Bay? No, because they biodegrade rapidly. Why did they tax those also?

There is a heavy energy toll to making paper bags. It doesn't make sense to exempt them on enviro grounds. Biodegradable bags often don't degrade either.

I have no problem with how the District has implemented the plan. The amount of plastic bags used has decreased dramatically and youth education is a good use of funds, as is paying people.

Anonymous



Of course its another money maker for the gov't. Its really annoying to have to carry bags, lug a kid or two, stroller, diaper bag, etc. I'm all for being environmental and regardless often carried my own bags but at times its difficult.

Anonymous wrote:They did this in MoCo a few years ago. If it was about the environment, they would have exempted paper bags (which are made from recycled paper, and are recyclable and biodegradable) and the new biodegradable plastic bags. They didn't.

Was there some problem with brown paper bags clogging up the Bay? No, because they biodegrade rapidly. Why did they tax those also?

Anonymous wrote:They did this in MoCo a few years ago. If it was about the environment, they would have exempted paper bags (which are made from recycled paper, and are recyclable and biodegradable) and the new biodegradable plastic bags. They didn't.

Was there some problem with brown paper bags clogging up the Bay? No, because they biodegrade rapidly. Why did they tax those also?


Of course, I know the reason -- the retail lobby. If they placed a tax on only plastic bags, everyone would ask for paper bags instead, which cost the retailer a lot more than plastic bags.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course its another money maker for the gov't. Its really annoying to have to carry bags, lug a kid or two, stroller, diaper bag, etc. I'm all for being environmental and regardless often carried my own bags but at times its difficult.

I go carless and here's how I make it work. Ditch the diaper bag unless you're going to be gone all day. Throw a couple diapers in your purse or the bottom of the stroller along with a bottle or two/cup which could also be tethered to the stroller w/ those plastic chains or an actual cup/bottle tether. Then get some envirosax which roll up nice and small and snap shut. They take up half the space of a banana. You can carry 2-3 easily either in your purse or the stroller basket (or even tucked in the sun shade of the stroller.) Then you can attach your filled bag to the stroller w/ a giant caribeaner or other clip, or stuff it in the stroller basket or hang it from the stroller. Done. Or bipass the bags entirely if you're on a small shopping trip and just put your things in the stroller basket and sun shade w/o a bag.