We are killing our mother earth, please stop this nonsense use recycled paper bags, instead of plastic bags. I\’m not saying plastic is so useless but it causes damage to our mother land. So try to ban plastic to some extent. WE WILL BAN PLASTICS FOR OUR MOTHER LAND
We should ban plastic bags. Babies can choke on the plastic and die. Oil is made into plastic and we shouldn\’t waste is. We could use the oil for heating our home instead. Besides only 5% of plastic bags are recycled. It is not good for the environment because it doesn\’t decompose. There is a patch of plastic bags in the middle of the pacific ocean. Sea turtles choke on them because they think that it is jellyfish instead. Plastic bags have already created a havoc in our life. As it is not only harmful to the animals but also to our mother earth. We should not bury our heads in the sand like proverbial ostrich but act upon the prevailing situation and start using jute bags which are a safer bet. plastics are cheap that\’s true but what about the aftermath who is going to think about it?? We are known as so called \”social animals\”,having great ability to think we are the major reason for our own destruction than any other creatures who can\’t even think how strange it is right??? Thus THE MORE WE INVENT,THE MORE WE DESTRUCT The whole reason we have plastic bags is for efficiency. But the store bought bags can carry 3-4 times as many groceries as a normal plastic bag. Both plastic and paper bags are bad for the environment. Plastic because of the fact that they don\’t decompose and wildlife can eat them. Paper because you have to cut down trees to make them. But reusable store bought bags are good for the environment and for convenience due to the fact that they carry more groceries, so you have to make less trips from your car to unload groceries. Also seeing as how they are durable you use them several times and don\’t throw them out. We banned plastic bags in my state (Washington State) and its been working pretty well for us. And we are destroying it. Of the litter we see in our towns and cities, plastic bags and reusable coffee cups and some of the post popular.
Some plastic takes over a lifetime to degrade and, as litter, will continue to harm habitats. On top of its negative effects on the visible environment, the production of most plastic requires the use of oil- another resource that we, the people, have been mindlessly abusing over the last several decades. We need to stop polluting the planet and preserve it for the future. Kill plastics or kill earth. If we don\’t ban plastics our landfills will fill up and we may have send our garbage to mars to dump it there. Now the time has come to ban plastics or ban human beings from earth. Better go with the earlier one. PLEASE SAVE THE EARTH AND YOURSELVES! SAY NO TO PLASTICS. Plastic Bags Should Be Banned Yes, plastic bags should be banned as they are not biodegradable and thus fill up our nation\’s landfills. This causes increased land pollution as they sit underground and never return to the Earth as broken down minerals. Thus, the land is forever tainted. Paper bags are obviously a much better solution. Yes, plastic bags should be banned as they are not biodegradable and thus fill up our nation\’s landfills. This causes increased land pollution as they sit underground and never return to the Earth as broken down minerals. Thus, the land is forever tainted. Paper bags are obviously a much better solution. Yes they are convenient. Yes they are great for picking up dog poop. But they are overused and created way too much waste that is difficult to be recycled. Everyone has already spoken on all the points so i\’ll refrain from saying too much. We need laws that reduce the amount of single use plastic in circulation. Https://www. Upworthy. Com/see-the-music-video-parody-that-deserves-both-a-vma-and-a-nobel-prize http://www. Upworthy. Com/we-use-4-of-these-a-day-and-theyre-kind-of-the-worst-3 Okay, so real quick on a few of your points. I disagree on your point about mass production. Doing anything has an impact on the environment, not necessarily bad, but that s not a justification for us all to live in caves. Mass production of vaccines uses resources and nominally hurts the environment, but I don t think anyone would say that we should stop mass producing vaccines to help the environment (and vaccines certainly have led to a positive impact on human health).
But of course that s not the point you were making, I think. I think you were referring to the relative merits of mass producing plastic bags relative to mass production of anything else (vaccines, toys, food, clothes, etc. ). Maybe plastic bags seem trivial and we could help the environment by simply not making them, but when we enter the world of bans and public policy, who is to make the decision on what is okay to mass produce and what is not? And what is valuable and what is not? I am not qualified to make those decisions and I don t think voting on what gets produced is a good outcome. You re discounting all of the wonderful things mass production has brought us, and making an arbitrary distinction on what you think is okay to be mass produced, and what you think is not okay to be mass produced. This I think leads back to the original point of bans on things that some people do not like. Perhaps a fee on plastic bags makes sense, but these discussions on bottles, bags, etc. have started out as trying to ban things I do not understand why that is the initial instinct. Just as you have the right to choose not to use a bag or bottle, I have the right to choose to use those items, and you haven t identified any criteria under which that might change. I don t know whether the point you make about the overhead cost of bags being charged to everyone is correct or whether it is desirable to have a national tax on plastic bags, but a fee or tax only makes sense insofar as my using a plastic bag harms you. It may be the case that it does, I doubt it but may be wrong, but that hasn t entered into any of these discussions as a justification for placing a fee on plastic bags, all I ve seen is that people don t like them. Two more things on taxing bags: there are stores that choose voluntarily, I think, to charge 5 cents for plastic bags and anyone is able to choose to shop at those stores, just as I am able to choose to not shop at those stores.
That should seem to solve the problem of overhead cost right there. The other thing is that since most stores do not charge for plastic bags, that leads me to believe they re not that expensive, and don t impose many overhead costs or environmental costs on other people, though I may be wrong. And just on the statement about the U of R caring about the environment, I am not sure why that is a statement that the U of R should make. Why do we all have to believe the same thing? Or in the same policy? Or all have to agree with the same statement? Is the point of a university not to preserve and protect different viewpoints and foster a lively discussion and debate on serious issues? Since when did the point of a university become for us all to believe the same thing? I don t hate the environment, but banning plastic bags does nothing to help the environment. This statement about the environment is yours, it s not mine and I don t understand why there is a presumption that we all must sign onto this movement. And if the statement is merely that the environment is good or the environment is important, then that statement really means nothing at all, its analogous to saying the U of R hopes for a good economy. No one s trying to degrade the environment, but banning plastic bags does nothing to help the environment, and asking us all to sign on to the belief that we must ban plastic bags to help the environment is the antithesis of what a university is supposed to be about. Were supposed to have serious discussions about these issues and have different viewpoints and protect those, not all be forced into believing the same thing. Also, I agree with you on the living-learning communities point you make. Universities should be laboratories for experiment in every way, and perhaps in public policy. But we should be aiming for good policy, not fostering bad policy and patting ourselves on the back. Banning plastic bags is bad policy, good policy involves research into these issues, not just banning things that some people dont like.