I think Tristans latest post rather puts down the idea that we know which is more environmentally damaging at the least.

Regardless, even if I allow that it would be better for the environment, that doesn’t mean its the right thing to do. Theres no evidence this is the most pressing issue, or even an especially urgent one.

Environmental policy shouldn’t be decided by media bandwagoning. We must have a joined up policy that keeps the difficulties for the public low enough to be acceptable while lowering emmisions. This means a firm carbon tax policy, that targets the real culprits like transport and industry- not bans that fiddle at the edges while putting all the onus for change onto ordinary people.

Don’t you think it will be enormously damaging to the environment if people find out down the line that many of the sacrifices they made did more harm than good? Wouldn’t that seriously undermine our willingness to do more?

And yes I may well be wrong with the carbon sequestration point, but again, somebody should have researched it before we even contemplate a ban. Where is that research?

so far we’ve had Tinter with his ‘even for a planned trip I won’t be able to take a bag without forward planning’

yes his/her claim is truly ridiculous

We had some nonsense that banning anything is illiberal -
which doesn’t of itself address the question.

Liberatrianism is not liberalism. Liberatianism, is illiberal.

There is the proposition that reusing bags is more environmenatlly damaging - which is not true.

and then there is the argument - that banning plastic bags will lead to greater use of plastic because people will buy more bin liners - which has some merit to it, but no evidence is put forward to support this. Rather, it is obvious that most of the 9 billion plastic bags used in the UK do not end up reused as bin liners.

Remember the dominant environmental ideology grew out of the club of Rome, which was primarily concerned about resources running out. From that angle recycling makes sense. But in a global warming world perhaps we should want oil to be used up quickly by processes that sequester the carbon.

Yes, I should have said the tax should be across the board. Isn’t that broadly LibDem policy anyway?

Generally:

I’ve never quite got what is so bad about plastic bags anyway. Its just assumed they’re bad for the environment. Is this because they’re not recycled or reused much? Is it because its seen as wrong to throw things away? Or is it actually CO2 emissions (if so why is it not stated?*)

* or have I missed it being stated?

Of course not only middle class people go shopping in cars. But of those of us who don’t, it is weighted towards those in lower income groups. Thus it works in the intrest of the middle classes overall.

I agree with tristans above statements re:tax, although of course this kind of tax should be applied across the board. Then we would see what causes a real impact (cheap flights, possibly overpackaging, and actual major issues) being tackled, not the latest scapegoat.

The Daily Mail is populist and will jump on any populist bandwagon.
Its also the kind of authoritarian measure the Mail likes. Ban this because ‘we know best’.

Joe is absolutely correct, bags have a trivial impact.
Personally I think the costs associated with banning them are probably higher than the gains.
A liberal measure would be to tax the manufacture of the bags according to the externalities they create. This would likely still lead to them being free at supermarkets because per bag it is tiny.
If they cost money, then let people decide whether the financial cost is greater than, or less than the other costs involved - that would be liberal and maximise freedom whilst dealing with the problem.
Perhaps its a bit too subtle for the bansturbators though.

I notice you decide banning plastic bags is left wing - I suppose it is since it affects the poorest most and diminishes freedom. It seems that’s what left wing means today…

Why does a thicker bag cost more than a thinner one? Because it uses more resources. How many times will it on average get used, compared to a thinner one? Anybody’s guess.

Reusable bags might get reused, and so might disposable ones. For them to pay their way, a bag with 50 times as much plastic would have to get reused 50 times more than a disposable bag. Will it? Perhaps, nobody knows.

And still the impacts of bags is trivial compared to the rest of the packaging of the goods put in them. And the rest of the packaging is often trivial compared to the goods themselves. Why on earth is there all this focus on the least significant aspect of the process?

“even for a planned trip having to take bags with me is a substantial inconvinence.”

Really - substantial is it?????? How exactly?

Then we have the strange implication that only middle aged middle class people uses cars to do their shopping.

wrong again!!!

And yes, lets tax or regulate “disposable” pens, polystryene cups and more besides.

Because by and large they are not disposable, but represnt a sort of corporate flytipping on a vast scale.

Oh, and perhaps you ought to look at todays (27th Feb 2008)
Daily Mail - a newspaper not known for supporting leftwing hobby horses - it has just launched a banish plastic bags campaign.