<< BEARS HUNGRY, FORESTS GROWTHY ~ MAIN ~ NO LESS THAN NINE >>
NOBODY LIKES BAGS
In China:
China is banning production of ultra-thin plastic bags common at shops and supermarkets and ordering customers to be charged for any they use ...
Sort of like bullets. And in Australia:
The Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, [is] likely to impose either a levy on each bag handed to shoppers, or ban them outright within 12 months.
UPDATE. This is ridiculous:
The Government is under pressure to act quickly after the Chinese Government yesterday announced plans to ban free plastic bags within six months.
I suppose our government is also under pressure to introduce the death penalty. Previous blunders have reduced Peter Garrett to a mere Minister for Plastic Bags, but even in this limited role he’s still incapable of getting things right:
Mr Garrett told Sky News it is unacceptable that Australia generates so many plastic bags a year ...
“We’ve certainly had a system in place that’s been voluntary up to now, where you’ve got people coming in to the supermarkets and they have the opportunity to take up those canvas bags.”
Via Alan R.M. Jones, who writes: “They’re not canvas; they’re made out of Bushitlerburton-generated polypropylene ... and, interestingly, imported from China.”
Garrett never does anything that would recycle the plastic bags, like take out the garbage?
I’m sure that the well heeled celebrity classes who enthuse over saving Gaia will approve of the punishment for use/abuse of plastic bags/water/carbon production as that meted out to the Chinese fellow. Heavens, why bother with a trial?
In Australia Bunnings has a levy on plastic bags? Funny, I thought they’d totally banned them!
Uh oh, somebody better tell Kevni that Garrett is opening his mouth again.
Posted by Mystery Meat on 2008 01 09 at 07:16 PM • permalinkI thought some credible research group proved in the past 12-18 months that plastic bags that don’t make it back into the recycling system are an extremely small part of the pollution problem.
This sounds like a quick fix for the dopies; that Labor is doing something seemingly plausible for green jerks.
China leads the way again. Show us the light, China! Help us be more like you!
Posted by Brian Tiemann on 2008 01 09 at 07:22 PM • permalinkHas anybody ever compared the weight/volume of a plastic shopping bag with that of the plastic food packages it is designed to carry?
Posted by bugscuffle on 2008 01 09 at 07:32 PM • permalinkWhat a lot of these idiots tend to overlook is that these plastic bags make it possible for a lot of people to carry their groceries home on the bus or on foot as I frequently do. Ban them and I need to take the car. Those trendy, supposedly eco-friendly bags, just aren’t practical in this regard!
I used to walk to my local Bunnings to buy stuff, however since they went bag-free, I either drive or go elsewhere!
Save the bag!Next week: Footbinding and why we need it.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 09 at 07:44 PM • permalinkIt was pathetically laughable a week or so ago to hear the British PM, Gordo Brown, make a very serious speech about the evils of the plastic carrier bag. Has the once noble and globe span ning government come to this?
Plastic carrier bags are used for a very good reason - easier and cheaper than paper bags, which they replaced in N. America.
#9 Hilarious, Penguin.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 09 at 07:45 PM • permalinkNOBODY LIKES BAGS
Bullshit Blair! You haven’t met my wife and her collection of hand bags. It is so far beyond “like” - more like “enthusiastic collector”.
We generally use those green bags, and a few plastic ones for meat products. Don’t tell me a paper bag will hold all that blood that usually leaks out.
also, paper bags have no handles and suck.
Here in Ottawa, plastic supermarket bags were once accepted in the “plastics, glass etc” recylcing box but no longer. You see, it came out that the city was spending something like $500,000 a year to sort them and ship them to China. Seriously.
I always recycle my plastic bags by using them for garbage.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 09 at 07:48 PM • permalinkI read somewhere that paper bags take longer to break down in the landfill, and add a lot of acid to the groundwater. In any case, I have a collection of string bags I could use for my groceries, but they cut my hands and I can’t use them to line my waste baskets. I think this is just another misguided greenie effort to do something “meaningful”.
Aaah! Another little “levy”. Nobody will notice a few cents.
And so it begins.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2008 01 09 at 08:04 PM • permalinkGarrett initially announced his fatwa on plastic bags back in late August or early September, but Kevin quickly shut him up.
Despite The Bulletin’s increasing left-leaning tendency, Patrick Cook had a pretty funny column about it back in September.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 08:09 PM • permalinkReasoning behind Garrett’s fatwa on plastic bags:
People use them to carry shopping = consumerist Western capitalist materialism. They are a by—product of oil refinement = America = Bush = child obesity=Iraq = other people enjoying themselves = melting ice cap = extinction of all rare frogs on the planet, by drowning.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 08:11 PM • permalinkBig deal, they don’t likes bags.
Hey, in Canada enviro-mentalists don’t like AGRICULTURE.
These people think farmers should stop using fertilizer. Why stop there? After all, farming has the biggest impact on the environment of all human activities.
Ban farming!
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 09 at 08:14 PM • permalink#20 Amazing isnb’t it how the government solution to all problems is a tax.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 09 at 08:16 PM • permalinkAaah! Another little “levy”. Nobody will notice a few cents.
And so it begins
Just like boiling a frog
Posted by swassociates on 2008 01 09 at 08:17 PM • permalink#4, the Productivity Commission released a report in 10/06 on Waste Management (pdf doc) that looked at the plastic bag issue.
#27
the boiling frogs thing is a myth
Well whaddya know.
Why do I get the feeling, you, and many other Queenslanders have personally tested the theory with Cane Toads?
#24 Wimpy Canadian
According to the GP watermelons: agriculture = “sucking the life out of the soil”.
Ohforfuksake, now I’ve heard everything.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 01 09 at 08:29 PM • permalink#24: The Progressive Agricultural Carbonless Organization is way ahead of the curve. Wind farms? Check out this bumper crop. Tougher regulations on pesticides? We’re there. Reduce consumption of meat? Easy: eliminate the supply.
Paco Environmental Solutions: Piling Up Green Since Before You were Born.
Issues like this always bring out the self-important facists who feel that as our moral betters that they deserve to determine all aspects of our lives. When the masses won’t conform, simply whine until the government imposes their will upon others.
Consumers currently have the choice to use plastic bags or not. Let them continue to choose and keep their filthy gore-religion to themselves.
Did any of you parents out there see the fantasmagorical amount of packaging that your kid’s Christmas toys came in?
Hard extruded plastic, hard wired to solid carboard. My grandson’s TMNJ Pizza Bus took up half the recycle bin.
Whatcha gonna do about all that Pete?
Go have a look in Toys ‘r’ Us and report back on all the plastic packaging.You bloody myopic drongo!
The stories about plastic bags taking hundreds of years to break down and that they damage the environment and kill marine life are myths.
There’s no scientific evidence that bags cause problems in landfill (indeed they might actually help by binding rubbish together). There’s also no evidence that they damage marine life (most plastic products that hurt sealife are dumped from ships and aren’t plastic bags but this doesn’t stop the environmental lobby counting these deaths of marine animals as caused by ‘bags’).
Lastly, littering of plastic bags is miniscule (less than 1% of all plastic bags are littered). Barely any plastic bags make it into the litter stream especially when compared with, say, cigarette butts.
Indeed Garrett’s own department produced a study on the economic impact of banning non-reusable plastic shopping bags:
plastic bags cost-benefit analysis
As you can see from page 10, every policy they considered seriously (including bans and levies) leads to massive net costs to the Australian community - most around $1 billion. This is based on very generous assumptions that plastic bags are actually littered in significant amounts.
I wonder if Garrett and Rudd will ignore this advice. My money is that they will. Facts don’t matter in environmental policy, cheap populism does.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 01 09 at 09:04 PM • permalink#38, Next comes a levy on all consumer items based on the amount of plastic packaging they use. Or, why not, a levy on all consumer products based on their “Carbon Footprint”?
Scary thing is, I can see them doing that…
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 09:06 PM • permalink#29, there’s a great quote from that report which demonstrates how environmental lobby groups lie and make up data:
“In the marine environment plastic-bag litter is lethal, killing at least 100,000 birds, whales, seals and turtles every year.” (Planet Ark nd, p. 1)
Nolan-ITU (2002) noted such claims are based on a study conducted near Newfoundland (Eastern Canada) in the early 1980s. The National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia (NARGA, sub. DR266) observed that the study quantified the number of animals killed by fishing nets, not plastic bags. In particular, the study’s authors stated:
“This paper reports on the catch of marine birds and mammals in fishing nets … We identify and discuss the key factors influencing net-mortality and those species most vulnerable to entrapment in active or discarded fishing gear” (Piatt and Nettleship 1987, p. 344)
The authors concluded:
“Summer surveys of the incidental catch of marine birds and mammals in fishing nets around the east coast of Newfoundland indicated that over 100,000 animals were killed during a 4-year period (1981–1984).” (Piatt and Nettleship 1987, p. 344)
The Commission asked several organisations that have been active on plastic-bag issues to help identify an alternative study that demonstrates that plastic-bag litter kills at least 100,000 animals every year. None of the organisations identified such a study.
(my emphasis added)
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 01 09 at 09:18 PM • permalinkI maybe cynical about China and its cheer squad in the West. With the Olympic games on the way, their well documented raping of Gaia, along with freedom and civil rights,(I would think that ‘old G’ would not rate too highly in their Party manifesto, as a good comrade), this seems to me to be a soothing PR gig. Another dictatorship that hosted the Olympic Games did soothing PR stunts back in the 30’s.
Did Pete Garrett look in his attic for this song lyric?
Lookin’ back on the track for a little green bag, Got to find just the kind or I’m losin’ my mind out of sight in the night out of sight in the day, Lookin’ back on the track gonna do it my way.
Like the song and tune but it probably means a bag of green herbs.
Ah nostalgia, not what it used to be.Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 01 09 at 09:58 PM • permalink#8. Spot on.
It’s not like those bags go straight into the garbage after your groceries have been removed, and nobody is going scrape their plates straight into their wheely-bin.
Will Garrett also move rubbish collection back to every other day with small garbage bins, like in ye olden days before plastic? Or is it okay for the nation’s suburbs to smell like Dickensian London with a weeks worth of unwrapped food scraps going rancid everyone’s garbage bins.
If Desert Head thinks I’m going to cough up for bags to pick up my woofers steamers he’s got another thing coming- the deeply malodorous barkers eggs shall remain where they fall. Like most people we reuse the ubiquitous plastic bags for wrapping whiffy kitchen detritus and other thinks rather than hurl them out the car window on the way home from the supermarket; perhaps he’s polished his pointy head once too often in the Shine O Ball O, and the solvents leached into his brain.
Good to see he’s following the fine example of the freedom-loving, planet-respecting Chicoms though.
Coles chairman of the board, several years ago: “Spencer, we need to shave a few million from packaging costs, where’s it going to come from!”
Spencer: “Dont know boss.”
Chairman: “What about those free plastic bags we provide. Nothing should be free. How much are we spending on those?”
Spencer: “I think they’re worth about $.0009 each, they don’t cost us enough to charge for them”
Chairman: “Its still money, though. How could we not only stop giving them away free but also charge more for a replacement at the same time?”
Spencer: “Well the greenies dont like them, we could phase them out and then blame them, though surely we couldnt get away with it.”
Chairman: “Hmmmm, not bad. With no plastic bags, we could then make the punters pay a dollar for fancier green cloth bags.”
Spencer: “Well they are pretty gullible.”
Chairman: “So we use the greens tactics, make them feel guilty about using plastic bags and then we get to tack on the savings in the EOFY reports.”
Spencer (grinning): “I see where your going- then they would also have to spend more by buying proper gladbags for their rubbish instead of reusing the free plastic bags we provide to hold their shopping.”
Chairman: “Splendid, Spencer”
Both: “hyuk hyuk hyuk”First drift netting, then long lining. Now they’re after plastic bags. Next week it will be 6 pack holders. Before you know it the only people lucky enough to eat dolphin will be those who hit the stupid buggers in their speed boats.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 09 at 10:20 PM • permalinkBut, if the ban plastic bags then what will the homeless use for luggage?
Damn insensitive bastards!
Posted by joe bagadonuts on 2008 01 09 at 10:37 PM • permalink#49, Mr Simmon, the only reason retailers introduced those resuable shopping bags was in a response to threats from the Government. They were told to reduce the number of plastic bags they use or face regulation (either a levy or an outright ban).
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 01 09 at 10:48 PM • permalink#53, Shops started spruiking their “Green Bags” a few years back. The Howard government was issuing “threats” to retailers? Doesn’t sound quite right.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 10:54 PM • permalink#29 Kami
#4, the Productivity Commission released a report in 10/06 on Waste Management (pdf doc) that looked at the plastic bag issue.
Thanks for that - it’s a 562 page report - and from page 34, “based on evidence available to the Commission, the case for proceeding with the phase out of plastic bags appears particularly weak. A more cost-effective approach to addressing the underlying issues of concern would be to target plastic-bag litter directly.”
No doubt in the rush to regulate, good sense and reports like this will be cast out with the bags. Idiots, still they have been voted in.
#43 Now if the Chinese would suffocate their dissidents with plastic bags, we could kill two birds with one stone.
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge did that in Cambodia in the 1970s. They were way ahead of the curve.
Posted by Young and Free on 2008 01 09 at 11:07 PM • permalink#55, it was COAG (Council of Australian Governments - which includes the Feds and the States) that started issuing threats around 2004-5.
Which relates to #54’s point. Any regulation of plastic bags has to be implemented by the States (ie, through COAG) since the Federal government doesn’t have the power to do this alone.
As an aside, you’d be surprised at the amount of appalling environmental decisions made by the Howard government. Successive Environment Ministers were captured by the extremists in their department.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 01 09 at 11:11 PM • permalinkoops, it all started as far back as 2002:
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 01 09 at 11:19 PM • permalink#59, So it sounds like it was mostly the State governments, all of which were Labor. If WA’s labor gov’t were truly interested in issues environmental, the first thing they could do is stop dumping the proceeds from our special “recycling” bins into the “general” landfill with the rest of the trash. That might be a start.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 11:22 PM • permalink#60, So they “looked into it” in 2002; does the fact that no ban or levy was put into place in the end indicate anything?
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 11:26 PM • permalinkMr Garrett said biodegradable plastic bags were not the answer, with some taking as long as 1000 years to completely break down.
He acknowledged composting and other environmentally-friendly waste options were not viable in every home, particularly densely-populated urban areas.
But the former rock star said he was confident Australians would embrace the idea.
“People use lots of different solutions,” he said.
“It’s the same ... as the great efforts that Aussies have made in saving water.
“If you would have said to me three or four years ago there would be a lot of people out in Sydney today who may have a bucket under a laundry tap, or they may be jumping into the shower (and) ... before the hot water comes on they’ve actually got the bucket there ... there are plenty of opportunities for all of us.”
Yes indeed. Who woulda thunk that in a prosperous first-world country like Australia, we’d be forcing little old ladies to bucket-water their gardens.
And Labor call themselves “progressives”?
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 11:45 PM • permalink#61, you’re right but the Feds were still involved. Note that Ian Campbell was the chairman of the Council (before he had to retire).
#62, you’re perhaps unfamiliar with the processes of government and how slowly these things progress. They’re still ‘looking into’ options such as a levy or outright ban five years later.
You will note though that in 2002, retailers were told by the Council to achieve a 50% recycling rate, a 50% reduction in the number of bags used and 90% participation of large retailers in the scheme within a year (the actual implementation of this took a lot longer).
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 01 09 at 11:46 PM • permalink#64, Yes, we get back to these “threats” you claim were issued to retailers by the Howard government.
“you’re perhaps unfamiliar with the processes of government”
Jeebus, could you be a little more condescending?
Sorry, gotta go rinse out my glass jars now (over a bucket, to conserve water for my garden) so that they’re nice ‘n’ squeaky clean for when Labor throws ‘em in the tip for me. Later.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 09 at 11:57 PM • permalink#65 From C.L.‘s link: “‘Whoever wants to save the planet on this one is off the planet because it won’t,’ Mr Evans said.”
Hurrah for Evans! Go get ‘em, boy!
There is something of almost Swiftian comedy in Garrett’s bag crusade. “‘We would like to see the phase out implemented by 2008 ... that is absolutely critical’” . . .“‘We want to phase them out, so do the states, we think it’s absolutely critical that we get cracking on it.’” Get cracking . . . get cracking . . . Who does that remind me of? I’ve got it! Henry Root!
#66, I never said that threats were issued to retailers by ‘the Howard government’. My post on it above refers to ‘the government’ which, I’ll admit wasn’t terribly clear. You’ll see that in that link in #64, the threat was issued by all governments (including the Feds) represented at COAG in 2002.
Apologies for sounding condescending. I was just trying to (clumsily) point out that to people not accustomed to the glacial pace of government, that it would probably be mind-boggling that this process has lasted almost six years and they still haven’t done anything.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 01 10 at 12:13 AM • permalink#70, No, the apology here should be from me. I was being grumpy and I shouldn’t type when grumpy (TWG offense, 1 demerit point). Sorry, mate.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 10 at 12:25 AM • permalink#71, no apology needed! I’m lazy and am never as clear as I should be when I comment. The heat’s also frying my brain so I think we should just blame it all on global warmening.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 01 10 at 12:31 AM • permalinkI shop at Aldi regularly and they do not have plastic bags at all yet I manage to survive the shopping experience. Just grab a box or two and put it in there and everything is OK.
However, I still have to go to Coles, or Safeway to get plastic bags for the garbage (and health foods that Aldi cannot provide because of their limited range).
It should be left to the individual, not to government.
This is ludicrous! Have you ever tried using a canvas bag for auto-erotic asphyxiation? You might as well hold your breath.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 01 10 at 02:21 AM • permalink#83, I suppose they’ll buy “carbon offsets” for all of those new flights?
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 01 10 at 02:38 AM • permalink“Ban them and I need to take the car. Those trendy, supposedly eco-friendly bags, just aren’t practical in this regard!
The law in unintended consequences mate. jokers like Garret never think things through.
Posted by brian_smaller on 2008 01 10 at 02:53 AM • permalink#73 Achillea,
Speaking of Personal Acquisitions Conveyance Optimizers.
Posted by mythusmage on 2008 01 10 at 03:21 AM • permalinkThe only way to make good secondary use of a plastic bag is to save a few thousand, then stuff them into a Prius and set them on fire.
Posted by mr creosote on 2008 01 10 at 07:39 AM • permalinkWe can fuel the new pump mills by burning Prius’s.
Posted by mr creosote on 2008 01 10 at 08:24 AM • permalinkThose wankers remaining on the Federal Opposition benches deserve to spend years in the wilderness:
“The Opposition’s environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, says plastic bag pollution is a significant problem and the Coalition is willing to examine the idea of a ban.
But he says there should be a range of solutions to the problem.
“First and most importantly, how do you reduce the waste?” he said.
“Secondly, what will be the effect on retailers and consumers, and thirdly, let’s make sure that we’re not increasing wood-chipping to make paper bags in order to replace plastic bags.”
What a pack of hopeless seat-warming envirotards that are left over! Where is someone with the balls (or ovaries) in the Conservative parties to get up and say: “This is utter bullshit!!”
They have really lost the plot, I’m afraid.
I don’t understand why the Western Left are so much against the death penalty for child rapists, drug dealers and violent criminals. If we kill them - we have one less resource consuming human being. The Left applaud when an innocent baby is murdered in an abortion room - so why cry when a child rapist is hanged? You could call it a late-term abortion. lol
Posted by Wylie Wilde on 2008 01 10 at 11:38 AM • permalinkGarrett said the bags take a thousand years to break down? Feh. Put them in a hot room and show them a picture of the missus all trussed up, and they’ll come around smartly.
Besides, who cares if they don’t degrade? I have this argument with people all the time about the Horrible Wastefulness of Throwing Things Away, and they’re always quite concerned about the “mountains” of trash that “choke” the planet, as if you couldn’t move down the street without clawing away a six-foot wall of discarded TV dinner trays. We have enough room to bury stuff. We could use North Dakota as a vast landfill, since it’s not being used for much else, and we would still have another Dakota to the south to enjoy. And when NoDak is full, cover it up and plant prairie grass and let thousands of animatronic buffalo stumble around. (They’d have to be robots, to avoid the whole methane emmission problem.)
That said, I hate plastic bags. As missred noted, paper is more stable, and has better handles. And all those petrochemicals could be used for a more sensible purpose, like fueling bus rides across North Dakota to show people how much fargin’ land we have.
#100, Lileks, people always scream that “we are running out of landfill space, so we must consume less and recycle more”.
The shortage of landfill is not caused by a shortage of land. It’s because no bastard wants to live near a landfill, so everytime a new site is proposed, everyone within a 100 mile radius screams like scalded monkeys.
Posted by mr creosote on 2008 01 10 at 03:26 PM • permalink#96 Achillea,
Think of all the exercise you’d get pushing the thing around.
Oh, and note how it’s marketed to swap meet and trade fair goers. A bunch who tend to the left side of the political spectrum.
Posted by mythusmage on 2008 01 10 at 06:24 PM • permalink#80,
Yeah, I shop at Aldi too, and like you, I just grab a box, but unlike shopping at Coles or Woolworths where I can just jump on a bus or walk home with a couple of convenient plastic shopping bags, which I always save and recycle, shopping at bag-free Aldi, even though it’s close to home, requires a car!
So much for the environmental consequences ‘eh?1. Landfills are renewable energy source.
2. Someone postulated that a landfill site sufficient for the entire US would be about 35 miles square, but New Mexico was evidently better suited than either of the Dakota. Perhaps (according to the atlas) because the planned transport links ran generally downhill.
Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2008 01 10 at 07:39 PM • permalink#106 Achillea,
Watching what constitutes 70# of large spear careening downhill could be loads of fun.
Posted by mythusmage on 2008 01 11 at 01:59 AM • permalinkAs a part time check out chick, I hate green enviro bags. They are slower to fill up being bigger. So you get complaints that you’re being too slow. People also complain that you’ve over filled them and made them too heavy. (tough, you want the bag, you grow the muscles to lift them)
They are just a big con. People forget to bring them and so keep on buying more and more of them (how dumb are you not to put them in the car boot before you go shopping?)
And really they are just another form of rubbish. How are they environmentally friendly? they’re made of polypropylene (or however you spell it). They don’t break down in landfill. Yet in time the handles break and they split and develop little holes in them. No one is going to spend time repairing these bags, no, they just throw them out and buy another green bag. Soon landfill will be filled with thousands of non-biodegradable enviro bags and we will have made another rubbish problem.
These same people who keep on buying dozens of green bags because they forget to take them shopping also buy groceries without one thought for the excess packaging. I think the reasoning goes like this: “Oh I care about the environement so I’ll buy all these bags but I will also insist on buying 20 little individually packaged tubs of things like yoghurt or baked beans or fruit salad. Excess packaging? What’s that? What do you mean I don’t care about the environment? I do care - I’ve got the green bags!”
Those and the idiots who insist on buying everything organic tick me off. You’re not saving the planet using a green bag, you’re just helping the supermarkets and the bag manufacturers make more money.
And if you can’t remember to put the bags in the car when you go shopping and end up buying more of them - well those people should be put down.
#4 Mehaul. What quirky timing.
Yes if you checked the editorial in this morning’s Australian you would see a section dedicated to this. It states quite clearly that the bulk of plastic supermarket bags are reused at home as rubbish collection bags, replacing plastic bags that would have been purchased for that purpose. Thereby reducing the number of plastic bags in the system.
What aspect of this is it that the green slut Garrett doesn’t understand?
And yes, I will continue to talk to myself until someone gives me an update on the possum ingesting Bryli.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Jon Dee the founder of the environmental group,Planet Ark,suggests we use paper bags instead.That may go some way to controlling the rampant re-afforestation which appears to be occurring as the beneficial consequence of abundant availability of carbon dioxide.It seems that trees will no longer be regarded as sacred.