@Neville Telen - the answer is to use cloth bags, we use them, last years The company I mentioned that give out paper bags, with handles - are renowned for the use of these bags, we have two of them, still going strong. The company would soon be found out if they were not the real deal.
I compost, I try not to pollute, and I don't clearcut all the trees on my land because I appreciate the wildlife that lives there, but I have very little respect for environmental campaigns. They are usually based on BS. At the top, they are promoted by powerful people who want more power over everyone else and by governments who want the same, as well as more of your money. At the bottom, they are promoted by people who can't see through the BS or who are mostly interested in the feel-good aspect. It makes them feel good to drive an electric car despite the fact that the production of the batteries that power their cars and the electricity that charges these batteries are more polluting than the gasoline that the rest of use to power our cars. Relating this to the topic of this thread, much of the overuse of plastic that we're seeing today was promoted by people who were interested in saving trees, as that was the feel-good agenda of that day. The push to replace paper and wood products with plastic was BS, but that didn't matter to those who felt good about saving trees.
Rather than save all .the trees, I wish they would figure out a way to selectively harvest the totally useless, fast growing, invasive ones, like water oaks. They are taking over the forests here in the south, crowding out the slower growing oaks and hickories.
It seems like that only happens when petroleum prices skyrocket. We have a university research farm on the outskirts of the city that was experimenting with fast-growing willows to be used in the manufacture of pellets for wood stoves. When petroleum prices normalized everything stopped but the willows, they continue to grow into a wild jungle.
I agree. The idea of consumers spending money to save the environment seems odd when often the best thing that you can do for the environment is to spend less, use less and reuse the things that you have. It also makes me a little skeptical when people like Al Gore tell me to tighten my belt and reduce my energy consumption in my little apartment when he has several homes including this one. "If something doesn't make sense follow the money." - Carol Wain
I'd agree. I suspect a good 75% of laws the Nannyites pass are either "feel-good" BS-based, or at the least, not well thought out concerning the short and long term consequences. The law forcing me to be a garbage picker turned me from being at least semi-sympathetic to recycling, to one who now actively seeks new and interesting ways to monkeywrench this scheme. The 'three-strikes law' sounded good on paper, but not being well written, this law does a lot more harm than good. As for paper recycling, I already gave enough links to cast doubt, but here's a few more: http://www.allaboutbags.ca/papervplastic.html https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/paper-plastic1.htm https://medium.com/stanford-magazin...h-which-kind-of-bag-should-i-use-c4039575f3f1 https://www.wired.com/2016/06/banning-plastic-bags-great-world-right-not-fast/ Bottom line being there is no ideal solution, irregardless of what the idealists would have one believe. It's a matter of personal choice, and whether paper, plastic or cloth is chosen.....there will be future consequences, as none of these choices is the right choice.
The rule of "Unintended Consequences" often rears its ugly head, especially with legislation pushed by a Liberal/Progressive agenda