this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
265 points (97.5% liked)

News

36000 readers
2376 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It was a decade ago when California became the first state in the nation to ban single-use plastic bags, ushering in a wave of anti-plastic legislation from coast to coast.

But in the years after California seemingly kicked its plastic grocery sack habit, material recovery facilities and environmental activists noticed a peculiar trend: Plastic bag waste by weight was increasing to unprecedented levels.

According to a report by the consumer advocacy group CALPIRG, 157,385 tons of plastic bag waste was discarded in California the year the law was passed. By 2022, however, the tonnage of discarded plastic bags had skyrocketed to 231,072 — a 47% jump. Even accounting for an increase in population, the number rose from 4.08 tons per 1,000 people in 2014 to 5.89 tons per 1,000 people in 2022.

The problem, it turns out, was a section of the law that allowed grocery stores and large retailers to provide thicker, heavier-weight plastic bags to customers for the price of a dime.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 125 points 2 years ago (3 children)

That is such an idiotic loophole there is no way in hell it wasn't bought by lobbyists

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 49 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The whole scheme is a farce designed to take what was once complimentary and turn it into a highly profitable side business. It's the same the world over.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I refuse to buy into the scam u can now find me balancing my groceries intop of eavhother as i try navugate from my car to my kitchen. Yes i know i could use a reusable bag but i always forget.

[–] ArtieShaw@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago

What made the difference for me was buying a really nice reusable bag. There's a brand called Flip and Tumble. They'll hold an absurd amount of stuff (something like 35lbs, if I remember correctly) and fold down into something smaller than a tennis ball. I keep two in the bottom of my purse and never need a bag. They are expensive (about $18 US), but I've had mine for almost 15 years.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 4 points 2 years ago

You & me both. Yes I have a few in the car. No I'm not going back to get it. I'll probably make it without dropping something.

Its just a small, unnecessary moment of tension in my day. And its mine.

[–] Tregetour 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The fillip to retailers is incidental I suspect. The aim of plastic manufacturers when they engage in the lawmaking process is probably safeguarding their ability to produce plastic at an uninterrupted level. They're happy to reduce total units provided the units are heavier. The environmental impact doesn't matter: government and industry will continue forcing the recycling meme so it looks as though the conservation angle is covered. Once their part of the problem is solved, the problem no longer exists :^)

[–] lps2@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 years ago (3 children)

You described most CA laws - don't get me started on CARB and how is just pushing us toward bigger, less efficient cars while killing innovation by smaller engineering shops

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'ma have to get you started. Explain yourself.

[–] lps2@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It has virtually nothing to do with emissions (as if it did, they would just hook up a sniffer to test and be fine)- instead there are blanket bans on any modification not from Edelbrock or a s couple others unless those companies pay exorbitant fees to be "CARB-approved" which has snuffed out innovation from smaller machine shops. And the loopholes are what has driven cars to be bigger and not more fuel efficient

[–] userflairoptional@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago

I'ma second. This is officiallly unofficial permission to begin your dissertation on unforeseen consequences. I'm here for this.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

As the asker of the question and someone who is vaguely interested in maybe one day getting into hot rod building to have an electric that doesn't have those blasted touch screens, by all means, get started on it.