How Many Times Do You Use The 15c Resusable Bag?

tooblue on 09/07/2018 - 09:39
Last edited 09/07/2018 - 12:02 by 1 other user

But overall, reusable bags need to be used at least 50 times in order for their environmental benefits to be realised. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/war-on-waste-what-bags…

But from the experience in my family, some of bags were already ripped, stretched and had holes after one single use. I haven't put any heavy items or sharp objects yet. Maybe a box of tissue is too sharp for them. I highly doubt these bags are able to sustain 10 uses.

Some other shops simply provide the "same" plastic bags except they are thicker than 35 microns and customers have to pay for them. I also doubt these bags cost more than 15c than the old "single use" bags to the merchants.

It is true that the 15c cost will discourage people from using them but more people still do. As long as one in 50 customers uses it as disposable bag, the benefits to the environment will diminish.

So the result of the bag ban is we the customers now pay more to do more damage to the environment, and merchants and overseas plastic bag suppliers pocket the windfall.

Food & Grocery

Comments

  • sane on 09/07/2018 - 10:11
    +4

    In general the average number of uses of these bags is likely to match, or be less, than their environmental breakeven point. For those 15c bags the breakeven is going to be around 10 times, but so is the average usage (single uses will really hit the average). A cotton bag will last longer, but the breakeven is much greater (in the hundreds of reuses)

    And then you have the bin liners that will have to be bought.

    Cutting the plastic packaging would have had a much bigger impact, but there was a bandwagon to jump on.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 16:28

      How do you measure 'environmental breakeven point'. The OP article is only referencing production cost (and of the 99c bags), which as I understand it, isn't the motivation. Also, I'd struggle to imagine that the 35micron + 15c bags have 10x as much plastic in them as the single-use ones, especially given the minimum thickness of those is about 15 microns.

      You then need to account for the fact that history shows 99% fewer bags get used when retailers start charging, and that bin liners are obviously only containing a fraction of the volume of the purchased goods, so even at 1:1 replacement, there's still less of them.

      The lighter weight plastics are the biggest problem as they blow into rivers and make their way into the ocean. Heavier plastics are still a problem for landfill, but that's not the problem they're trying to solve directly.

      The actual environmental impact of 'creating' plastic bags is basically nil. That's why they were free, they're almost free to make.

      100x for a cotton bag is still not that much, it's mostly in the water usage for the cotton plant. But the disposal basically has no environmental impact.

      • sane on 09/07/2018 - 18:12
        +1

        I called it "environmental breakeven point" because there are a whole set of factors at play. Not only is there the feedstock, but the energy, the water, even the energy needed to transport them (from Germany, natch). Then there is the fact that they will last longer when thrown away, etc. Basically this explains why there are so many different numbers out there.

        In general I agree with your PoV, except :

        The lighter weight plastics are the biggest problem as they blow into rivers and make their way into the ocean.

        Nope, not really.

        I mean, seriously, have you seen the migration of the plastic bags in rivers? The mass ranks of disposable bags sailing majestically past?

        Nope, because it's not really a thing.

        Most of the bags that end up in the sea are taken by people, to the seaside. Usually people from SE Asia if you look at the data. And even then plastics from bags etc. makes up 0.8% of plastic in the ocean. Plastic drink bottles is 5 times as important, and plastic fishing nets and equipment are many times that.

        I'm not saying that there is no environmental impact of plastic bags. I'm saying that it's less important than a whole raft of other things - that should be addressed first.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 20:13
          +2

          I agree, except the 'other things should be addressed first'. You address the things you can most effectively address first, even if they're not the most important. Otherwise, you find yourself doing nothing because you can't fix the most important thing, so you might as well do nothing. This applies to just about everything in life. This was an addressable problem, it has been proven globally, and S.A. has proven it for more than 10 years here. The impact was well known, well studied and proven, and what's more the path to action was easy.

        • abb on 11/07/2018 - 15:04
          -1

          @Bargs: Furthermore, taking one small step might inspire the next step.

    • Lv80 on 14/07/2018 - 19:07

      "And then you have the bin liners that will have to be bought."

      Um no. Bin liners is an option not a necessity. It's a convenience without concern for the consequences. Like buying bottled water, using disposable shavers, straws, and the list goes on.

  • cloudy on 09/07/2018 - 10:30
    +3

    The way to use plastic bags, reusable or not is not to over fill them until they stretch and break. I actually use the single use bags many times over by just placing only a few items in. The ones they sell for 15c are stronger and last better for boxed items that can cut the old bags, so is better.

    But it’s all about how you use them, if you place too much weight in, it’ll break. Like anything else really.

    • ubcool on 12/07/2018 - 07:29

      so buy more ? you dont work for coles do you ?

      • cloudy on 12/07/2018 - 08:59

        Nar, I hate coles

  • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/07/2018 - 10:39

    "But overall, reusable bags need to be used at least 50 times in order for their environmental benefits to be realised. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/war-on-waste-what-bags…

    Fake news!

    • Baysew on 09/07/2018 - 10:41
      +2

      Fake news!

      (Page does not exist)

      So what is the correct number of times?

      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/07/2018 - 10:46
        +2

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZLtcTZP2js

        After seven and a half million years, the super computer Deep Thought finally reveals the ultimate answer to the Universe, the question of life and everything else including the number of times a reusable plastic bag can be used.

        42

      • iforgotmysocks on 09/07/2018 - 12:05
        +2

        (Page does not exist)

        Big plastic has got to the ABC

  • tranter on 09/07/2018 - 10:41
    +1

    How many times do you use the 15c resusable bag?

    .

    But overall, reusable bags need to be used at least 50 times in order for their environmental benefits to be realised. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/war-on-waste-what-bags…

    In your post you are talking about your experience with 15c bags. The overall figure in the study includes the green 99c bags which are much thicker and heavier.

    I haven't got time right now to read it in detail but I'm not sure the study even includes results for 15c reusable Woolies/Coles bags which contain at least 80% recycled material. Keep in mind the study is over 9 years old.

    I'll have a look in more detail later but at the moment I would dispute some of the generalisations being made here.

    • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 10:51
      +4

      I feel like the people wanting the change should've done studies to confirm what they were pushing for would actually benefit the environment before lying to the public that it would, and it's not up to us to find out that they could be lying after it's all been pushed through under a green-tinted haze of marketing bs.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 12:02
        -2

        Yeah.

        https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/4/6496/fi…

        Except… Well. You know they did. And it does.

        The linked article refers to the production cost, not the environmental benefit. It's an old article that runs a line that's all about supermarket profit. It conveniently ignores any environmental benefit not directly related to the cost of production.

        • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 14:00

          Your link: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/4/6496/fi…

          Is a JPG file.

          Why are you linking to a picture?

          Also, from the URL, it seems to be "Deadly Ocean Plastic Threaten Seabirds", which seems like an even narrower scope of environmental impact.

          So no, I'm not sure anyone did their research here.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 14:04

          @HighAndDry: Why would anyone do research when the average Australian apparently won't even click a link

    • Savas on 09/07/2018 - 10:57
      +2

      Even if they are better, the new LDPE bags last longer in landfill. I don't know why the grenies want that so much.

      • Third_Gear on 09/07/2018 - 11:11
        +3

        The ideal solution would have been to kept the bags but just improved upon them to make them more environmentally friendly. I have no issue with paying for a bag here and there when needed to cover that associated cost.

        All we have done is increased their bottom line and made check outs even longer as the staff behind the counter have to deal with random bags being put in front of them.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 12:04
          +4

          They really haven't increased their bottom line long term.

          • People are now more likely to consider their competitors (aka Aldi) who always made you pay for a bag
          • The cost of bags is less than the time saved and increased sales they generated, which is why they were free to start with.
          • People's reusable bags take longer to pack, and so cost more staff time than otherwise.
          • People will bring their own bags once they get used to it and sales of bags will be minimal over time, certainly not enough to make up for even 10.
      • RockyRaccoon on 09/07/2018 - 11:40
        +1

        Paper bags are an alternative. Or are they

        Our Canadian bros seem to have researched this far better than us, and have plastic bag recycling programs

        http://www.allaboutbags.ca/papervplastic.html

      • Diji1 on 09/07/2018 - 12:00
        +4

        don't know why the grenies

        The typical greenie is an ignorant person being lead around by extremists.

        The extremists follow a strategy invented by Paul Watson of Sea Shepard which is delivering lies about whatever your pet project is in a confident an media savvy manner. For example: claiming whalers shot you in international waters or claiming that 1 million people died as a result of Chernobyl.

        You'd think that writing a book claiming that everything you say is made up bullshit to advance your cause would turn people away but as you probably know Sea Shepard is very popular and people swallow the bullshit even after being told that it's purposeful, deliberate bullshit made up to advance an ideology.

    • AnneThrope on 09/07/2018 - 11:05
      +1

      This seems to be a fair summary.

      https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/everyday-shopping/superma…

      Short version; green bags 'win' followed by single-use.
      The figure of '23 uses' is interesting, we've been using ours for years ('00s of uses) and I see no reason they won't last years longer.

      • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 11:56
        +1

        Don't think that that's conclusive. It says:

        and this was comprehensively proven – but only so long as you use it repeatedly over a long period

        Problem is - people haven't shown they'll use the reusable ones over a long period. Even past studies which show normal rates of reuse isn't applicable because the voluntary use of reusable bags in the first place self-selects for people who're more likely to reuse them (otherwise they wouldn't be using reusable bags), and so who are more likely to use them more often or for longer.

        But now because everyone is forced to use reusable bags, this is no longer the case.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 12:08
          +3

          The problem is that 'environmentally friendly' in many of these articles is referring only to the production cost and ignores any benefit from less bags used (due to their larger size and the fewer that are used for 1-2 items). They also ignore how much more easily the lighter bags flow into waterways and get caught in birdlife. And despite that, the reusable green bags still come out on top.

          I mean just look at this

          In 2003, Bunnings introduced a 10c charge per plastic bag, which resulted in a 99% reduction in bag usage over five years. In 2008, it removed plastic bags from its outlets altogether, with reusable bags and cardboard boxes becoming popular replacements.

          99% !!!! That means that even if the reusable bags were 100x worse it would be at worst a wash!

        • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 14:03
          -1

          @Bargs: Okay, great. Show me a study that says the opposite then. Because right now, I see a lot of studies showing that it's bad for the environment, and not many at all showing it's better - despite that being the marketing angle.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 15:13
          +3

          @HighAndDry: How about you back your claim first. I haven't seen even ONE ACTUAL STUDY showing it's bad (on balance) for the environment, even in this very thread, but you claim to have only seen them.

          people haven't shown they'll use the reusable ones over a long period.

          Because that's straight up BS.

          In 2003, Bunnings introduced a 10c charge per plastic bag, which resulted in a 99% reduction in bag usage over five years. In 2008, it removed plastic bags from its outlets altogether, with reusable bags and cardboard boxes becoming popular replacements.

          If you're talking about the recent changes, there hasn't been a 'long period' in the states to recently ban them.

          But you can see the impact in SA:
          https://www.greenindustries.sa.gov.au/literature_165476/Review_of_the_Plastic_Shopping_Bags(Waste_Avoidance)_Act_2008

          however the purchase of bin liners by households has increased from 15% to 80%, increasing some skepticism about the broader environmental benefit of the ban. Any future initiatives should include a focus on changing household bin liner behaviour.

          More than half (56%) of the exit interviewees were supportive of extending the ban to include heavy and thick plastic bags1 , which have a limited lifespan (2.8 months for thicker plastic bags and 5.2 for heavy plastic bags compared with 15.9 for green bags and 17.8 for cotton bags). The Task Force recommended that any extension of the ban should also include further education regarding heavy plastic versus biodegradable, the lifespan of the bags and the impact these choices make on the waste stream.

          less than 1% of the exit interviewees did not own shopping bags.

          Eight in 10 respondents said they kept bags in their car. More than nine in 10 respondents claimed they took their own bags on their last grocery shopping trip, and did not require any store bags.

          Most consumers (65%) were observed to not only take their own bags but also take
          enough bags for their total shop, only a quarter (24%) of consumers purchased bag(s) from the supermarket. A further 11% of consumers purchased so few goods that they did not require a bag.

          (Worth noting here, I even used to use shopping bags as bin liners, but I'd only ever need a tiny fraction of those (given the decreased size of the garbage compared with purchases, so even buying bin liners, there's still less plastic).

          On average respondents own more green bags than any other
          type, however, they are attempting to reuse all types of bags. The perception among shoppers is that green bags last significantly longer than the heavy plastic or thicker plastic bags (15.9 months compared with 5.2 months and 2.8 months respectively).

          Further to this, the supply of shopping bags in general has changed significantly. During observations at a sample of South Australian supermarkets almost 7 out of 10 cases (69%) shoppers were observed to take their own bags. Consumers purchasing a small number of goods and those consumers who were not their household’s primary shopper were more likely to forget bags. Exit interviews indicated that almost half of the respondents always take enough bags for all their groceries. However, the consistency of bag use has fallen with only 31% never forgetting their bags in the 2011 study compared with previous 45% in 2009.

          the percentage of the litter stream consisting of plastic shopping bags has seen
          the biggest decrease in South Australia with 45% decrease from the 2008/09 count to the 2011/12 count

        • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 15:18
          -2

          @Bargs:

          How about you back your claim first.

          The people banning plastic bags are the ones who wanted the change. The onus is on them. Your links really only support my argument that more research should've been done.

          the purchase of bin liners by households has increased from 15% to 80%

          I think I specifically mentioned this.

          More than nine in 10 respondents claimed they took their own bags on their last grocery shopping trip, and did not require any store bags.

          Their last grocery trip, not their last 20 - 50 grocery trips.

          only 31% never forgetting their bags in the 2011 study compared with previous 45% in 2009.

          So between 55% and 69% forget and have to buy bags again?

          the percentage of the litter stream consisting of plastic shopping bags has seen
          the biggest decrease in South Australia with 45% decrease from the 2008/09 count to the 2011/12 count

          This is the strongest argument, and even then it's a question of how much of this is due to the actual ban itself, and how much due to greater public education and consumer awareness. And of course, if this includes the bin liners that an increase from 15% to 80% of people are now buying.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 15:28
          +4

          @HighAndDry: Now they're banned it's you that wants the change.

          Their last grocery trip, not their last 20 - 50 grocery trips.

          What? I mean, statistics being statistics that % would be the same… You can ask 10000 people once about their last shop or you can ask 500 people about their last 20 times and a perfect recollection would lead to the same statistic. But people would forget that time they purchased one 19 trips ago if you tried. So using this measure is worst-case for plastic bag usage.

          So between 55% and 69% forget and have to buy bags again?

          Sorry, you might have missed the word NEVER FORGET. They can buy one that time they forget, or just carry the items in their hands. They might not forget for a decade, but they forget once, they'll show in that statistic.

          This is the strongest argument, and even then it's a question of how much of this is due to the actual ban itself, and how much due to greater public education and consumer awareness. And of course, if this includes the bin liners that an increase from 15% to 80% of people are now buying.

          Seriously, I included both sides for balance, but you just cherry pick what you want. You can't seriously believe the volume of bin liners that people put WASTE into matches the volume of shopping bags people would obtain with goods in them?

          The education has been pretty consistent nationwide, but SA moved fist on the ban.

          Waste stream data from Keep Australia Beautiful (KAB) yearly litter count indicates a significant 45% decrease in the percentage of lightweight single-use plastic shopping bags contributing to the litter stream in South Australia, **a big improvement compared to the other Australian states and territories **

          If you want to believe in some big conspiracy, at this point I'll let you. Believe me and reality or be unhappy and don't. Your choice.

        • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 15:31
          -4

          @Bargs:

          You can ask 10000 people once about their last shop or you can ask 500 people about their last 20 times and a perfect recollection would lead to the same statistic.

          Hahahah this is so wrong I'm not sure where to begin. But I do know not to argue with it.

          In any case, it's not a conspiracy. Supermarkets saw a way to save money by not having to provide plastic bags, and to make more money by selling them. Seems pretty straight forward, but you do you.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 22:31
          +1

          @Bargs: Bunnings is a unique scenario.. it is not an analogue for grocery shopping.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 22:46

          @lghulm: You're right, it's only a 90% reduction in bags for grocery shopping in other markets compared with 99% (now 100%) for Bunnings.

  • reunig on 09/07/2018 - 11:26
    +1

    Personally, these 15c bags are crap. I personally prefer the bit more expensive hessian ones (about $3) as they don't break. Well worth the investment as they are washable as well. I find the thicker plastic ones (even the $3 ones) break down in the sun (I leave them in my car boot).

    • Ryanek on 09/07/2018 - 13:21
      +2

      Those hessian bags have to be used 100+ times just to equal its environmental impact. It takes a lot of resources to make those.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 13:58

      I have this type: https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/855402522943616295/

      Been using them about 7 years with no break down.

  • bobbified on 09/07/2018 - 11:47
    +3

    The handles on those $0.15 bags suck.

    I use them to bring home whatever I've bought, then use it as a rubbish bag.

  • petry on 09/07/2018 - 12:25
    +5

    whats the point of this thread without any mention of the profits supermarkets make?

    what are the big profit makers doing for the environment? They're saving on giving away single use bags which were made for single use to save them money. If they'd have made them thicker they would have been reusable and not caused a big chunk of the problem in the first place.

    Having saved money by supplying the lowest quality they're now saving MORE money by not supplying them at all, and charging an inflated price for reusables.

    Nothing to do with the environment, just a pretence, while they make more money.

    And there's no more staff so you have to wait longer to be gouged. The real problem in the world is the media -essentially its a big bag of pus dripping shit that people soak up. End product is crap like this.

    • tranter on 09/07/2018 - 15:15
      +1

      You are exactly right. People should be addressing the real ways the big supermarkets are ripping off consumers, and it has been happening for decades, long before the ban of single use plastic bags.

      People are just getting on the bandwagon with this particular issue for whatever reason, but it's pretty insignificant compared to the real profit making machines.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 15:19

      Well, they're giving away the thicker ones at the moment and the reason they gave away any bags in the first place was to reduce the friction of sales. Something this ban is going to increase again. They won't make that back. The problem wasn't the thickness, the problem was that they were free. People use less of something they have to pay for / reuse to avoid paying again. Meanwhile, it slows down checkouts and costs supermarkets in terms of impulse buys and packing speed / loss to competitors who had already not supplied bags.

      Single-use bags cost a fraction of a cent each, they're not saving any real money here, not as a % of sales.

      • petry on 09/07/2018 - 17:49

        sorry but the big 2 could have used green publicity stuff to reduce single use bags numbers by subbing in reusable in ad campaigns and promos - scan the bag to earn 2x points etc. not a drama for the size of profits and good publicity. Current moronic single use ban just demonstrates ozzie meanness and stupidity. much like the new import tax crap.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 20:31

          Right, but in most states the big 2 are only enacting this because they'll get fined a little over $6000 per bag they give away or sell that's under 35 microns thick. So for them, it's about complying with the law and not getting fined out of business. The environmental benefit is secondary since most Australians support the ban, and their representatives are the ones that enacted it…

  • Tech5 on 09/07/2018 - 13:00
    -2

    I dont know what kind of bag will last 50 uses. It is ridiculous

    • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 15:15
      +4

      Literally been using a bag for over a decade. Hundreds of uses. Even if it were only 50, they can be recycled, and the 50 uses figure only takes into account the production cost, not the disposal cost / environmental impact of disposing of light weight plastic bags.

      • dogboy on 09/07/2018 - 15:46
        +3

        I agree. I think this whole bag thing just shows how many people in modern society are completely useless and inept. It is a pretty sorry reflection on human society and intelligence in this country.

        • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 15:48
          -2

          Funny, I think the exact same thing of people who're falling hook, line and sinker for the marketing BS from the supermarkets.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 16:02

          There's not many of them, but boy they are noisy.

          They seem to ignore the fact that the big supermarkets lobbied against this change for years before realising they were on the wrong side of history, and are only 'now' pretending they want the ban. It kills one of their main points of difference with the likes of Aldi in a move that will cost them millions once people get used to taking their own bags.

      • Tech5 on 09/07/2018 - 18:57
        +2

        Are we talking about the same 15c bag reusable bag from coles? The one that leaked all over my floor last night from holes appearing after using it for shopping once, then as a garbage bag?

        Or are we talking about the bag that spilt groceries all over the woolworths parking lot, after I used it to bag my groceries 5minutes earlier for the first time?

        Or are we talking about the one with one handle detached from carrying 4 litres of juice?

        Please be more specific

        P:S. My question of what bag lasts for 50 uses, refers to the 15c tougher plastic ones that coles and woolies use.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 20:19
          +2

          Right, but the OP article references a break even point of 50 uses and it's not talking about the 15c bags. I wouldn't buy the 15c bags, those are a lazy tax and not an effective cost per use. Reckon you've overstuffed the 15c bag though, maybe spring for a second if you go that route. Or just buy some better quality ones elsewhere and leave them in your car, then you can never forget.

    • dazweeja on 09/07/2018 - 17:24
      +4

      Literally every single green bag I've owned has lasted more than 50 uses.

  • jm48 on 09/07/2018 - 13:23

    I am skeptical about how much marine wildlife is killed by Australian plastic shopping bags.
    Green researchers will get the results they are desperate to find.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 16:21

      It is honestly not that much in Australia, but I'm unsure of where we should set the threshold, how much wildlife do we need to kill before it becomes worth a short-term mild inconvenience? Just curious as to what level is acceptable.

      Of course, globally plastics in the ocean are a huge problem which has started affecting the food chain the point that humans might actually suffer negative effects from eating certain types of fish etc. So I guess maybe that's a good enough reason?

      • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 22:36
        -3

        The number one greatest environmental benefit that can be delivered by Australians, in order of 10x10 to the power 10, is limiting immigration. Oh whats that? The Greens and Labor (the environmental champions) support the highest levels of immigration to Australia of all parties and hence deliver multiples worse environmental impact than every other policy decision or party?

        But 'muh plastic bags'. Learn when you are being treated like an idiot.

        Taking immigrants from developing to first world significantly increases the environmental impact of those that relocate (& their offspring).
        Failing to make over-populated places deal with their over-population allows the same places to keep over-populating (to the environments destruction).

        No-one has a right to make ANY comment about caring for the environment if they are in favour of mass immigration which precludes 90% of the people that call themselves environmental advocates from having anything intelligent to say. Exception for Bob Brown (from back when the Greens were a low population party), Dick Smith & Sustainable Australia.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/07/2018 - 15:09

          I keep forgetting that the environment in Australia is separate and apart from the global environment and they don't affect each other in any way.

          Thank god that's the case, and the best way to solve all our environmental problems is to all go back to being subsistence farmers. No profits for supermarkets in that case either!

          If you want to decrease population growth the best way is to increase income, regardless of religion, increasing the average income to even only $15,000 P.A. shows a massive drop in population growth.

          In any case, the world population is likely to peak at 10bn even if no one does any more than they're currently doing. At the moment population growth is largely because of the boomer generation combined with their longer life expectancy.

          Very very few of our immigrants come from the developing world, you just notice them more because they often have a different skin colour.

    • syousef on 10/07/2018 - 19:24

      There are actually vast vortexes of floating garbage in the ocean that are well documented. It is a real problem. This is not the solution, just a money grab.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 13:32
    +1

    I use it twice. Once for groceries. Second as a rubbish bin bag.

    • releasethekr4cken on 10/07/2018 - 11:16
      +3

      I think the government has done everyone a favour. I used to go to the shops once a week and get 8 bags worth of stuff. I'd get home and inspect each bag to find the 1 (sometimes there wasn't even 1) without a hole that could be potentially re-used as a small bin liner. The other 7 then went straight into said bin liner if I had one, or all 8 would go in the proper sized bin liner I bought from Bunnings on a 150 roll that cost around about nothing. A year ago I got 4 of the green bags. Never a snapped handle, never a hole, just a mild inconvenience when I was dumb enough to forget them. I punished myself by buying additional bags or turning around (if you don't have time to go back you're booking yourself too tightly)

      • syousef on 10/07/2018 - 19:27
        -3

        A year ago I got 4 of the green bags. Never a snapped handle, never a hole

        A likely story. You're either a statistical outlier or a liar period.

        if you don't have time to go back you're booking yourself too tightly

        Walk a kilometer in someone else's shoes before saying that. It's deeply offensive. I know people raising children with disabilities that work tirelessly. Just because your life can accommodate turning around for shopping bags, it doesn't give you the right to judge others.

  • ESEMCE on 09/07/2018 - 14:12
    +11

    Can't really comment on the 15c bags…
    But our Green Bags, the woven polypropylene "hessian" bags have been used hundreds of times over our many years of bag ban in SA (just looked it up, we've been doing this for more than 9 years now! 04 May 2009…)

    They get used not just for shopping trips (ie a minimum of 52 times a year - probably more), but also for moving house, and taking games, food and clothing/bathers/towels to parties/BBQ's.

    It's really not a problem past the first 3 months when you haven't learned the habit of grabbing bags from the house/car before going shopping.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/07/2018 - 07:16

      100% agree, I don’t know why everyone is acting like giant whiny babies about this.

      And the umbrage at the supermarket for charging for a bag! Here’s an idea is you’re so against their “profiteering” then make your own cloth bag, take it or buy a more durable bag somewhere else, or drink a backpack from home.

      No one is being forced to buy a 15c bag!

    • rlay3 on 12/07/2018 - 23:17

      +1 for the most reasonable comment I've read on this topic so far.

    • Savas on 13/07/2018 - 08:17

      I don't think what you're doing is bad for the environment. The problem is people buying the 15 cent bags

  • worker on 09/07/2018 - 14:15

    I’ll use them once just like the single use bags, they will become an environmental disaster!!!!

  • nobarginsarehere on 09/07/2018 - 14:38
    +1

    waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa change is hard waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 14:41

      Change is fine. Change for no reason except to line supermarkets' pockets is stupid. People like you championing this rip-off are worse.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 15:14
        -1

        The facts would disagree with you.

        • tranter on 09/07/2018 - 15:21

          Fake news didn't you know.

        • HighAndDry on 10/07/2018 - 11:20

          You're the person who linked to a photo of a seagull when I was asking for a study to back up your claims. You got no credibility anymore with me mate.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/07/2018 - 07:17

        So don’t buy them from the supermarket, it’s not that hard!

        Bring your own bag from anywhere else you’d like to buy/make it.

  • Neptunesblood on 09/07/2018 - 15:34
    +5

    People are pathetic.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 15:42
    +1

    Personally, I don't care about the environment, I just use the 99c ones because they're easier and more comfortable to carry large amounts of groceries in. I bought like 20 of them 4 years ago and have been using them ever since.

    It was helpful doing this years ahead of when they were obviously going to be banned because now taking them has become automatic, I never forget, keep a heap in the car, and it has absolutely zero downsides at all.

  • dogboy on 09/07/2018 - 15:44
    +5

    Have been using the material bags for 5+ years now. The bags are still in reasonable condition and can perform their function. Have only had maybe 2 bags where the handle has broken or the stitching come apart. Can't understand why this is so hard for people to adapt to.

    • subywagon on 09/07/2018 - 23:33

      I know it's crazy. It was annoying at first as we weren't used to the ban down here in Tassie years ago and would often forget bags but we just grabbed empty boxes of the shelf instead of buying bags. We now always use cloth bags and have been using the same ones for years. They sound like a bunch of self entitled brats. The whole world is laughing at their meltdowns and unfortunately we are grouped in with them as Australians. It's embarrassing.

  • Shwayne on 09/07/2018 - 16:27

    Just buy garbage bags at Woolworths when you shop, and after paying for everything, take one garbage bag out and use it to carry all your shopping. Then you can reuse it as a garbage bag, and you've saved 15c and reduced your impact.

    (Unless you used the free plastic bags as bin liners anyway like most people.)

    • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 16:30

      I always had a problem where I'd use the free plastic bags as bin liners, but I'd end up with 75% of the bags left over after doing that, so I'd need another free plastic bag to store my free bag rubbish in.

      • Shwayne on 09/07/2018 - 17:25

        Lucky you cached a lifetime of plastic bags for the rest of your life post ban. :)

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 18:07

          The 'single use' ones degrade into a million small pieces after 6-12 months in the cupboard so it's not really practical to save them. Luckily I saw the ban coming so I've changed my behaviour so that I don't need them anymore. All without giving the supermarkets a cent more. (I bought reusable ones from ebay).

  • Lockieasy on 09/07/2018 - 16:32
    +3

    I've used my two 15c bags almost 10 times now and they're still going strong. Maybe you need to address the fact that you're apparently unable to use a bag correctly.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 19:46
      -1

      I assume they place them over their heads until the lack of oxygen kills their brain cells.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 17:04
    +4

    No idea why people don't just buy the $2 hessian bags. More comfortable to use, difficult to break, and are handy outside of shopping. Where is the benefit in not adopting something that is better for the environment and more comfortable for the end user?

    • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 17:05

      Because it's not better for the environment, and people are now endlessly defending the right of the supermarkets to rip us off.

      • dazweeja on 09/07/2018 - 17:22

        It is clearly better for the environment in terms of pollution of the ocean and waterways. Whatever it's also better for the environment in terms of energy and resource use depends on how long they last. I personally think 50-100 uses is at the low end of a useful lifespan fore these bags. I have some that are more than a decade old and I expect them to last for a decade more. In fact, I've never had one break.

        • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 17:24

          I have some that are more than a decade old and I expect them to last for a decade more. In fact, I've never had one break.

          You're a complete outlier. The people who use disposable bags, and are now forced to buy them, are not you - or the type of person to keep, save, and reuse the one bag year after year.

          The rest is all conjecture, and if others are to be believed won't make a jot of difference to waterways because it's not a big issue in Australia to begin with.

        • dazweeja on 09/07/2018 - 17:26
          +6

          @HighAndDry:

          People like me will become the norm, once they stop whinging and accept it. Besides, there seems to be a lot of "outliers" in this thread.

          And we already know that the average Australian has no trouble adapting to this. You only have to go to an Aldi. I've literally only ever seen a person buy a 15c plastic bag there once.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 22:41

          @dazweeja: Majority of shoppers do not shop at Aldi, the absence of bags being one of the major reasons (now defunct).

          In terms of believing it reduces rubbish in the environment ignores impact from increased lose rubbish in the street (from bins knocked over now overfilled with rubbish), additional detergents in the waterways (from additional bin cleaning), and the longer lifespan in the wild of bags that do make it into the environment.

          None of the studies of the impact of bags take into account elements like detergents, they are deficient environmental studies.

          The benefits are marginal at best.

        • HighAndDry on 10/07/2018 - 11:22

          @dazweeja:

          People like me will become the norm

          What? No they won't. There's a ban on disposable plastic bags. There isn't a law forcing people to be environmentally conscious and reuse non-disposable bags.

        • releasethekr4cken on 10/07/2018 - 11:23

          @lghulm: So. If a free coles plastic bags has a hole in it, you won't clean your bin? I rarely got a coles bag that didn't have a hole in it.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 17:31
        +1

        What makes you think that a hessian bag used 100+ times is worse for the environment than 100 plastic bags? like actual evidence, not anti-capitalist conspiracy nonsense.

        • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 17:33

          Right. Which supermarket that just stopped giving out disposable plastic bags is selling hessian bags instead?

          More to the point - what stopped you from using hessian bags even without bag ban?

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 17:35
          +1

          Which supermarket that just stopped giving out disposable plastic bags is selling hessian bags instead?

          I have no idea. I bought hessian bags to carry my shopping years ago.

          More to the point - what stopped you from using hessian bags even without bag ban?

          See above.

          Environmentalism is a great thing. No idea why are so threatened by it. You know you can use any re-usable bag, right? Doesn't have to be one you buy from a supermarket. Make your own out of old sheets.

        • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 17:48

          @Cubist:

          I have no idea. I bought hessian bags to carry my shopping years ago.

          I mean that's kind of my point. People could do this even without plastic bags being banned. People still aren't going to do this with the bag ban (because they'll be buying the $1 or 15c plastic bags).

          It's not as if I'm anti-environmentalist. I reuse my disposable shopping bags as bin liners, and have a collection of them (I don't throw them out). I don't buy bin-liners, which are effectively plastic bags. My use of disposable plastic shopping bags nets out to zero, because if I didn't have them, I'd have to buy bin liners.

          I'm anti-(big companies using the environment as an excuse to rip me off and people falling for it). I'm not "threatened" by it, it just annoys me.

          Also - what's with people trying to act all superior to others? Does it really make you feel that much better? According to others, I'm stupid (because I apparently can't carry around a bag), lazy (same reason), threatened (because… bags?), afraid of change… anything except maybe I'm just annoyed and have a reason to be.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 18:03
          +1

          @HighAndDry:

          People still aren't going to do this with the bag ban (because they'll be buying the $1 or 15c plastic bags).

          Citation needed.

          Nobody is forcing you to purchase plastic bags. If you still want them, then pay for them. Why do you think you are entitled to receive them for free? If you want a bin liner, pay for a bin liner. I guess the only thing more ridiculous that being steadfast in a flawed behaviour is paying for the privilege to do so.

        • HighAndDry on 10/07/2018 - 11:23

          @Cubist:

          Citation needed.

          No citation needed, because if they were going to do this, nothing was stopping them before. There was no ban on non-disposable, reusable bags.

          Why do you think you are entitled to receive them for free?

          I don't think I'm entitled to them for free. If the supermarkets were being honest and said "Screw this, we want to save money giving out bags and make money selling them", I'd deal with it. But people buying their BS about "Oh, we're selling plastic bags to help the environment? Com'on now.

        • releasethekr4cken on 10/07/2018 - 11:26

          @HighAndDry: IGA, Coles, Woolworths. I bought these bags before the ban came in, I doubt theyve stopped selling them now. Also have some random ones from Liquorland, sketchers I think there is a lulu lemon one. I have a drawer full now.

        • HighAndDry on 10/07/2018 - 11:27

          @releasethekr4cken: Yeah, except now they've convinced the government to make buying these bags basically required for 90% of the population. You don't think their reusable bag sales have gone up since the bag ban?

          Look, it's really really simple. If they wanted to help the environment - and if people wanted to help the environment too - they'd be able to do this without spending millions lobbying the government for a freaking law change.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/07/2018 - 13:25
          +1

          @HighAndDry:

          If they were going to do this, nothing was stopping them before.

          There was nothing to discourage people from not adopting re-usable bags though. Now there is. You can't compare the two scenarios.

          You can't criticise others arguments for being anecdotal when your own arguments are the same. I mean granted other people aren't bolding the important words, but that doesn't make their argument any less valid.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2018 - 18:07

        Buy the bags from somewhere else. I got mine from ebay (mostly because I don't want to be a walking billboard). You don't have to give the supermarkets a cent more.

  • Godric on 09/07/2018 - 17:09

    Well @ work when I head over for a shop I'm always rebuying the bag then disposing of it..

  • dazweeja on 09/07/2018 - 17:18
    +1

    There is an assumption that people will go out and buy new green bags to use instead of the single-use ones, and the environmental impact is calculated based on that.

    However every person I've asked already own a few of the green bags but often forget to bring them to the supermarket. For these people - assuming they now remember to bring them - the environmental benefit is far more positive from this change.

    Clearly I'm only talking about anecdotal evidence here but I genuinely wonder how many Australians fall into this category.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join