• expired

Woolworths Reusable Carry Bag $0.50 (Was $0.99) @ Woolworths

3220

I personally find these much better to use than the plastic reusable bags.

Side note. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't ever recall seeing these on special before!

Enjoy.

Introducing the Bag for good™.
We’ve launched a new reusable bag in our stores called the Bag for good™. It’s yours to use again and again, and if it ever gets damaged, we’ll replace it for free no matter when you bought it from us. Simply bring your damaged bag to the Customer Service desk in any of our stores and we’ll swap it for a new one. We’ll even recycle your old one so it can keep doing good.

And the good this bag can do doesn’t stop there. Any money we make from the sale of the Bag for good™ in the next 12 months, will fund the Woolworths Junior Landcare Grants Program, encouraging young Australians to play an active role in ensuring the sustainable future of their environment.

So it really is a bag for good, and for good. Get yours in store today.

Related deal: WW Bag for Good

Related Stores

Woolworths
Woolworths

Comments

  • They refuse to replace ours.(Woolworths Balaclava)

  • You say grocery bag, I say grow bag that can be replaced in 2 years after the plant has outgrown it.

  • Have reguarly seen bags on sale in SA over the years

  • I can’t believe it’s 2020 and we still see people shopping every week with trolleys full of groceries in the 15cent bags. Personally I’d like to see them charge $1 to de-incentive people’s lazy habits and use these bags advertised.

    • +45 votes

      I can’t believe it’s 2020 and we still see people shopping every week with trolleys full of groceries in the 15cent bags.

      How do you know that isn't the 20th time they're using it?

      • Yep. I normally take the heavier duty Coles reusable bags for my regular shopping but I keep a couple of the reusable plastic ones in the backpack I take to work just in case I have to grab something on the way home and don't want to go home first.

      • And how do you know they don't disintegrate after a while? They were saying reusable bags may not be better for the environment after all, because you can make single plastic bags that are much better for the environment than reusable ones.

        This plastic bag ban is just the tip of the iceberg, but it made people feel good to look like they were doing good for the environment. If you look under the surface there's still tons of plastic thrown out.

        • +1 vote

          And how do you know they don't disintegrate after a while?

          What do you mean? These bags have been around for a while now.

          I still have the bags I got when they first introduced it. I used to have a grey bag problem where I'd have heaps of the old thin ones lying around, which I always end up throwing away as I don't have enough uses for them.

          Ever since the switch, I haven't thrown away a single reusable bag. I have about ten which I rotate around, and none of them have been damaged so far. I'm confident that I've surpassed the breakeven point where my 10 bags is way less plastic than the number of single-use bags I'd normally throw away in a year, and those 10 bags are still going strong.

          because you can make single plastic bags that are much better for the environment than reusable ones.

          Like these biodegradable bags?

          If you look under the surface there's still tons of plastic thrown out.

          Does that mean we shouldn't bother making any effort at all?

          • @eug:

            What do you mean? These bags have been around for a while now.

            I meant single use bags.

            I can't be bothered now to look for it, but when this was in full motion they did research and found it's not all as it seems, which is that reusable bags may not be better.

            Like these biodegradable bags(abc.net.au)?

            Those are just one type. As I said, I can't be bothered to look for it, since it won't make any difference. They won't suddenly reintroduce plastic bags because I put it here.

            Does that mean we shouldn't bother making any effort at all?

            No, what I am saying is that it all starts with a big bang and then dies out. Humans really do bugger all to help environment. This was easy, because it is just a bit of inconvenience and made people feel good. But, in reality this is like throwing a piece of trash in a bin while there is a mountain behind.

            • +1 vote

              @bargainparker:

              I can't be bothered now to look for it, but when this was in full motion they did research and found it's not all as it seems, which is that reusable bags may not be better.

              Might be worth finding out who "they" are. Not everything online is true, and it's always easy to cherry-pick.

              No, what I am saying is that it all starts with a big bang and then dies out.

              What else is there to say? We were throwing away a lot of plastic bags, now we're throwing away far, far less. The rules are already set in place, so this is the new 'normal'. Time to move on to other things.

              Humans really do bugger all to help environment. This was easy, because it is just a bit of inconvenience and made people feel good.

              Do you think it has not made any difference at all?

              • @eug:

                Might be worth finding out who "they" are. Not everything online is true, and it's always easy to cherry-pick.

                Understand that and as i said won't look into it as it won't make any difference. Shops aren't going to reintroduce bags.

                Time to move on to other things.

                I am not seeing those new things, only queues for maccas.

                Do you think it has not made any difference at all?
                If you think that patching a small hole made a difference while there's still a huge gaping hole about no one is doing anything and the ship is still sinking, albeit a little bit slower, then believe it. The ship will still sink. As I said, people are happy to do something that will make them feel good when it is only a bit of an inconvenience, but let's go for major things and there's nobody around. And this is not speaking from hearing from others, but been there, done that. people are happy to talk the talk, but nowhere to be seen for walk the walk.

                • @bargainparker:

                  If you think that patching a small hole made a difference while there's still a huge gaping hole about no one is doing anything and the ship is still sinking, albeit a little bit slower, then believe it.

                  Out of 4 billion plastic bags, lets say 50% of the population actually reused them as bin liners.

                  That's still 2 billion bags being thrown away.

                  In 10 years time, that'd be 20-30 billion bags.

                  I'd say that's something.

                  The ship will still sink.

                  It certainly will if nobody bothers to start somewhere. :)

                  As I said, people are happy to do something that will make them feel good when it is only a bit of an inconvenience, but let's go for major things and there's nobody around.

                  So you think because it's difficult to get people to make big changes, don't even bother starting with small changes. Just throw your hands up in the air and give up?

                  And this is not speaking from hearing from others, but been there, done that. people are happy to talk the talk, but nowhere to be seen for walk the walk.

                  Big changes will never happen on a large scale in an instant - it can take generations. But it has to start somewhere. With the right guidance, kids today would be a little bit more conscious of waste with the small measures we take today. Then when it's their turn, they might take another step and reduce or eliminate some other form of pollution. In a few generations time, the sinking ship could be floating high again. You just have to keep your mind open and not just fixate on the 1 thing at hand.

                  • @eug:

                    So you think because it's difficult to get people to make big changes, don't even bother starting with small changes. Just throw your hands up in the air and give up?

                    I did that, because as I said, been there, done that. Humans are destroying this world ever more. This doesn't mean that I just toss everything over, wherever. I still take care what I do with waste and try to minimize it. But, I certainly won't go to the front row, because I've seen so many times that you end up to be the only one in that front row. Humans can't see forward. To them a future generation means nothing, even though once they were that future generation.

                    If you want a major change, then humans have to stop waiting on politicians and companies to do something. You are an individual, but you are part of the society. It is the society that has to act. But as it is, everyone waits for someone else to take the responsibility.

                    The world has to drastically change, but that also involves a major inconvenience. A few are prepared to accept that. There was once, to make them quiet, give them bread and circuses. It is so more true nowadays. Even with all the information, technology, it is still bread and circuses.

                    Almost 30 years ago Severn Cullis-Suzuk addressed the world leaders, and here we are, polluting even more. Greta Thunberg thinks she's doing something, but is just a puppet. Well, if you think that saving a few trees from fire is something while there is amazon forest burning, good on you. Keep going.

                    As I said this is peanuts.

                    • +3 votes

                      @bargainparker:

                      Humans can't see forward. To them a future generation means nothing, even though once they were that future generation.

                      Don't you think all the small steps we've taken in the past have helped? What if Australia never passed the Clean Air Act in 1961 and factories were happily spewing smoke out? What if backyard burning was still legal? What if CFCs were never outlawed? What if nobody bothered to compel car manufacturers to reduce harmful exhaust emissions?

                      In all those cases somebody did something. People were inconvenienced - it's easier to burn all those branches and leaves in your backyard than it is to drive it to the tip. But today, it's almost unthinkable to do that in a regular suburb.

                      Big changes can take decades - look at how long it took for backyard burning to change from just something you do on the weekend to "don't be silly, it'll pollute the air". It has to start somewhere - even from peanuts.

                      Almost 30 years ago Severn Cullis-Suzuk addressed the world leaders, and here we are, polluting even more.

                      You have to realize that if nothing was done 30 years ago, we'd be in much worse shape. Factories would be belching out smoke, car emissions would be far worse, open burning would still be going on, the ozone hole would have spread, etc. You shouldn't just fixate on the negative. Pollution is still going on, but it would be much worse if nothing was done earlier.

                      • @eug:

                        Don't you think all the small steps we've taken in the past have helped?

                        Now tell me, sure the world was a lot smaller then than it is now, and I agree, it helped. But, can you tell me by how much? I mean how much was the planet helped? People are talking about politicians to do fight the climate change. In reality, let's say that Australia makes 0% pollution in any way. You still have 7 billion more people. And that is just a drop in the ocean, which is pretty much nothing.

                        As I said, if people are serious about this planet, then this needs to be a coordinated action, not a few backyard boys, because at the end, you might get the praise, but at what cost. Like your small patches which on the surface look good. Well, they don't. Fix that huge gaping hole, and we'll easily take care of those small holes.

                        You have to realize that if nothing was done 30 years ago, we'd be in much worse shape.

                        No, we wouldn't. Australia as a whole really don't make that much pollution. You have 7 billion people vs. 27 million, less then, but you get the drift. Look at China, only ~1 billion people. Everyone is happy to buy cheap goods from China, yet forget how much it cost the earth. And they found those ozone depleting chemicals are still being released in China.

                        • -1 vote

                          @bargainparker:

                          But, can you tell me by how much? I mean how much was the planet helped?

                          There's plenty of data out there - just look for projections that were made when the changes were done. You should do your own research if you're actually interested, but as an example, look at the two graphs relating to the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer before and after the adoption of the Montreal Protocol. We all know about curves now - where do you think the line would be if nothing was done in 1987?

                          In reality, let's say that Australia makes 0% pollution in any way. You still have 7 billion more people. And that is just a drop in the ocean, which is pretty much nothing.

                          Maybe you just haven't realized, but plastic bag bans are happening all over the world. The entire European Union will ban single-use plastic cutlery, cotton buds, straws and strirrers by next year. There are plenty of other examples from around the world.

                          No, we wouldn't. Australia as a whole really don't make that much pollution.

                          Have a guess as to why we don't … now. :)

                          • @eug: And yet here we are in 21st century talking about fighting climate change.

                            • -1 vote

                              @bargainparker:

                              And yet here we are in 21st century talking about fighting climate change.

                              Of course. You can't solve everything with just one change. It's an ongoing thing. If nothing was done back then, we'd be in a far worse position now. If nothing is done now, we'd be in a far worse position in the future.

                              • @eug: You are right on that point.
                                Yet CFC was easy to implement, and yet, car manufacturers are still deceiving people and polluting environment. They just pay the fine when found out. Other companies doing it too. So, unless people start thinking that it is a collective responsibility, I don't see it will be stopped or reversed

                                • -1 vote

                                  @bargainparker:

                                  Yet CFC was easy to implement,

                                  It wasn't easy to implement. There were no widespread alternatives for refrigeration at the time. New alternatives had to be developed.

                                  and yet, car manufacturers are still deceiving people and polluting environment. They just pay the fine when found out. Other companies doing it too. So, unless people start thinking that it is a collective responsibility, I don't see it will be stopped or reversed

                                  Greed will always be an issue. Imagine how much more pollution there would be if there were no penalties at all.

                                  There would no doubt have been plenty of people with the same "too hard, why bother trying" mindset back when the CFC ban was implemented. But 20-30 years later we can see it has worked. If everybody just went "Get 46 countries around the world to agree to eliminate CFCs? Why bother, that'll never happen!" and didn't bother trying, rates of skin cancer around the world would have shot up. Now there are 196 signatories to that treaty. Even if only half the countries on that list manages to achieve the target, that's still a large reduction which is better than no reduction.

                                  • @eug: We see how those penalties work. It is still profitable, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. They need to have jail time and a lot bigger fines.

                                    While some things have worked, IT is still not enough. Scientists are saying that the earth is past tipping point.

                                    • -1 vote

                                      @bargainparker:

                                      We see how those penalties work. It is still profitable, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

                                      VW might disagree…

                                      While some things have worked, IT is still not enough.

                                      Sure. But does that mean we shouldn't bother doing anything, no matter how small?

                                      Scientists are saying that the earth is past tipping point.

                                      Ahh, be wary of sensationalist news articles. In any case, does it mean there's no point trying anything? Should we go back to burning rubbish in our backyards, start allowing factories to release any amount of smoke they want, release any effluents they please in our waterways, remove catalytic converters from new cars, replace any future hydro/solar power plants with coal, and switch back to cheap CFCs? Imagine what the world would be like now if nobody bothered to deal with those problems in the past.

                                      • @eug:

                                        VW might(en.wikipedia.org) disagree…(en.wikipedia.org)

                                        So… who's in jail?

                                        How much I can see VW is still around selling cars.

                                        Sure. But does that mean we shouldn't bother doing anything, no matter how small?

                                        No, what I am saying is not enough is being done, and by the look of it, it will be too late by the time they realize that.

                                        Ahh, be wary of sensationalist news articles.

                                        So you don't trust science?

                                        • -1 vote

                                          @bargainparker:

                                          So… who's in jail?

                                          What does jail have to do with looking after the environment? VW got caught, they're paying huge penalties, their stock price still hasn't recovered, their investors sued them, they're still being investigated, and the whole car industry is learning from it. The system worked in the end.

                                          We don't live in a perfect world - whatever laws are made, people will try to get around them. But does that mean we shouldn't bother making laws because a handful of people might try to get around them?

                                          Tightening emissions regulations have resulted in cleaner air overall. You're fixating on only one setback where companies try to cheat the system. Even though those companies tried, the level of pollution has gone down.

                                          No, what I am saying is not enough is being done, and by the look of it, it will be too late by the time they realize that.

                                          You should re-read what you've written so far. You've dismissed the public's efforts to reduce plastic waste and said that all the efforts in the past decade haven't done much. Your stance is that it's too difficult, so why bother - been there, done that. You're ignoring the efforts people put in and feel that unless the change is a very large one, there's no point doing it.

                                          Big changes take time, and the end goal can be achieved by many little steps rather than one giant leap that may or may not come. Of course it's better to make big changes, but if that isn't happening, at least small changes will work towards the end goal.

                                          Back in the 80s when backyard burning was banned, there would have been people who only looked at the present and said what is the point? It's causing me inconvenience, there's not that much smoke anyway, and cars and factories are putting out way more smoke. The population then kept growing - from 2.6 million in 1986 (Sydney) to 4.2 million in 2016, and is still growing. If people were still burning rubbish in their backyards now, the problem would be much worse than in 1986. And all along the way, various new restrictions were introduced with respect to industry and automotive emissions. All those combined little changes over the decades is the reason why our air today is so good.

                                          Banning plastic bags could be seen as a little blip just like how backyard burning was banned. In 30 years time when the population is even greater, if plastic bags weren't banned, the problem would be far worse than it was in 2018. Small changes now can make a big difference in the future as the population expands.

                                          So you don't trust science?

                                          I do, which is why I'm not sure if you're actually reading what scientists are saying.

                                          e.g. if you read this news.com.au article headlined Earth has ‘now reached 9 climate change tipping points’, you would think we are already past the tipping point as you say.

                                          But if you read the Nature article that the news.com.au article is referencing, you'll note that the author only says "might". It also mentions that early results from the IPCC's sixth assessment report "hint that a global tipping point is possible".

                                          So, according to IPCC, the organization that introduced the whole idea of tipping points, we have not gone past all the tipping points. That is why I said be wary of sensationalist news articles - they may not be giving an accurate picture.

                                          • @eug:

                                            What does jail have to do with looking after the environment?

                                            It has… a lot. It's always been like this. A company is found to be doing dodgy stuff = pay. And it is usually those who have nothing wrong who pay the price while managers, CEOs, etc., go somewhere else with their fat bonuses. Until they feel the pain, nothing will change.

                                            You've dismissed the public's efforts to reduce plastic waste and said that all the efforts in the past decade haven't done much. Your stance is that it's too difficult, so why bother - been there, done that. You're ignoring the efforts people put in and feel that unless the change is a very large one, there's no point doing it.

                                            I'll just say, we agree to disagree.

                                            Back in the 80s when backyard burning was banned.

                                            You know, when leaves fall to the ground, they don't just magically turn to fertilizer. The fires last year didn't just happen because of the climate change. They happened mostly because those leaves were left there to accumulate. But, there is nothing wrong with that, since it is a natural cycle. And do you know how much pollution those fires created?

                                            e.g. if you read this news.com.au article headlined Earth has ‘now reached 9 climate change tipping points’(news.com.au), you would think we are already past the tipping point as you say.

                                            So, you think humanity still has a chance to reverse it? Good luck. You know, when corona happened, there were a lot less cars on the road. But now, I see it's back to what it was. Most people don't think; I need to fight climate change. Most people think; i have to go to work for x reason.

                                            But if you read the Nature article(nature.com) that the news.com.au article is referencing, you'll note that the author only says "might". It also mentions that early results from the IPCC's sixth assessment report "hint that a global tipping point is possible".

                                            I know I will die, but I might die tomorrow. So, I'll just go surfing because I might die tomorrow. No, you really don't get it. Humans have to really start fighting it, because that "might" may become good bye very easily. Do you want to play that game with nature? Where you stand now, was probably sand and no human in sight 200 years ago, yet, suddenly we have to think about the economy. When the shit hits the fan, all you will worry about will be how to survive.

                                            So, according to IPCC, the organization that introduced the whole idea of tipping points, we have not gone past all the tipping points. That is why I said be wary of sensationalist news articles - they may not be giving an accurate picture.

                                            I'd rather fight it now than wait for someone to say, oh, it was just a sensationalist news. Besides, there are only limited resources and when that dries up, I can't think people will peacefully accept that, but will rather fight each other for the precious resources, whatever is left of it.

                                            • -1 vote

                                              @bargainparker:

                                              It has… a lot. It's always been like this. A company is found to be doing dodgy stuff = pay. And it is usually those who have nothing wrong who pay the price while managers, CEOs, etc., go somewhere else with their fat bonuses. Until they feel the pain, nothing will change.

                                              It sounds like you want a more draconian government where civil cases are held in a criminal court.

                                              Anyway, the scandal isn't over as cases are still ongoing. The executive who was in charge of VW's emissions department in the US has been jailed for 7 years, and the (ex) CEO in Germany along with 4 other executives were charged with fraud last year and could face up to 10 years in jail. VW has lost over 26 billion euros to fines, their share prices haven't recovered, and their reputation has been affected. If you don't think that has affected the automotive industry at all, maybe your expectations are a little unrealistic.

                                              You know, when leaves fall to the ground, they don't just magically turn to fertilizer. The fires last year didn't just happen because of the climate change. They happened mostly because those leaves were left there to accumulate. But, there is nothing wrong with that, since it is a natural cycle. And do you know how much pollution those fires created?

                                              I'm not sure why you're moving the goalposts here. We were talking about people burning household rubbish in their backyards prior to the 80s, now you're talking about bushfires. If you can't stick to the topic at hand, this discussion will go nowhere. Much like it is now.

                                              So, you think humanity still has a chance to reverse it? Good luck.

                                              If the whole world held your view, there's definitely no chance. Fortunately there are lots of people who hold alternate views to you. 100% reversal may be impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even bother trying to make what we have last a longer time.

                                              Humans have to really start fighting it, because that "might" may become good bye very easily.

                                              And they have, in small steps like banning backyard fires, tightening emissions regulations, banning single-use plastic bags, and eventually banning single-use plastics, among other things. But seem to be of the opinion that all these gradual steps are useless. You cannot see the big picture and think only one huge change will make a difference, so don't want to have anything to do with these small gradual changes.

                                              I'd rather fight it now

                                              Earlier, you said you're not bothering with these pointless small changes as they make no difference. How are you fighting it now? Are you waiting for politicians and companies to make a major change before you think it's worth your time and effort?

                                              • @eug:

                                                It sounds like you want a more draconian government where civil cases are held in a criminal court.

                                                Yes. If I steal from my employer, I lose job and depending on the amount, I could be even ending in prison. Look at what happened with 7/11. They are still in business as if nothing ever happened.

                                                If I poison someone, I am going to prison for a considerable amount of time. If a corporation does it… well, it's just collateral damage.

                                                Look at the US and their protesting, yet there are also issues where they should do exactly what they are doing because of a black man killed. I can give you two very important issues. One where health care is a corporation and many suffer because of it, but no one does nothing. Sure they whinge, but that's the extent of it. The other is working conditions.

                                                Humans have to stop looking at corporations and governments as an entity and start looking at them as humans who are going to be treated just like any other human who does wrong. But given what humans are, that is never going to happen.

                                                If the whole world held your view, there's definitely no chance. Fortunately there are lots of people who hold alternate views to you. 100% reversal may be impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even bother trying to make what we have last a longer time.

                                                Your world is very inefficient, very consuming and very wasteful. Good luck with your not saving the world, but even keeping the status quo.

                                                And they have, in small steps like banning backyard fires, tightening emissions regulations, banning single-use plastic bags, and eventually banning single-use plastics, among other things. But seem to be of the opinion that all these gradual steps are useless. You cannot see the big picture and think only one huge change will make a difference, so don't want to have anything to do with these small gradual changes.

                                                Oh, I can see the big picture. Everything is fine while I sit in a big car, drive it and am the only person in that car, having a beer in the fridge and cricket on telly.

                                                Those gradual changes are too little, too late.

                                                You really don't get it, how much more it needs to be done and how little people are prepared to do.

                                                Earlier, you said you're not bothering with these pointless small changes as they make no difference. How are you fighting it now? Are you waiting for politicians and companies to make a major change before you think it's worth your time and effort?

                                                As I mentioned earlier, you have to stop looking at corporations, businesses and governments as an entity. They are all humans. So, no, I am not waiting for them to do something. If it was up to them, they'd never do anything unless it makes them look good in public eyes. People have the power, not corporations, governments. People are the foundation of all of them. Without ordinary folk, there would be no corporations, governments, who think they are above the law. Yet somehow here we are. Corporations and governments behave as if they are above, yet it is ordinary folk who make them be like that. The power is people, yet they use it very seldom. those above, know that very well, and that's why they can do what they do and they will as long as humans exist. Because, no matter the knowledge, information that is present in today's world, it is a fact, you can't educate the ignorant. I'd rather live my small insignificant life, just don't hit me too much, or how to pluck as many feathers off of a goose, for it not to cry, something along those lines. Forgot the original.

                                                Look at funeral industry with its exorbitant prices. All you need is a hole or an urn and that's it, yet somehow, it is like you are going to live there again, so need to spend, spend, spend. I have no problem with people who want to spend a lot. That is their problem, but for me, once you are dead, even if you drop me in the sea, wouldn't make any difference. You are dead.

                                                I am not waiting for politicians and companies. Watch "The Corporation" documentary to get better understanding. I was on the front-line and I've seen how it is all done. But there are too many chiefs and too few Indians. Look at the America. People are paying taxes, which in turn pays the Police. So people are their employer. But. look what the police does and gets away with it. If I was going to have a peaceful protest and the police came and did what they did, oh boy, I'd say just this. You did this once, if you do it again, I'll meet you in the same way. You take batons and rubber bullets. I will too. You take guns, I will too. Yet, look at what happens. They use tear gas and rubber bullets, sometimes real ones and people just run. If you are going to fight for something, you either go to the end, or just stay the hell at home. Now, this is providing that people are disciplined and not go out looting and trying to intimidate.

                                                This is why corporations and politicians don't fear, because they know there is no real punishment, so they can do what they want.

                                                Look at this
                                                In May 2005, Prime Minister John Howard informed the Australian House of Representatives that the federal government intended to reform Australian industrial relations laws by introducing a unified national system. … It was argued that the laws stripped away basic employee rights and were fundamentally unfair.

                                                And it was unfair, yet how many people went out to protest? Well… not many. In reality, it should be at least 70% out, because, there are a few who wouldn't be affected by it. And dear Johnny said, if you don't like it wait for the next elections. No, not next elections. If you do something wrong, you are leaving now, not at next elections. And if you do something that is criminal, then you are going to be treated the same as an ordinary person, not an entitled brat. But if you don't have fear of punishment, then you can behave as if you are above people, because people themselves allowed it.

                                                Yet, it is all in vain. They know, people are sheep, and people won't do much, because they (corp, pollies) too come from the same sheep, so they know. They are not aliens, not to understand how sheep mentality works.

              • @eug:

                Do you think it has not made any difference at all?

                Anecdotally I don't think it's changed anything. The number of plastic bags I dispose of in waste hasn't changed, I just pay $2 for a 30 roll of bin liners instead of re-using the single-use bags I used to get with my shopping. Maybe others don't recycle things as much. Seems my sentiment might not be a long way off the mark https://www.insidewaste.com.au/index.php/2018/11/04/woolwort... (final two paragraphs).

                What else is there to say? We were throwing away a lot of plastic bags, now we're throwing away far, far less. The rules are already set in place, so this is the new 'normal'. Time to move on to other things.

                Do you have a source for this? Curious to see the percentage impact it's had on plastic waste; at the time of implementation I thought it was feel-good policy but if there are numbers showing improvement it'd be fairly heartening to see. The article I linked only has commentary from an expert rather than hard numbers.

                • @nussbuster: It's changed the nature of the problem - we're still using plastic but the plastic itself has gone from those thin ones to the fatter types like bin-liners or those 15c multi-use ones.

                  I can't remember what the implications were but it's not nothing. Especially when you consider the relatively small change having a huge impact when you factor in the scale

                • @nussbuster:

                  Anecdotally I don't think it's changed anything. The number of plastic bags I dispose of in waste hasn't changed, I just pay $2 for a 30 roll of bin liners instead of re-using the single-use bags I used to get with my shopping.

                  That's the problem with anecdotes. The number of plastic bags you dispose of hasn't changed, but the number of plastic bags I dispose of has certainly gone way, way down. I threw away almost all the grey bags I took as I always had to use large bin liners for my large bin.

                  Do you have a source for this?

                  I haven't looked for local data, but look at it this way. If half the population are like you (no net change in plastic waste) and the other half are like me (very large change), and we used to use 4 billion bags a year, that's about 2 billion fewer bags a year, or 20-30 billion in 10 years. These are all based on assumptions, but at the end of the day there would be a net reduction in the total number because those bags are simply not available any more, and the alternative costs money - people would be far less likely to throw bags away if they had to buy each one.

                • @nussbuster: Instead of quoting what some random guy assumes might maybe happen, why not quote what actually DID happen?

                  An analysis in ACT found bag use dropped 70%, bin liner sales temporarily rose and then within a year or so, they were back down to their pre-ban levels. Meaning the incessant whining by lazy people pretending they care about the environment is utter rubbish (no pun intended!).

                  This is a perfect illustration of why this planet is screwed. You seem like an intelligent person yet made the active decision to stay ignorant (despite it never being easier in all of human history to educate yourself - that fact took me less than 30 seconds to find). Combine people like you with actual idiots and that's a clear majority of the population, hence Trump et al.

                  https://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/curious-canberra/2017-0...

        • these bags and most other soft plastics can be placed in the red cycle bin at a participating Woolies or Coles.

          www.redcycle.net.au

      • This is a valuable lesson. Don't assume, and don't assume that you know better because someone is doing it differently to you.

      • Tried to get a cheap virtue signal in and got called on it, eh?.

    • +10 votes

      It's 2020 & i can't believe how many people are happy to pay 15c for a single rubbish bag.. So much for alleviating our landfill issues, in fact these bags have actually made matters worse, as they will take much longer to de-compose compared to the old single use bags..

      • Do u know the carbon impact of a plastic bag versus someone who chooses to reduced meat usage.

        Yes plastic is bad but

        • Maybe you're right, maybe you're not, but plastic bags have more environmental impacts than just carbon I imagine

          • @Loopenip: "Loopenip" I think what he/she means is that in order to feed the new world population growth

            meat eaters we need to chop down heaps of forest to graze/feed animals,

            not to mention all the carbon that goes into that process too.

    • In the age of disposable wipes and face masks, can't we just have the much more convenient, cheap, hygienic and multipurpose disposable bags back?

      They're better for the environment when disposed of responsibly since they contain less plastic compared to the average lifecycle of the much thicker reusable bags.

      • +15 votes

        And I have to buy new bin bags now when I used to reuse the thin ones from the checkout

        • This is my objection.

          The old grey ones from the checkout were the perfect size AND strong enough that stuff wouldn't poke through the bag and leak on the way to the bin.

          To replace an old grey bag, I either use a less convenient and far more costly 15 cent bag (less convenient because I have to hit it with the kitchen shears and cut tie strips in the top) or 3 layers of bought small bag (that is, 3 bags), if I don't want my rubbish leaking all over.

          I totally didn't waste the old grey bags, and anyone who did should stop complaining about those of us who pay for 15 cent bags most shopping trips and start looking at their own laziness for not toting the grey bags back to the grocery store for recycling (because they did take them back for recycling, you know).

          • @NWLikeShopping:

            The old grey ones from the checkout were the perfect size AND strong enough that stuff wouldn't poke through the bag and leak on the way to the bin.

            You must have light rubbish. :)
            I found those grey bags so weak that I'd often find holes in them after I get home from woolies. I remember having to go through them individually to throw out the ones with holes.

            The thing is, just because you do the right thing doesn't mean everyone else does. You didn't waste the grey bags, but I'm pretty sure plenty of other people did - me included.

      • What about all the coffee pods?

      • How can I give you and Bunsen 1000 +votes?
        My thoughts entirely.
        Crazy virtue signalling, now we're throwing away more than ever.
        I used to use my supermaarket bags multiple times, now I have to buy bags that are made of more plastic than before the big change.

        • +6 votes

          Green virtue signaling and the supermarket makes money selling something that used to be free that's why.

          • @Vomo: Yep - that's why they jumped on board so fast. And then gave away free bags for ages to "train people"

          • @Vomo: That's what I said when Bunnings started charging for bags.

            • @bargainparker: Good that you spoke up. My Bunnings had a bin by the door for used garden pots that customers returned for recycling. They wouldn't let me take a couple for re-use in my garden even when I asked them nicely. Either they want you to buy their new pots or the guy i spoke to was a prick, I'm not sure. Either way they are hypocritical about saving the environment. Now I try to avoid them and shop at smaller retailers and ebay. Support all competition to their near monopoly.

              • @Vomo: Someone on Ozbargain said that the bin which was used to put plastic bags in for recycling was just emptied in normal bin and thrown away. So much for believing in a better world. There is so much hidden under, but who cares, I have my big car to drive alone, beer in the fridge and footy on telly. Life can't be better, can it?

                • @bargainparker: Yeah definitely. I pay heaps each year for rego and insurance, so I drive as much as I like, when I like. I brew my own beer so Woolworths can get stuffed.

          • @Vomo: Exactly, take the moral high ground, we care about the environment, so we’re not giving away bags anymore, we’re going to charge you for these thick ones or charge you more for even thicker ones.
            Oh and we’re charging you 18c for every bottle and if you drive down here and fend off all the drunks you can get 10c back at the machine to spend instore where if you spend enough on our products, (that are mostly wrapped in plastic.) we will give your kids a small piece of collectable plastic.

        • +2 votes

          I used to use my supermaarket bags multiple times,

          Why can't you use these new bags multiple times? They're much stronger than the old grey bags, they'll last far longer.

          now I have to buy bags that are made of more plastic than before the big change.

          No one is forcing you to buy their bags - you could always make or buy a cloth or canvas bag that could last you 5 years.

          • @eug: Yes I use the new heavy bags until they tear so much I can't use them.
            I have never bought supermarket bags - they gave away heaps for free at the start of the green signalling/profit upgrade :)

          • @eug: Yes my mum made some for me from cotton. So no branding and something special.

          • @eug: The old grey ones were perfect for bin liners / bin use.
            Screw paying 15c for a bag. Utter BS. They're even worse for the environment than the old grey ones -> Used to be made in Germany! Now somewhere in Asia. So it's all BS about "helping the environment".

        • I snagged about 10,000 disposable bags from the self serve checkouts in the 6 months before the ban.

      • They're better for the environment when disposed of responsibly

        The issue is that the lots of the bags were not disposed of responsibly. For every person who jammed us much groceries into a single bag that they could then reused the bag for their rubbish bin, there was at least 1 other person who got a bag just to carry their single item they bought then just threw it away, often not even into a bin.

      • I know Straya has a bigger outback than anything, but can you bogans go to the coast for once and tell me that single use bags are hygienic and better for the environment?

    • Isn't it more surprising that there aren't hoverboards and replicants? Broaden your disappointment ambitions.

      • Those are way more complicated than plastic bags but would def improve the shopping experience. :)

    • As we are in the world of coronavirus I think they are smart not reusing and I guess throwing away. Who wants to wash the bag every time they come home.

      • Ohhhhhhhhhh! "I get it now", says the person who was confused about why the green bags are on sale.

        I have seen signs in at least one store recently (don't ask me which one) that said they now pack groceries in plastic bags and request that you do not bring re-usable bags.

        Is Woolies not just putting these on sale, but actually getting rid of them at least temporarily, in favour of making people buy new bags for each shop?

        • When they stopped providing the "single use" bags they told us the reusable bags are totally hygienic … what happened to that line of BS?

        • If you bring bags they make you pack them yourself. Which is silly, because you've already touched all the groceries before they scan them…

    • i cant believe people are forced to pay for bags with company logos on them.
      if customers have to pay (which I can agree with) the companies should not get free advertising space.

      • I can't believe i have to pay for clothing that have logos on them, instead of companies paying me to advertise them, oh wait…

        • +1 vote

          Better debadge your car too! :)

        • they brand cows too.

          it may not surprise you I haven't chosen clothes for the brand since i was an easily influenced teen and wore surf brands. In fact avoid branded clothing when practical. there is a reason Hugo Boss puts logos on belts but not on the back of suit jackets.

          • @antikythera: Cows is understandable. You don't want a cow to wander into a neighborhood and then you have to identify which cow is yours, out of hundreds that you have.

            Some people choose unbranded. I'm one of them. If they want me to advertise them, they better pay me. Sure, I understand they couldn't care less, there's enough sheep for them not to worry. It is so easy to condition humans to mellow them into just about anything, it's unbelievable. Here we are in 21st century and humans haven't changed one bit, since the ancient times.

      • It's for this reason that I went to Aldi and stocked up on their bags when Colesworth stopped supplying them. I still feel enormous satisfaction using them at Colesworth.

    • If you pay for the bag wollies packs your shop. If you bring your own then you have to do it yourself.
      Also I do grocery online now and bags are free.
      Having said that I never trow a bag before resusing it for something else like garbage bag.

      • Is that true? So when I handed my bags over the counter I was being rude? Whoops. She never said anything, but she packed for me.

        Hold on, that's not right - you get charged for bags for online shopping (if you use bags). Well you do with Coles: if you want groceries left at door, you must pay for bags. If you want to promise to be home, you can opt for them to deliver to your kitchen in boxes which they take with them. Well that's the options they gave me.

    • How many times do I need to reuse my $35 foldable bag for it to be worth?

    • Man don't you just hate it when it's %CURRENTYEAR

    • I want to dislike my own comment after starting the fire fight. Let’s all just be friends are try to act responsibly ✌️

  • why don't we just grow our own bags