Tesco removes 20M items of plastic from Christmas range

I mostly agree, but burning / pyrolysing plastic is not a bad outcome for 'recycling' oil into energy if properly done at scale (including emissions filtering) for electricity / district heating.

>they shed micro plastics during use

they do? I thought most of the microplastic pollution is from plastic that made it into the ocean and are broken down by the sun?

>Environmentally friendly is not measured on one indicator. Perhaps in terms of energy-intensity, paper is higher than plastic. But energy use of store bags is relatively negligible anyway, not to be ignored but also not a grave threat. But in terms of the spread of plastics and biodegradability, a one-time paper bag is certainly better than a one-time plastic back, and not quite as negligible in its impact.

The problem here is that increased energy use applies to every bag used, whereas the concern about biodegradability only applies for bags that are mismanaged. A plastic bag that's buried in a landfill or burned in an incinerator is a non-issue, and most (almost all?) bags end up properly disposed.

>Besides, if plastic is being replaced by paper, it simply shows incentives work

Is it? The parent commenter said that plastic bags were banned, not that they were taxed.

> Honestly I don't see how this argument pops up in every single discussion on plastic bag reduction every time...

Well, it wasn't an argument about plastic bag reduction. It was an example in an argument about omissions in reporting about plastic reduction efforts. The example is clearly valid, even if you consider other metrics to be more important in the example. It probably didn't help that I initially put "environmentally friendly" in there mindlessly.

I also clearly stated my opinion about the solution to this, which doesn't involve lifting the ban.

Reminds me of a study showing that a reusable coffee mug wastes not water (from washing) than a styrofoam cups.

But the most critical thing right now is CO2 reduction. I think that anything that causes a net increase in CO2 production can be labeled as environmentally friendly. It’s all hands on deck. If we can’t get our CO2 under control, this just becomes rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

I'm not so sure it's been any good. What's actually happened is supermarkets have replaced the thin plastic bags with far thicker plastic bags. While sales of plastic bags has went down, considering the ones that are sold are vastly thicker, I'm not really sure if there's been a net decrease in plastic use by weight.

But:

People would generally re-use the so-called "single use" thin, free plastic bags as bin liners and are now instead getting much thicker plastic bags and buying additional (also thicker) bin liners which are certainly single-use.

Is it a net win? I'm not convinced. It's definitely great PR, for everyone involved.

Disclaimer: I used to work for an environmental political party which very much supports this plastic bag tax.

I live in a municipality which banned the bag years ago. I wasn't thrilled but honestly the difference is a negligible annoyance. You use paper, reusables or do without. It's fine.

This argument could be used against the ban of asbestos. One of the factors that makes plastic bags the "best" option is externalized costs. Killing sea life and whatever the effects of microplastics collecting in our bloodstream are not included the price.

You can't ban all bags, but you can ban free bags. Like, charge $0.25 for each bag and use the proceeds to clean up microplastic waste in your jurisdiction. It's basically a tax on plastic bags.

The current market price of plastic bags doesn't reflect the externalities of using them willy-nilly and throwing them out.

We should probably just charge/tax for "throw away" bags (paper or plastic) and move people towards bags that are actually reusable over a long period of time.

We use sturdy hemp bags for our groceries. They cost $1.50 or something like that and last for years. And it's hemp, so it should degrade like other natural fibers.

You end like in some European countries where carrying foldable bags has become a tradition.

This is why reduce and reuse are the first 2 Rs in Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

For a lot of the same reasons they are a hazard to wilderness. They are hard to control because the blow about. They wrap and tangle about things. They carry contaminants which are difficult to wash away.

Interesting. Although, now that it has become the ubiquitous logo to identify recyclables (moron in a hurry principle), they should probably recycle it accordingly.

> worthwhile to recycle

People say this implying that there is something about the material which makes it inherently "worthwhile" and that's just not true anymore. Recycling has advanced quite a bit and these days what makes things not "worthwhile" to recycle can have as much to do with how they are designed and disposed as with the utility of the underlying material.

A cottage cheese tub is made from recyclable plastic but it's not "worthwhile" for a recycler to collect them if they aren't rinsed. Cardboard is useful but moreso if flattened. Though not at all if a plastic liner is still glued inside.

I encounter people all the time not knowing if a thing is recyclable and if so how to prepare it. The worst part is that people often even put extra effort into recycling but because they don't understand how the recycler consumes the items they actually harm the recycler with improper disassembly.

You could have one icon for things like pop cans and milk jugs which are recyclable without modification. Similarly, there could be icons for compound packaging. You might have a symbol that means a box must have a plastic liner removed and the box be flattened. The important thing is consistnecy.

People might even begin to shift their shopping habits towards products that came in easy to recycle packages. But consumers can't even really index on that currently because they have to get pretty educated on their local recycler's practices to know this.

If you do this you also need to be sure to pay with cash, or other anonymous cards, because they’ll also link your payment details if I recall correctly (perhaps not this brand, but most others will).

For a 1% return? Hardly worth it.

As for the app, I don't want my phone polluted with even more crap. If I had a corporate loyalty app for every shop I wanted to go in, I'd have a hundred apps, a hundred data collection problems and a flat battery. Instead I have one called Apple Pay which works everywhere..

> The collected data makes stock purchasing more efficient.

Why does the data need to be personally identifiable for this? Is there a reason a store can't look at total sales volume for a particular product & figure out how many more units to order?

A false dichotomy. It's not about today but what they can do with the data in 5+ years from now (and yes, it'll be stored for that long).

We can't know how data will be manipulated as future technology is developed.

I decided fuck 'em and went to Asda instead.

But then they have your phone number and can probably extrapolate your address from that

The cynic in me feels like they wouldn’t care. The deal they have with your phone provider allows them to identify you by the phone you signed up with. The deal they have with Amazon facial recognition let’s them identify you with the cameras you walked past every time you go in the store. The deal they have with the state let’s let track where your license plate was seen this month. And of course they have what they want which is the card in your pocket giving them all of your purchases in one easy column.

/s.....hopefully

I certainly wouldn't install an app to go shopping at a specific store to obtain specific advantages.

No company deserves loyalty through a scheme like this. Only through decent customer service and reasonable pricing.

As for shopping elsewhere, yes. I use Asda now which does not require a loyalty card to get the discount prices and is generally cheaper and better stocked despite being smaller here.