Trudeau announces plans to ban single-use plastics starting in 2021 at the earliest

Discussion in 'Reality Check' started by Boots, Jun 10, 2019.

  1. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    RoryTate likes this.
  2. RoryTate

    Buffer the streaming media unto me.

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    725
    Location:
    Rigaud, QC
    My biggest gripe is what to do with all the plastic that gets collected now that doesn't get currently recycled, but shipped to the dump or the Philippines/Malaysia/wherever. I'd like to see more recycling of what we already have.

    Will non-single use plastics resolve the issue? No, but I do think it is a step in the right direction.

    Maybe they should bring back glass bottles. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2019
    chainsaw likes this.
  3. Cheddar

    Red is the New Green

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27,077
    Likes Received:
    775
    Location:
    You sister's bedroom
    It's nice in theory but it's just a mask. Look at the plastic bag issue.
    Sobeys changes their bags "to do their part for the environment". The bags break on the way home and instantly become trash. Can't reuse it for anything. The old bags could be reused a number of times for groceries, lunches, even cat litter. The cloth bags have an average live of I think a dozen uses but studies say that a cloth bag has to be used over 100 times for it to have a net zero impact. Those are mostly polyester so again, same material just different forms. The only thing Sobeys has done is lower their costs. The 5 cent per bag plan is the same scenario. It's a cash generating scheme in the name of the planet. If you want to reduce the use, reward those that do something rather than penalizing those that don't. I believe it's the same concept taught with kids and pets. Reward good behavior, don't punish bad.
    Don't ban single use products, reward the companies that find alternatives. Give tax incentives to find new solutions instead of imposing taxes on companies that don't. Those taxes just get passed to the end user anyway.
     
    ouird likes this.
  4. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    Things change when people have to pay more money. That's why carbon taxes work too :o
     
  5. Cheddar

    Red is the New Green

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27,077
    Likes Received:
    775
    Location:
    You sister's bedroom
    Here's the problem. Let's say government imposes a 5cent tax on chip bags. I don't buy a lot of chips but other than Pringles pretty much everyone has the same type of foil bag. So the manufacturer has two choices. If every manufacturer decides to just pass that tax on to the consumer then all chips go up by 5 cents and everybody just keeps buying them. Just like gas. But if they were to impose a tax incentives on anyone that produces a different bag, then it's in that manufacturers best interest because the costs get cut, and more people start buying the bag thats 5 cents cheaper.
    The concept of tax is to raise money for the government. That's why it was "invented". Not to be a punishment. So is the government that imposes a tax on plastic, drive thrus, chip bags..etc really trying to save the world, or are they just trying to get money?
    Look around, the government keeps making big decisions without a solution. On a municipal level, they imposed a smoking ban and put it into effect without even designating the smoking areas. Provincially,they legalized cannabis and decided to make it only sold in nslcs, and they still can't get the product to sell. They've built up bedford west with hundreds of Apts and have spent absolutely no money on the infrastructure to support all the people moving in. They are quick to impose restrictions and laws that brings them money, but never seem to have the alternatives lined up before they do it. Want to ban single use plastics? Great, but why not first announce some kind of incentive to encourage solutions to be found. Maybe if they did that, they wouldn't have to ban it, it would instead just become irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2019
    ouird, 17, Bean and 1 other person like this.
  6. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    Sadly, we don't really have time to dangle a carrot... we are deep into stick territory at this point.
     
  7. Grifter

    Bluh?

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    8,610
    Likes Received:
    401
    Location:
    Calgary
    Alberta scrapped it's carbon tax. Effective June 1. While it's nice to see the price of things go back down.... I'm waiting to see what the federal government will impose.
     
  8. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    You guys are going to end up with a carbon tax in the end, you'll just lose control of it since you gave up the option of doing it yourselves. Only way people are going to change their ways is if the status quo starts to cost them more money :o
     
  9. Grifter

    Bluh?

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    8,610
    Likes Received:
    401
    Location:
    Calgary
    Or Trudeau doesn't get reelected and Scheer scraps the carbon tax on a federal level.... :o
     
  10. Cheddar

    Red is the New Green

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27,077
    Likes Received:
    775
    Location:
    You sister's bedroom
    So let's just drive up the cost of living and call it a day? I'd love to never have to open another blister pack again, and I doubt there are many people who disagree. So we as the consumer would all love to see that item show up in a cardboard box, and given the choice would chose the box, but it's still a blister pack. Add a 5 cent tax, and we still want the box, but it's still showing up in plastic.
     
  11. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    That's some high hopes haha

    It sucks but Alberta is going to be in for some long term pain and suffering the same way Nova Scotia was when coal was shown the exit :/
     
  12. Grifter

    Bluh?

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    8,610
    Likes Received:
    401
    Location:
    Calgary
    Cost of living has gotten insane and the view that it's acceptable to keep taxing or driving up the cost is infuriating. I think people who live comfortably and suggest this as a solution need to give their heads a shake and think about the other majority of Canadians who are barely able to scrape two nickles together.
    In the past year I've seen drastic increases. I've also been fortunate enough to be able to afford it. But I don't have tons of money in my savings account and still have to live on a budget. My family has to have both parents working to survive.
    Seeing something as simple as a bag of avacado's go from $5 to $8 in less than a year is frustrating. Fuel go from c.89 to $1.29 in a year. It gets old quick.
    So let's just keep driving it up? Sorry, nope. That's not the way to solve the problem. You only get one life. I'm doing the best I can do to make the most money I can. I provide for my family. Just like those that cant afford to pay all their bills.
    The mentality of "let's keep driving up costs to fix a problem?" How about we look at other alternatives. People deserve to be happy too. Just cause some of us can afford it doesn't mean we all can. Ignorance is not the answer.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  13. Grifter

    Bluh?

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    8,610
    Likes Received:
    401
    Location:
    Calgary
    One can dream! ;)
     
  14. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    At this point, driving up costs is the only thing that's going to force people to make better decisions. I know it sounds great to leave it up to the business' to clean up their act but it isn't gonna happen. Economists are pretty well all in agreeance that carbon taxes are effective when it comes to rapidly reducing pollution.
     
  15. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    We won't really have to worry about not being able to afford avocados when our entire food supply has collapsed because we've polluted the planet to death.
     
  16. Grifter

    Bluh?

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    8,610
    Likes Received:
    401
    Location:
    Calgary
    I'm not saying let's keep polluting. I agree, there is a problem. But raising taxes isn't going to solve it.
     
  17. Grifter

    Bluh?

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    8,610
    Likes Received:
    401
    Location:
    Calgary
    You don't throw money at the problem to solve it.

    How about we take some of that wonderful foreign aid money and put it into solution research? Literally billions a year. Taxing the people won't solve it.

    Take away the ability to pollute, problem may go away. How do we do that? Shift the budget around. Do your research, come up with solutions. Taxing your people into poverty? Nope.
     
  18. Cheddar

    Red is the New Green

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27,077
    Likes Received:
    775
    Location:
    You sister's bedroom
    so using my chip bag example, if they all go up by 5 cents, and nobody makes an alternative package, how does that help anything? What alternative does that force people too? Better yet, let's say that they do change the package, avoid the tax, but then say the added costs drove the price of the product up by 10 cents, when realistically it only drove it up by 5 or none at all. Sadly, while the environmental result make be a success, the financial implications could be much more servevere and not everybody has the same financial freedoms that you have. Consider those $10,000 plastic car ramps. There are metal ones for a few bucks less. The added price didn't sway you to choose the cheaper more recyclable version. I know they aren't single use but my point is, increased costs don't always force people to make different decisions, they just back people into corners.
     
    Grifter likes this.
  19. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    You're mixing the carbon tax and the plastic ban. I think the idea would be to ban single use plastics not increase their prices. If chips cannot legally be sold in disposable plastic bags, the companies will be forced to find another way to package their chips, whether that be using something like hemp packaging or invent something new and sustainable.
     
  20. Cheddar

    Red is the New Green

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27,077
    Likes Received:
    775
    Location:
    You sister's bedroom
    Think X prize. Create an award for someone who develops a biodegradable version of the products.
    Here's my problem. Years ago the government banned weed killer and insecticides They came out with environmental friendly version that work just about as well as thoughts and prayers. Then they started saying that a healthy lawn doesn't need extra help and if maintained it can fight off weeds and chinch bug itself. Fair enough. Here's the problem though, have you ever seen a city worker doing anything other than mowing over the dandelions? No. They have not increased their spending at all on the city property so while their ban has saved them money, there are people with thousands of dollars worth of damage to their lawn because while they've done their best, they just can't keep up with the city as a neighbor who does fuck all. The bans and taxes don't work unless EVERYONE works together to find a solution, and I'm sorry but I just don't see the government on any level accepting an increase in costs on something they impose. And if they do, it just comes back against the tax payer in folds.
     
  21. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    Bans on pesticides were to cut down on toxic chemicals, not to save money. The amount of these chemicals being used has gone way down along with their impacts on the environment and our health. Not a very good example imo. Also, fwiw, a lawn with dandelions is better than a lawn covered in chemicals that do god knows what to us and the environment :o
     
  22. Cheddar

    Red is the New Green

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27,077
    Likes Received:
    775
    Location:
    You sister's bedroom
    OK that went over you. I know why the ban was put in. My point was, instead of doing what they were encouraging Joe public to do, that being take care of the lawn and keep it maintained, they just neglected their property entirely because of the additional Labour costs. And since, for example, chinch bug can't see property lines, Joe homeowner who was doing his best, was getting the effect of the government neighbor who didn't care. So, yes great, ban pesticides, no problem there, but practice what you preach. Instead they saw it as a way to save money.
    Do you know where private snow removal contractors are not allowed to put snow due to environmental reasons? Hint: the same place the city has been putting it for umpteen years.

    All I am saying is I'm all for saving the world but there are too many people / companies using it as an excuse to lower product quality or service quality in the name of saving or generating money. So if they want to ban single use plastic, go for it, just give us the plan for the alternative before you expect us to believe you. If he stood up and said that he was going to create world peace, we'd all ask how, so why not ask how here too before we just assume the solution will benefit everyone.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
    ouird, boing and Grifter like this.
  23. chainsaw

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Halifax
    I'm all for trying to save the environment, going green etc, but we as a society can only take so many of these "tax" increases before something goes boom like what happened with the yellow vests in France. I have not had a measurable increase in my salary in years, yet cost of living keeps increasing, my contributions being maxed out by either the provincial government or my union to the point where I take home less than I did years ago.
    I agree that as consumers we should be making better choices, but we need options that are affordable to choose from. It should be penalties to the large companies for not meeting regulations, using non recyclable packaging etc not making us pay more. The large companies are the ones making money hand over fist, with outrageous bonuses being paid out to top of the food chain employees. You can only bleed us so dry before people start to revolt
     
    boing and Grifter like this.
  24. Grifter

    Bluh?

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    8,610
    Likes Received:
    401
    Location:
    Calgary
    You're the fella who said carbon taxes are the way to fix it. Remember? Carbon taxes are the way to reduce pollution?
     
  25. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    To lesson carbon emissions, yes. That's a separate issue from plastic waste.
     
  26. Boots

    Boots
    [OP]
    www.reality-check.ca

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    75,216
    Likes Received:
    4,824
    Location:
    Halifax
    I do agree that some companies rake in huge profits at the cost of the environment but I think the root of the problem is we all have these crazy expectations that are only possible in a 'disposable' throw away world. Our price expectations are bonkers. People complain about a smartphone costing a grand and if you look at the pollution and other stuff that went into making it, you'd think it'd be selling for $100,000. It's going to be a tough pill for us to all swallow but we gotta change our ways :o
     
  27. chainsaw

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Halifax
    Totally agree, but again it's the manufacturers making the pollution to provide the commodity. They should be the ones being penalized, but instead get tax breaks and supplements from the governments passing the expense of so called green upgrades, and modernization through to customers as they collect more of our $
     
  28. Grifter

    Bluh?

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    8,610
    Likes Received:
    401
    Location:
    Calgary
    Is it really though? Both are things we need to cut back on. Again, I've never argued that we should cut pollution. Carbon, plastics, all the same shit, different pile.
     
  29. 17

    17
    teenage dirtbag

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    33,514
    Likes Received:
    1,131
    i cant think of many single use plastics i use. its not a conscious environmental decision, its just something i do. we use the reusable grocery bags and all i ever drink out of is my 30oz rambler, one in my office, one at my house.

    actually im lying, im drinking a bottle of water but only because it was in the fridge at the hotel im staying in right now :o

    carbon tax is useless, i think there should be much more regulatory enforcement on commercial and industrial pollution before a tiny household is penalized. im in and out of businesses all the time and some of the shit i see blows my mind. Yeah its well and good that I get a black back of trash to put out every week but when you see the double size dumpster loads of waste leaving some places on the daily, the family stuff is a drop in the bucket.
     
    boing and chainsaw like this.
  30. Cheddar

    Red is the New Green

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27,077
    Likes Received:
    775
    Location:
    You sister's bedroom
    How are they fixing it? Did you sell your S2000? Have you ever found yourself about to turn the key and thought ," it's not worth hurting the environment for this", or "jeez, with these higher gas prices due to the environmental taxes, maybe I'll just park it for now" ?

    The real offenders are the ones that can afford not to be phased by this stuff. The single mom just trying to get her kid to school in her old best up Terrell can't afford another tax, and that money just takes away from her savings to buy a new more efficient car, fridge..whatever.
     
    Bean, chainsaw, Dewie and 2 others like this.
  31. clicker666

    Older lifter

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    244
    Location:
    First Lake, Sackvegas!
    BC has it right. They make the producers pay for recycling. You want an incentive, the guys that sell the product in the massive blister pack are the ones that have to pay to take care of it. Same with pop, etc. https://www.rcbc.ca/resources/faqs/epr1

    I think they are the only province in Canada doing it.
     
    chainsaw and RoryTate like this.

Share This Page