Comments for Ocean Protection Council proposes statewide ban on plastic bags, containers at http://lakeconews.com , comment 1 to 5 out of 5 comments http://lakeconews.com Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:17:17 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/5141/919/#comment-7361 I forgot to mention that baskets made of local materials, like Tule, are very durable and sustainable. - Green Man Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:44:11 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/5141/919/#comment-7360 While we should reduce the use of both paper and plastic, plastic should be the first to go. There are not tons and tons of paper fragments circulating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean -- the gyres, and turtles, otters, gulls, dolphins, etc., are not choking on paper bags or confusing paper bags for jellyfish. While paper production may be resource-intensive, there is nothing like the immortality of plastic, as vbrandon suggests. Striving to use bags made of biodegradable and sustainably-produced materials, be it hemp, cellulose, burlap, hair, or retted grape vines is the way to go. - Green Man Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:41:56 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/5141/919/#comment-6709 It\'s fascinating to peer back in history and discover that, indeed, paper and cloth as well as ship\'s ropes and sails have been historically made from that now illegal weed. Now if our leaders were able to pop their heads out from that place the sun don\'t shine and separate industrial hemp from its distant cousin cannabis, we might actually create some sustainable industry to utilize all that class b farmland around lake county, create a bunch of jobs and an export crop to sell to makers of hi tech composites that are already used in automobiles by the thousands of tons each year. Not to mention making paper without ecokiller chemicals. Unfortunately all those jobs and revenue are illegal here so the big automakers import that sub 1% THC fiber from Canada. That fact really irks North Dakota farmers and lawmakers since they can\'t grow the same illegal crop that comes across the border with Canada, eh? What\'s truly amusing is that by prohibiting low grade hemp along with high grade, legislators are actually benefiting the illegal growers since their crops/illegal product are safer from being contaminated and destroyed by hemp pollen. Funny how that works, if they legalize hemp and large scale crops pop up in Lake County it wipes out the illicit trade but by confusing the public about the relationship between the two they protect criminals as well as the DEA budget for flying around rural communities and storming Rob Brown\'s property. All that money would be freed up to go after meth, but it seems our government simply isn\'t that interested in eradicating meth. Now why might that be? It\'s really a shame (or worse) since \'Hemp for Victory\'[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_For_Victory[/url] propelled this country to our greatest expansion ever. But then the terrorists would be denied their primary source of funding. Or rather we\'d suffer less from foreign oil dependence and that would be a fiscally BAD move for most of Bush\'s appointees and cabinet members. - John Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:09:59 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/5141/919/#comment-6703 Both plastic AND paper take a toll on our environment and resources. So, if you are going to bother to raise the red flag and ban one then you really should bother to ban both.It is like the difference between gasoline and ethanol or hydrogen based fuels. The last two sound great, until you realize it takes just as much fossil fuel to create the latter (if not more) than the former. If you are truly attempting to be \"environmentally\" responsible, paper would should raise just as many red flags as an alternative. Here is why... The process of making paper requires wood and wood comes from trees and trees come from forests. Lots of little animals are impacted by this. But, then, so are we. Those trees have to be moved from point A to point B, which requires fossil fuels. Even when using recycled paper materials, or renewable forests, it still takes three parts wood to burn the one part into pulp and this burning creates hazards within itself. As the pulp is made for paper. an enormous amount of chemicals are being used and released into the atmosphere. Again, affecting both wildlife and humans. So, really, if you are going to attack one you might as well attack the other. Yet, we really NEED an alternative before banning either. We need to find and promote an alternative which is cost effective, efficient and accessible before banning any product. Not to do so would be irresponsible. After all, you wouldn\'t ban a gasoline powered car before allowing an acceptable cost effective, efficient, accessible alternative, would you? (Even when cars are used by far less of the population than plastics or paper.) So why are we even considering pushing a ban before presenting a suitable replacement, when it comes to plastics? Let\'s just take the good old \"plastic bag\" into consideration and use the current best alternative as an example. The canvas bag, which is environmentally safe, reusable and sustainable. Why don\'t we see this alternative presented and promoted properly before we go banning plastic bags? Sure, we see it in affluent communities used by a few conscientious consumers but is it really as accessible to all as it should be? Especially when considering plastic and paper are FREE. Can you expect the average consumer providing for a family, with the cost of living rising by the minute, to seek out this alternative at $5-40 a bag? Not sure if that isn\'t too much to ask, without a bit of a push behind it. Where is the push? Or, more to the point, who is pushing back? Something to think about. The canvas bag has been around since the 1200\'s. (Longer than both paper and plastic.) Yet, there is still an obvious lack of enthusiasm to promote it properly. Could it be possibly because the word \"canvas\" is derived from the word \"cannibus\" the production which has been banned by the U.S. (a ban which happened to be promoted by the same people who brought us plastics). That is a pretty big hurdle to overcome. Maybe that is why we haven\'t seen that as an alternative being pushed. Whatever the alternative is, there NEEDS to be a cost effective, efficient, accessible alternative or there is no point in the exercise of a ban. - purplegirl Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:03:12 +0100 http://lakeconews.com/content/view/5141/919/#comment-6696 although some (not all) of these substances disintegrate and thus APPEAR to go away, on the molecular level they are to all intents immortal, and on that level can be expected to work their way into the biochemistry of every living thing on the planet for as long as there is a planet. Fine legacy for a species (us!) which so often displays more ingenuity than judgment. In the meantime, several local jurisdictions have acted to impose more limited bans on plastic bags: why can\'t Lake County (preferably in collaboration with the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake) demonstrate leadership by doing likewise? Supervisors can all be reached at 263-2368. - vbrandon Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:22:49 +0100