The Price of Paper or Plastic
Investing in plastics was logical a half a century ago. Nowadays, while profitable, petroleum products cause a multitude of problems.
[A]n estimated 180 million plastic bags are distributed to shoppers each year in San Francisco. Made of filmy plastic, they are hard to recycle and easily blow into trees and waterways, where they are blamed for killing marine life. They also occupy much-needed landfill space.Although the sheer textile seems more sanitary it may be less so. Early on, the use of synthetic fibers was considered the saving grace. Entrepreneurs and environmentalists thought man-made wares would eliminate the deforesting of the planet. However, this petroleum product has proven itself to be anything but a solution to ecological hazards. Actually, plastics have added to our waste and wasteful ways.
What we use to dispose of our garbage creates more trash. Essentially, items are no longer reusable. We have become a throwaway society. For the sake of convenience and an ill-perceived idea of cleanliness, we are destroying our natural resources and dirtying the planet.
Thankfully, late in March 2007, the city of San Francisco decided to do something about this situation. They said "No" to plastic, or at least the bags.
The city's Board of Supervisors approved groundbreaking legislation Tuesday to outlaw plastic checkout bags at large supermarkets in about six months and large chain pharmacies in about a year.Perhaps, they will. After all, San Francisco is following the lead of foreign cities. Internationally, there is a movement to ban or discourage the use of plastic bags. The environmental effects are of great concern in countries from Ireland to Australia. Similar legislation was introduced in Scotland three years ago, the United Kingdom also discussed taking action years ago. On March 2, 2007, the British nation finally took action. However, details are still pending. Also belatedly, but bravely, the avant gardé city by the Bay approved a ban weeks ago.The ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, is the first such law in any city in the United States and has been drawing global scrutiny this week.
"I am astounded and surprised by the worldwide attention," Mirkarimi said. "Hopefully, other cities and other states will follow suit."
Under the legislation, which passed 10-1 in the first of two votes, large markets and pharmacies will have the option of using compostable bags made of cornstarch or bags made of recyclable paper. San Francisco will join a number of countries, such as Ireland, that already have outlawed plastic bags or have levied a tax on them. Final passage of the legislation is expected at the board's next scheduled meeting, and the mayor is expected to sign it.Still, all is not well. As is typical, retailers remind those that care about the environment, there will be a price to pay.
The grocers association has warned that the new law will lead to higher prices for San Francisco shoppers.Compostable carriers may be costly; however, I believe these parcels are invaluable. We have been paying for convenience and low cost containers with our lives for years. Although the compostable sack may be expensive initially, production and use of these is worth the investment. It is essential that we endow in the future. The waste that we create daily now does not serve us for more than a moment."We're disappointed that the Board of Supervisors is going down this path," said Kristin Power, the association's vice president for government relations. "It will frustrate recycling efforts and will increase both consumer and retailer costs. There's also a real concern about the availability and quality of compostable bags."
Power said most of the group's members operating in San Francisco are likely to switch to paper bags "simply because of the affordability and availability issues."
The ubiquitous plastic shopping bag, so handy for everything from toting groceries to disposing of doggie doo, may be a victim of its own success. Although plastic bags didn't come into widespread use until the early 1980s, environmental groups estimate that 500 billion to 1 trillion of the bags are now used worldwide every year.Yet, businesses think that is fine. In 2004, the Earth Resource Foundation proposed a twenty-five [25] cent tax be charged on plastic bags used in the state of California. In 2003, the California Legislative Branch scrapped a three [3] cent levy on plastic shopping satchels and cups. Retailers and plastic manufacturers worked in opposition to the measure. Money talks, as do industrialists. It is easier and cheaper to commit to the status quo than it is to change. Minor adjustments might be made. Place the onus on the people. Persuade the public to be more involved; that may work.Critics of the bags say they use up natural resources, consume energy to manufacture, create litter, choke marine life, and add to landfill waste.
"Every time we use a new plastic bag they go and get more petroleum from the Middle East and bring it over in tankers," said Stephanie Barger, executive director of Earth Resource Foundation in Costa Mesa, Calif. "We are extracting and destroying the Earth to use a plastic bag for 10 minutes."
The plastics industry took a "proactive stance" by working with retailers to encourage greater recycling, rather than "putting on taxes to address the problem," said Donna Dempsey, executive director of the Film and Bag Federation, a trade association for the plastic bag industry.Imposing tariffs would take its toll on the industry. State imposed duties have decreased the use of plastic parcels in other countries. The American Bag alliance knows sales will slip. For them, a compulsory tax would be disastrous. Particularly when we consider that consumers in other nations where the tariff was obligatory, have not complained.
The tax proposals are loosely modeled on Ireland's "PlasTax," a levy of about 20 cents that retail customers have had to pay for each plastic bag since March 2002. The use of plastic bags in Ireland dropped more than 90 percent following imposition of the tax, and the government has raised millions of dollars for recycling programs.While the reduction of bags is great and it is vital that we begin where we can, there are other considerations.Similar legislation was introduced in Scotland last month and is being discussed for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Consumers seem agreeable to giving up the bags, said Claire Wilton, senior waste campaigner at Greenpeace-UK.
"There certainly hasn't been an angry uprising of shoppers (in Ireland) saying we want our bags for free," Wilton said. "I think a lot of people recognize they are wasteful. That's why they try to save them to use again, although they often forget to bring them with them when they shop."
In Australia, about 90 percent of retailers have signed up with the government's voluntary program to reduce plastic bag use. A law that went into effect last year [2003] in Taiwan requires restaurants, supermarkets and convenience stores to charge customers for plastic bags and utensils. It has resulted in a 69 percent drop in use of plastic products, according to news reports.
One of the key concerns is litter. In China, plastic bags blowing around the streets are called "white pollution." In South Africa, the bags are so prominent in the countryside that they have won the derisive title of "national flower." The plastics industry says the solution to bag litter is to change people, not the product.Granted, mankind is responsible. S/he is liable for more than the little bags that fill our land, the air, or the sea. Currently, it is impossible to escape the impact of plastic on American life. Decades ago, glass bottles were replaced with plastic. Cardboard storage boxes, were thought buggy and dirty; plastic was a clean alternative. Clay pots, once used to propagate plants, are porous, and better for a thirsty, thriving, growing seedling; however, currently these are less popular. As Mister McGuire might say, "Plastics.""Every piece of litter has a human face behind it. If they are a harm to the environment in terms of visual blight, then people need to stop littering," said Rob Krebs, a spokesman for the American Plastics Council.
Furniture is plastic. Picture frames, eyeglasses, and "silverware," are all made of plastic. Even our clothing is polyester; in other words, plastic. The solid metal car bumper years ago could withstand impact. It protected the people inside the vehicle. Today, if an automobile moving three-miles an hour was to crash into another object, the impending accident could cause thousands of dollars of damage. Why might this be? Plastic.
A child's swing, once wooden and wonderful is now plastic. I am familiar with this childhood toy for I love to move backward and forward while seated in the sky. In decades past, I may experience an occasional splinter. In recent years, with thanks to the prevalence of petroleum products, the motion is uncomfortable. My skin is pinched; it sticks to the surface "fabric." Sweat forms; ultimately the moisture becomes an irritant, just as the oft-heard phrase, "Plastic, or paper" might be to some.
If I were to choose, "compostable" would be my preference. I trust the cost of production will decrease as the use of biodegradable bags increases. The more manufacturers invest in machinery to make this product, the better the price. Overtime, I believe we can eliminate the use of plastic bags.
Nevertheless, I still ponder the problem. As I sit at my computer, type on a plastic keyboard, use an artificial "mouse," and watch a screen encased in a fake frame, I trust that the banning of bags will only begin to address an ever-increasing environmental issue.
A Sack Full of Fuel . . .
Plastic bags by the numbers
180 million
Roughly, the number of plastic shopping bags distributed in San Francisco each year.2 to 3 cents
Amount each bag costs markets, compared with anywhere from 5 to 10 cents for a biodegradable bag.
This figure will change as we alter our focus.4 trillion to 5 trillion
Number of nondegradable plastic bags used worldwide annually.430,000 gallons
Amount of oil needed to produce 100 million nondegradable plastic bags.Source: S.F. Department of the Environment; Worldwatch Institute
Bags of Resources . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 11, 2007 at 11:30 AM in Business, Cleanliness. Godliness., Consumers Rights, Consumption and Conservation, Corporate Profits, Economics, Environment, Ethics and Profits, Facts or Fictions, Humans, Self-Destructive, Nature, Nature or Nurture, Oil, Price of Petroleum, Standards in Society | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Climate Change; An Impeachable Offense?
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please Help the Polar Bears. View the video and act. Save the Polar Bears: The Coca-Cola Bear Ad Mash Up
The Bush/Cheney Administration denied global warming for years. Denouncing scientific evidence served this presidential pair and their business partners well. Entrepreneurial enterprises prospered. Profits grew as the icecaps melted. Ocean waters warmed, so too did the hearts of Chief Executives. Corporate coffers swelled. Misters Bush and Cheney benefited.
Therefore, the two and their cronies elected to create an Energy Task Commission comprised of corporate bigwigs. Scientists were barred from these "public" proceedings. Actually, the American people were not allowed to participate in policy decisions that concerned them directly. Environmentalists, oh no. They could not contribute or assist in creating a plan that might save the Earth. Worries about waste were not aired. Increasing the use of electrical and petroleum power were favored. The preponderance of evidence offered in committee focused on commercial financial gains.
Energy guidelines were illusive; possibly, because they were designed to generate more revenue, not to save the planet or preserve our natural resources. Please ponder the records.
A Bush administration report suggests that evidence of global warming has begun to affect animal and plant populations in visible ways, and that rising temperatures in North America are due in part to human activity.President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney enacted policies that accelerated climate change. The globe that we inhabit warmed. No one noticed, or at least few complained. Now, even those that worked with Mister Bush and Mister Cheney are screaming, "What were we thinking?" What were they thinking? Even Cheney's fund manager is up in arms and voicing his outrage.The report to Congress, issued Wednesday, goes further than previous statements by President Bush. He has said more scientific research is needed before he imposes new restrictions on greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
In 2001, after the release of a National Academy of Sciences report on global warming, Bush said the concentration of greenhouse gases has increased, in large part, because of human activity, but he emphasized that other factors could have influenced warming. Referring to the NAS report, he said, "We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations may have had on warming."
Several administration officials characterized the study as a routine annual summary of scientific research on global warming. John H. Marburger, the president's science adviser, said the report has "no implications for policy."
Cheney's Fund Manager Attacks ... CheneyNow, the polar bears are endangered. People throughout the nation are experiencing record breaking high and low temperatures. Tornado winds move more rapidly than they have in the past. Snows flakes fall and build incomprehensible banks. Weather is now an enigma. Perchance, some humans think it another enemy. We know not what the day will bring. We are only certain that humans harmed the environment. We do not only warm the planet, we pulverize the ears and organs of those that inhabit this world with us. People such as the President who focus on profits and creature comforts forget, we too are animals. What we cause will have an effect!
By Brett Arends
Mutual Funds ColumnistThe oil-based energy policies usually associated with Vice President Dick Cheney have just come under scathing attack. There's nothing remarkable about that, of course -- except the person doing the attacking.
Step forward, Jeremy Grantham -- Cheney's own investment manager. "What were we thinking?' Grantham demands in a four-page assault on U.S. energy policy mailed last week to all his clients, including the vice president.
Titled "While America Slept, 1982-2006: A Rant on Oil Dependency, Global Warming, and a Love of Feel-Good Data," Grantham's philippic adds up to an extraordinary critique of U.S. energy policy over the past two decades.
What Cheney makes of it can only be imagined.
"Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil substitution or climate change," he writes, "and the current one has even seemed to have a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain."
Yet, "there is now nearly universal scientific agreement that fossil fuel use is causing a rise in global temperatures," he writes. "The U.S. is the only country in which environmental data is steadily attacked in a well-funded campaign of disinformation (funded mainly by one large oil company)."
We can thank President Bush for lowering the standards that were helping to reverse the damage. This Administration ignored the natural balance and thus hastened the decline. The Bush/Cheney clan denied that humans influence what happens here on Earth. Hence, they allowed actions that reeked havoc throughout the planet. Currently, the two reluctantly admit to the effect humans have on the environment, or at least scientists are forcing them to face what they hid.
On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to CertaintyNow we know what we always knew, but chose to ignore. Our President and Vice President have profoundly changed our planet. Their energy policies have devastated the world climate. Might we ask; is global warming an impeachable offense?
By William K. StevensIn the decade when I was the lead reporter on climate change for this newspaper, nearly every blizzard or cold wave that hit the Northeast would bring the same conversation at work.
Somebody in the newsroom would eye me and say something like, “So much for global warming.” This would often, but not always, be accompanied by teasing or malicious expressions, and depending on my mood the person would get either a joking or snappish or explanatory response. Such an exchange might still happen, but now it seems quaint. It would be out of date in light of a potentially historic sea change that appears to have taken place in the state and the status of the global warming issue since I retired from The New York Times in 2000.
Back then I wrote that one day, if mainstream scientists were right about what was going on with the earth’s climate, it would become so obvious that human activity was responsible for a continuing rise in average global temperature that no other explanation would be plausible.
That day may have arrived.
Similarly, it was said in the 1990s that while the available evidence of a serious human impact on the earth’s climate might be preponderant enough to meet the legal test for liability in a civil suit, it fell short of the more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” test of guilt in a criminal case.
Now it seems that the steadily strengthening body of evidence about the human connection with global warming is at least approaching the higher standard and may already have satisfied it.
The second element of the sea change, if such it is, consists of a demonstrably heightened awareness and concern among Americans about global warming. The awakening has been energized largely by dramatic reports on the melting Arctic and by fear — generated by the spectacular horror of Hurricane Katrina — that a warmer ocean is making hurricanes more intense.
Each day, the Earth decrees, 'We must condemn these perpetrators of environmental crimes.' The winds and waterways are clamoring for justice. They act out seeking long overdue attention. Mother Nature is requesting we help her. She says, 'Please honor our shared planet.' Do not do as the self-proclaimed compassionate conservative and his cunning colleague have done. Do not destroy natural resources. Preserve the balance. We might consider that with every tempest, with each extreme temperature change, with rampant animal extinctions the environment is screaming, 'Prosecute President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney.' Please, let us heed the call!
Please speak to Senator Barbara Boxer. She is asking for suggestions.
Climate Change and the Bush/Cheney Clan . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 6, 2007 at 04:17 AM in Change the World [Within], Cleanliness. Godliness., Consumption and Conservation, Economics, Environment, Ethics and Profits, Facts or Fictions, Global Warming, Humans, Self-Destructive, Hurricanes , Nature, Nature or Nurture, Quality of Life, The World Can’t Wait, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Cleanliness and Godliness. Wash Your Hands of Guilt? ©
They “make love,” generate heat. The ordeal is hot and they are sweaty. Ultimately, they decide to shower together. Upon cleaning their bodies, the duo realizes they feel relieved. All their perspiration and transgressions were washed away.
Studies conclude; the sense of cleanliness after committing adultery or sex that is not ordained by a moral authority appeases guilt. The sensation, that all is “right with the world” if I wash after violating a value or ethical principle, is called the “Macbeth Effect.”
This marvel of “washing away my sins” is operating in the minds of many. Researchers, Chen-Bo Zhong from the University of Toronto, and Katie Liljenquist of Northwestern University, establish there is a “psychological association between bodily purity and moral purity.”
They surmise it is no wonder. Religious rituals have focused on physical cleansing since the beginning of time. Initially, many of these rituals were in fact practical ways for controlling the transmission of diseases. Ultimately, the obsession to be clean or perhaps, guilt free led to an antibacterial trend. Numerous products touted they would prevent the spread of germs. After years of this campaign, scientist stepped in to remind the public, some bacteria is essential for good health. Society was shaken; people want to be cleansed, totally [inside and out.]
Even those that consider themselves non-religious are affected by societal mores. Traditions are learned and passed on from generation to generation. Whether we ourselves believe in Christ, Allah, Jehovah, Mohammed, or the Lord, it is likely that we were raised in a family where these deities were cherished. Our parents may have been Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or agnostic, or atheist, still they too were likely observant of societal standards. Please consider.
Christians baptize their young; they sprinkle or immerse the progeny into water. This act symbolizes that the young person has been accepted into the faith.
In the earliest Christian times, water was used for expiatory and purificatory purposes. As early as the fourth century various writings, the authenticity of which is free from suspicion, mention the use of water sanctified either by the liturgical blessing, or by the individual blessing of some holy person.For the devout Muslim cleanliness is a requirement.
Islam requires physical and spiritual cleanliness. On the physical side, Islam requires Muslims to clean their bodies, clothes, houses, and community.In Islam, God will reward those of faith for their cleanliness. People throughout the world may consider cleanliness desirable; however, those practicing Islam think purity is essential; it is a vital part of their religious life. In books discussing the philosophy, there is often an entire chapter devoted to this very requirement.
The Jewish people also honor cleanliness and absolution. Kosher laws are essentially a means to create and maintain healthy practices. They have since ancient times.
The passage, Ps. xxvi. 6, "I will wash mine hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O Lord," also warrants the inference that Ablution of the hands is requisite before performing any holy act. This particular form of Ablution is the one which has survived most completely and is most practiced by Jews.Indeed, most religions equate cleanliness with holiness. If we wash our bodies, then our souls will be purified, or so we are taught.
In the minds of numerous persons, ethically corrupt acts can be and often are associated with physical filthiness. The act of washing one's hands seems to free individuals of their guilt, their sin, their indulgence, or even their crime. In three distinct experiments people acted as though they were able to "wash away moral feelings," said Chen-Bo Zhong, coauthor of the three studies on the Macbeth effect.
As I ponder the results of this research, many thoughts occurred to me. There are those that clean when they are upset, frustrated, or feeling overwhelmed. What might that be called, avoidance? Perchance it is meditative. I know that for me, a good vacuuming or shower can fill my mind with reflections and resolutions.
Apparently, a shower first stimulated this study.
"One day when I came back from the gym, had a shower, and had this fresh feeling, colleagues and I started talking whether there's something more that you're washing away while you wash your hands," [Zhong] said.
Zhong, found himself reflecting on the thought long after the conversation concluded. He mentioned the dialogue and his theories to a fellow post-graduate student, Katie Liljenquist. Together they hypothesized; might washing be more than a physical act. Might it involve the psyche in ways not typically considered? Are physical and moral purity connected in the mind. Then the two decided to test the possibilities.
During the study, about 170 undergraduate students were asked to focus on ethical or unethical deeds while taking part in several exercises such as word completion.Just as was true in the Shakespearian play persons participating in depraved, degenerate, lewd, or lascivious behavior become obsessed with cleansing their souls. Indeed, “the subconscious [was] manifesting itself through its choices.”The researchers found that volunteers who had recalled a misdeed were more likely than those choosing a good deed to make choices associated with being unclean, says Zhong. These included interpreting the word fragment "W--H" as "wash" and picking an antiseptic wipe instead of a pencil as a gift. Researchers Zhong and Liljenquist labeled this act of absolution “the Macbeth effect.”
According to Dr. Zhong, "We found that after engaging in unethical behaviors such as lying or cheating, which leads you to question your moral self-perception, whether you're a good person, whether you're a moral person after all, this induces an urge to engage in physical cleansing, you want to wash your hands. You feel that literally that you're dirty.”
Zhong went on to state there are ”limits to the absolution afforded by a bar of soap." While it is true, 41 percent of the subjects who cleansed their hands chose to engage in volunteer work, one never knows whether the same subject would have responded as well were they given the opportunity to help the person that they wronged hours earlier. One never knows. In truth, much remains mysterious.
I personally am fascinated. Why do pious persons accept and acknowledge one aspect of religious dictums while ignoring many others. It might be said that America is becoming more secular; if that is truth we might understand why we are such a combative society, engaging in crime and combative worldwide.
However, contrary to this common belief, America is not becoming more materialistic and less spiritual. In fact, this nation is dominated by a belief in God.
A recent comprehensive study, designed by the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, reveals that in America
the unaffiliated are currently at 10.8% of the population, as opposed to the 14% percent claimed by other surveys. This three to four percent difference is significant. Based on the current population, it means that researchers have previously over-counted the religiously unaffiliated by 10 million Americans, and may have overlooked as many or more Americans who are actually affiliated with Evangelical congregations and denominations.Worldwide the non-religious, which may are not necessarily non-believers, comprise about 14.7 percent of the population. Self-proclaimed atheists are only 3.8 percent of the global populace.Barely one in ten Americans (10.8%) is NOT affiliated with a congregation, denomination, or other religious group.
Fewer than five percent of the U.S. population claims a faith outside of the Judeo- Christian mainstream.
Fully a third of Americans (33.6%), roughly 100 million people, are Evangelical Protestant by affiliation.
Yet, as we observe the nature of man worldwide, one has to wonder. Considering the number of wars here on earth, the abundance of adultery, the litany of larcenies, countless examples of coveting, the lack of honor bestowed upon parents, elders, humanity, and animals are we the cleanest creatures in the universe? I suspect we are.
Now, I need to shower. Feel free to contemplate. What might the reasons be; I wish to wash.
Wash your sins away. Worry no more. Bathe in resources . . .
• Lady Macbeth Not Alone in Her Quest for Spotlessness, By Benedict Carey. The New York Times. September 12, 2006
• Washing Away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing, By Chen-Bo Zhong and Katie Liljenquist. Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. September 8, 2006. Vol. 313. no. 5792, pp. 1451 - 1452
• People Really Do Wash Away Sins, By Charles Q. Choi. LiveScience. September 7, 2006
• Washing away your sins: the Macbeth effect, Erica Harrison. Cosmos Online. Friday, 8 September 2006
• Washing Our Sins Away -- Literally? By Siri Nilsson. ABC News. September 7, 2006
• Holy Water. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent. 2006
• A Muslim's Daily Life - Tahara (Cleanliness or Purification), By Dislam. Discover Islam. Sunday, February 5, 2006
• Judaism. Wikipedia®
• Ablution, By Bernard Drachman and Kaufmann Kohler. JewishEncyclopedia.com.
• Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents. Adherents.com.
• Hand-washing may help cleanse conscience as well. Boston Globe. September 11, 2006
• Washing our hands of guilt, There's more to cleansing ourselves than good hygiene, study suggests, By Eric Shackleton. The Canadian Press. Friday, September 08, 2006
• How religion defines America, By Dr Richard Land. BBC News. Wednesday, February 25, 2004
• Majority in U.S. believes in God, By Jennifer Harper. The Washington Times. December 25, 2005
• Losing My Religion? No, Says Baylor Religion Survey, Baylor University. September 11, 2006
• Why people lie — and how to tell if they are, Dr. Gail Saltz. MSNBC News. January 31, 2004
• Infidelity, Adultery, Cheating, ... Divorce Peers.
• Summary of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation.
• War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide, and Terrorism. Human Rights Library.
• Crimes Against Persons Age 65 or Older, 1992-97 U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Animal Abuse. Pet-Abuse.Com.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 13, 2006 at 04:41 PM in Chen-Bo Zhong, Ph.D., Management, Cleanliness. Godliness., Katie Liljenquist, Ph.D. Candidate, Management, Religious Rituals, Truth, a Far Stranger Foolishness | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
