Yes, got your email thanks Len. I have gone to your website and had a shufty
through. I am not as far advanced as you but note some of the tips you give
and have stored some away for possible use. I am looking to the simple
changes first, some of the bigger issues are a matter of timing but I will
get to these later on. As an example, you have recipes for home cleaners,
detergents etc. I cant be bothered with elaborate systems for that type of
thing. I use a basic washing soda/borax or baking soda mix and sometimes
vinegar as a fabric softener. I find it works well and is really simple to
mix together and store. About the only thing I would take a lot of time over
is bio-fuels if I had the vehicle to run them in. I guess I am just
frustrated that more people are not quickly moving to embrace simple
changes. I can't establish a marine reserve myself, neither can my neighbour
or work mates. We can change the way we do things at home however. It fairly
****es me off more are not. If you have things to add or discuss feel free
to email me. I am looking very locally at the moment and changing things
around me and with me (and my wife) that I can practically change. My
immediate focus is (very) locally as opposed to anything globally. For
example, Howard should sign Kyoto (and repeal his new labour laws) but I
don't waste too much time in angst over it as I can't change it myself. I
can tell the checkout operator I don't want a plastic bag and why. I just
wish I could also tell the person next to me to dump their 10 plastic bags,
stop killing my earth, and use some boxes instead.

rob

"gardenlen" wrote in message
...
g'day george,

count australia in there as well mate maybe even more so not sure?

i did send a reply to your original post 1 via the return format in this
program the other i sent to the e/mail addy ) in your
original signature line. not sure if you got them (both the same text)?

still would welcome chat with you about self changes, up to you i am on
the
same wave length as you, just think that as important as this topic is
these
av' garden forums/groups don't generate the sort of open discussion needed
to lead to what can be done.

you are welcome to contact me through our web site.

len

http://www.users.bigpond.com/gardenlen1/

"George.com" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...


Currently the availability of bio-fuels in New Zealand would account
for
something like.25% of the current energy demands of our nation. Put
another
way, it would take 400 years of bio-fuel growth to produce the same
energy
demands as 2006.

rob


but rob you are using your natural resources as well which is
detrimental
to
your environment and you are not such a developed (in the
industrial/suburban sprawl way) nation.
http://www.mikecrowe.photosite.com/a...2ndLeg/?page=4
show the geysers at Rotorua which used to be a lot higher, but as the
guide
said, 'they are now being used to heat our houses'. What happens when
they
give up?

Mike

yeah, thanks Mike, thanks a bunch. It was an article in a magazine
pointing
out how we are cumitatively rooting NZs environment that threw me into
this
slough of despondency in the first place. Nice of you to throw me a
lifeline, with a lead weight attached. The following discourse is not uk
gardening as an advanced warning. More so how NZ is doing
environmentally.

The geysers are actually doing better than they were 20 years ago. The
government capped many many back yard home heating systems as they were
drawing off too much thermal heat and dampening down the geysers. They a
re
certainly no where near the level going back 100 years but are showing
good
signs of good health. In fact, in recent years hot pools and steam vents
have started popping up in parks and peoples gardens showing the thermal
activity is increasing.

If you are talking about using natural resources faster than replacement
(sustainability) you are indeed correct. One latest issue is water. In
the
drier parts of the south island water is being drawn off faster than it
is
replaced. ancient aquifers are running dry. The water is going in to
irrigation for pasture mainly. Show me the logic of that.

Other natural resources are being conserved, that is one area NZ is
doing
quite well. Land and wetlands are being locked away in national parks,
native forests no longer logged, increasing marine reserves. We are also
starting to invest quite heavily in wind power generation (though still
a
small % of total demand) although nimbys still exist. One example was
the
wind turbines may 'scare the horses'. My view on that is short and to
the
point.

Whether this balances up the depletion of natural resources I do not
know.
I
would suspect not however things are getting more in to balance. Eg, we
dig
up a coal seem but place more land in to a national park or create a new
marine reserve. We hunt for more natural gas but also build a large wind
farm.

More of a concern however is air quality (worsening), water quality
(disgusting deterioration), increasing consumer wastes, plastics etc
etc.
We
are cleaning up past decades of DDT, copper, arsenic etc poisoining of
land.
Good. We continue to pump nitrates into our water ways causing
infestations
of water weeds.

We are a new country with a short history of european colonisation (200
years) however we have gone a long way down the line of environmental
degredation. Pity we didn't learn from europe with their centuries of
destruction. We seem to emulate it but do so a whole lot quicker. We are
still one of, it not the, cleanest country on earth however that is down
to
our recent development and low population. People are wising up, I just
wish
they would wise up a hell of a lot faster.

rob

g'day george,

you had a post in the alt.pc group as well i had nearly forgotten hey
chuckle.

the attitude in that group is pretty indicative of waht occurs in these um
earth friendly chat thingies. that group a few years ago was very viable
always heaps of new posts every day new members coming in all the time lots
of help and assistance for the newies and the oldies a good friendly crowd.

then the dark forces arose and they are still there here as well and the
group karked it over night very sad realy, about the only post there now are
the spam porn ones. in the past you would ahve a couple of dozens responses
to your original post and my guess the thread would still be active.

anyhow we are in the same region with similar control problems.

len

http://www.users.bigpond.com/gardenlen1/

snipped

George.com wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...

rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give or
take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat of
paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth, spoilt

it

yes, but like all wounds, it will heal.

Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of man's
short inhabitance and everything will be OK

:-))
Mike


a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth will
exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its
carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all but
sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space to
recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do root
our future existence is the focus of my post.

rob

Try 'beyond the Stone Age' as in back to dust! We have no future
existence unless you mean by our molecules passing through the dust and
water tables to be part of other things.

It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place. We
do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a
good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as
individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and
screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ?



Richard.




--
Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...


It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.

....

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

New aspects of animal intelligence are being demonstrated all the
time, such that at some time in the future there may be misgivings
about their being slaughtered for food, but the possibility of animals
ever being shown to embrace generalised concepts of morality seems
very doubtful at any time.

In the absence of religion, an appeal to man's special nature
is the only possible defence there is against wanton wickedness
such as deliberate acts of cruelty to small children or animals to
name the most obvious examples. While man may indeed have sufficient
general intelligence to exert dominion over most of the natural
world, it's only the ability to form moral principles - often running
directly contrary to religious teaching which leads him to question the
morality of wiping out entire species, or being cruel to animals
etc. Which in the view of many religions were put on the earth
solely for man's use.

....


We
do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a
good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as
individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and
screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ?

....

The moral qualms arise because man as a species may feel a
moral responsibility, not felt by any other part of creation
as far as we know, for wiping out entire species of wildlife
in the process. The fact that this is merely a working through
of evolutionary mechanisms, and that species are dying out all
the time in any case, including out own, is neither here nor there.
Man alone is capable of feeling responsibility for things. Morality
like religion is based on sentiment - the story the human race needs to
tell itself, in order for life to be meaningful, rather than on
cold hard facts.


michael adams

....






Richard.




--
Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...


It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.

...

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

a lobby group of fundamental US pastors has been formed urging Bush to deal
with global warming on the understanding that god made us custodians of the
earth, something we are not doing so well at. They argue that caring for
Gods creation involves environmental care.

rob

michael adams wrote:
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...



It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.


...

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

Of course, as you say capable but tied to our roots, hence the term
'human animal' and the animal that we are, we just use bigger tools to
sort out differences or our own greed fro the want of other's property
or inheritances.


New aspects of animal intelligence are being demonstrated all the
time, such that at some time in the future there may be misgivings
about their being slaughtered for food, but the possibility of animals
ever being shown to embrace generalised concepts of morality seems
very doubtful at any time.

In that case we may well understand the 'senses' of plants also and
start shitting on the land once again, to form part of that symbiotic
nature built up between man and flora.

In the absence of religion, an appeal to man's special nature
is the only possible defence there is against wanton wickedness
such as deliberate acts of cruelty to small children or animals to
name the most obvious examples. While man may indeed have sufficient
general intelligence to exert dominion over most of the natural
world, it's only the ability to form moral principles - often running
directly contrary to religious teaching which leads him to question the
morality of wiping out entire species, or being cruel to animals
etc. Which in the view of many religions were put on the earth
solely for man's use.

We
do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a
good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as
individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and
screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ?
...

The moral qualms arise because man as a species may feel a
moral responsibility, not felt by any other part of creation
as far as we know, for wiping out entire species of wildlife
in the process. The fact that this is merely a working through
of evolutionary mechanisms, and that species are dying out all
the time in any case, including out own, is neither here nor there.
Man alone is capable of feeling responsibility for things. Morality
like religion is based on sentiment - the story the human race needs to
tell itself, in order for life to be meaningful, rather than on
cold hard facts.


michael adams

...

I don't deny the moral aspect of the human structure which is an inward
looking concept as it puts man at the centre of his own world ("how do
'I' relate to the world") but I was taking an external stance, looking
in on man whether from that meteorite we were worrying about some five
or six years ago and that would reach here in about fifteen years now,
or some virus that too has a survival plan of its own which involves us
as a host.

After all, we're only the dinosaur Mk II waiting to happen and it's no
big deal. It's been a great ride and especially as we are in the
uk.rec.gardening group we should be even more aware that there are
seasons to *every*thing!


Richard.

--
Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html

"George.com" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...


It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of
all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.

...

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

a lobby group of fundamental US pastors has been formed urging Bush to
deal
with global warming on the understanding that god made us custodians of
the
earth, something we are not doing so well at. They argue that caring for
Gods creation involves environmental care.

....

I wouldn't want to base any argument of what US pastors claim or
don't claim. Apparently one branch of Christian Fundamentalists
in the States believe Armaggedon* is only around the corner in
any case - in the Holy Land. Israel has a special place both
biblically and geo-politically. Some aspects of US Middle East
policy really are a Crusade although quite where this puts
mainly non-christian Neo-Cons is another matter.

* an actual location in Israel/Palestine/Jordan/?

Just like all Fundamantalists, these people - quite possibly Bush
included are quite happy to die early in the belief they're destined for
heaven. They wiped out the Native Americans on that pretext and its
quite possible they're willing to wipe out the entire world as well

I personally put my faith in Big Mac Whoppers, Triple Burger Kings,
and unsustainable health care costs, bringing the land of the free
to its knees before we ever get to that stage. The lure of frying
onions will prevail. But that's another matter.


michael adams

nil desperandum

....



rob

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...



It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.


...

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

Of course, as you say capable but tied to our roots, hence the term
'human animal' and the animal that we are, we just use bigger tools to
sort out differences or our own greed fro the want of other's property
or inheritances.

....

Indeed we're also the only species capable of immorality.

The rest of creation is incapable of either moral or immoral acts.

Animals act solely on instinct, or exhibit those behaviour patterns
which have given them an advantage in the survival game.

Its quite possible that what we term morality are merely behaviour
traits which enable large social groupings such as ourselves to co-exist.
Nevertheless we need to tell ourselves we're responsible for the way
we act, whatever its actual basis, whereas animals don't. They just
get on with life without any reflection whatsoever.

....



New aspects of animal intelligence are being demonstrated all the
time, such that at some time in the future there may be misgivings
about their being slaughtered for food, but the possibility of animals
ever being shown to embrace generalised concepts of morality seems
very doubtful at any time.

In that case we may well understand the 'senses' of plants also and
start shitting on the land once again, to form part of that symbiotic
nature built up between man and flora.

....

The senses of plants like the senses of animals don't embrace
complex self consciousness. Plants sense light in the sense that
they grow towards it, and a chimpanzee looking in a mirror
may eventually come to realise that the image is of itself
and so start grooming itself in the mirror. But it's doubtful
if that amounts to actual self consciousness.

Animals will naturally feel emotions of fear and fright because
it's those feelings which motivate them to flee from predators.
For similar reasons they will feel pain, because escaping from
a source of pain is a useful defence machanism.

It's generaly thought immoral nowadays, to subject defenceless
animals to gratuitous fear or pain.

Plants cannot move and so have no feelings in that sense because
such emotions or sensations would have no survival value.

....

In the absence of religion, an appeal to man's special nature
is the only possible defence there is against wanton wickedness
such as deliberate acts of cruelty to small children or animals to
name the most obvious examples. While man may indeed have sufficient
general intelligence to exert dominion over most of the natural
world, it's only the ability to form moral principles - often running
directly contrary to religious teaching which leads him to question the
morality of wiping out entire species, or being cruel to animals
etc. Which in the view of many religions were put on the earth
solely for man's use.

We
do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a
good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as
individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and
screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ?
...

The moral qualms arise because man as a species may feel a
moral responsibility, not felt by any other part of creation
as far as we know, for wiping out entire species of wildlife
in the process. The fact that this is merely a working through
of evolutionary mechanisms, and that species are dying out all
the time in any case, including out own, is neither here nor there.
Man alone is capable of feeling responsibility for things. Morality
like religion is based on sentiment - the story the human race needs to
tell itself, in order for life to be meaningful, rather than on
cold hard facts.


michael adams

...

I don't deny the moral aspect of the human structure which is an inward
looking concept as it puts man at the centre of his own world ("how do
'I' relate to the world") but I was taking an external stance, looking
in on man whether from that meteorite we were worrying about some five
or six years ago and that would reach here in about fifteen years now,
or some virus that too has a survival plan of its own which involves us
as a host.

After all, we're only the dinosaur Mk II waiting to happen and it's no
big deal. It's been a great ride and especially as we are in the
uk.rec.gardening group we should be even more aware that there are
seasons to *every*thing!

....

Not if we manage to conquer time. The final frontier. Along with plenty
of heat resistant teflon. Then every galaxy in the Universe will be our
oyster. Through the black holes as well, with even better Teflon. That
was the dinosaur's big mistake IMO.


michael adams

....









Richard.

--
Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max
http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"George.com" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...


It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of
all
you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has
percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place.

...

I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place
because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly
developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the
feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract
moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of
some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily
explain
some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be
a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither
here nor there.

a lobby group of fundamental US pastors has been formed urging Bush to
deal
with global warming on the understanding that god made us custodians of
the
earth, something we are not doing so well at. They argue that caring for
Gods creation involves environmental care.

...

I wouldn't want to base any argument of what US pastors claim or
don't claim. Apparently one branch of Christian Fundamentalists
in the States believe Armaggedon* is only around the corner in
any case - in the Holy Land. Israel has a special place both
biblically and geo-politically. Some aspects of US Middle East
policy really are a Crusade although quite where this puts
mainly non-christian Neo-Cons is another matter.

sure, a number of the fundamental christians in the US are extreme right
wing in their politics and economics. In their warped logic god and looney
tunes libertarianism are one and the same. If you take away their belief in
god you are simply left with wacko right wing nutters who believe the free
market is infalliable, that it is never prone to failure and that any form
of government intervention is a sin. These economic alchemists probably see
no need for governments to do anything about environmental degredation as
their free market will solve all problems. Their degree of faith in the
mystery working of the market almost amount to witchcraft, something the
bible frowns on. Other more enlightened US christians obviously do see a
place for environmental issues in their faith.

rob

g'day george,

on the plastic bag issue i have a different outlook, i tend to think
laterally and outside the square and comfort zone, those attributes make it
easdy to adopt change needed for earth friendlier living.

for 1.. where did the push come from for consumers to adopt change? from the
governements of our countries is where, and they where preasured by vested
interests namely the retailers of groceries. the price of those "free"
plastic bags has been factored into every item you buy. s for me i would
waqnt to see the retailers drop the prices of all their range before i would
consider change, or it just simply becomes more profit for shareholder.

2.. those so called dreaded plastic bags break down very quickly in direct
sunshine, you could put them in a wire container and in a month they will be
nothing but dust.

3 the so called enviro' friendly bags are made of polymers (alomost
impossible to break down), and when they are in total use paid for by the
consumer they too will end up as litter but they will last longer, plus
those green/blue/red whatever coloured bags are made in china.

just for me i think we need to tread carefully when something is thrust upon
us by the very people who are crueling our environment with their excesses.
there are plenty of other real issues to get the public behind, i feel
anyhow just how i see it. we use those bags to collect household
(non-reusable/recycle) waste into saves buying just as equaly bad bin bags,
which don't break down as quickly as do those recycled plastic grocery bags.
in permaculture anything that we create that will rot or break down stays on
site, and plastic shopping bags are low on the priority of waste off site
product there are lots of wrapping from grocery stores that have to be
dumped so we also need to be aware of "if you can't recycle it on sight in
your garden then don't bring it home", would rather see more paper wrapping
used.

the hidden problems film wraps. polystyrene, plastic food containers. we
need to return to grease-proof paper, glass containers, tin containers. but
food processors are pushing more and more porduct into plastic containers
agin they don't break down, and recycling plastics is itself an unfriendly
process.

take care my friend

len

http://www.users.bigpond.com/gardenlen1/

snipped

"gardenlen" wrote in message
...
g'day george,

on the plastic bag issue i have a different outlook, i tend to think
laterally and outside the square and comfort zone, those attributes make
it
easdy to adopt change needed for earth friendlier living.

for 1.. where did the push come from for consumers to adopt change? from
the
governements of our countries is where, and they where preasured by vested
interests namely the retailers of groceries. the price of those "free"
plastic bags has been factored into every item you buy. s for me i would
waqnt to see the retailers drop the prices of all their range before i
would
consider change, or it just simply becomes more profit for shareholder.

2.. those so called dreaded plastic bags break down very quickly in direct
sunshine, you could put them in a wire container and in a month they will
be
nothing but dust.

i prefer to reduce Len before I look at reuse or recycle. Whilst waste can
be disposed of in various ways I think it best to try and avoid it
altogether where possible. If the plastic coming in is cut down so the waste
going out is cut down.

3 the so called enviro' friendly bags are made of polymers (alomost
impossible to break down), and when they are in total use paid for by the
consumer they too will end up as litter but they will last longer, plus
those green/blue/red whatever coloured bags are made in china.

Plastic bags can be reused at the shops, the enviro bags I have are natural
fibres. Yes, they do come from China however our oil to make the plastic
bags are also imported. The miles travelled by the enviro bags is similar to
the miles travelled by the plastics.

I use large supermarket plastic bags for bin liners (I need about 1 a week)
and smaller bags to pick up dog crap when I walk my mutts. That is
conceivably the only usage I can see. Larger plastic sacks are useful for
carting things in bulk however I have few of those and do not get them
thrust at me everyday I make a purchase.

rob

"George.com" wrote
snip
I use large supermarket plastic bags for bin liners (I need about 1 a
week) snip

I do that too.

Over here the major supermarkets provide a bin for recycling their old
used plastic bags. Perhaps you could get them to do the same where you
shop. If enough people demanded it they should listen.

The bigger places also do large boxes made of recycled plastic that you
buy and then use each time you shop.

I recall my local Sainsbury's providing paper sacks at one time but that
didn't seem to last long. I think people probably didn't find them
durable enough, e.g if it was raining, and handle-less bags are not much
good for anyone without a car needing to carry shopping home. I've also
read that paper sacks use more resources to make and transport than
plastic ones.

--
Sue

"Sue" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"George.com" wrote
snip
I use large supermarket plastic bags for bin liners (I need about 1 a
week) snip

I do that too.

Over here the major supermarkets provide a bin for recycling their old
used plastic bags. Perhaps you could get them to do the same where you
shop. If enough people demanded it they should listen.

we have those too Sue however I would rather reduce on the manufacture than
recycle. Reduce comes before recycle on the enviro hierarchy. A large
national retailer of cheap(ish), often made in china products, has plastic
bags with a large RECYCLE emblazened acorss them with a much small reduce
and a far smaller reuse. I simply tell the checkout operator no plastic bags
please and why. I use a cardboard box for groceries that the supermarket
puts out after stacking shelves.

rob

The best way is to reduce packaging use and change our life style. The
marketing communication promote wrong behaviours as cool models for
people. TV ask to all consumers to buy a lot of useless stuff every
day. I never see a sit com where the actors say stupid to someone
because he has a big polluting car or because someone forgot the light
on.. etc.. The first problem is our culture. I usually don't buy
products with useless packaging I prefer buy product using my own bag
and so on.. We have to work on comunication. On the other side,
according to the oil higher price plastic price is rising up very fast.
So the plastic scraps value is now higher than one years ago. If
everybody knows that plastic scrap has value and that it's better
recycle than disposal.
Try to check some waste stock exchange
www.recycle.net
www.wastexchange.co.uk

Sue wrote:
"George.com" wrote
snip
I use large supermarket plastic bags for bin liners (I need about 1 a
week) snip

I do that too.

Over here the major supermarkets provide a bin for recycling their old
used plastic bags. Perhaps you could get them to do the same where you
shop. If enough people demanded it they should listen.

The bigger places also do large boxes made of recycled plastic that you
buy and then use each time you shop.

I recall my local Sainsbury's providing paper sacks at one time but that
didn't seem to last long. I think people probably didn't find them
durable enough, e.g if it was raining, and handle-less bags are not much
good for anyone without a car needing to carry shopping home. I've also
read that paper sacks use more resources to make and transport than
plastic ones.


over here in Ireland plastic shopping bags used to be everywhere;
we have bad litter problems and the plastic bags were a very visible
sign of that; you got them all over roadsides and in hedges and fences
etc. We spent years trying to ask people to use re-usable bags or
boxes etc. That had almost no effect but it did allow me to feel very
superior everytime I asked for no bag and used my backsack for small
purchases. Eventually, the solution was very direct and simple. It
became illegal to give plastic bags away for shopping. You could still
get them but you had to ask for them and pay a tiny fee (15cents a bag
or so). It worked overnight. They have disappeared from the
countryside (at least the fresh ones have). Now, whenever you go to
the supermarked, you have to remember to bring 4 or 5 reusable ones
(made of cloth/canvas of some kind and that last about a year) or get
boxes or buy your bags. At first you can never remember to bring teh
bags; now it is second nature. It really worked.

Des in Dublin


--
Sue