Here in Hogtown, we've had a 5-cent fee on plastic bags for a number of years. People whined and moaned about it when it was first introduced, but I think it works pretty well. It's not ideal—the money goes back into the hands of grocery stores, not to environmental initiatives—but in terms of reducing the amount of plastic bags ending up in landfills or avian intestines? It does that.
The objections are usually: "Well, I reuse them for garbage bags/cat litter/dog poop," which, yes, I do too. But amazingly, those little bags you put fruits and vegetables in? Are not subject to the fee. Those work just as well for animal poop. As for garbage bags, just how many do you need? A big box of garbage bags lasts awhile. Before the fee, I would accumulate far more plastic bags than I could ever reuse. Most people, presumably, would throw those out. The real objection is that no one likes to have to remember to bring a reusable bag to the grocery store. Except—it's not really hard to remember that. I have a small reusable bag that I carry around with me at all times and that fits nicely in my purse, and a collection of totes for more major shopping. It's not an inconvenience, I end up with less household waste overall, and in all the years we've had the bag fee, I've never once needed to pay it.
The real value in the bag fee, though, is making you
aware of how much waste you produce. This is a different kind of awareness than, "Hey, it's Earth Day, let's think about the environment for a sec." This is about the cost of things—how much does plastic cost to make, how much does plastic cost to dispose of—and dinging you where you feel it every time you create unnecessary garbage. I notice, at the checkout, that people who forget their reusable bags get a bit embarrassed sometimes. It becomes frowned-upon to buy a bag. It's a tax on being absent-minded.
In other words, it's social engineering, which is one of those terms that the right likes to throw around and the left ought to reclaim. Individual consumer choices are meaningless. To be honest, I carried a reusable bag long before the ban, because, well, I'm not
that lazy, and I'm not an asshole. But that's a drop in the bucket. Changing social behaviours is actually useful, and we should be looking into that.
It caused great enjoyment among many here when the Honourable Wife-Beater tried to rescind the plastic bag fee and ended up getting
plastic bags banned altogether in Toronto. Of course, he blames "the people"—you know, the ones he was supposedly elected to represent—and is basically being a big baby about it. But it suggests to me that "the people" don't actually mind social engineering, or carrying reusable bags around. It's a minor inconvenience at first that leads to better behaviour. It works. (I'm not sure that an outright ban works all that well—like I said, these things have their uses. A 5-cent fee was enough to deter those who didn't really need them while allowing those who did a choice. The correct decision would be to keep the fee but make the stores donate the money to local environmental programs.)
On a similar line, I actually agree with
New York's proposed municipal ban on super-sized pops. I think the "obesity epidemic" is largely created by the media and body-shaming is fascist, but I also think that ingesting huge amounts of sugary pop is bad for you, regardless of whether it makes you fat. This, too, is being called social engineering.
But! You know what else is social engineering? The fact that these portions exist in the first place. They don't exist in nature. When I was a kid, pop cans were much smaller. I could drink a whole one. Then came a larger size, because the cola companies wanted more profit. I couldn't drink one of the new ones, and there was always a bit left. But I eventually learned to consume greater and greater amounts until I
could finish a whole one. I was robbed of the choice of having less sugary pop, far more than New Yorkers will be robbed of the choice to have more (after all, they can always just buy two of the smaller size!).
So why is it that we accept without blinking social engineering on the part of corporations, and balk at social engineering on the part of the state? Shouldn't we be judging these things on their effectiveness in promoting environmental stewardship, or healthy choices, or whatever they're geared towards promoting?
On a related note,
this article about Home Ec is kind of neat. We do have the equivalent in high schools here, but of course it isn't mandatory and only girls take it. I'd love to see more hospitality and home economics courses, especially if it replaces the failed cafeteria model for student lunches.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
corwin77 texted me just now to tell me that there was a snake on it, too. I am sick of these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking aquatic train!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
