If you were asked how long it takes the average plastic water bottle to biodegrade, what would be your guess? Would you have thought maybe 100 or 200 years? Recent research from the Container Recycling Institute of America suggests that plastic bottles take some 700 years to breakdown into their toxic elements. Oh, is that all? Today, 80% of all general public solid waste ends up in landfill, while 10% is incinerated and only the last 10% is recycled. Because less than a single percent of plastics are recycled, almost all plastics end up in landfill sites. Or do they?

A typical landfill station

Floating Islands

It shouldn’t only be alarming that landfill stations worldwide are amassing billions of throwaway plastics, but that the oceans and river systems are too. Early last month, British adventurer and environmentalist David de Rothschild embarked on a spectacular voyage into the Pacific aboard a vessel engineered entirely of plastic products – the heralded ‘Plastiki’.

Traveling from San Francisco to Sydney, his crew’s mission is to heighten awareness of the tragic “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”. Located north-west of Hawaii, the patch was exposed in 1999 by researchers who found that the plastic, most from coastal cities in Asia and California, is “trapped indefinitely” by a vortex of currents that circulate clockwise around the North Pacific. The scientists approximate that the patch contains tens of thousands of plastic pieces per square mile, and its very existence is an ecological disaster.

In an interview with the Guardian UK, de Rothschild said, “The plastic water bottle epitomises everything about this throwaway, disposable society […] though I want the Plastiki to make a statement that it’s our lack of reuse, uses and disposal that it is at fault, and not the material itself”.  Check out Tweets, facts and photos from de Rothschild’s journey by visiting: http://www.theplastiki.com/.

Movements

The long lives of plastic bottle pose a serious threat to the environment, but after 20 years the sales of bottled water might have finally reached a pinnacle. Non-profit organisation Food & Water Watch recently released a report labeled Bluewashing. In the document, research states,  “The bottled water industry is a prime example of a corporate sector that is using these misleading marketing tactics to sell its products. In 2008, bottled water sales declined for the first time in years, partially due to the economy, but also largely due to growing awareness about the social and environmental impacts of the product”.

A growing social and environmental awareness has echoed through recent articles posted by the Washington Post, America’s National Public Radio and the Beverage Marketing Company. But also in 2008, Australians spent a record $500 million on bottled water. In response to the alarming figures, former New South Wales Premier Nathan Rees decided to take action. “We’re asking government departments to phase it out […] The reality is that the majority of people (surveyed) prefer tap water over spring or purified water in a blind taste test,” said Rees in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald. “These plastic bottles are everywhere,” he said. And still there remain billions of discarded plastic bottles adrift in the ocean currents and buried beneath once fertile land. Why is bottled water so popular?

The agencies and regulations

In Australia, new tap water drinking guidelines are being drafted and discussed. The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh19syn.htm) is undergoing a rolling revision that aims to encompass the latest scientific evidence on good quality drinking water. On the other hand, the Australasian Bottled Water Institute (ABWI) is the responsible industry association for water bottlers and suppliers in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific. The ABWI work closely with their government regulators and affiliates to ensure their consumers “enjoy safe, high quality, good tasting bottled water”.  Nevertheless, to ensure these standards are met, the bottled water industry demands petroleum and energy to produce its billions of plastic packaging:

“In a recent report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) quoted waste industry experts who claimed that for the purpose of landfill management, the bottled would never decompose. A significant amount of energy is further used in the transportation of bottled water products. This too can cause more pollution and contribute to global warming,” (Bluewashing, 2010).

In recent years, Gigi Kellett and the Corporate Accountability International group (CAI) in the United States – renowned for their unyielding campaigns against tobacco companies in the 90s – have been quashing common water and bottled water misconceptions. In an interview with AlterNet, Kellett said not only does tap water often taste the same as bottled water, but it is also often safer to drink as well. “They are spending tens of millions of dollars every year to undermine our confidence in tap water even though water systems here in the United States are better regulated than bottled water,” she said. In the US tap water is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which imposes strict limits on chemicals and bacteria, constant testing by government agencies, and mandatory notification to the public in the event of contamination.

As opposed to water from the tap, bottled water in the US is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which by federal law is bound to the same standards as the EPA. According the report from Alternet, “The devil is in the details, since FDA regulations only apply to water that is bottled and transported between states, it excludes the two-thirds of water that is solely transported within states. What’s more, FDA regulations rely on companies to do their own testing, and perform voluntary recalls if products are found to be in violation of standards”(http://www.alternet.org/story/43480/). A 1999 study of more than 1,000 bottles of water by the National Resources Defense Council found that while most bottled water was safe, some brands violated strict state standards on bacterial contamination, while others were found to contain harmful chemicals such as arsenic. The report concluded that bottled water was no safer than water taken from the tap.

The chemicals

Today, almost two thirds of the non-carbonated, non-alcoholic beverages are packaged in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles. Especially prone to littering, these bottles have a lower recycling rate than any of the most common packaging materials. PET plastic is a petroleum product. Because it is currently recycled at a low rate, tens of billions of new plastic bottles must be manufactured each year from virgin materials — fossil fuels — to replace those that were not recycled. In 2005, The Container Recycling Institute estimated that approximately 18 million barrels of crude oil were used to replace the two million tons of PET bottles that were dumped in landfill stations. When PET plastics are constructed using virgin materials (rather than used bottle resin), greenhouse gases are produced. In the making of 50 billion PET bottles, an estimated 800 thousand metric tonnes of carbon equivalent (MTCE) were released into the earth’s atmosphere. Regardless of the bottle’s weight or what the plastic is made of, a plastic bottle still needs to be disposed of. The problem still remains – three out of every four bottles still end up thrown out in the trash (US GAO, 2009).

Alternatives, solutions and conclusions

It has been shown that there are a litany of environmental and ecological consequences pertaining to the processing, production and disposal of plastic bottles. There are many, many case studies and scientific reports that relate the impact of the bottle to the endangerment of wildlife and marine life, air and water pollution associated with raw material extraction; as well as land filling and incineration.

However, all hope is not lost. Recycling a single plastic bottle can conserve enough energy to light a 60-watt light bulb for up to six hours. Recycled plastic bottles can be remade into products like clothing, carpeting, detergent bottles and lumber for outdoor decking. Furthermore, producing new plastic products from recycled materials uses two-thirds less energy than is required to make products from raw (virgin) materials. This in turn also reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Realistically, the production of plastics for bottles and other packaged goods seem unlikely to grind to a screaming halt anytime soon. Though in decline, the demand for bottled water is high; the convenience is apparent and their popularity is still prevalent.

With knowledge of the dangers plastic bottles can have on the environment and on one’s self, as well as their inflated cost and, indeed, the fact tap water tastes fine and is highly regulated, should be reason enough to take up the challenge and promote healthy and environmentally safe water habits. The buck stops with you!

Bottled Water Facts

Australia

• Australians spend more than half a billion dollars a year on bottled water. Last year,  the sale of bottled water increased by 10 percent.
• Producing and delivering a litre of bottled water can emit hundreds of times more greenhouse gases than a litre of tap water.
• According to British research, drinking one bottle of water has the same environmental impact as driving a car for a kilometre.
• In many cases, a litre of bottled water is more expensive than a litre of petrol. Department of Environment and Climate Change estimates that 200ml of oil is used to produce, package, transport and refrigerate each litre bottle of bottled water. As a result, at least 50 million litres of oil are used in the manufacture and distribution of bottled water in Australia every year.
• Australia recycles only 36% of PET plastic drink bottles.
• In South Australia, which has Container Deposit Legislation, the plastic bottle recycling rate is 74%. A 2007 national Newspoll commissioned by Clean Up Australia found that those polled 82% support a CDL scheme of 10c on bottles.
• Australia’s annual use of bottled water generates more than 60,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – the same amount that 13,000 cars generate over the course of a year.
• (Bottled Water Alliance – www.bottledwateralliance.com.au)

USA

• Americans throw away 2.5 million plastic bottles every hour.
• The average American consumes 167 bottles of water a year.
• The federal standards for tap water are higher than those for bottled water.
• Americans will buy an estimated 25 billion single-serving, plastic water bottles this year. Eight out of 10 (22 billion) will end up in a landfill.
• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) do not regulate 60-70 percent of bottled water.
• For the 30-40 percent it does regulate, the FDA only requires companies to test a sample of water once per week.
• The EPA requires testing of municipal water systems between 300-480 times per month
• The shipment of bottled water burns massive quantities of fossil fuel, a weekly convoy of 37,000 18- wheelers.
• The incineration of the plastic bottles releases toxic byproducts such as chlorine gas and ash laden with heavy metals into the air.
• According to the Beverage Marketing Corp, the average American consumed 1.6 gallons of bottled water in 1976. In 2006, that number jumped to 28.3 gallons.
• Today, 80 percent of Americans have access to a plastics recycling program.
• More than 2.4 billion pounds of plastic bottles were recycled in 2008. Although the amount of plastic bottles recycled in the U.S. has grown every year since 1990, the actual recycling rate remains steady at around 27%.
• In 2007, more than 325 million pounds of wide-mouth plastic containers were recovered for recycling. (This included deli containers, yogurt cups, etc.)
• In recent years, the number of U.S. plastics recycling business has nearly tripled. More than 1,600 businesses are involved in recycling post-consumer plastics.
• Plastics in the U.S. are made primarily (70%) from domestic natural gas.
• Plastic bags and product wraps (known collectively as “plastic film”) are commonly recycled at the many collection programs offered through major grocery stores.
• Recycling just one tonne of plastic saves 7.4 cubic yards of landfill space.
• During Keep America Beautiful’s 2008 Great American Cleanup, volunteers recovered and recycled 189,000,000 PET (plastic) bottles that littered highways, waterways and parks.
• (http://www.container-recycling.org/, http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org, http://www.nrdc.org/, http://www.recyclenow.org/, http://www.epa.gov/)

With the growth of the green economy in the past decade, some companies have cottoned-on to the “feel good” factor that goes with saying their bags are made from recycled materials.

While marketing teams slap high-fives and revel in another highly-profitable, customer-friendly initiative, the consumers and bag-buyers are left with an important question: who do we believe?

Should more care be taken when buying reusable bags from companies who claim they use 100% recycled materials, or bags made from 100% RPET or recycled bottles?

First, the facts: PET is the chemical substance Polyethylene terephthalate, commonly known as Polyester. Prefixing with an R means the polyester contains recycled content. The content can contain either pre-consumer (e.g. factory off cuts) or post-consumer (e.g. plastic bottles) waste.

Upon request, Dr John Schiers of Polymer Analysis in Melbourne conducted testing for Envirosax regarding the true contents of various polyester yarns made from supposedly “recycled content”. Please consider that it’s very difficult to perform a test to tell the difference between genuine RPET and cheap virgin polyester. His conclusions to the tests are as follows:

“It is not possible to determine by testing the actual recycled content of a particular item due to the additives in the fibres (e.g. dyes, lustrants and spin finishes) as they interfere with the results. This testing, along with other research we have conducted, highlights the following: It cannot be claimed that polyester items are made from a specific number of bottles unless evidence is provided on how this was calculated.”

Due to the massive demand for RPET, supply of the material from certified sources is no longer sufficient. There are now many companies in China that produce bottles for the sole purpose of recycling them immediately into so-called RPET. This is green-washing at its worst and amounts to consumer fraud.

As a result of the huge demand, manufacturer prices on certified RPET are considerably higher than that of virgin polyester. If a company claims a bag is made from 100% RPET without certification, but it’s not much more expensive than a virgin polyester bag, then common-sense suggests that the bag probably isn’t made from RPET.

The terminology regarding material composition in some so-called RPET bags is cleverly phrased so that a quick-read indicates the bags are 100% RPET. A careful reading reveals that this is not the case. Phrases such as, “Produced from 100% recycled bottles” actually means the bottles used in the material were recycled, but doesn’t actually equate to a bag composed of entirely recycled bottles.

Without certification, companies may be deceptive in what they declare to be the content of recycled polyester in their product. Currently, and to the best of our knowledge, SCS Scientific Certification Systems is the only company in the world able to accurately test recycled content in material. Without this proper certification other issues may transpire.

While Envirosax were researching companies who make RPET from 100% recycled content, they were quite often presented with fake SCS certificates and fake documentation. Certification ensures that the amount of recycled content in the product has been verified. As testing has shown, it’s not possible to differentiate between a composition of material that may be only 10% RPET and the rest virgin polyester. The significantly higher cost of producing goods made of 100% RPET compels pricing of products upwards. With this in mind, take heed when buying goods that do not display their certification – you may be paying the price of a marketing ploy rather than a greener, more environmentally friendly product.

THE ALL-NEW ENVIROSAX SCS CERTIFIED RPET FABRIC

After four years of researching RPET manufacturers, Envirosax Pty Ltd has gone into a partnership with Unifi Inc of the USA to create its own SCS certified Envirosax RPET. Envirosax RPET is a mix of 55% flat filament polyester and 45% Repreve® polyester (Unifi Inc).

The 45% Repreve® in the Envirosax RPET is made up of 100% recycled content, 80% pre-consumer and 20% post-consumer recycled polyester content (predominantly plastic bottles).

Repreve® is third party certified by Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) and Oeka-Tex, and also meets FTC guidelines for recycled products.

The Repreve® process involves converting the pre and post-consumer waste into RPET pellets rather than producing virgin PET pellets. The pellets are the core material used in creating polyester fabric. Essentially, the pellets are heated and stretched to create the filaments that are rolled into yarn and then weaved to make polyester.

The process is so unique the Discovery Channel featured it on an episode of How It’s Made.

Apart from the obvious environmental benefits of using recycled content in the material, the process of creating the fabric as compared to virgin polyester also has many ecological advantages. The method of manufacturing the polyester yarn conserves 3.34 litres of gasoline to every kilo of polyester yarn made. With approximately 25 million tonnes of polyester produced globally per annum, this figure becomes a significant amount. (NOTE: Conservation calculations are specific only to the SCS certified Repreve yarn product which Envirosax uses.)

RPET is a fantastic idea and if manufactured properly can reduce our carbon footprint significantly. However, the industry must be kept honest and companies must be held accountable for claims they make when marketing their goods.

This season enjoy your holidays while remembering to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.

Household waste increases by an average 25% over the holiday period with the majority of the refuse being food waste, Christmas trees, cards and gift wrapping.

In the US alone over 2.65 billion Christmas cards are sold each year, 28 billion pounds (12.7 billion kgs) of food is wasted and shockingly half of the paper the US consumes annually is used to wrap gifts. This results in a hefty 4 million tons of gift wrap and bags thrown in the waste.

These figures are made even more astounding when only a very small percentage is ever recycled.

Wrapping gifts in paper was created by Hallmark in early Victorian times. It was a process of the wealthy as the poor could not afford thelavish decorated paper. It originated wh en a prominant store ran out of the usual tissue paper and patterned paper was put out on the shelf in replacement. Before this time gifts were wrapped much more sustainably in material, and even perfected to an art form by the japanese.

So here are the Envirosax tips to reduce unnecessary waste this holiday season:

• Consider sending an electronic greeting card
• Put leftovers in recyclable containers, share them with family and friends or donate whole, untouched leftovers to homeless shelters. Where possible, compost leftover food scraps.
• Create beautiful, reusable wrapping for your gift with an Envirosax bag, as in our video below.

From New York to Sydney and everywhere in between, people are carrying reusable bags.

Not surprisingly, large corporations and retailers have jumped on the bandwagon, offering cheap or free reusable shopping bags as a badge of being green.

Unfortunately, these cheap reusable shopping bags are often more of a marketing ploy than a great choice for the environment.  To be effective in reducing waste, reusable bags must be able to be reused time and again, and therefore must be extremely durable. Polypropylene bags will decompose after exposure to UV light – below is an example of the affect UV light has on the tensile strength of a polypropylene bag when left in sunlight for 6 months.

Do not be fooled into thinking that polypropylene is an environmentally sound alternative. You may even find the term “biodegradable” on some of these bags (see below), but the standards for use of this term is that the bag must be biodegradable in a ‘commercially managed compost environment’. This unfortunately has little to do with the reality of biodegradability; in real world disposal scenarios, without the controlled conditions specified in these standards, the bags will not break down and biodegrade in a reasonable amount of time and will not decompose to organic material that can be put to use by other micro-organisms, as the term ‘biodegradable’ suggests.

Vincent Cobb (founder of reusablebags.com) recently discussed the futility of reusable bags that aren’t made to last (here). When asked if the solution is becoming a part of the problem, he didn’t hesitate a moment – “Absolutely,” he said, explaining that some are made so cheaply they fall apart after a few uses. “They are becoming more of the junk.”

A cheap non-woven polypropylene bag must be made inexpensively. The construction and material of the bag are of poor quality and they have a tendency to give way after loading them with groceries only a handful of times.  Ironically, the ‘reusable’ bags themselves end up in the garbage can.

As a consumer, an additional concern is where and by whom are these bags being made?  For the retail price of a “reusable bag” to be $1, the labour and distribution costs must be extremely low.  At this price is it possible to ensure all employees and suppliers are treated fairly and in adherence to Fair Trade guidelines?

Using an alternative material such as polyester (which has far better tensile strength properties than polypropylene), printed with the process of sublimation, will yield a more durable bag in which the color will not fade.

Digging a little deeper reveals that many reusable bags are nothing more than another example of green-washing.

A high quality reusable bag eliminates hundreds of cheap reusable bags, and thousands of paper and plastic bags over its lifetime.

For those of you interested in economics, you might like to know that ‘one use’ plastic bags are called a ‘market failure’. This is due to the fact that their pricing does not account for external factors such as the impact of litter on wildlife, or the monetary cost to the community to clean up plastic bag pollution.

In Australia alone, 30-35 million plastic bags end up as litter rather than in landfill every year, according to 2007 figures from a report on ‘the investigation of options to reduce the impacts of plastic bags‘.

Degradable and biodegradable plastic bags have been touted as the solution to this problem by a number of prominent supermarkets. However, there is limited evidence that they make a positive difference and more evidence to the contrary! The amount of time plastic bags remain in the environment as litter is unclear but the following facts give you some idea of their possible effects.

The most common degradable bags, oxo-degradable bags, have a ‘pro-degradent’ which causes fast break down into fragments. These then remain in the environment and may take a very long time to completely degrade. The impact of these bags as litter may thus be greater than for a normal plastic bag, which generally remains as one product, not fragments.

Biodegradable plastic bags are made from a mixture of polyethene and starch products and in the right conditions, will break down into elements like carbon dioxide, water and methane. To be considered degradable, these must compost within 12 weeks and fully biodegrade within 6 months. This means they survive long enough to pose a threat to animals if littered, as they may be mistaken for food.

If biodegradable bags are littered and caught in trees, like the plastic bags in the image below, they are unlikely to be exposed to soil microorganisms which assist breakdown and so pose the same problems as regular ‘one-use’ plastic bags.

Plastic Bag Tree in NYC

There are also questions raised about whether there is any benefit of degradable plastic bags even if they are properly disposed and end up in landfill. The Australian government published a report ‘The impact of degradable plastic bags in Australia’, which found that biodegradable plastics are unlikely to degrade in landfill as the microorganisms needed to help the break down, are not found in the dry anaerobic (oxygen deprived) conditions normally found in landfill.

The same report concluded that reusable bags have a lower environmental impact and gave better overall performance than either conventional or degradable ‘one-use’ bags, regardless of the degradability.

So the message is clear – reuse is the better option for the environment.

Trees are the lifeline of the earth, yet we continue to cut them down for unnecessary convenience such as ‘one use’ paper grocery bags. In the USA alone, 14 million trees are are cut down every year to support this market.

For each tree we cut down, we rob the earth of its positive contribution towards to reducing climate change. On average each tree absorbs 20kg of carbon dioxide per year, removes other pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide at the rate of 1kg per year and adds about 52kg of oxygen to the atmosphere per year. There is also an eco system of flora & fauna that trees protect along with preserving top soil and soil integrity.

Envirosax’s founders have in the past, rejuvenated a 17 acre property back to its former natural beauty in Northern NSW. They now live a sustainable lifestyle on a 10 acre pristine rainforest property in Currumbin, where planting has continued to preserve the area.

The property features a forest of over fifteen hundred, fifteen-year-old Hoop Pine trees, each absorbing 44lbs of carbon dioxide per year. These and the 5,000+ other trees on the property, significantly reduce the company’s carbon footprint.

With so much media attention given to one-use plastic bags and their negative effect on the environment, shoppers often assume that paper bags are a better, more sustainable choice for carrying their groceries.

However, with a bit of research it soon becomes clear that the argument is by no means as simple as paper or plastic.

For the number of ‘one use’ bags used in the USA each year it takes:

Paper -

• 14 million trees to make the paper bags

• The production of paper bags creates 70 percent more air pollution than plastic

Plastic -

• 2 million barrels of oil are used to make the plastic bags
• plastic bags create four times the solid waste.

* read here for more facts on plastic and paper bags

What you do with single-use bags when you are done with them and where you live, are important factors when making the choice between paper or plastic, says Jenny Powers of the Natural Resources Defense Council For example, if you live near the coast or on waterways, paper may be a more suitable choice as plastic bags clog up waterways and are damaging to marine wildlife (remember whitey the crocodile?)

(plastic bags smother coral polyps)

While paper may break down more quickly than plastic, there are still many less than desirable consequences of the paper bag. The only real solution for the environment is reusable bags!

For those of you, who, like me, are not that clear on what a hydrogen fuel cell is, it’s basically a process whereby hydrogen and oxygen combine to create a current of electricity, where the only by-product is water vapour. Clearly this is much more desirable than the polluting carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide which are released from petrol run vehicles.

With the growing concern for the environment and the high price of petrol, hydrogen fuel cells have finally been brought into the limelight.

A hydrogen fuel cell Chevrolet Equinox car was presented at the Detroit Auto show in early January this year, signaling the start of a genuine move to more energy efficient vehicles. While Honda and Toyota have been working on fuel cells for commercial use for years, with Honda developing 200 hydrogen cars for commercial sales in 2008, it has taken the rising petrol prices and an economic crisis for US car companies to realise that fuel cells are the way forward, however, the hydrogen infrastructure needed and the high cost of the cars ($100,000) means that the hydrogen-powered future for cars is not within immediate reach.

Check out this fantastic video of the ENV hydrogen-powered motor bike, which has been developed at a cost of only $6000. At this price these could be seen on the road in the next two years, if only more places follow California’s lead and invest in the hydrogen filling stations needed.

While car companies argue about the economic value of producing hydrogen fuel cells, a Queensland school has been leading the way in developing them.

Our first Guest writer, Dr Antoine Durandet, the head of science at All Saints Anglican school, Australia, explains why they started working on them, and what the students did.

“In the last couple of years we have introduced hydrogen fuel cells as a context to teach science in senior high school. Our main drive is to introduce concepts that expand our students’ understanding and appreciation of a sustainable future, while teaching the core subjects.

I have a background is plasma physics and spent 15 years in research laboratories as an experimental physicist before becoming a teacher ( by the way the best job i ever had!), so I am constantly looking for new challenges and projects for our students. Our biggest project was in 2007, when a team of students constructed a speed boat (scale model), powered by a 100w hydrogen fuel cell. The boat was presented at the Solar Boat Challenge on the Gold Coast.

In 2008, a group of 4 students from All Saints attended the students forum at the 17th World Hydrogen Economy Conference (WHEC 08, Brisbane Australia, March 08 Together with other teams from Australia, New Zealand and USA, they investigated the properties of Hydrogen Fuel cells. No doubt these guys will be our experts in 2009!

All Saints is a leading school in sustainability and especially in hydrogen fuel cell, as a result our students have hands on experiences with this state of the art technology. If you have any interest in this technology, please contact us.”

The British Labour party under Tony Blair believed that educating future generations was the key to a successful country and sustainable world – and Envirosax agrees.

‘One use’ plastic bags are going to be a continuing problem in the future unless people are taught about the problems and given an alternative. In recent weeks, I have seen the benefits of Envirosax’s efforts to create awareness and provide an alternative.

The above photo is of a school charity event in Singapore to raise much needed awareness about plastic bags. Having lived in Singapore, I know all too well that they are behind on all things green and one use plastic bags are still a major problem there. (Forget your groceries, Singporeans love plastic bags so much you can buy your iced coffee in them!)

As the world’s largest consumer, China uses nearly 3 billion plastic shopping bags a day; or at least they did until recently. The Chinese government announced earlier this year that they were banning plastic bag use in all shops and any that were used must be purchased. This policy came in to effect on 1st June and has been praised by environmental groups and other governments for its success. However, continued education is also needed, so that children understand the ban and the importance of reusable bags to protect their environment and reduce pollution.

Finally to Perth, Australia, where I received this fantastic story:

“I take my, almost 3 year old, grandaughter to the markets fairly often and she loves to hang my bag around her neck to be “the shopping lady” and get the fruit and veg. Last week as we were walking from the car she stopped, looked up at me, patted the bag and said “Tiny, I want a bag just like this for my birthday!”

Later her mother said it is the first time she has indicated she knows you can ask for things for your birthday … and what does she want – an ENVIROSAX of course.”

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently proposed a plastic bag tax in an effort to generate income and change the behavior of city residents.

Bloomberg’s idea is to implement a 6-cent fee on each bag, a penny of which would go to merchants as an incentive to keep track of the fees collected. It’s estimated that New Yorkers use 1 billion bags per year, and that the tax would bring in $16 billion for the city.

Like many cities across the country, the Big Apple is cash-strapped, and this is just one of the ways that Mayor Bloomberg proposes that his city close the budget gap it faces.

But city residents, not just its government, are also in economic distress. In a New York Daily News online poll, 53 percent of respondents thought that the plastic bag tax was a bad idea because “times are hard enough.” On the other hand, another poll on the same website reveals that 56 percent of respondents thought that the additional tax was enough to make them change their behavior.

If these polls generally reflect the opinions of New Yorkers, then the plastic bag tax would accomplish the behavioral change that the Mayor seeks.

“That’s like having a cigarette tax,” argued the mayor. ”The most wonderful thing in the world would be if we collected nothing from our cigarette tax. Think about how many people’s lives you’d save.”

San Francisco and Oakland, CA were the first and second cities to ban “urban tumbleweed,” and earlier this year, Los Angeles also followed suit with a law to take effect in 2010.

“This is a major moment for our city, to bite the bullet and go with something that is more ecologically sensitive than what we’ve ever done before,” said Los Angeles Councilman Bill Rosendahl, according to a story in the July 23rd Los Angeles Times.

Many other cities have considered similar legislation, which in numerous cases, has been voted down by local councils. However, other municipalities like Portland, Seattle, and Phoenix are attempting to take action against the single-use plastic, and have serious legislation with strong support in the pipeline.

Commendations to these progressive city leaders who have fought for their cities to make a move in the right direction.

Hopefully, New York City’s leaders will be bold in passing the tax proposal. If the largest city in the country, and the second largest in the world, took this major step in legislating more eco-friendly lifestyles and the use of reusable shopping bags, they would be setting a shining example for the rest of the world.

We’ll keep you posted on this exciting news…