1) Indicted State Senator Vince Fumo is in big trouble:
In another blow to State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, a computer technician who prosecutors said carried out an electronic cover-up for Fumo has agreed to plead guilty and is expected to testify against his former boss.
Leonard P. Luchko, 51, who worked in Fumo's South Philadelphia office, is scheduled to plead guilty on Monday before a federal judge, according to a document filed yesterday in U.S. District Court.
These computer guys were the ones caught deleting all kinds of information, allegedly at Fumo's direction. If nothing else, the feds now almost certainly will have him on obstruction of justice.
2) The City Commissioners story continues to have legs. In the last week or so, it has been in local media all over the place (The Germantown Courier, Mt Airy Times Express, Art Museum Home News, Northeast Times, etc). And on Monday, the Daily News had a nice editorial about it, as well. The story resonates because the premise- that election results are password protected- is just so ridiculous, and because hundreds of people signed on to force a change.
3) Speaking of corruption, Councilman Jack Kelly's Chief of Staff entered a not guilty plea yesterday. In the meantime, Inga Saffron has more on those shady developers also charged.
4) In site news, you can now get YPP delivered to you by email. Over there --->, just enter your email address in the box, and voila. It should be formatted for whatever device you are using, including blackberries.
5) And one more: From Its our Money, Ben has a a bunch of things up about recycling, including an op-ed today in the paper, a podcast with Dave Heller of WHYY, and a Q/A with Christine Knapp of Penn Future.
I added a number 5, a bunch
I added a number 5, a bunch of stuff on recycling from Ben.
Ben or Christine: can you give me more on this one?
Of all the waste thrown out, what % would an ideal household recycle? 40%? 50%?
And then, when you say commercial recycling rates are comparable, what does that mean? What is the average?
I have to defer to Christine
I have to defer to Christine for this one. I think it really depends on what kind of products a household is using. I know some people who are so conscious of their behavior that they literally only produce food waste-- and that can be recycled via compost.
For more information about commercial recycling in Philly, check out the Greater Philadelphia Commercial Recycling Council: http://www.gpcrc.com/index.asp
Ideally, the residential
Ideally, the residential diversion could be as high as 70%. LA and San Fran are now shooting for that goal. For Philly, our own recycling ordinance requires us to be at 35% and I think that is a realistic goal since the national average is now around 32%.
Philly's commercial recycling rates are somewhere around 35%, which is pretty good, but mostly comes from construction and demolition waste and not from commercial properties like office and residential buildings. That number combined with our very low 8% makes it look as though our recycling program is doing okay, when we now that it's failing in many areas.
The plus side is that once we get residential rates and recycling in commercial buildings, our diversion should be through the roof since the commercial rate is already high.
commericial by sector + rates
so i recycle every #1 and #2 plastic, glass and aluminum + all paper. so what should my rate be? 50%?
when we talk about commercial stuff, how do hotels, the airport, restaurants perform? and what % of waste do they generate? what about public trash receptacles?
while we're at it...
-whatever happened to that bill to ban plastic bags?
-have there been any studies done on the consumer choice regarding packaging, i.e. is there a segment of shopper who will pick between two brands based on which has easier-to-recycle or reuse packaging?
-how are plastic bottle bans going in other cities?
Plastic bags are not
Plastic bags are not necessarily worse for the environment than paper. Paper bags because of weight and bulk have a substantially greater carbon footprint than plastic. Because of the fuel burned transporting them, there is a good argument paper is much worse than plastic. The only negative for plastic is the biodegradability issue that can easily be remedied by making them out of biodegradeable plastic.
______________________________
Phillyville
And if they don't biodegrade?
I've never understood the whole biodegradibility argument. So what if plastic bags stick around in landfill for millions of years? Rocks 50 feet down don't biodegrade either and I don't see anyone wringing their hands about them.
In fact, if there is some question about whether plastic has some components that might be found to harm humans--and that question comes up all the time--then it would be best if those components doesn't ever leach out into the ground. Better the bag should be intact.
And if the plastic bags are there to be found by archealogists 100 million years from now, think how much fun they will have making sense of the ads imprinted on them.
Environmental arguments that are based solely on the fact that human action adds something to the natural world that wasn't already there--and that no one can see, hear, taste, or smell--are almost always wrong. They trade on the romantic notion that untrammeled nature is always better than nature that has been influenced or shaped by human beings. Well, that's wrong for two reasons. First, because we are part of nature. And second, because nature is not in and of itself good as anyone whose seen the awful consequences results of tsunamis and hurricanes an floods can tell you. (And those awful effects on not just on human beings, but on other aspects of nature itself.)
I am not sure it's JUST about romanticizing
untrammeled nature.
See, e.g., Payatas.
The bill had hearings, but
The bill had hearings, but hasn't been put up for a vote yet. The comment below is true, but the argument against plastic bags is not for paper bags. No bags or reusable bags are the answer. I'm not sure what Kenney and DiCicco plan on doing with the bill next, but I'm sure that it is not over.
I'm not familiar with any studies on packaging. I'm sure they exist, but I don't have the research at my hands.
I'm not aware of plastic bottle bans in other cities, unless you mean the decision of certain city governments not to buy bottled water. That's a relatively recent trend, so I don't know hard data on that either, but it's certainly a smart move from both an environmental and economic point of view as bottled water is a waste of money and natural resources.
You can't imagine why we
You can't imagine why we would want things that break down, go back into the earth, and make our trash footprint smaller?
Nor can I
I mean, afterall, why should we care about our massive blobs of petroleum-based, plastic refuse floating in our oceans - killing marine wildlife? Who needs all those fish, anyway?
And manufacturing plastic bags helps prop up the suffering the oil industry.
So, that bill...
APP, you are tripping. Anyway, as Christine mentioned, the bill Kenney introduced wasn't about plastic vs. paper, it was about need. I think he specifically complained about going to RiteAid and getting his package of gum put in a plastic bag. And if you pay attention, this happens a lot. The attempt to ban these bags was in part an attempt to get stores and customers to think more critically about using bags--which biodegradable or not--cost time and energy and resouces to make, and shouldn't be wasted.
That's why Ikea is selling plastic bags. And supermarkets are offering incentives to bring your own. Not to mention, as someone who has had to carry his groceries up one or two flights of stairs in every apartment he has ever lived in, I find that the reusable bags you purchase from the grocery store are infinitely more durable.
No I can't
The earth is made of stuff. Plastic bags are another kind of stuff. Who cares if they don't disintegrate? You are relying on the word "trash" to evoke the sentiment that there is something wrong with producing it. That is cheap rhetoric, not an argument.
There is nothing wrong with a lot of trash. My compost pile is full of trash, which will help me grow organic vegetables next summer.
As for DE's comment, you really ought to pay a bit more attention. I'm talking about plastic bags in landfills not in the oceans. Unless you have some story of plastic bags in landfills floating in some huge underground river into the oceans, that's another issue.
There is a really good argument for cutting down our use of any bags, paper or plastic because of the energy used in producing them (and trees used in producing the paper bags). That's why I mostly use canvass bags when I go shopping. But, again, that is a different claim than the one I"m addresssing. And, as someone pointed out, the case against paper bags may be stronger on this count than the case against plastic bags. (I don't know. I'm just saying that this is a possibility.)
It is pretty funny to see how otherwise bright, sensible people lose their capacity to read and reason when someone points out that one of the shibboleths of the environmental movement has no clothes.
No I can't
The earth is made of stuff. Plastic bags are another kind of stuff. There is an economic argument to reduce the amount of trash we produce so as to save money on tipping costs. I'm not questioning that. I'm merely point out that the biodegradibility argument is highly questionable. Who cares if plastic bags don't disintegrate? You are relying on the word "trash" to evoke the sentiment that there is something wrong with producing it. That is cheap rhetoric, not an argument.
There is nothing wrong with a lot of trash. My compost pile is full of trash, which will help me grow organic vegetables next summer.
As for DE's comment, you really ought to pay a bit more attention. I'm talking about plastic bags in landfills not in the oceans. Unless you have some story of plastic bags in landfills floating in some huge underground river into the oceans, that's another issue.
There is also a really good argument for cutting down our use of any bags, paper or plastic because of the energy used in producing them (and trees used in producing the paper bags). That's why I mostly use canvass bags when I go shopping. But, again, that is a different claim than the one I"m addresssing. And, as someone pointed out, the case against paper bags may be stronger on this count than the case against plastic bags. (I don't know. I'm just saying that this is a possibility.)
It is pretty funny to see how otherwise bright, sensible people lose their capacity to read and reason when someone points out that one of the shibboleths of the environmental movement has no clothes. It kind of gets in the way of understanding the details, which are important if we don't want to do more harm than good.
I think Ray's comment really gets down to the issue
The most important issue here is unneeded and wasteful consumption of resources. It seems we all agree on that.
That aside, the problem with your singular focus on the plastic bags that wind up in landfills is that it's a false issue. Biodegradability of plastic bags is an issue because you'll never be able to control where they wind up to the point where they will only windup in landfills and not in the oceans.
Ore elsewhere; because the biodegradability of plastic bags that don't wind up in the oceans is an issue anyway. Obviously, the ones that someone drops on the ground on the way out of the WaWa don't necessarily wind up in the ocean or a landfill, and instead, some get stuck somewhere in our sewage system. Paper bags that get stuck somewhere in our sewage system disintegrate. There have been urban floods in other parts of the world that have been attributed to the buildup of discarded plastic bags. I don't know specifics, but I would imagine that plastic bags getting stuck in our sewage system is not a benign phenomenon.
Yes, I suppose that in your perfect world, where no plastic bags wind up in the oceans or in sewage systems, and all wind up in landfills, the importance of their biodegradability may not be an incredibly important issue. I tried using maps.google to get directions from my house to a perfect world, and I came up blank. So, unless you can provide me with directions, I'll continue with my irrational tree-hugging if you don't mind.
Sewage Systems and Plastic Bags
You are really reaching, DE.
I've dealt with problems in our storm sewers. Blockages happen and create difficulties for people.
But most blockages happen at street level. And all kinds of things--especially leaves--cause them.
Things that are biodegradable don't biodegrage overnight. A garbalogist who studies landfills reported in the Atlantic about 15 years ago that he had excavated and read thirty year old newspapers from landfills.
APP
I admire your crusade to protect us from environmental fascism - but there are a few problems with your argument.
If we used biodegradable plastic bags, your argument about the comparative weights of paper and plastic as a counterargument to the advantages of using a product from renewable resources becomes irrelevant.
You still haven't addressede the reality that if we exchanged paper bags for plastic bags, we'd have less plastic in our oceans.
Clearly paper degrades much more quickly in a wet environment such as our sewage system than it does in a dry environment. Your example about how long it takes paper to degrade refers to a dry environment.
Several African countries have serious problems with plastic bags in their environments
Obviously, you might say "Why should we care about what's going on in Africa. Just because they have huge problems with the plastic bags that don't make it to landfills, why should we waste our time thinking about it?" I'd counter that given our economic privilege, we have an obligation to provide leadership on such issues.
Uh, again, Payatas
It's not like we live in infinitely expanding space and can put whatever we want in whatever quantity in landfills forever and ever.
Maybe you just need to
And again...
Plastic is made from petroleum. Paper is made from trees. There is some distinction there in terms of which source is more renewable.
That's not the only issue
Plastic is much lighter than paper. It uses less oil to move a box of plastic bags to a store than to move a box of paper bags to a store.
In addition, if we can reduce the number of trees we cut down, we can slightly reduce CO2 levels.
I think we ought to be focusing on reducing the number of shopping bags we use altogether. And we should try to reduce packaging as well. And we should encourage local goods--which really reduces transportation costs and oil us.
It would not be hard to start a crusade against plastic bags in Center City and the Northwest. This is exactly the kind of thing tree-hugging iberals love. The other stuff is harder to do. But it strikes me as much more useful.
Thanks Captain Obvious
Yes, that is why I asked about the bill.
Your Welcome Major Irrelevant
Your bill is about plastic bags, isn't it? I'm saying paper is pretty much as bad as plastic. We need to get rid of shopping bags altogether.
not *my* bill
You presumed that my interest in the bill was about plastics. My interest was about bags. And I don't even know if the bill is restricted to plastic or if that was my faulty memory. Further, most stores don't offer paper bags--maybe Macy's or a supermarket, sometimes a corner store, but less and less these days. I think you constructed a straw argument about plastic vs. paper, when the theme of this thread has been reduce, reuse and recycle (extra points though for creative adaptation--reuse if you will--of right-wing talking points. i hate seals and turtles too. now if only we could disprove that pesky global warming theory...)
On Progressive Orthodoxy
Well, then, we are not really disagreeing are we?
This controversy started because I said that lack of biodegradability is not an a real issue.
Making one, fairly minor point, that breaks with progressive environmental orthodoxy has set of a firestorm that ends up Sean thinking I love landfills and you suggesting that I probably don't think global warming is a problem.
When we are talking about the environment, no out of the progressive box thinking is acceptable here. And that is pretty sad.
zzzzz
you trot out this argument every time you say something outlandish. come on APP.
your arguments against biodegradability have not convinced me. biodegradability does not matter to me because of progressive orthodoxy, but a little thing called "science." tell you what, you produce some credible scientific research that says that biodegradability is not important, and maybe i will change my mind. but in the meantime, shooting back unfounded opinions is silly (though very bloggy).
PS- you said earlier that rocks don't biodegrade. But have you ever heard of a little thing called sand?
What can science tell you in this case that common sense doesn't
Science can answer specific questions. Whether biodegradability is important or not is not one of them. Important to whom? for what? You have to answer the politico-moral questions before you start with the science.
The basic premise of my argument is that if the plastic in question does not contain toxic material--that is something that science can answer--then just having it in the ground will not create any problems. You have to think of some potential problems before you can start testing them scientifically. You haven't thought of any.
You are just dodging the question and asking for irrelevant information, which is what you do everytime you get caught defending progressive ideas that ten minuts of quiet thinking would show you are just groupthink. (But as the saying goes, thinking is hard and ten minutes is a long time.)
Rocks fifty feet under the ground...which is what I said...don't biodegrade or at least not very quickly. Have you ever heard of a big thing called bedrock?
do you think the surge is working too?
This is too crazy. Look, to end this argument, almost like Terry Gross, all I did was google.
First page, second hit on this term "why pastic bags are bad for the environment":
http://www.alternet.org/environment/61607/
The site tells me that the bags:
This site:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0902_030902_plasticbags....
...it tells me that 80% of retailers use plastic bags (so it's really a moot point about paper in a ban). It also tells me that:
So anyway, fwiw this post has never been about anything than sharing tidbits about news and notes, and of those mostly about asking Christine Knapp about recycling. You found a way to twist it and trot out your "white liberals are so boring guilty and weird and dumb, let me tell you how it really is." (How did you know I always get called a groupthinker? You are so insightful!) That's fine, that's why I love anonymous bloggers so much.
But, again fwiw, I was super happy to hear about single stream recycling and to get some insight from Christine into other stuff Council can do to improve our city's interaction with our environment. I still fully support a ban on plastic bags. I think it will either force stores to give away reusable bags (I'd prefer canvass or those nice plastax ones from Whole Foods) or will get individuals to carry their own bags with em. It's hardly a central point in a larger urban enviro agenda, but it's an interesting one.
And frankly, whether you support the bill or not, it is better for our environment to reduce our reliance on plastic bags + plastic bottles + paper bags + gasoline + water + electricity + air conditioners + excess product package + excess stuff in general. You can google yourself to find out all of the reasons why, but I frankly don't see how you can justify MORE consumption, in the context of enviro impact, at all.
Two can play this game
First, Ray, do I really have to say for the third time that I was not making an argument in favor of plastic bags. I was addressing one small part of the issue about plastic bags, biodegradability. That’s it. You and some of the other folks here keep misreading me to be making a broader point. You are creating a straw man, not me.
Second, if you are going to go to the web to address the broader issue, you really ought to try to find evidence on all sides of the issue. While you can certainly find evidence about the problems of plastic bags on the web, you can also find many websites that point out that paper is no better than plastic. And there are few that suggest that paper is actually environmentally worse than plastic.
Here are some of the reasons for thinking that the environmental costs of using paper bags is great than that of using plastic bags.
1. Millions of trees are destroyed in making paper bags.
2. Destroying trees raises carbon dioxide levels.
3. More energy is used in making paper bags than plastic bags. One plastic bag requires about 500 btu. One paper bag requires over 2000 btu. Much of that energy is produce by oil.
a. Energy used in the process destroying trees
b. Energy used in building roads created to transport trees
c. Energy used in producing the paper
d. Energy used in transporting paper which is heavier and bulkier than plastic
e. Oil is the primary ingredient of plastic but the oil used in that process is not directly in competition with that used for the production of gas and fuel oil but, rather, is a byproduct. Only 4 percent of oil production goes to the production of all plastic, not just plastic bags.
4. Wildlife habits destroyed in cutting trees. This kills wildlife. Does it kill more or less wildlife as plastic bags that make their way into rivers and oceans. That's not at all clear. The studies that say that x million animals are killed each year by plastic do not distinguish between plastic bags and other plastic refuse. I have not found any evidence that bags are the main cause of wildlife death. They maybe. I just don't know.
5. Noxious chemicals used to make paper and that have to be disposed of: sulphuric acid and bleach. That's true for making plastics as well. There seems to be a variety of opinions from reputable sourcs about which is worse.
6. Huge amounts of water used to make paper bags. Little is used to make plastic.Plastic bags consume less than 6% of the water needed to make paper bags. It takes 1004 gallons of water to produce 1000 paper bags and 58 gallons of water to produce 1500 plastic bags.
7. Papers bags take up much more space in landfills than paper bags. Paper occupies approximately half of overall landfill volume. Plastics (not just bags) generate 14 to 28 percent of the volume of trash in general, but because much of it can be compressed, only 9 to 12 percent of the volume of waste in landfills. 2000 plastic bags weigh 30 pounds. 2000 papers bags weigh 280 punds.
8. While plastic does not biodegrade, paper does not biodegrade in good landfills, which are designed to be air and water tight so as to stop the leakage of toxins. At any rate biodegredation releases CO2 so it is not clear we even want it to happen.
9. Though not enough is recycled, plastic could be recycled at about the same rates as paper. Public policies could be adopted to create a market for doing so. Both paper and plastic can be reused. When I do get plastic bags, I always find a way to use them at least a second time.
I really have not spent the time to evaluate the environmental costs and benefits of paper vs plastic thoroughly. Neither have you. So I think your effort to ridicule me (especially for an argument I haven't made) is not only uncalled for but not in keeping with what you have often said you want on this site, a serious debate about issues. It sure looks like what you want here is for progressive orthodoxy to go unchallenged.
One thing I do think is pretty clear, though, if you really want to reduce the environmental costs of shopping bags, the right answer is reusable bags. There are lots of ways to do that. We could ban both paper and plastic. We could tax paper and plastic bags. A 25 cent a bag tax on all disposable shopping bags would do the trick. And we could recycle some of the money into poorer communities to make up for the economic impact on poor folks of the bag tax.
But if we pass a law that only bans plastic bags we will, as I have said before, give people the false impression that environemental progress is being made. Adn we will be doing it because plastic has bad connotations and paper good ones. Making public policy on the basis of a good joke in the movie The Graduate is not what progressives should be after.
Some sources:
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/PaperVsPlastic/
http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php?id=7
http://www.greenfeet.net/newsletter/debate.shtml
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/01/qa_retail_carry.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/10/03/GR200710...
(nice graphics)
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1268.html
http://www.nashvillewrapscommunity.com/blog/?p=46 (Nice comparison chart of environmental costs of 1000 paper vs 1000 plastic bags. But I would check the details as the website is that of a producer of plastic bags.)
I am not now...
...nor have I ever been a proponent of paper bags over plastic. This is why I am accusing you of creating straw men. Read more carefully.
What an unusual thing to spend so much time/energy to argue abt
.
There is no limit to how high we can get
There are ski slopes built on landfills. Space really is not a problem. Cost may be but that is an economic not environmental issue.
ridiculous
Ski slopes, by and for the wealthy, are built wherever, including on landfills. But more often than not, landfills are located as far from wealthy people as possible, and as little money as possible is spent on their upkeep. Ever hear of environmental racism? A mile high tower of waste is certainly possible, but unlikely. Jennifer already said it twice, but shipping garbage to the Philippines is happening much more frequently than skyscrapers of trash.
Umm...not to mention APP, that you have constructed a straw man here. This whole part of the thread is the descendant of a question I asked about a ban on plastic bags. Which, as has already been patiently explained to you, is not about the efficacy of paper vs. plastic so much as it is a disgraceful waste of resources spent on items we don't need.
Going at the problem backwards
If the problem is how and where landfills are built--and it is a problem--then we need to solve that problem. Don't think you are solving the problem by eliminating plastic bags. You are not going to make a dent in the problem of environmental racism by doing that. In fact, you will make the problem worse. For ten to twenty years, paper bags take up more room in landfills than plastic ones.
All you will do is make the guilty liberals in Mt. Airy and Center City, who produce far more trash than most people, sleep better by telling them that giving up plastic bags is a solution to the problem.
We can create regulations and economic incentives that will lead us to to do landfill wisely.
And if you want to limit the waste of resources, ban all shopping bags not just the plastic ones. I haven't used one in ten years. They are totally unnecessary.
We should educate people about the problem of packaging in order to build a movement for regulatoins of it, not play to the prejudices of the liberal middle class by picking on plastic.
Hey APP, just curious, where
Hey APP, just curious, where do you live?
I'd rather not say exactly.
Let's just leave it at this: I know the guilty middle class liberals well because I live amongst them.
Cool. Well, let me know
Cool. Well, let me know where, so I can drop off a couple hundred thousand plastic bags.
OK ludicrous.
Landfill is never completely "clean". Thats why nobody wants it in their area. That's why we send so much of our landfill and waste overseas. Household toxins from old batteries to nail and paint thinner, construction and demolition debris always make it into landfill, no matter how stringent the screening is. Some plastics are far worse in terms of releasing toxins as they degrade (i.e. dioxins albeit in small amounts - but amounts that become significant cumalatively), E-waste from computers and home electronics are chock full of heavy metals like mercury and lead. That stuff eventually seeps from landfill into the water table in some amount. Landfill has a high ecological cost that goes well beyond all the energy that went into making all that now useless packaging and broken stuff.
APP, can I ask you if you would want to move your kids to a place that draws water from an aquifer a short distance from a large landfill to see if you really think that?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
This is also irrelevant
Can we please stick to the issue at hand?
I'm not saying landfills are good. I don't want to live near a landfill precisely because they have all the noxious stuff you mention. That is not the issue.
Landfills are a fact of life. If you want to get rid of them you have to get rid of all the products that produce the nasty things you talk about in your post. I don't think there is anyone hypocritical enough on this blog to say we should do that.
So no one here is talking about getting rid of landfills. They are talking about getting rid of plastic bags.
I'm making two points in reponse:
1. Plastic bags are not the reason landfills are nasty. If someone wants to create a landfill near my house filled only with plastic bags, I'd have no problem with that at all. In fact, now that I think about it, I'd like to fill in a hole in my backyard and I think I'm going to use plastic bags and topsoil to do so.
2. Eliminating plastic bags won't help with the landfill problem. Plastic bags take up no more--and possibly less--room than paper bags.
APP has just...
...jumped the shark. No one will ever top this ever:
Stick with an issue then
All the silly exagerations and boldly inaccurate overstatements that point in different directions seem to be coming from your direction in this thread at least. Yeah some plastic bags are not necessarily worse in terms of their overall impact than paper bags because they are lighter and therefore use less carbon producing energy to transport. Totally mundane point that does not warrant the overstatements like "we don't have a landfill space problem". Of course we have a landfill space problem - landfills end up with bad stuff leaking into the water table from them. People don't and shouldn't want to live near them - and that means there is a very serious limitation on places to put it. Hence comments about skislopes of landfill are patently ridiculous - even to badly prove another point.
Some plastic bags are absolutely horrible for what they release into the environment BTW. Not all plastics are the same. Some (PVC, polystyrene) produce dioxins as a byproduct to manufacture and produce a whole lot more when they are burned. Others (including PVC cling wrap) get loaded up with those phthalates Congress has been recently been debating banning from kids toys due to issues about birth defects, specifically malformed genitalia.
For more information check out the green guide.
https://www.thegreenguide.com/reports/productprint.mhtml?id=44
But what hell go ahead and tell us about your experiments with better gardening through plastics works out for you, APP.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
A truly disturbing thought
The vehemence of APP's defense of plastic has nothing to do with bags of any sort but rather a fascination more um . . . personal.
After all what good is it having anonymous blog alter-egos if you can't fabricate totally made-up extreme vinyl fetishes to keep them busy while they aren't arguing the merits of paper vs. plastic bags?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.