I guess you haven't been reading my posts. The more eco-friendly choice is the plastic box, which is recyclable, whereas the bags are not. I don't know how to make it any clearer. I even pointed that out in my initial post, but some of you choose to ignore that point completely.
Yeah. I'm not the one who does the cutting up. My wife does it and she refuses to deal with the MESS of transferring it to a cutting board and then doing all of the necessary clean up and put away.
So, you'll be adding to the landfill, which is a long-range problem, rather than having the previous type of container recycled. Some people think this is progress, but it seems to me to clearly be a step in the wrong direction.
I not only read them, but I also understood them and sorry if it seems the opposite to me, but I'm telling you that if the bag is lighter than the box, the most eco-friendly choice can become the bag.
Just because it's not the bag that ends up being the only thing that matters
Why do you refuse to consider this possibility?
It's a ridiculous argument that the bags are better because they are lighter than boxes and therefore improve the fuel economy of the garbage trucks. The weight of either container is insignificant in the total weight of the truck and its fuel economy. Totally and utterly insignificant.
So please don't try to tell me that less gasoline is being used to transport the bags. That weight of the truck is so massive to begin with that bags versus boxes cannot even be measured. A typical garbage trucks weigh 33,000 lbs. when empty. And more as it fills up. The idea that if it carries some used food bags instead of boxes makes any difference in its fuel economy is utterly ridiculous.
This is nothing more than eco-nonsense that makes some people think they are saving the earth when, in fact, they are making things worse by promoting the use of non-recyclable packaging.
So please don't try to tell me that less gasoline is being used to transport the bags. That weight of the truck is so massive to begin with that bags versus boxes cannot even be measured. A typical garbage trucks weigh 33,000 lbs. when empty. And more as it fills up. The idea that if it carries some used food bags instead of boxes makes any difference in its fuel economy is utterly ridiculous.
This is nothing more than eco-nonsense that makes some people think they are saving the earth when, in fact, they are making things worse by promoting the use of non-recyclable packaging.
No, it is not.
Even a "ridiculously" small eco-friendly action, if multiplied billions of times, becomes a massive and important action.
You may think that whatever you want is ridiculous, it's your business not mine, but you have to verify if it's true.
It's like you're only looking in your own backyard, which is also normal, yet it's not realistic.
Try thinking about your "not-green" actions multiplied by, say, 4 billion times.
It is from then on that we begin to realize what the destruction of the ecosystem means.
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2...iles-of-abandoned-and-broken-bicycles/556268/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/post-a-picture-that-makes-you-laugh.402055/post-7687436
Edit just to add that I said about "transport" while you replied to me about "trucks": what about airplane transport?
Maybe do you think weight and volume don't matter on a plane too?
Last edited:
But this action is not getting multiplied billions of times. It's a very specific issue related just to Costco boxes.
And as I have already pointed out, the change they are making is to substitute containers that cannot be recycled for ones than can be. Please explain to me how that is better for the environment.
Also, I have no idea why you are bringing airplanes into the discussion. They have nothing to do with any of this.
And as I have already pointed out, the change they are making is to substitute containers that cannot be recycled for ones than can be. Please explain to me how that is better for the environment.
Also, I have no idea why you are bringing airplanes into the discussion. They have nothing to do with any of this.
That was an example.
If it's not billions in this specific case, how many will there be?
Let's say: millions?
What changes?
They are always actions multiplied by a very very larger number of other similar actions.
This is what should emerge.
Did you see those bikes that @ItsAllInMyHead posted?
Well, whoever threw one bike away then he thought it was almost nothing since he thinks: "I only threw one bike away!"
But we (should) know that it's not as simple as it seems.
Okay?
They have.
If you still don't believe it, please follow this simple reasoning:
Will those damn bags and boxes be produced in large industrial quantities?
Are those damn bags and boxes going to be produced by someone?
Does that someone have to send those damn bags and boxes to a distributor?
Does that distributor have to send those damn bags or boxes to Costco?
How do you think they will send them?
Do you think they are prohibited from using airplanes to send those damn bags or boxes?
If the load of a single plane is more efficient compared to the weight (and size) of those damn bags and boxes, then will more of them fit?
And will there be fewer flights for the same number of damn bags or boxes?
And you don't think transportation affects the environment?
It seems that all you think about is that damn bag or box only.
Costco is just the last of a number of grocery stores switching from the box to bag.
The issue I see is a lot of locals don't recycle the boxes. So even it it is theoretically more Eco-friendly, it does not help as it gets to the dump any way.
My city will not take food container plastic, and only takes type 1 an 2 plastics and then only bottles.
The issue I see is a lot of locals don't recycle the boxes. So even it it is theoretically more Eco-friendly, it does not help as it gets to the dump any way.
My city will not take food container plastic, and only takes type 1 an 2 plastics and then only bottles.
So, according to you both the bags and boxes are a problem. I suppose that people could go to Costco and bring the chickens home with their bare hands instead.
You might be willing to do that to save the environment, but I doubt that very many other people would do it.
The fact that some people don't recycle the boxes is no excuse for Costco to make the change. I still believe that this is based on money and the bags are simply cheaper for Costco to buy than the boxes.
I didn't say this, but no problem for me if you think that.
However, please note that we were on the fact that we were comparing the weight and size of the bags and boxes to highlight that the bags, being less heavy and less bulky than the boxes, consequently have a lower environmental impact.
Even if they were thrown into landfill in both cases (as indeed seems to already be the case).
This is precisely why we exchange our different opinions. 😉
I have an idea why they have changed the container from a hard plastic box to a flexible bag. Take a really good look at the size of the chicken, it looks like a pigeon.
I noticed this while looking at the hot food section, the hard plastic container is the same size but the chicken looks so small, in a plastic bag no one notices the size.
I looked at the cookies the hard plastic container is the same old size but the cookies are smaller around. Has anyone counted the cookies? I did 10 not 12 like before shrinkflation.
Bread loaves are shorter, and not as tall.
I noticed this while looking at the hot food section, the hard plastic container is the same size but the chicken looks so small, in a plastic bag no one notices the size.
I looked at the cookies the hard plastic container is the same old size but the cookies are smaller around. Has anyone counted the cookies? I did 10 not 12 like before shrinkflation.
Bread loaves are shorter, and not as tall.
"No single raindrop ever thinks that it is responsible for the flood."
Nonsense. The difference in weight and size is so miniscule, even considering that 137 million pieces per year are involved, it will make no difference to the environment.
What is much more important, but you continue to ignore, is the fact that now instead of the containers being recyclable and not having to go into a landfill they will instead be permanently in a landfill somewhere. I can't understand from an environmentalist point of view how that is better than recycling them.
With this sort of thing you have to do a ‘whole chain analysis’ which often it turns out. Results in completely non-intuitive results. Start with the raw materials of GHG packaging, all manufacturing costs and energy inputs, end user costs and disposal etc.
For another completely unasked for opinion: This whole thread really seems, IMO, to be a great example of the old saying of trying to make too much soup from one oyster. Folks, it's just a - now bagged - chicken, and a damn good one at that. The bag? Just plonk it on a plate, cut open the bag and slice 'n serve - probably easier than with the original container. Enjoy without unnecessary angst or manufacturing something to feel guilty or upset over. Use one of the zillion mismatched Tupperware containers tossed under the counter to save the leftovers. There's really too many more important things going on to be upset over than wasting time stressing over the small sh!t like this. Instead, mayby, enjoy a nice affordable chicken dinner to help offset all of the unhappiness we are surrounded by lately.
Just sayin'
Hal
Just sayin'
Hal
It probably isn't. But for something to be recyclable you have to recycle it. If the bags aren't and hardly any of the boxes are, then the bags win because they're lighter, take up less space, and probably fewer resources to manufacture.
I don't where the idea that hardly any of the boxes are getting recycled is coming from. We are very good about recycling what is appropriate, and my assumption is that most other people are as well. If that isn't true, then this whole recycling thing is a great big farce.