examinator

"If you compare the dilution rate of what I use then compare the damage it does (?) when compared to that of expensive marketed cleaner products or plastic bags I think your criticism of me is a little unjust...."

I agree I might have been a little harsh, especially if you're not using bin liners, but that wasn't clear to me in your original post. So I'm very sorry. I'll put the halo back up where it was!

The point I was driving at regarding the bleach was why use any? But if you're not using bin liners, well I'll concede there may be a need to splash a bit of bleach around occasionally. Though at the risk of bringing on another fit of the sulks, I still think every day is a bit much. :)

Examinator, I'm sorry to say, mate, someone is being a little loose with the truth, with the figures they are quoting to you, going by my experience.

That includes, 8 years living on my yacht, in Sydney harbour, a claimed hot spot for plastic bags.

53,000 nautical miles around the near pacific islands, including nine trips along our east coast in that yacht, anchoring in isolated places.

8 years running tourist boats, including inshore & outer reef fishing trips, in the Whitsunday islands area.

I have walked hundred of miles of isolated beaches, & coast lines through out all these areas, & have found more broken thongs, than plastic bags. Perhaps we should ban this type of footwear.

In all that, I have NEVER seen anything tangled in a plastic bag, or found any plastic bag residue in any fish guts. I have found bits of blue plastic, which I believe was from milk bottle tops, but little else.

I am horrified that these myths have led to such garbage legislation.

examinator: "More info about fossil fuels in plastics please."

My comment was a throw away line, based on my rudimentary knowledge of chemistry. Here is what I do know. Shopping bags are usually made from Polyethylene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene although for the sake of this discussion it could be any plastic. Plastic's are just long chain hydrocarbons. The easiest way to make a long chain hydrocarbon is to start with a short chain hydro carbon, and join them together. Oil consists mostly of hydrocarbons, so it is a convenient starting point, and currently the cheapest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon

A hydrocarbon is just a combination of the elements hydrogen and carbon. There is a well understood commercial process, called the Fischer-Tropsch process, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch which produces hydrocarbons from any carbon source and water. It commonly used to produce fuels (petrol, diesel), from coal or plant material. The source of the hydrogen is water. In other words, the Fischer-Tropsch makes oil from just about any carbon source and water.

examinator: "I also doubt that degradable plastic would make little difference."

Plastics can be made to degrade at the same speed as paper and cardboard. http://www.biobagusa.com/biodegradable-bags.html

Warning the following is just a stream of thought, so may appear as rambling.

I am really enjoying the interesting posts from everyone, given me much food for thought.

Speaking of food - nothing seals like plastic cling wrap, Rstuart just summarised why plastic is plastic. Which started me thinking about cling wrap, without which what would we substitute?

I agree that there is no reason why plastic bags cannot be made from plant sources and degrade at a faster rate than present.

Given that there are workable solutions for the plastic bag, why isn't the focus on excessive packaging? Toys, CD's, DVD's frequently has 3 or more layers to them, now this may be necessary for the protection for surgical equipment, I question the need to overwrap many products.

Once again the focus on "cleaner and greener" appears to be slightly off-centre.

Instead of implementing clean energy sources, the focus is on 'carbon trading'.

Instead of implementing production of degradable plant sourced plastic for the bulk of our plastic needs, the focus is on banning plastic bags.

Instead of increasing public transport, we go round in circles discussing hydrogen versus electric cars.

And wind up doing nothing at all.

There is such a lot that can be done right now with the existing technology, that would create jobs, while we gradually move across to sustainable practices.

Rehctub, in answer to your question, our leaders (political and corporate) have not thought any further than maintaining the status quo by pretending to do something.

What continues to perplex me is not so much that there is no change due to the desire to keep the power hierarchy as it is, but these people have children (don't they?) are they so focussed on the short-term they are incapable of thinking of the world their own children will inherit?

Please explain.

rstuart, and others.
Thanks for the info what I was referring to was the 'drop in an Olympic pool' (throw away line) and other following issues.
The Oceanic wild life issue specifically the problem isn't the rate of derogation so much as the way they look in the water to the wild life.
If they decay in a week that's still a week that they're floating. Once the bag sinks or get caught some where that an altogether different issue and one where the decay time frame 'might' be significant.
I would like more info if you have it can the salt water decay rate be accelerated to less than that of gloss coated cardboard.
Your point on perspective has been well taken hence my bias was stated.
One other further point thus far neglected but relevant to our discussion on perspective and proportion is that most conversations by some is 'the all or nothing' approach i.e. that won't make any real difference, not worth the economic effort. Meanwhile they continue to look for the GUS (grand United Solution) when in truth the solutions is a conglomeration of plans 'solutionettes'. Science , at least my understanding of it is that it is thus comprised.
The skill to me is being able to blend them to in some coherent plan/policy/objective. As opposed to each idea being picked off and dismissed while missing the big effect.

Examinator

I agree that a plastic bag floating in the ocean is a week too long and I see no impediment to both a reduction in use of plastic while increasing use of alternative degradable materials.

You stated: "One other further point thus far neglected but relevant to our discussion on perspective and proportion is that most conversations by some is 'the all or nothing' approach i.e. that won't make any real difference, not worth the economic effort."

I don't think I neglected this aspect at all if you read my post above - quite the contrary.

And I do agree that there is no 'magic bullet', that change will require both a concerted effort on the part of we humans, plus implementing the technology that we do have immediately instead of arguing about it.

Now it seems we are arguing about arguing about it. Not helpful.