If the plastic bag issue was really bout the environment then the government and supermarkets would use and promote only Oxo-biodegradable bags like The Green-one or Eco-pall

There seems to be a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about the main reasons why plastic bags should be phased out. They do not,as one person commented, break down in a couple of years. It takes a lot longer than that. There are many reasons why they are a blight on our planet and it would be helpful to have these reasons clarified and presented to the public in as many different formats and contexts as possible. Explain the facts - show the consequences - explain the reasons for all this.

I have no problem with waste managment, and do my bit. However I do take offence when I spend large amounts on groceries and then find I'm going to be charged for a bag to pack them in. 10c ,They originally 5c, how long before it'll be 20c ah. The supermarket would pay less than 1/2 c per bag. That's like 200% mark up. You say you are a large pressure group, and quote democracy as your rights, I have no recolection of your mandate in a democratic forum, You voted yourselves as a pressure group. Your groups arrogance is insidious. How dear you presume to act as an agent on my behalf by pressurising the Supermarkets to rip me off for a bag. The supermarkets will be laughing all the way to the bank. Now they have a new product to sell, the so called Green Bags, what crap. these green bags are made of polyetholine, Oil byproduct., highly unbiodegradeable. A normal plastic bag breaks down in a couple of years, your green bags probably take about 100 years, not to mention the dyes that colour them, what do you recon that is (cobalt, lead, cadmium) and now I see they are printed, the printing ink is Polyplast or like inks all casonagenic. So not only have you succeeded in giving the monopoly supermarket chains an excuse to reduce service to the customer, but also to make a 200% profit on bags. do you think they will lower prices cause they are charging for bags at the counter but also have cost built into the goods price. But now we have these not so ''green bags'' that cost us, but also will be around in the land fills for 100's of years. Leaching . The biggest joke is that you think councils will lower rates if we don't use supermarket bags. Old saying.. beware of fanatics.. they conspire to do you harm.

Philadelphia, Boston, New York, Toronto, or “tim buck two"….The plastic bag "legislation" and or "ACT" is simply another convoluted government "green plan" marketing scheme, and again, it’s just putting another target on the consumer’s backs and bucks too. Does anyone truly believe that they (consumers) were getting these plastic bags from the stores (retailers) for free, before? Do you honestly feel loved by your retailers & plastic bag manufacturers? And, you don't seriously believe "they" were giving away these before this latest “TAX GRAB ACT" right? No! You were paying for it before. The price of the plastic bag was built into the price of your steak and eggs…but now, you'll simply be paying for it again, because your government is seeing (TAX) to it. I don’t know about others out there, but it seems to me like there is some back scratching going on here folks. If you don't have a re-usable bag, then you should get some…plastic bags should be out-law-ed all together. Some people are rich and, don't care about the 5 cents for a plastic bag, or the environment, for that matter! This latest bit of government legislation to deal with plastic bags, is simply adding to our political suffocation.

(Tony you can't allay concerns by saying nothing...)

The main reason, currently, that I accept plastic bags at the checkout is because it is way faster. The cashier has them right there, I don't have to take my backpack and fumble around with it before the cashier can start scanning my items. If you want long queues at supermarkets, fine, people like me will go with our ten items through the express lanes and stand there sorting out our groceries with time that we used to use for getting out our wallets with our cards ready to swipe, maybe even making the cashier wait until we're finished before paying. I mean hey, you can pack a plastic bag however you like, but your not touching my bag. So I'll fart about and make sure my eggs aren't going to break when I pick my bag, and that the weight won't shift suddenly while I'm biking down the road, checking that I still have room to put my bike lock back in there when I get back to the stands...

For those that don't read widely (which I'm sure most of you do) John Key has shot down Nick Smith for suggesting that the profits from the 5c a bag or whatever would go to supermarkets.

Allays a couple of concerns raised earlier...

Carol, down here we have three rubbish bins (council), Compost, Recycle, Household. All food scraps including bones go in the compost bin. The Household (Council) bin is smaller than the other two, but with this system there is no need for a rubbish bin inside.

So far I think only the chinese have tackled the plastic bag problem, by banning them cmopletely from shops. It saved quite a lot of oil in doing so.

It will work for a maximum of 5 years, and then plastic bag use will be back to where it was prior to the levy (just look at the other countries that have done similar), except that companies and/or the government, will have made a lot of money on it in the process. Idealism gone mad ... again ...

Tony(#32)... I think we are both getting around to making much the same point. I mentioned that "consumption quotient", for want of a better term, and you mention "more of this stuff".

A lot is to do with the marginal propensity to spend vis-a-vis the marginal propensity to save. When I read something about this along time ago, the marginal propensity to spend was about 90% of disposable income. According to a recent statement of Roger Douglas - if people earn $500 they want to spend $600. A 120% propensity to spend.

The National Party continue to give tax cuts favouring the high income earners .... and now they earn even higher incomes. This used to mean giving tax cuts to those who were likely to invest.

It now means giving them to those who are even bigger borrowers and spenders ..... and spenders on imported luxuries.

It applies in New Zealand as well, Tony (#32).

I think back to a few decades ago - investment had much more "status" than overt consumption (generally speaking).

A prosperous farmer's "status" would very well be that he had the highest production per acre from his farm. He might seek to own the highest producing per unit herd of dairy cows. If he were "doing well" his ambition might be to try and purchase the farm next door. Some of our major industries were founded from small businesses where the "status" of the entrepreneur was the growth of his enterprise (eg number of employees), the quality of his product and the expansion of his markets.

These "wealthy" people might have lived in a rather nice house. They might have even had a bach at the beach. Their car was probably a good solid car (not prone to rusting was a big factor) and when purchasing it factors such as miles per gallon and how many miles before a rebore were considered.

"Status" was not a mere flaunting of consumption, and occupying millions of dollars worth of housing per resident falls into this perspective.

It was from gauging the NZ scenario that I said a few decades ago the person at the top of the pyramid received 10X more and now receives at least 100X more. In the USA the margin is probably many times higher - look at the millions it is rumoured that Mr Key was able to bring home after being an employee of Merrill Lynch.

I refer you to a post of mine on the Dominion Post, Politics website -subject "Key eyes pay law change" for a book reference.