I am not quite sure how a bag is supposed to last a lifetime; with so much uncertainty in the world, it seems adventurous to suggest that there won't within my lifetime be a regime change, or some catastrophic event that would jeopardise my bag. It could simply be that the retailer goes bust. I say all of this without having any form of written contract, but the impression I get from my better half is that for 10p, we have the right to expect our stronger-than-normal plastic bag to perform stoically and come to no harm, or be replaced free of charge. At face value, the concept may well seem reasonable, but there are (if one gives proper thought to the matter) a few concerns that seriously call into question the viability of the BFL. I would therefore like to expand, and show how the argument for use of BFLs does not hold water.
The first complication comes from supermarkets which occasionally provide BFLs without charge. [Please note that for the plural, I will adopt the 'BFLs' approach rather than get caught up in any arguments over whether it strictly ought to be Bags For Life, or Bag For Lifes or Bag For Lives or Bags For Lives] I was once in Asda (two years ago) when no free carriers were available so I was bombarded with BFLs. This is all very commendable if the retailers think they are injecting instant assistance in the fight to save the planet. Unfortunately, the ease with which I came by the bags meant that their worth to me was nil. As a consequence, the bags did not form part of daily life and seemed to just disappear in the following week. Only when a shopper makes a conscious decision to purchase a BFL will he/she be mindful of the cost and the reasoning behind the BFL crusade.
More concerning, though, was my recent horror (well okay, mild perturbedness) at the use of a BFL as a rubbish bag. A week ago, a Co-op BFL was used to transport a packed lunch of some note, and somehow the remnants of the picnic were returned to the BFL. So, chicken bones and other leftovers rendered the bag soiled, and so it became a rubbish bag. In this instance, the BFL had morphed into a BFTW [Bag For Two Weeks]. There were two things that ambled across my mind: 1) This is so much worse than using a free, poor quality supermarket bag to dispose of rubbish, and 2) What a waste of 10p. Both thoughts were valid when they were created. I have, however, since had cause to review the latter because there is more to the economics than an apparent waste of 10p.
On a normal shop [ ie. not a monster shop for everything, nor a quick stop for a few items] it would seem to me that the amount of stuff would typically be contained within 3 BFLs. The capacity of the BFL is greater than that of a free carrier bag because it is stronger, and slightly larger. In fact, to contain the equivalent purchases in free carrier bags, one would typically need 5 or even 6, and seeing as they are free and prone to collapse if loaded with more than two 4-litre containers of milk, we will adopt six as the number. So, the real world ratio is 2:1 for Free Bags to BFLs. For the purposes of this exercise, I will ignore the "doubling up" option that is suggested at the drop of a hat by any checkout operator when the purchaser is in the process of acquiring more than one of anything in a glass bottle. So, on to the maths, linked to the need for us all to dispose of waste, quite often immediately upon arriving home, seeing as the amount of unnecessary packaging is ludicrous these days.
On a normal shop, then, I would acquire six free carrier bags that would serve as rubbish containers. However, if I use my three BFLs, I get no rubbish containers, and so have to purchase and use bin liners. These are typically 5p each, for the cheap variety; I am not going to score easy points by involving rubble sacks or drawstring options etc. Whilst a 5p bin bag will not always avoid disintegration on contact with anything sharper than a ball of cotton wool, I will give some benefit of the doubt, on the basis that the bin bag would be able to satisfactorily contain the equivalent amount of rubbish as would be contained within three supermarket free carrier bags. So, to dispose of rubbish, and without six carrier bags obtained from a normal shopping trip, I would need to use two bin bags at a cost of 10p. This means that over and above any cost of the BFLs themselves, any normal shopping trip involving the BFLs rather than free supermarket bags costs me 10p - the equivalent of the cost of a BFL. What this means is that if I choose to dispose of a BFL for any reason at any time, then I can easily recoup the 10p by leaving the BFLs at home for my next shopping trip.
Of course, this means that my stock of BFLs is depleted by one, and on the next shop, I would need to purchase a replacement BFL at 10p. But there's a temptation not to bother, especially as each trip using BFLs costs me 10p (as already covered above) and to waste another 10p holds little attraction. Thus, on my next trip, I approach the supermarket holding no BFLs. I save 10p, and all is well. The trouble is, though, that the two BFLs will never get another outing; as a result, I use one for rubbish when an occasion arises where the normal quota of free bags is not sufficient to cope (eg. after a party, or to contain something extra sloppy). Any remorse over the discarding of a BFL is quickly discarded, as my next trip to the supermarket without any BFLs will of course save me 10p. This is repeated with the remaining BFL so that I am BFL-less.
So, three BFLs were thrown away, making the whole exercise a pointless one. If fact, to offset the waste of three BFLs, I can claim to have reduced my 'footprint' through the non-use of black bin bags. I am saving 10p per week by not buying black bags, I am avoiding the unnecessay purchase of BFLs at 10p each, and I am avoiding using BFLs to dispose of rubbish which is of course ten times worse than using a supermarket bag to dispose of rubbish. On a tangential note, I can find no data on the durability of the BFLs in circulation. I would suggest that at the stage they have been used ten time (on average) they will have developed fatigue, a tear, or some other defect, or will simply look so shabby that they need to be dispensed with - either through a swapout at the supermarket (and what do the supermarkets do with the used ones?) or by convertion to a rubbish bag. The argument for BFLs does not therefore hold water - Q.E.D.
...
No comments:
Post a Comment