Why ban plastic bags in Vail but still generate carbon pollution through heated streets? (letter)
Why ban bags but heat streets?
I am 100 percent in favor of the elimination of plastic bags at the grocery store because we didn’t need them in our landfill. Neither do we need the large plastic trash bags in our landfill, especially when they are full of natural grass clippings and leaves.
Before there were those cheap, thin, plastic bags, there were paper bags that worked fine for getting one’s groceries home. We should think of the plastic bag decades as a failed experiment. I’d say the same of plastic bottles.
Before there were plastic bottles, there was glass. When I was a kid, I sorted the returned pop (soda) and beer bottles, and they were then returned to the bottler, where they were washed and reused. Only the caps were trash. Milk was sold in glass returnable bottles, as well. I see no reason not to return to the returnable bottle model and call the “throw away” decades a failed experiment.
I’m not a liberal; I’m a pragmatist. I’ve lived in Europe, where the bottles are returnable and people take their own shopping bags to the grocery store. (Costco uses empty boxes.)
I’m not sure why Vail (other than being managed by liberals) chose to ban plastic bags, but to call themselves environmentalists, they are going to have to stop heating the streets. I think they are a bunch of hypocrites to think that plastic pollution is worse than carbon dioxide pollution. There are lots of other ski towns without heated streets, and people go there. Ski tourists will not choose Vail because of its heated streets.
This article, from 2007, needs a follow-up: “The dirty side of Vail’s snowless streets,” by Edward Stoner.