[Sg] - Banning Plastic Bags is a really stupid idea.

[UltimaOnline]

Did Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre get it wrong?​

Jan 2, 2023​

Last Updated: Jan 3, 2023​

Putting aside the ethics of forcing hawkers to subsidise the cost of containers, there is a bigger question overlooked: are these containers ACTUALLY eco-friendly?

The new hawker center at Bukit Canberra is gorgeous: it is lush green with a layout that is bright and airy.
Looking around at dine-in customers, there is not a single-use item to be seen: no single-use plastic cups, no single-use plastic cutlery or bowls or other tableware. Everyone is dining with reusables. It's impressive.
It's a zero-waster's dream hawker centre.
But recently, the management company of the shopping center, Canopy Hawkers Group, made headlines when it was reported that hawkers at the center were required to use eco-friendly biodegradable takeaway containers but unable to fully pass on the cost to customers. The price to customers was capped at $0.30 even though the cost to hawkers was as much as $0.80 per container.
Effectively, hawkers had to subsidise somebody else's idea of being eco-friendly. By some accounts, hawkers could be losing up to $0.50 per container adding up to $100+/day in costs.
Putting aside the ethics of forcing hawkers to subsidise the cost of containers this way, there is a bigger question overlooked: are these containers ACTUALLY eco-friendly?

Where got biodegrade?​

In Singapore, there are no municipal composting facilities. So when you buy a biodegradable container, it's going to end up in an incinerator.
Nothing sits around in a landfill for decades waiting to biodegrade. Singapore incinerates virtually all post-consumer waste (the stuff that we as individuals generate).
And for those who say you can compost it yourself: try it. You can't.
Most biodegradable materials require industrial composting facilities to break down. Singapore does not have such facilities.
And EVEN IF you managed to find a material you could compost at home (aka “home compostable”), composting takes time. A lot of time. It's just not feasible for a household to compost more than one or two containers every few months.

But isn't it recyclable?​

The plastic used in most takeaway food containers is polypropylene aka #5 plastic. It is recyclable.
Biodegradable plastics are not recyclable.
Yes you read that right. Once more with feeling:

Biodegradable plastics are not recyclable
So if you wash out your plastic takeaway container you can put it in the blue bin. You can never put bioplastics in the blue bin.
Paper How?
A lot of the “eco-friendly” takeaway containers found at Bukit Canberra were actually paper. So that's got to be better than plastic, right?
Those paper containers are almost all lined with plastic (so that they can be used with hot liquids) which means the paper cannot be recycled (any kind of plastic bonding to paper makes it unrecyclable). And even without such a lining, as soon as paper gets food waste on it, again, it cannot be recycled.

But isn't it renewable?​

The final argument in favor of “eco-friendly” containers is that the material is renewable because it is made from plants which can be grown over and over again.
There are a couple of problems with this assumption:

• Many biodegradable plastics are made from the same fossil fuels that regular plastics are made of.
• Bio-based materials (like paper or, say, starch based plastics) have an environmental footprint - meaning they take up land and space, typically with mono-cultures that can have a devastating impact on ecosystems. Imagine replacing all the world's plastics with plant-based alternatives: the amount of additional land required for this agriculture would be catastrophic.
• In a life cycle analysis of the various substitutes, containers made of bio-plastics or paper tend to have a much higher carbon footprint: they are heavier to transport, require more energy to produce (including agriculture, harvesting, processing, etc) and then may have no recyclable recovery value.

But aren't plastics always bad?​

Plastics are bad when they end up in the food chain, in the nose of a turtle, killing bird and marine life, clogging up drains and destroying beaches. These are all END OF LIFE issues. And these are terrible problems nobody should underestimate.

But they are also problems which are virtually eliminated with a good waste management system like what Singapore has.

The vast majority of ocean plastic is coming from countries that have major infrastructure challenges when it comes to waste. Even the stuff on our own beaches. Most is not domestic in origin.

Carbon, carbon, carbon, carbon, carbon chameleon ​

In Singapore, focusing on the climate impact of our consumption is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than focusing on the marine pollution impact of our consumption. That does not mean that marine littler is not an issue, but that in Singapore, marine pollution has mostly been solved: our waste is not a major contributor to marine plastic.
But when it comes to climate change, like other rich countries, we have a lot of work to do.
On a per capita basis, we are contributing far more to climate change than the average human living on planet earth.
So if the substitute for a plastic product uses way more carbon than sticking to plastic, we have not made things better.

Perhaps they got it wrong but … ​

When businesses feel financial pain for contributing to waste, they will actively work to avoid it.
Looking around the beautiful Bukit Canberra hawker center, everyone was using reusables. Was this due, in part, to the fact that hawkers had a big incentive to get their customers to avoid the single use containers unless they were absolutely necessary?
The people who eat at Bukit Canberra are not more environmentally conscious than any other hawker customer and yet they were all using reusables. Why? Because they had no other choice.
We frame so much of “being green” on consumer choice but usually consumers' have pretty lousy choices.
At Bukit Canberra, they don't have to choose: every stall used reusables for dine in. It's easy.

Changing systems, instead of people, will always have the bigger impact.

https://recyclopedia.sg/articles/did-bukit-canberra-get-it-wrong

https://forums.fuckwarezone.com.sg/threads/banning-plastic-bags-is-a-really-stupid-idea.6870443/

 

[Cottonmouth]

Since when was plastic bags banned?
Like that Ginfreely how to sell her curry?

Freshly dug out from her pussy hole.

 

[UltimaOnline]

 

[laksaboy]

Those new 'hawker centres' are nothing more than non-aircon food courts run by F&B cronies, and to get in their masters good shoes, they have to virtue signal... in this case toe the line of the 'sustainability' nonsense.

You want to reduce plastic use? Get Coca Cola and Pepsi to release their drinks in glass bottles like in the good old days. This alone would be much more effective than banning plastic straws or charging for plastic bags, done purely to impoverish, inconvenience, frustrate and demoralize the peasants, so you can thump your chest and proudly declare you are 'saving' the planet... just like your delusional, hypocritical masters at Davos.

 

[Balls2U]

Did Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre get it wrong?​

Jan 2, 2023​

Last Updated: Jan 3, 2023​

The new hawker center at Bukit Canberra is gorgeous: it is lush green with a layout that is bright and airy.
Looking around at dine-in customers, there is not a single-use item to be seen: no single-use plastic cups, no single-use plastic cutlery or bowls or other tableware. Everyone is dining with reusables. It's impressive.
It's a zero-waster's dream hawker centre.
But recently, the management company of the shopping center, Canopy Hawkers Group, made headlines when it was reported that hawkers at the center were required to use eco-friendly biodegradable takeaway containers but unable to fully pass on the cost to customers. The price to customers was capped at $0.30 even though the cost to hawkers was as much as $0.80 per container.
Effectively, hawkers had to subsidise somebody else's idea of being eco-friendly. By some accounts, hawkers could be losing up to $0.50 per container adding up to $100+/day in costs.
Putting aside the ethics of forcing hawkers to subsidise the cost of containers this way, there is a bigger question overlooked: are these containers ACTUALLY eco-friendly?

Where got biodegrade?​

In Singapore, there are no municipal composting facilities. So when you buy a biodegradable container, it's going to end up in an incinerator.
Nothing sits around in a landfill for decades waiting to biodegrade. Singapore incinerates virtually all post-consumer waste (the stuff that we as individuals generate).
And for those who say you can compost it yourself: try it. You can't.
Most biodegradable materials require industrial composting facilities to break down. Singapore does not have such facilities.
And EVEN IF you managed to find a material you could compost at home (aka “home compostable”), composting takes time. A lot of time. It's just not feasible for a household to compost more than one or two containers every few months.

But isn't it recyclable?​

The plastic used in most takeaway food containers is polypropylene aka #5 plastic. It is recyclable.
Biodegradable plastics are not recyclable.
Yes you read that right. Once more with feeling:

Biodegradable plastics are not recyclable
So if you wash out your plastic takeaway container you can put it in the blue bin. You can never put bioplastics in the blue bin.
Paper How?
A lot of the “eco-friendly” takeaway containers found at Bukit Canberra were actually paper. So that's got to be better than plastic, right?
Those paper containers are almost all lined with plastic (so that they can be used with hot liquids) which means the paper cannot be recycled (any kind of plastic bonding to paper makes it unrecyclable). And even without such a lining, as soon as paper gets food waste on it, again, it cannot be recycled.

But isn't it renewable?​

The final argument in favor of “eco-friendly” containers is that the material is renewable because it is made from plants which can be grown over and over again.
There are a couple of problems with this assumption:

• Many biodegradable plastics are made from the same fossil fuels that regular plastics are made of.
• Bio-based materials (like paper or, say, starch based plastics) have an environmental footprint - meaning they take up land and space, typically with mono-cultures that can have a devastating impact on ecosystems. Imagine replacing all the world's plastics with plant-based alternatives: the amount of additional land required for this agriculture would be catastrophic.
• In a life cycle analysis of the various substitutes, containers made of bio-plastics or paper tend to have a much higher carbon footprint: they are heavier to transport, require more energy to produce (including agriculture, harvesting, processing, etc) and then may have no recyclable recovery value.

But aren't plastics always bad?​

Plastics are bad when they end up in the food chain, in the nose of a turtle, killing bird and marine life, clogging up drains and destroying beaches. These are all END OF LIFE issues. And these are terrible problems nobody should underestimate.

But they are also problems which are virtually eliminated with a good waste management system like what Singapore has.

The vast majority of ocean plastic is coming from countries that have major infrastructure challenges when it comes to waste. Even the stuff on our own beaches. Most is not domestic in origin.

Carbon, carbon, carbon, carbon, carbon chameleon ​

In Singapore, focusing on the climate impact of our consumption is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than focusing on the marine pollution impact of our consumption. That does not mean that marine littler is not an issue, but that in Singapore, marine pollution has mostly been solved: our waste is not a major contributor to marine plastic.
But when it comes to climate change, like other rich countries, we have a lot of work to do.
On a per capita basis, we are contributing far more to climate change than the average human living on planet earth.
So if the substitute for a plastic product uses way more carbon than sticking to plastic, we have not made things better.

Perhaps they got it wrong but … ​

When businesses feel financial pain for contributing to waste, they will actively work to avoid it.
Looking around the beautiful Bukit Canberra hawker center, everyone was using reusables. Was this due, in part, to the fact that hawkers had a big incentive to get their customers to avoid the single use containers unless they were absolutely necessary?
The people who eat at Bukit Canberra are not more environmentally conscious than any other hawker customer and yet they were all using reusables. Why? Because they had no other choice.
We frame so much of “being green” on consumer choice but usually consumers' have pretty lousy choices.
At Bukit Canberra, they don't have to choose: every stall used reusables for dine in. It's easy.

Changing systems, instead of people, will always have the bigger impact.

https://recyclopedia.sg/articles/did-bukit-canberra-get-it-wrong

https://forums.fuckwarezone.com.sg/threads/banning-plastic-bags-is-a-really-stupid-idea.6870443/

Was DisGraceFu the one who initiated all this nonsense in the name of being environmental friendly?

 

[ODACHEK]

I am not gonna care, I am gonna order one container of plastic bags from shopee...cheaper by 2cents.

 

[laksaboy]

Just stop patronizing these new 'hawker centres' owned by F&B cronies.

Check Google Maps street view. If that 'hawker centre' didn't exist around a decade ago, chances are it's just a non-aircon food court.

Why a decade ago? Because of this:

https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/ne...who-started-destroying-hawker-centres.172882/

----

This was from Elim Chew's Facebook page. It got removed. I shall paste the entire text here.

New Hawker Centres - Affordable Food, Vibrant Spaces, Meeting Community Needs



Singapore, 27 February 2012 - The Hawker Centre Public Consultation Panel is sharing its recommendations with the public for the new hawker centres in providing affordable and tasty food in clean, comfortable and pleasant surroundings. This is in line with the objectives of transforming hawker centres into iconic, gracious and vibrant social spaces for community dining.



The Panel welcomes the decision by the government to build ten new hawker centres to serve estates with underprovision of cooked food stalls. The increase in supply of hawker centres will provide more dining options for the public, as well as a moderating influence on rentals. The Panel also welcomes the review of rental policies as part of overall efforts to ensure food prices remain affordable.



The Panel, which was appointed by The Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources to provide ideas on the new hawker centres to be built, comprises 18 representatives from different segments of society and industries, and was formed in November 2011 following the government's announcement in October 2011 that it would start building new hawker centres.



The Panel met to deliberate on its recommendations to the government. It also met hawkers and members of the public and visited a number of hawker centres. In developing its recommendations, the Panel adopted the following key principles:

a) The community should derive maximum benefit from the centre;

b) The centre should provide opportunities for employment; and

c) The centre could provide a platform for enterprising individuals to enter the food industry.



The Panel has garnered more than 200 suggestions through its Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/myhawkercentre), covering topics such as hawker centre management, subletting, rental, allocation of stalls, tray return ideas, and improvement to design and infrastructure, among other suggestions.



The recommendations, incorporating suggestions from the public and hawkers, are shared below:



1) Management Model

The Panel has suggested that the new hawker centres could be managed and operated by a socially conscious operator, such as a social enterprise or a cooperative.



The focus of the operator should be on providing affordable food, in a clean and hygienic setting. This can be achieved through the operator’s tenancy arrangements with its stallholders. Stallholders could offer at least one ‘value meal’ or affordable food option. This would mean providing the choice of a meal which is priced lower than the majority of competing neighbouring coffeeshops or eateries.



The centre operator should also prevent profiteering by stallholders who do not intend to personally operate the stalls e.g. by restricting full day sub-letting and disallowing stall assignment except to immediate family members to preserve traditional or heritage food. In line with the aim of keeping food affordable, stall rentals should be lower than what is usually offered by many food courts and coffee shops. The operator should also ensure the food mix is balanced, offer a healthy food option and meet the diverse needs of the community.



The new centres could also help to create economic opportunities by encouraging ‘hawkerpreneurship’, which leads to viable livelihoods. Stall allocation to individual hawkers should be made a priority. In addition, the new centres would also create additional employment opportunities, for example, in the area of cleaning services.



Given changing preferences and lifestyles, the provision of wet markets should be assessed based on the real needs of the local community.



2) Design

In terms of design, the Panel has suggested that the centres showcase efficiency in the use and management of limited resources and should also promote environmental sustainability. This could be exemplified by, but not necessarily limited to, the following:

i) adopting energy and water efficient practices and features, such as encouraging the use of natural ventilation and lighting by ensuring appropriate building orientation and creating sensitive design details and features for our tropical climate;

ii) providing recycling facilities, such as food waste collection points and recycling bins; and

iii) incorporating green features, such as roof gardens, bioswales, green materials etc, when and where applicable and appropriate.



The new hawker centres should also promote green initiatives, for example, by using more sustainable packaging options such as corn-starch based take-away boxes. To reduce the use of styrofoam food containers and plastic bottles, hawkers could consider offering food rebates to consumers who bring their own containers or water bottles. Hawkers should also charge extra for non-biodegradable items such as straws and disposable cutleries.



3) Vibrancy

Hawker centres are a natural focal point for the neighbourhood. The vibrancy of the new centres should be increased by providing spaces for community activities for both young and old, such as cooking demonstrations, street busking and children’s activities.

A good mix of retail and household services such as locksmiths, cobblers and alteration services near food stalls can also draw traffic to the hawker centres. By providing complementary products and services near to hawker centres, it offers greater convenience to patrons and attracts more people to the vicinity, hence increasing the vibrancy of the place.

With hawker centres being an icon of Singapore and a showcase of our food culture, hawker centres can be branded as ‘Singapore’s Kitchens of the World’, with food trails organised for both locals and tourists. Promoting hawker fare will also ensure vibrancy of hawker centres, which helps to preserve and promote the cultural heritage of Singapore.



Instilling Social Graciousness

As a common space where social norms are formed and reinforced, hawker centres can also be a platform to develop and nurture social graciousness among patrons and stallholders. The ultimate goal of social graciousness, or ‘Heartware’, can be reached through the combination of ‘Hardware’ and ‘Software’.



‘Hardware’ would include physical features, such as table decals reminding patrons to return their trays and better toilets and washing areas to reduce splashing. Patrons are encouraged to clear their dishes after meals and return trays to a central tray collection point. That way, cleaners’ jobs can be redesigned such that they clean mainly in the central washing area. This would be complemented by ‘Software’ which would include getting the various stakeholders, such as the stallholders, cleaners, management and customers to promote social graciousness. The Panel hopes that the combination of both ‘Hardware’ and ‘Software’ can create ‘Heartware’, which contributes to a socially gracious Singapore.



The Hawker Centre Public Consultation Panel has submitted its preliminary recommendations to the Ministry on 27 February 2012 and would like to thank all members of the public who have given their valuable inputs and comments. For further suggestions to the recommendations, members of the public can write in to [email protected]. The Panel targets to submit its final recommendations to the Ministry at the end of March.

 

[batman1]

Was DisGraceFu the one who initiated all this nonsense in the name of being environmental friendly?

It's her KPI.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Forum: Unpleasant consequences of supermarkets’ plastic bag charge​

AUG 18, 2023


The move by supermarkets to charge for plastic bags is leading to more unsanitary and unhygienic Housing Board estates and rubbish chutes.
In the Toa Payoh HDB estate where I live, unbagged waste is being thrown into rubbish chutes, leading to foul smells. Relatives who live in other estates have the same problem.
Supermarkets and their customers are also impacted by the plastic bag rule. Customers without their own bags and who do not want to pay for the bags can be seen walking home carrying bulky food items. Others resort to stuffing their pockets with the plastic bags meant for packing fresh produce.
At self-service checkout counters, other customers and cashiers have at times given me long, hard stares whenever I carry five to 10 plastic bags during my grocery shopping trips. Once at a supermarket, three cashiers in five minutes accused me of stealing eight plastic shopping bags that I had paid for. They apologised after I showed them my receipt.
Instead of making the world greener, the new plastic move is creating new problems. People are helping themselves to the bags meant for produce, while those who buy the bags are looked on with suspicion.
There is a better solution. Disposable, biodegradable bags made from corn starch and lactic acid have been available since the 1990s. They have much smaller carbon footprints than either plastic or even fabric bags.

Eric J. Brooks

 

[Loofydralb]

How do I throw my rubbish into the chute now?
I guess I will just pour the contents of the pot into the chute, since my supply of plastic bags dwindle.
The town council will now have to wash the chute everyday.

 

[syed putra]

How do I throw my rubbish into the chute now?
I guess I will just pour the contents of the pot into the chute, since my supply of plastic bags dwindle.
The town council will now have to wash the chute everyday.

Buy a rubbish bin bag you berk. Biodegradable ones. No plastic bag policy in jiu hu for years now. Just get used to it. Buy your own reusable carrier bag.

 

[The Crow]

Last time where got plastic container, every seller use this plastic bag ...