Mr Johnson told an audience of eight to 12-year-olds at a special event organised by Downing Street that rather than relying on recycling, people should reduce their consumption of plastic products.
Tanya Steele, chief executive of the World Wide Fund for Nature, told the event: “We have to reduce, we have to reuse - I do think we need to do a little bit of recycling, PM, and have some system to do so.”
But the PM added: “It doesn’t work.”
Ms Steele said she believed “we need to bring nature back” and added: “97% of the mass of mammals on this planet is humans and our animals, our domestic animals. Just 3% is left for the wild.”
Mr Johnson said it was “so sad”, and quipped: “We could feed some of the human beings to the animals.”
What a buffoon he can be sometimes. He really can’t help himself making silly quips and it comes over as patronising and not taking issues seriously, especially to an audience of children with genuine concerns.
It’s on a parallel with his Kermit remark.
He spoils any serious message he’s trying to convey. He’s right, recycling plastic is second best to not creating and using so much plastic in the first place. But it is still far better than sending it to land fill.
So In a sense, it does “work” but it’s not the best option.
If he’d discussed that seriously with the children and asked what they thought we could do to reduce plastic use and what his government intended to do, I’m sure they would have felt more respected and respected him more.
It’s quite easy to figure that out to answer your question. First, you will buy the amount the supermarket force you to by packaging it that way. Second, it saves weighing by the checkout operator and also the price is immediately there too so can be scanned. Less time wasted too which is all down to the supermarket wanting to make more and more money, or greed as I prefer to term it.
Either Smith or Jones had a story that fits Johnson just perfectly.
When God man, he did it one piece at a time. Maybe it was a leg first, or a lung, we have no idea what came first. But what we do know is that the last part was a brain & what we have here, is a walk off. One of Gods creations walked off before that final & vital part, the brain, was fitted.
Yes, OK for fruit and veg but maybe more expensive to produce.
And it doesn’t seal in the goods, so doesn’t help as much with preserving them.
And not waterproof so doesn’t protect as much hygiene wise from external contaminants, liquids in transport, people handling them and fluids from coughs, sneezes and splatters (sorry to be gross!)
I’m not disagreeing really, they would be a better option, just playing Devils Advocate.
Because if we want people to accept alternatives we’ve got to show they can be just as good or better
That’s true, I wonder why they stopped using it? Cost I suppose. But yes, sounds like an interesting alternative as long as we’re sure what it breaks down into won’t be harmful when it accumulates. I just had a read up on it, found this good link
@LongDriver , Well what are we waiting for LD ??
Trees can supply all our packaging needs and theynwill never
run out!!
New types of hybrid trees can be harvested after eight or nine
years, plus they absorb carbon ??
Donkeyman!
I don’t understand how they can produce biodegradable dog poo bags but not find a way to make biodegradable food packaging. Perhaps someone could explain???
