Ironically, I bet my mode of transportation is far more environmentally friendly than your “level of comfort” on a daily basis. I’m 100% electric - how much are you paying for gas today?
It’s easy for you to say things are “important” when they won’t affect *your* “comfort level”. As I responded to Amanda - you should only remove something people with disabilities “rely on” when you can come up with a viable alternative.

We have a solution, people just never bothered thinking about the ramifications of removing it. Be different, and realize there are more people in the world than just you.

Thank you for visiting my site and commenting, especially since I named Envirobloggers in my entry, so a response “from there” is appreciated.

I’m very much in favor of environmentalism - my objections in *this* case are that no-one thought things through, as far as I can tell. No-one has come up with an equally effective and available alternative for people who rely on them. Some chains are now selling re-usable cloth bags (Giant, our local grocery chain, for example), but they are much more than the few cents plastic (or paper) bags cost the chains - costs passed on to “us”.

The General Assembly has decided to vote on the ban, but they’re not doing anything to offset that impact - because, to be honest, no-one realized it would *have* an impact. That puts the burden of adaptation squarely on “us”. What will be an inconvenience for most risks becoming a very real barrier (no matter how “small”) to “us”, as we already have fewer resources available to “us” to adapt. Someone with working legs can carry four or five plastic bags, or two paper bags - someone on a manual wheelchair can carry five or six plastic bags on the canes at the back of their chair - or *possibly* one paper bag in their laps, for example - they need both hands to move.

The question is - what’s the solution, and who provides it? Removing plastic bags is good for the environment, but if it places more of a burden on people with disabilities than will be felt by mainstream society, it’s discriminatory - albeit inadvertently. Does this mean stores should find a solution that’s equally as useful and practical for us, as their customers (which increases prices, since they’ll almost *certainly* pass the costs on)? Should the legislature subsidize the stores in some way, or people with disabilities, since they’re the ones trying to pass the law itself (which they’d never do because of “costs”, or if they did they’d just tax everyone to pay for it)?

Did anyone actually consider these questions in regards to people with disabilities when the movement against plastic bags gathered steam? I don’t think anyone did, I think the only question asked was about how mainstream society would have to adapt.

We should be considered at some point when the inconveniences of environmental reforms are being assessed, if only to make sure that we bear equal responsibility, feel equal impact, and receive equal consideration.