No plastic bag in Penang?

Hmm, this is interesting. Penang will be conducting a survery on the proposal of ban usage of plastic bag in the state. PENANG will conduct a survey over the next few months before deciding on whether to ban the use of plastic bags in the state.

Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said the state would adopt a ‘progressive approach’ to formulate a solution that was acceptable to everyone.

He said this when opening the ‘Plastic Bag: To Ban, or Not to Ban?’ public forum at the Penang Caring Complex on Sunday.

“We want to strongly emphasise the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle).

“If you only focus on recycling, you are merely minimising the problem as opposed to solving it,” he added.

“This forum is part of our efforts to get the stakeholders’ feedback before we develop a comprehensive policy that will accommodate different aspects of solid waste management including public health, cultural, environmental, economic developments as well as social capital and equity aspects in society,” he said.

Lim added that a recent check by the state on six major supermarkets and hypermarkets in Penang showed that a total of 25.2 million plastic bags were distributed last year to consumers.

“This amount doesn’t include the millions used by other retailers and hawkers."

“Tourists complain that Penang is dirty with plastic bags littering the streets, drains, rivers, beaches and sea. Hence, there is a need to take action now,” he said.

“Our local municipal councils have a recycling rate of 33% which is among the highest in the country but the state currently generates about 1,500 to 1,600 tons of waste per day.

“At this rate, we will have used up our existing landfill site soon,” he warned, adding that in 2006, solid waste management cost constituted up to 20% of the Penang Municipal Council’s revenue collection.

“This cost continues to escalate as our waste generation increases year by year. We need to find solutions to reduce our solid waste management bill,” he said, noting that plastic bags were widely used because they were “acceptable, available and affordable.”

“They are cheap, useful, and plentiful, which brings about the problem of excessive usage and injudicious dumping of an otherwise useful product,” he said.