Tesco =Hypocritical

gromituk

Contains_Mild_Peril wrote:

Carrier bags have their place, but since biodegradable versions are now available, I think these should be used (with BB dates on them for the benefit of customers who reuse them)whenever "free" bags are provided, alongside the strong reusable bags for sale.

I think biodegradable carrier bags are a bit of a gimmick too. Yes, they may reduce the contribution to landfill in the long term, but they still require energy to manufacture and they still cause litter if discarded irresponsibly. You really can't do better than enforcing a charge on bags, enshrined in legislation so nobody can whine that they are being unfairly treated. In Ireland it has cut plastic bag use by 90% and people just accept it and wonder why it wasn't always this way, just like with the smoking ban.

gromituk

IvanOpinion wrote:

I see your point but what some people have not yet realised is that all the wonderful nutritional informaiton that we are now supplied with is starting to dictate package size .. by adding even more environmental information could actually have an adverse effect.

Nah - they'll just have to make their logos smaller!

What do you want it to say ... remembering that virtually every environmental agency might want to get its message across.

Oh something very simple, such as how much energy has been expended in producing this product, perhaps normalised for weight or something. It has to be as easy to compare products this way as it is to compare them by price.

IvanOpinion

gromituk wrote:

Nah - they'll just have to make their logos smaller!

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Ivan

deanos

Biodegradable carrier bags arnt very good for the enviroment it's a marketing gimmick from the supermarkets.

Contains_Mild_Peril

IvanOpinion wrote:

You have a particular problem with one store however it could not have been built without the necessary planning permission (and just because you objected to it does not mean that it was put up illegally ... or they did not supply the necessary backhanders to the councillors). No matter were anybody builds there will always be complaints however I reckon if you took a straw poll of the thousands of customers that go to it many will be sympathetic but they will still think it is very convenient and overall be happy about it.

Ivan

I will freely admit that, like most neighbours of inappropriate developments, I have more of a problem with the one on my doorstep than those elsewhere. It's selfish, but I spent hundreds of hours of my life (yes, quite literally), fighting against this superstore, and I can't do that every single time Tesco decides to build over another playing field. That doesn't mean I don't have a problem with it when it happens elsewhere.
I'm aware that Tesco are not the only commercial developers to take green space from communities which need it and build on it for profit, but Tesco are the most prolific. Their expansion policies are widely known to be particlualry aggressive, threatening other local businesses and attempting to achieve as close as possible to a monopoly. We now have a situation where a small town can have several Tesco shops and virtually no other grocery shops, so I suppose I should be grateful that I still have the option of going elsewhere. Tesco even buy building sites with apparently no intention of developing them, just to keep them out of the hands of rivals.
Customers may be generally happy with the huge Tesco Extra oustide my home, but most were not dissatisfied with the old Tesco five minutes' walk down the road, and I've heard many complain they're not so keen on the new one because it's just too big. We've lost at least 2 other supermarkets and more town centre shops than I can count since the Tesco monstrosity opened, and the local council acted all surprised that it was having such a devastating effect on town centre trading. We tried to warn them. They didn't listen.
The planning officer's report completely omitted any mention of the most relevant National Planning Policy Guidelines - an ommission which I would consider gross negligence at best, out-and-out corruption at worst.
A previous plan for a Sainsbury store on the site was eventually abandoned because the Scottish Office, which was entitled to a say in the matter because the land was then owned by the Council, insisted that part of the site must be used (as it always had been on a more informal basis) for leisure provision for the local community (one suggestion was a covered football pitch to replace the open one, which had been unmarked but furnished with goalposts, which would be swallowed up by the store and car park), and a mutually acceptable compromise could not be agreed. Tesco got round this by purchasing the land first, enabling them to bypass any Scottish Executive involvement. They also excavated the ground long before planning permission was granted, which leads me to believe that they were told, strictly off the record of course, that it would be forthcoming.
They also agreed to relocate a nearby playpark threatened by a completely unconnected proposed development - a doctor's surgery which was also looking at several other sites, and eventually chose a different one, negating any need for a new playpark (which I assume would ordinarily have been the Council's problem anyway, so Tesco's offer to help with the costs of an unconnected development was tantamount to bribery).
Tesco's manipulation of the planning system may have been legal, but it certainly wasn't ethical.