The press statement is long on virtue and altruism but its real purpose is to inform you, members of the public, of an impending increase in the price of shopping with effect from July 1, 2007.
Finally, the retailers have mustered the guts and decided to do what rational businessmen do when input costs rise due to exogenous factors.
The retailers, being the smart businessmen that they are, simply waited for the furore caused by new plastic bag regulations to settle before passing on the costs of the new regulations onto consumers.
They just figured out that the environmental road show had sipped its last wine glass and was busy touting its "judge me- on- my -good -intentions- not -outcomes' buzz elsewhere.
Just as night follows day, the costs of wacky environmentalism, will be passed on to the consumer shortly.
From July 1, 2007, a shopping trip to your favourite grocer will cost you between fifteen and twenty-five thebe for the 12 litre and 14 litre bags respectively. The costs are inclusive of VAT!
By the way, the retailers indicate in their press release, that they believe in offering you choice.
To some extent they are right. You can choose to buy either the 15 or 25 thebe bag. Because the bags are reusable, they think you have yet another choice to use the same bag on your next shopping excursion.
But all that is delusional. The high-end shopper will not have time for "reusing" plastic bags because he has more weighty matters to think about! The low-income shopper will find it cumbersome to carry back plastic bags to the grocer. After all he goes shopping by the notorious combi. Even if he carries the reusable plastic bag, that may mean the small matter of carrying these bags to the grocer via the workplace.
As the new costs of shopping kick in, members will be tempted to take out their frustration on retailers. That would be akin to barking at the wrong tree. Retailers cannot run businesses in which they pay plastic bag suppliers but then give out the same bags for free.
Of course the retailers, could simply have introduced the new prices by stealth. The fact that they reflect the cost of plastic bags, as a stand-alone time is helpful because it brings the costs of environmentalism to the fore.
That we now have to pay additional tax to use environmentally friendly bags would be hilarious were it not damaging the very cause of tree hugging. Now the environmental lobby needs to show its commitment to the poor in deeds not words. How, for instance, does saddling the poor with additional tax lift them out of poverty?
Until we appreciate that clean environment follows economic growth, we will continue to formulate self-defeating environmental regulations.
The Chinese have consummately grasped this reality. In the midst of last week's G8 summit in Rostock, China was adamant that it would not adopt any environmental regulations that harm economic growth.
The Chinese realise that without economic opportunity and growth, you cannot lift people out of poverty. Similarly, we should dispense with political correctness and get real. The sooner, the better.
