On Tuesday night, several community members came before the city council during public comment to push for a plastic bag ban. This is an issue that will apparently be taken up by the Natural Resources Commission.
It is an idea gaining some traction. The California State Senate back in September voted against the plastic ban bag with the help of half a dozen Democrats, including Davis’ Senator Lois Wolk. The measure would have banned plastic carryout bags in supermarkets, drug and convenience stores. The measure failed 21 votes against, to 14 votes in favor.
The issue also was one of the questions asked to council appointment hopefuls. Of interest was that Dan Wolk, one of the possible appointees, said that this is an issue he differs with his mother on, he likes the idea in principle, he is concerned about the environmental impact, but does caution that we ought to study the legal and economic consequences.
On Tuesday night several members of the community pushed the issue. Among them was Ann Saageau, a Professor of Design at UC Davis.
She told the council, that, “For the past 3 years I have carried out a global collaboration with over 200 people in 62 countries to raise awareness of the environmental pollution and animal deaths caused by the estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion single-use plastic shopping bags used and discarded annually around the world.”
The project she said, called Bags Across the Globe, or BAG, also offers its participants attractive and sustainable alternatives to plastic shopping bags.”
She also talked about a show that “documents animals’ deaths from plastic shopping bags, including a 30 kilo calcified rock of plastic bags and plastic rope eaten by a camel that starved to death as a result. It also has the photo of a sea turtle that died after eating bags.”
“The second most common debris in our oceans is now plastic bags,” the professor added.
Michael Siminitus, who describe himself as a consultant with a zero waste event support company that he started in Davis, argues that plastic bags are something that we cannot recycle and are consistently puled out of the compost and recycling stream.
He said, “They are a major contaminent in recycling systems, the number one contaminant in compost streams, and a problem for recycling reprocessors everywhere, as they get caught in conveyors and represent a material that has little marketability or useful end-life so it ends up as pollution in a landfill or elsewhere.”
He added, “Less than 5% of bags get recycled. Most get exported.”
There are nine other cities in California that have banned the plastic bag including San Francisco, Palo Alto, Fairfax, Malibu, Santa Monica, and others. This fall, roughly 1.1 million people in unincorporated Los Angeles County were also covered under a county-imposed ban.
County supervisors approved the measure 3-1 “in hopes of preventing billions of bags from polluting neighborhoods and waterways.”
It bans stores from giving customers single-use plastic bags and would require them to charge 10 cents for each paper bag. Such a ban in Davis would work similarly.
Californians spend $25 million a year to collect and dispose of many of the 19 billion single-use plastic bags used by residents of the state every year. Local governments also spend money cleaning up the bags.
AB 1998 would have banned single-use carryout bags, beginning in 2012 for supermarkets and pharmacies, and in 2013 for liquor stores and convenience stores. The measure would have allowed stores to give away reusable bags for free until the ban took effect, after which shoppers who forget their own bags would have been able to buy reusable bags at the stores. The stores also would have been allowed to sell recycled paper bags of 40 percent post-consumer material at cost, not for any profit.
Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, from Santa Monica, the bill’s sponsor said, “Communities across the state were waiting for the state to adopt a uniform, statewide ban on single-use bags before they adopt their own ordinances. The state failed them. But, this is an environmental movement that won’t be stopped, even by big-money interests like the American Chemistry Council. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when consumers bring their own bags and become good stewards of the environment.”
Senator Lois Wolk told the Bee that she would not support this bill. “I prefer that we begin with incentives, and if that doesn’t work, move to mandates,” she said. “This is a windfall for the retailers.”
Senator Wolk added that recycled grocery bags cost 6 to 10 cents each, a cost now absorbed by grocers that they would pass on to consumers if the legislation passed.
“California is poised to lead a national movement against plastic bag pollution that is injuring and killing marine life and imposing a costly blight on our cities and open spaces,” Assemblywoman Brownley said. “This is a strong bill that safeguards the environment, protects California jobs and gives consumers a no-cost option to carry their purchases. It has the support of a historic coalition: consumers, environmentalists, unions, grocers, retailers, cities and counties.”
The issue is clearly an emerging issues and thus the positions shown by the council appointees reflect a cautious approach. Dan Wolk, as we mentioned, favored the ban with caution, but other applicants tried to forge out some relatively safe position.
Linda Parfitt recognized the problem, acknowledged that it could be reduced but probably not go to zero waste, and she thinks any ban should be carefully worded and would encourage reusable bags.
Walt Bunter suggested a phase-in, Sherelene Harrison talked about a cultural shift, Kerry Loux says she is supportive of it as a goal but is concerned that it might not be attainable, and argued that people’s attitudes need to change.
Robert Smith said he reuses his own plastic bags. Paul Boylan argued it was more important to have an admirable goal than to worry about feasibility.
Kari Fry was supportive of the argument but was cautious about the process. Steve Williams wants to work with retailers and ensure that the community is on board. And Vincent Wyatt has concerns about the environment but wants to ensure the public supports such a ban.
Bottom line here, all of the candidates were trying hard to nuance a position. They all seemed to think the idea had merit, they were concerned about the potential blowback from the community, obviously, and have no idea if the community is ready to back this effort. It is a good approach, and to use an example of the wood-burning ban, there is a clear environmental problem that the public is not yet behind. What this ought to tell the public is that this is a cautious group of candidates.
In response to discussion from the council applicants, a number of Vanguard readers commented on the issue. There is a suggestion first that the city needs to get its fiscal health in order first. I am strongly in favor getting the city’s fiscal health in order. However, I fail to see how discussing and dealing with a plastic bag ban will preclude the city from addressing other issues.
It would be interesting to see how much the City of Davis has to spend cleaning up plastic bags.
Moreover, it is a climate issue and city has priority the climate action plan.
There is an argument against having a climate action plan and carbon reduction plan locally which is that local communities have a tiny impact on the global system. On the other hand, I am a believer that you have to act locally to act globally. Change filters up not down.
It just depends on what you think the local role should be.
Personally, I would like to see every community adopt these kinds of regulations, and as such, Davis needs to lead the way or at least follow the other nine communities that have already acted.
Given the amount of waste generated and the amount of oil consumed to produce bags, this seems to be a very urgent issue in the general sense.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Jefferson wrote that every society has two parties, though they have different names at different times.
One party wants to have the smartest leaders run the affairs of its citizens in such a way as to achieve the optimal outcome.
The other party wants to leave people to make their own choices.
In all known cases, said Jefferson, members of the second party make better neighbors.
Thanks for reporting this. Davis’ good citizen ethics is one of the most attractive attributes of our city; I hope the city stays true to its ideals and passes this ban.
I see grocery clerks putting ONE single item in a plastic bag, often leaving another plastic bag half filled with light weight items. It’s a mindless act.
I see plastic bags everywhere they shouldn’t be, contributing to animal deaths and adding to one product we’re still good at making: polllution.
We pollute in so many ways that are difficult to correct. Our use of plastic bags is not one of those; it’s just careless to pollute this way and it’s so easy to correct.
Keep a cloth bag on your bike or in your car. Put the emptied cloth bag at your front door so it goes with you on the next trip. If you forget to take the bag into the store with you, just go back and get it. Simple.
If all else fails, an occasional 6 to 10 cents for your next garbage bag is a small price for most people.
Finally, how about a collection site for plastic bag donations at every grocery store?
JR,
You’re quoting wise men, but they lived in a pristine environment. Those few settlers had an entire virgin continent to trash. Some 300 years later, we’ve done it; not only have we trashed our continent but much of the world as well. Trashing one’s home is about as stupid as it gets.
The US is unique in individual rights, but these values were nurtured at at time we had infinite land and resources. One of the slogans from those frontier days was that it was time to move when you could see the smoke from your neighbor’s chimney. This is no longer the case. We may not even have fire places anymore because there are so many of us sending off so much pullution.
We now have no more land to pollute and our neighbors are considerably closer than in the 16th century. Older countries than ours recognize their finite borders and large populations; they find ways to balance individual rights with civil concerns. We should do so also.
To JR: Excellent comment. I would add the following:
1) Go back to paper bags? But what about all those trees that will have to be killed, causing deforestation and less oxygen in the air? What about the 40% more energy it takes to produce paper bags and the greater amount of energy it takes to recycle paper bags? LOL
2) Some of the recycled bags have been found to have lead in them, and are unsafe for children to use.
3) If the populace were so concerned about plastic bag pollution, they would already be employing reusable bags – which are readily available. Sounds like a minority is trying to push its myopic eco-agenda on the majority.
4) What about plastic bottles, plastic packing pellets, plastic soda rings, plastic syringes, disposable diapers, used condoms (have you ever been to the Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant? – full of used condoms that look like bloated white balloons), plastic fish nets, plastic garbage bags? (Shall we ban plastic?) How about pushing for sorting of garbage at destination to ensure recycling? Now there’s an idea!
5) Much of the garbage in the oceans comes from foreign polluters, fisherman, and ships (garbage thrown off merchant ships cd represent 1/3 of ocean’s garbage according to Nat’l Academy of Sciences) that ignore the law.
6) How about encouraging the development of truly biodegradable plastic?
7) Here’s an idea – why don’t we try incentives first as Lois Wolk suggested, before we use the sledgehammer of “thou shall not”?
Ireland instituted a tax on plastic bags which resulted in a 90% reduction in usage.
Are we talking about the plastic produce bags as well as the carry-out plastic bags for all the goods purchased?. I read somewhere that Cuba severely restricts the manufacture and use of grocery plastic bags as part of its very strong official policies of environmental eco-sustainability. The scarce bags are often recycled to be sold on street-corners, generating some small “underground” income for those who need it … an additional benefit.
If it is irrelevant, irreverent, or inconsequential, Davis is FOR it! We need to stop fiddling with the recipe for “frosting issues” (paper or plastic in this case), while a major “cake issue” (such as the pending State of California bankruptcy) remains unbaked! “Have we been successfully diverted?..” is a major line from a recent production of Jane Austin’s Pride and Prejudice, but it certainly appears to apply here.
From article on Ireland’s tax on plastic bags at:http://www.reusablebags.com/learn-more/top-facts/about-irelands-plastax – “Many retailers are …now benefiting from selling reusable bags. Administration …and retailers keep …records on purchasing and receipts, while the government monitors retailer compliance and collects revenue.”
So now Ireland has to have whole monitoring system in place for this new tax – and how much does that cost the people, people whose gov’t is virtually bankrupt!
David:
I think you left out an important issue–the effects of plastic bags on marine life. While only a small amount of plastic reaches the oceans it has serious consequences on marine life which is already stressed (overfishing, acidification due to global warming, etc.).
Landfill is not as serious. Yes we’d like biodegradable material but the stress on marine life is greater than most people realize, even some environmentalists.
I do think this matters. I generally favor individual rights but I do not think anyone has the right to destroy the planet. I am not an eco-extermist as many people know, but I do favor banning plastic bags. Would Davis’ banning plastic bags make a difference? Only if it persuades other cities to follow suit. Otherwise its tokenism. But unlike banning fireplace burning, banning plastic bags has a chance to gain wide acceptance.
Perhaps the public should be surveyed. Here’s how they feel in the UK:
[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article3662082.ece[/url]
“used condoms (have you ever been to the Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant?”
After Davis tackles plastic bags they should move on to disposed used condoms. With our big college population used condoms are a huge problem in Davis. I just can’t think of the possibility of a small fish ending up in one of those balloons. I hereby want to have our council take up this problem soon. How about reusable condoms? Maybe outlaw all condoms and make college abstinence classes mandatory in order to graduate? A Davis fine if caught having sex with a condom? A Davis condom tax?
I give Davisites credit for being intelligent enough to figure out how to get their groceries home in a reusable cloth bag. Just like we got used to separating out our recyclables back in the seventies, when the nay sayers said “You can’t teach people to recycle”,we can also learn to take reusable bags to the market.Some of us have been doing this for years. I get back a nickel for each paper bag that I don’t use at the Davis Food Co-op. When my family show up at the register, at Grocery Outlet in Woodland, they love us because we bag our own stuff as fast as it comes over the scanner. No big deal.
With the high level of education and environmental awareness in Davis, we are in a unique position to be leaders. Lois Wolk lost a lot of credibility when she took money from the Chemical Council, and then came out against reusable bags. Reusable bags are here. We can lead, or we can follow.It’s time for Davis to stop resting on our laurels and lead the charge toward sustainability.
Now we have prospective Council members pussyfooting around the issue. How about our leaders start leading. Replacing plastic single use bags with cloth is a no-brainer! The only question is why have we allowed corporate profits to get in the way of sustainability for so long.
Wow, this blog replaced “uss” in one of my words, with***. Somebody must think pussy is a dirty word.
I think there are reasons for grocery clerks to put only one item in a plastic bag. If you’re buying meat, which can leak, it goes it its own bag. If you’re buying some type of cleanser, it also goes in its own bag instead of in with food items. A loaf of bread will often go in a single bag to prevent it from getting squashed by cans or boxes. If Davis is going to participate in a movement, how about a movement to force the manufacturers of plastic bags to make them biodegradeable? I reuse my plastic bags and so do most other people I know who get them. Try cleaning up dog poop in the yard or park with a reusable bag and let me know how that works for you. If making the bags biodegradeable makes the bags more costly to produce, I for one would have no problem paying five or ten cents for a bag.
I get back a nickel for each paper bag that I don’t use at the Davis Food Co-op.
Excellent incentive. Exactly the sort of thing Lois is suggesting. And as JayTee suggests, there are a few situations where a plastic bag would be appropriate.
http://chrisjordan.com/gallery/midway/#CF000313 18×24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67j7JlEZzpQ
http://www.ted.com/talks/capt_charles_moore_on_the_seas_of_plastic.html
ya, plastic is probably not that big of a deal, we probably shouldn’t be worried about it
I don’t see any plastic bags inside that bird.
There are corn based alternatives to plastic, that pretty much seem like plastic. so no “going back to paper” as it were.
The lois wolk position was that the legislation was flawed, which I believe in this particular case.
Lastly, Davis is not so special nor is this some “crazy only in Davis idea.” Richmond, CA is also looking into this, not exactly an crazy leftist town.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/incontracosta/detail?entry_id=83372
Incentives could work, if they were strong enough. Outright bans tend to create black market transactions and burden enforcement entities anyway. I think this is one case where incentives might work better than punishment.
The “ted.com” site was fascinating, but depressing. Ideally the industry could manufacture plastic that dissolves into starch when exposed to brine, kind of like the packing peanuts that dissolve in water. Minus that, I’d go for a quarter a bag tax on plastic bags directed at cleanup efforts. I doubt that, given our geographical location, that a lot of Davis plastic ends up in the ocean, but perhaps we could inspire a few beach towns to think about it. Random thoughts.
“Outright bans tend to create black market transactions and burden enforcement entities anyway.”
Ooooh, a black market for plastic bags, money to be made.
Have you people even thought that most of the products you buy in the market are already encased in some kind of plastic? How about just picking some fruit, vegetables, etc. You’ll need a bag for each X 10 to 25 cents per bag. Buy two sandwiches at Nugget, another 50 cents for the two bags. Newspaper delivered on a rainy day, another .25. That loaf of bread comes in a plastic bag. Bring that shopping bag from home with you and load it with all those plastic wrapped products. Look, I get it, every little bit helps. But plastic bags are just a drop in the ocean compared to all the plastic you come across each day. You can’t hardly buy anything anymore without plastic being involved. The way to go is biodegradable plastics for all products. If banning plastic bags in Davis makes you sleep better at night, then great. But it’s just a pimple on an elephant’s arse.
Yes, we should absolutely ban carry-out, single-use plastic bags. If you still have reservations, go see the current exhibit at the Design Museum in Walker Hall. Powerful and disturbing.
rusty49: Maybe outlaw all condoms and make college abstinence classes mandatory in order to graduate?
I think that must be pretty darn close to the Republican position, based on what I read. For instance:
Mrs. Bush, Abstinence and Texas
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/opinion/17gailcollins.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss[/url]
I just had no idea that it was really all about preserving the environment. Thanks for clarifying.
Your welcome wdf1 and thanks for noticing, it’s just conservative’s little contribution to the health of humanity.
[i]”Have you people even thought that most of the products you buy in the market are already encased in some kind of plastic?”[/i]
If the goal is to stop plastics from going in our landfill–a miniscule percentage of our waste in Davis–why would anyone only target plastic bags used to carry out groceries and other goods?
It is somehow less problematic if I buy a bag of carrots, which come in a plastic bag, and I place that plastic bag inside a bag made of canvas?
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_U8RG0N1zvEU/SpAT8_tcIVI/AAAAAAAAARU/oYkQUuFcHh4/s400/Canning+Tomatoes+034.jpg[/img]
If you are going to ban plastics–or place a tax on their usage–then do so to all plastics in the supermarket or other retail locations. Every time I buy a whole chicken, it is wrapped in plastic. Why is no one agitated over that use of this god-forsaken product? If I cannot use a plastic bag to hold my groceries, why should I be allowed to purchase Glad Freezer bags? Should I not be condemned for using Reynolds Oven Bags which are convenient for cooking a turkey?
[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51uOa6RSQwL._SL500_AA300_PIbundle-24,TopRight,0,0_AA300_SH20_.jpg[/img]
Plastic bags by weight are a small percentage of plastics. Getting rid of them does not solve the supposed problem of plastics in landfills. (Never mind that our Davis use of plastics don’t wind up in the oceans.)
Focusing on one use of plastics and ignoring, for example, the plastic containers that Mr. Shor uses to sell 6-packs of tomato plants, seems like folly.
[img]http://fromdirttodinner.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tomatoes_second_potting.jpg?w=101&h=96[/img]
It’s like banning cigarette smoking but allowing cigar and water-pipe tobacco smoking. They too are insalubrious.
[img]http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/Funny-BabySmokingWeed.jpg[/img]
Surely we can come up with another dozen distracting issues that will preoccpy our council during 2011. Concentrate on getting our budget in order Or chase down every environmental leadership opportunity that someone champions. Our recent council record suggests we can’t have both.
Yes yes and HELL YES!!! WE SHOULD BAN PLASTIC BAGS IN DAVIS AND HOW DARE DAN WOLK CALL FOR A “STUDY”…BEWARE..THIS TYPE OF TALK MEANS HE’S GOING TO THROW A MONKEY WRENCH IN EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT WICH IS KIND OF SCREWED ALREADY.
ps David, I was against the abuses of the public union workers, but after Wisconsin, I’m totally on their side.
I can’t believe (Wait, actually I can) that Gov. Walker excluded the cops and firefighters from his attacks. What a hypocrit. I find it interesting that he just a few weeks ago gave a tax cut to the wealthy in that state and is now trying balance HIS deficit on the backs of the hard workers of the state of Wisconsin. WHAT A CREEP!!! Go unions!!!They Rock and have won back my support.
Rusty, it’s a step in the right direction. If we can take the courage to ban the use of plastic bags, then next we’ll start buying bulk. We can eliminate most of the waste that’s being forced upon us. WE CAN!! Don’t be such a cynic. So what if it’s not enough in your eyes, it’s still a step in the right direction. We don’t have biodegradable bags so in the mean time, let’s make a diff!!! I never use plastic bags any more. I always bring my own bags to the store. I bring my old pickle jars to stock up on bulk items and bring my own coffee cup to peets! You can do it too. it’s really not that hard!
“is now trying balance HIS deficit”
It’s not “HIS” deficit. He just took office and inherited a 3.2 billion dollar deficit. It’s refreshing that he’s actually trying to do something about it. Go Gov. Walker, most of America backs you.
We’re getting closer and closer to then end of this great experiment. As soon as people learned they could vote people in who would give them free (other people’s) money, the US was doomed. It devolved into two warring factions who simply oscilated between transfering money from one to the other based on whose turn it was, rather than what was right.
rusty49: It devolved into two warring factions who simply oscilated between transfering money from one to the other based on whose turn it was, rather than what was right.
You have a poor record on this blog of directly answering criticisms of your position, but I’ll take my chances here to ask you this: Indigorocks is right. Gov. Walker wants to strip most collective bargaining rights away from all public employee unions except for firefighters, local police, and state patrol:
[quote](The) plan would remove collective bargaining rights for prison guards, but it would exempt local police and firefighters and the state patrol.
[url]http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110211/GPG0101/110211052/Public-workers-in-Wisconsin-reeling-from-anti-union-bill[/url]
[/quote]
If you have followed local issues here in Davis, you wouldn’t think that firefighters should be exempt from such legislation, if there is a genuine belief that collective bargaining organizations are putting government jurisdictions in a bad budget situation these days.
But given those exemptions, this looks more like political revenge rather than a principled position. Locally, firefighters earn far greater compensation than do teachers and custodians in the local schools. Why is that exemption appropriate in Wisconsin?
“most of America backs you.”
Actually, it looks as though Wisconsin is pretty divided.
[url]http://weaskamerica.com/2011/02/18/weirdness-in-wisconsin/[/url]
Hard to say what “most of America” thinks. Bringing this issue home: much as I’d like to see the public employee contracts renegotiated in Davis, I still think that negotiation is a better approach than trying to destroy the unions. I wonder if there is much internal discussion going on in the public employee unions. I know that when the issue came before the teachers (choosing between layoffs and pay reductions) there was not unanimity.
Actually it was His deficit. He inherited a balanced budget, then turned around and gave a tax cut to the wealthy in his state and is trying to balance his deficit on the backs of the public unions.
Go UNIONS, most of America backs you!
Rasmussen ([url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/january_2011/support_for_public_employee_unions_declines[/url]): [quote]A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 45% of Americans now at least somewhat favor unions for public employees, while the identical number (45%) are opposed to them. These findings include 21% who Strongly Favor such unions versus 30% who are Strongly Opposed to them.
In May of last year, 53% of Adults favored unions for public employees, while 37% opposed them. [/quote] Pew ([url]http://people-press.org/report/705/[/url]): [quote]The favorability ratings for labor unions remain at nearly their lowest level in a quarter century with 45% expressing a positive view.[/quote]