Those who are pushing for the city to adopt a plastic bag ban – a proposal apparently that was so appalling and radical that the State Legislature took it up last year and had it narrowly fail – need to recognize that they have a very tough battle ahead as Bob Dunning has made this one of his campaigns, much as he did with Zipcar and wood burning.
Mr. Dunning was at least partially right on the Zipcar fiasco – it was a fiasco and city staff was dishonest about what was in the contract.
Plastic bags, however, is a different issue entirely. First of all, wood burning has a very localized effect. Plastic bags have several impacts that probably make it more conducive to a state issue than a local issue. There is the amount of oil used to produce the bags. Go fill up your car later today and check on those gas prices for me.
Second, there is the issue of waste and landfill. Are our landfills choked with plastic bags? No. But they are a sizable percentage of the non-biodegradable waste. The fact that they are as small a percentage of the total landfill as they are shows us two things, first how full of garbage we are and second how small bags are in relation to other things.
Fact is, plastic bags are used probably twice, the first time to carry out your groceries and the second time to carry your garbage to the garbage can.
Third, they are a threat to wildlife.
Mr. Dunning goes into a prolonged monologue on how long the ordinance is, and that is a sign that he is not really sure about how to attack this issue. You get into semantics when you cannot win the argument on the merits.
This is actually an issue that will be won, as consumers vote, with their feet. Ten years ago, my parents stopped using disposable grocery bags and began to use re-usable bags. If they can do it, everyone can. There is no reason not to. Not one. The cost of bags for low income people is a red herring and a canard. It costs more for stores to issue plastic bags. We can subsidize it. We can find sponsors for it. If that is your only reason for opposing a ban, then you are already on board.
There are actually a lot of advantages to using the reusable bags. They are bigger and stronger, so they can hold more groceries. I might need ten plastic bags to carry out my groceries but only two reusable bags. They load the groceries more neatly.
The biggest disadvantage is one must remember to first put them into your car or bring them on your bike (this is Davis after all). And second, to bring them from the car into the store. That is apparently where I get bogged down.
Bottom line, I think organizers should consider a ground war on this, rather than an air war. Get some environmental organization to donate a ton of reusable bags, and hand them out at Farmer’s Market and in front of Grocery stores.
Perhaps corporate sponsorship might be a way to go here, have a company produce bags with their corporate logos on them, and distribute these bags.
In a community like Davis, you can win this war on the ground. You do not have to rely on air support.
My other advice to supporters of the plastic bag ban, is do not concede the fight. The thing that is most remarkable about the Bob Dunning columns is that he can have a new column on the same topic day after day after day. He writes five columns a week. Sometimes I have seen four of them on the same subject, maybe even five.
I write somewhere between 14 and 21 columns and articles a week, and usually if three out of 21 of them are on the same subject, people are complaining, enough, overkill.
But the key is people have to keep writing about the topic and not concede it to Bob Dunning or his supporters. Send in columns, letters to the editor, comments on this site.
Finally, fight the war on your own terms. Do not engage in a semantics battle. Do not worry about refuting every single claim. Figure out which claims are cogent, attack those, but remember your assets in this community: everyone fancies themselves an environmentalist and plastic bag bans are nothing new in the environmental community.
For those of you who argue that this is not an essential issue, I disagree. I am very committed to pushing Davis towards fiscal stability. But if we do not save our planet, it will matter little if Davis has avoided bankruptcy.
No, banning plastic bags in Davis will not save our planet. But the mantra for environmentalists is to think globally and act locally. It is local communities like Davis that must lead to way toward a more sustainable future, and frankly I cannot think of a more important issue than that.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Fact is, plastic bags are used probably twice, the first time to carry out your groceries and the second time to carry your garbage to the garbage can.”
I use mine twice, so if the plastic grocery bags are banned everyone will then have to buy the thicker heavier ones to line their under the sink trash cans. Where’s the good in this?
“Where’s the good in this? “
I suspect it’s not a one-to-one ratio of bags to one-time reuse.
But obviously we will need to find a way to deal with trash without plastic bags at some point as well.
One way to need less bags to carry out our trash, would be to create less trash. Avoiding needless packaging such as the ” banana in a bag”
Would be acstart.
[quote]There is the amount of oil used to produce the bags.
Second, there is the issue of waste and landfill[/quote]
David:
I support limiting bags but only due to your third reason. The first two are trivial in my opinion. I am sure someone can come up with a huge number for the amount of fossil fuel bags use but the fact is the word uses something like 85 million barrels a day of petroleum and the amount of that that goes into plastic bags is small.
Second, while landfill is unsightly it is not a huge environmental issue unless toxins are involved.
On the other hand the threat to marine life is more serious than most people realize. And I should probably send Mr. Rifkin some photos I took of the garbage coming out of the mouth of the LA rives (at Long Beach)–much of this comes from inland.
It is true that Davis alone banning plastic bags will make little difference butwe could actually be a leader on this issue. Personally I would favor some sort of use change on bags with the money goin to marine protected areas in the State. But banning plastic bags also works for me.
[quote]Bottom line, I think organizers should consider a ground war on this, rather than an air war. Get some environmental organization to donate a ton of reusable bags, and hand them out at Farmer’s Market and in front of Grocery stores.
Perhaps corporate sponsorship might be a way to go here, have a company produce bags with their corporate logos on them, and distribute these bags.
In a community like Davis, you can win this war on the ground. You do not have to rely on air support.[/quote]Agreed.
[quote]You get into semantics when you cannot win the argument on the merits.[/quote]And, if you cannot convince your neighbors that going “bagless” is the right thing to do, you go to five citizens on a Tuesday night to force everyone to act as you believe.
Some of those promoting the “ban” have indicated that paper bags are similarly evil, and some keep using the word “cloth” which may signal an eventual intention to ban plastic, paper, recycled plastic and nylon bags.
I typically use the latter three, mostly the bags manufacture from recycled plastics, and nylon. I just don’t like to be told that I HAVE TO do what I already do, and I believe that some people who would otherwise be open to changing their behaviors will also resent the “bossy-butt” approach.
“But obviously we will need to find a way to deal with trash without plastic bags at some point as well.”
What, are the greenies going to send storm troopers down residential streets looking in trash cans? Are garbage men going to have to actually get out of their trucks and inspect the contents of the cans before they dump them? Like many have been saying on here, plastic bags are just the tip of the iceberg.
Yes, lets not talk semantics, lets talk facts:
1. do you know how many plastic bags from Davis actually end up in the Pacific Ocean? Do you? Because if you do not, then you really don’t know if plastic bags in Davis actually cause harm to the environment.
2. interestingly enough, I thought Janet Krovoza’s editorial in the enterprise actually helped the anti-plastic bag ban forces. She says the following: “Actually, we are closer than you think when you consider that our gutters empty into Willow slough and then our water (and any trash carried in it) travels through the city of Davis wetlands, the toe drain, the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta and into San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean”
In other words, there are multiple degrees of separation here, the likelihood that a plastic bag will end up in the Pacific ocean decreases in each link in the chain, making it substantially less likely it ultimately will end up there. Thus I thought she hurt, rather than helped her cause.
“Bottom line, I think organizers should consider a ground war on this, rather than an air war.”
*side point
You know, I’m sorry I have to bring a tangent in on this discussion, but I think it is worth mentioning. You gave sara palin hell for using weapons and war for political theater – telling her to “tone down the rhetoric” or arizona type shootings will occur. Well here you are, using war type rhetoric to make your political point – while you told others to “tone it down” you ratchet it up. just a side point.
But if you want a war, you will get one. Because I don’t think that you can just annoint yourselves the Plastic police just because you say so and tell everyone else what to do. Your rhetoric strikes me as very SELF IMPORTANT – my cause is important and I know what is best for everyone else and nobody elected you. And I find it apalling the general public hasn’t been brought in on this issue before the council is being pressed to go along with this ban by a relative few.
Actually, Elaine, at the risk of playing semantics, NO Davis gutters discharge to Willow Slough. Most of the Davis drainage that even gets to the Willow Slough [b]Bypass[/b], goes to ponds, trash racks, and pumps before discharge. Mace Ranch, Old East, and South Davis never goes into Willow Slough NOR the Willow Slough Bypass.
what is going to come next? what brands of cereal I buy? toothpaste? whether I buy the bagged spinach as opposed to the unbagged? styrofoam cups? (yes, I still buy those) buying physical gift cards as opposed to doing the transaction online and saving plastic there? the brand of deodorant? the amount of toilet paper I use? If we agree to this ban, that is like turning over the keys to your entire life over to the state. excuse me, but this is neither Cuba, nor the USSR
Oh, Core Area does not go to the bypass either…
“do you know how many plastic bags from Davis actually end up in the Pacific Ocean? Do you? Because if you do not, then you really don’t know if plastic bags in Davis actually cause harm to the environment.”
They have to make up supposed facts to make the problem much worse than it actually is in order to back their position so they can cram their agenda down the public’s throat.
This is just like when they made us start wearing seat belts. I have never had a car crash, and don’t need to be forced to wear a seat belt! I would ride a motorcycle, but I’m not going to let them force me to wear a helmet. This over regulation contributed to the demise of the US auto industry, and the plastic bag ban will kill jobs and contribute to the demise of the…plastic bag industry.
One good thing about getting old is remembering how the world was. I predate plastic bags. Milk came in bottles. People wrapped sandwiches in waxed paper. You carried your groceries home in a paper bag. We drank water out of the faucet, or if you were in the yard, the hose. We survived. The world will be just fine without plastic. Believe me; I was there.
Did you ride your horse to work? Don’t worry, the world will do fine without cars. We’ve come a long way baby.
“If we agree to this ban, that is like turning over the keys to your entire life over to the state. excuse me, but this is neither Cuba, nor the USSR “
Uh…don’t you mean, “this is neither San Jose or LA county” or how about “this is neither Ireland or Italy” because those are just a few of hundreds of places that than ban plastic bags. So far Russia and Cuba aren’t on the list.
You anti-banner, “pry my plastic bags from my cold dead fingers” types are funny, though, because this isn’t exactly a 2nd amendment right we are talking about here.
We have lots of types of activities or products that are prohibited for the public good. Just because you choose to practice those activities or use those products doesn’t mean they are a god-given right.
Seems to me that one person in this thread, in particular, is a staunch anti-drug use advocate. Consistency would seem to indicate you should be fervently in opposition to any personal drug use laws also. And I can’t believe you anti-banner folks are not all up in arms against all the smoking in public places ordinances…C’mon folks, get a self-righteous backbone here…rise up to defend ALL of our liberties and crush the oppressive Council regime! If they can overthrow the tyrants in Egypt, we can overthrow the dictators in city hall!
Like I said, you guys are funny.
hpierce: “Actually, Elaine, at the risk of playing semantics, NO Davis gutters discharge to Willow Slough. Most of the Davis drainage that even gets to the Willow Slough Bypass, goes to ponds, trash racks, and pumps before discharge. Mace Ranch, Old East, and South Davis never goes into Willow Slough NOR the Willow Slough Bypass.”
I did not write the comment – it is another Musser! I always sign my comments w E Roberts Musser… Elaine Roberts Musser
dmg: “Bottom line, I think organizers should consider a ground war on this, rather than an air war. Get some environmental organization to donate a ton of reusable bags, and hand them out at Farmer’s Market and in front of Grocery stores. Perhaps corporate sponsorship might be a way to go here, have a company produce bags with their corporate logos on them, and distribute these bags.”
I have no problem w environmentalists “encouraging” certain behaviors to counteract what they view as detrimental behavior towards the environment. However, to set themselves up as the “plastic police” is outrageous. Who died and made them the arbitor of all things right and relevant? Once a group starts down that road of deciding for the rest of us how to behave, what behavior is next that this group will want to control? These are the same people that decry the loss of their freedoms bc of other gov’t intrusions, yet they have no problem w the gov’t intruding if the intrusion happens to align w their beliefs. They cannot have it both ways.
dmg: “Do not worry about refuting every single claim. Figure out which claims are cogent, attack those, but remember your assets in this community: everyone fancies themselves an environmentalist and plastic bag bans are nothing new in the environmental community.”
In other words, you do not have good arguments for many of the criticisms of a plastic bag ban:
1) What do we line our garbage cans w?
2) What do we clean up dog poop w?
3) Shall we ban all plastic?
4) Plastic bag pollution represents a miniscule amount of the “plastic pollution”. Have you seen how many condoms are at the sewer plant. Shall we ban condoms bc they clog up our sewer system?
5) Illegal merchant ship dumping probably represent 1/3 of all the garbage pollution in the ocean.
6) Why not incentives rather than an outright ban?
7) Why not push for biodegradable plastic bags?
8) Why not recycle at destination – the landfill?
9) Plastic bags were substituted bc paper bags were seen as “evil”. Now the same proponents of plastic bags are now saying plastic bags are “evil” and we need to go back to paper bags.
10) The dye in many cloth bags has been found to have lead in them, which is unsafe for children to use, and not healthy for adults either.
11) The majority of citizens have had the option of using cloth bags but have not chosen to do so, finding plastic bags more convenient and of use for other things at home. Why should the tyranny of the minority in wanting a plastic bag ban reign supreme?
12) I’ll stop there, but I’m sure I can think of more…
I use BioBags for my trash and pet needs, purchased at the Co-Op. 100% compostable and 0% petroleum is used. Also, I have been using canvas bags for nearly 15 years for all store purchases. This was a very simple lifestyle change.
dmg: “I suspect it’s not a one-to-one ratio of bags to one-time reuse.
But obviously we will need to find a way to deal with trash without plastic bags at some point as well.”
This statement is very, very telling. A plastic bag ban at grocery stores is the first step in the real goal of banning all plastic bags of any kind… and then ban all plastic… and then ban whatever the arbiters of all things right and relevant decide needs to go next…
Much like medical marijuana usage being used as the toehold in the legalization of drugs…
Slippery slopes and downright undemocratic…
Biodegradable plastic bags are a fallacy. They just break down into millions of much smaller pieces of plastic which is even worse for the environment.
[i]”Plastic bags have several impacts that probably make it more conducive to a state issue than a local issue.”[/i]
If it is an issue at all, it is a coastal issue. The reason the ban argument in Davis is so weak is because it is all built on emotion and not reason.
[i]”Second, there is the issue of waste and landfill. Are our landfills choked with plastic bags? No. But they are a sizable percentage of the non-biodegradable waste.”[/i]
Totally false. Plastic grocery bags make up 0.4% of the landfill waste. EVERYTHING which is buried in a landfill and has no source of light or oxygen is ‘non-biodegradable waste.’ It’s just shocking how anti-science this bag ban argument has become.
[i]”Third, they are a threat to wildlife.”[/i]
This is yet one more falsehood in the argument to ban bags [b]in Davis.[/b] It’s entirely possible that in San Francisco or Santa Monica, plastic bags could pose some small danger to some creatures. But here in Davis it is just a part of the bigger lie that the banners have invented to ban bags [b]in Davis.[/b] They have not one whit of proof for this wildlife claim [b]in Davis.[/b]
Moreover, the actual science on this topic is that plastic grocery bags are less harmful to the environment in the big picture than paper bags are. So that raises the question: why are the banners not first going after paper bags? Answer: because their argument is all based on made up sh*#.
[i]”There are actually a lot of advantages to using the reusable bags. They are bigger and stronger, so they can hold more groceries. I might need ten plastic bags to carry out my groceries but only two reusable bags. They load the groceries more neatly.”[/i]
No one is stopping you from making that choice. And if you think others ought to choose your option, then explain that to them. But stop making up b.s. about plastic grocery bags and why they must be banned. All of your arguments are bogus for banning bags in Davis.
[i]”Bottom line, I think organizers should consider a ground war on this, rather than an air war.”[/i]
Hypocritical war analogies? No good for that idiot former governor of Alaska but good for you?
EMR
I agree with you about providing incentives instead of having the government intrude on personal behavior.
It’s just that I think this principle should be applied equally regardless of what issue is being discussed. To be consistent one would need to legalize the use of drugs as long as used in the privacy of one”s home or other private venue much as alcohol is legal now.
I see saebelt and motorcycle helmet laws being decried by GreenandGolden, but no objection to outlawing drugs which are not in favor with certain groups, vs those that are, namely alcohol and cigarettes both of which are equally at least as medically dangerous as marijuana.
It seems that neither side has a monopoly on lack of consistency.
[i]“this is neither Ireland or Italy” because those are just a few of hundreds of places that than ban plastic bags”
[/i]
Ireland instituted a tax on plastic bags, not a ban. I think it worked.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/world/europe/02bags.html[/url]
Since this is an entirely symbolic proposal, with virtually no environmental consequences, it seems that incentives would be a better way to go. I also think the city council has more pressing issues. Local groups could raise funds by selling cloth bags in front of grocery stores.
Exactly Mr. Shor,
If one chooses to go the cloth bag route then more power to them. If one can talk another into using cloth then great, but don’t force your views on another when as you say the environmental consequences are virtually zero. Here’s an idea:
Supermarkets often offer to collect the plastic bags — you may have seen the bins in front of stores. “In 2003 Safeway collected 7,000 tons of plastic grocery bags, pallet-wrap plastic, and dry cleaners’ bags. The plastic is sold to a company that makes…lumber-like boards.”
Some people here seem to think they have a right to use plastic bags and the American Chemistry Council members have the right to make and sell these toxic and dangerous products, even though they take no responsiblity for their impact after the point of sale. The ACC also has the right to give our “representatives” gobs of money to oppose these grass roots efforts to protect the health of our communities and the planet.
Who gave us the right to pollute? The right to waste? The right to make products that are toxic, harm wildlife and pose an expensive problem to municipalities, landfillers, recyclers, composters and the environment at large while selling these things so cheaply that they are practically free.
I think we should have more freedom from pollution rather than freedom to pollute. My health and happiness are impacted from dying oceans and a diseased environment and populous. Personally, I think the Albatros and the other 266+ species directly affected by these products should have the right to be free from such pollution as well, even if it comes at the expense of someone’s “freedom” to enjoy a free, convenient, flimsy, “disposable” (read polluting) bag when they could certainly carry their own.
Yes, thanks to the surge of communities banning single use plastic bags in CA (nine have done so already including SF, LA, Oakland, Santa Monica, Fairfax…) a state ban was proposed and passed the Assembly (AB 1998) in 2010. However, in the Senate, our own representative, Lois Wolk, cowed to the chemical companies and took money to kill the bill and protect their dirty profits.
Organizers of this decidedly organic, grass roots movement that has formed to take action against the plastic pollution take issue with the impacts of plastic waste, especially film plastic, most notably bags. We are doing it to promote REUSE and personal responsibility. Working with incentives would be preferable, but the ACC circumvented this in state law, preventing communities from putting a fee on plastic bags if there is a “recycling” bin for them provided (any markets for film plastic are weak and overseas, less than 5% of bags make it to these markets – the one domestic buyer, TREX has more than they can handle).
Davis has banned cigarette smoking in public places and that may have significantly reduced water pollution as cigarette butts are the #1 source of water pollution in CA and the top item found floating in the ocean as marine debris. The second largest constituent of marine debris? Plastic Bags. For more info about ocean pollution check out: http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/oceans/great-pacific-cleanup
We all live downstream, so getting toxic materials out of common use will help protect human health for years to come.
Still more info and resources on Bag Bans: http://zerowaste.wikispot.org/Bag_Bans
ap: “You anti-banner, “pry my plastic bags from my cold dead fingers” types are funny, though, because this isn’t exactly a 2nd amendment right we are talking about here.”
To be consistent on this issue, it means one is for a ban in using all plastics bc plastic is polluting our world and harming animals? Correct? Then what to we put dog poop in? Household garbage? Water, fruit juice and soda pop? Meat? And why are incentives as opposed to an outright ban so antithetical to plastic bag banners? Let’s put this one to a vote of the people of Davis – oh, but wait. We have done that. Disposable cloth bags are available, yet most people are still using plastic bags. Could it be bc they recycle them for use as dog poop disposers, garbage can liners, etc.?
“Who gave us the right to pollute? The right to waste? The right to make products that are toxic”
So Alleycat, you have no plastic in your house, you don’t buy anything wrapped in plastic, you don’t drive a car, your dwelling was made of all environmental friendly materials, you don’t draw any power from your local utility, nothing you use in your life ends up as waste or is toxic?
Please, spare me the lecture.
Don Shor: “Ireland instituted a tax on plastic bags, not a ban. I think it worked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02…2bags.html”
Actually it didn’t. According to statistics, plastic bag consumption increased by 10% in Ireland after the ban was instituted…
In reference to my last comment, I suspect that is bc citizens were forced to go out and purchase plastic bags for lining garbage cans, for dog poop disposal and the like.
Elaine: from the article
“In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.
Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.”
I previously posted a link showing that sales of plastic bags (i.e., trash can liners) increased. Overall, though, I think the tax reduced the consumption of plastic bags.
ALLEY: [i]”Some people here seem to think they have a right to use plastic bags and the American Chemistry Council members have the right to make and sell these toxic and dangerous products …”[/i]
When you live in a free society, you should not have the right to choose whatever products you want to use or consume, as long as your doing so does not impose a cost on others or the common good.
The problem with the arguments against plastic bags is that the proponents have failed at every point to make a reasonable or scientific argument that banning plastic bags in Davis will do any good or that using plastic grocery bags in Davis is causing any harm or cost on others or the environment.
All of the arguments in Davis are either false or irrational appeals which are not scientifically supported.
[i]”… even though they take no responsiblity for their impact after the point of sale.”[/i]
This is false in every respect. I cause no harm whatsover to anyone else in Davis by choosing to use plastic grocery bags. It is not the case that our city is awash in strewn plastic grocery bags. Insofar as we have a problem with strewn garbage, it is (based on everywhere I go in Davis) much more of a problem with paper products, not plastic grocery bags.
[i]”The ACC also has the right to give our ‘representatives’ gobs of money to oppose these grass roots efforts to protect the health of our communities and the planet.”[/i]
That is yet another appeal to prejudice and not reason. It says, ‘those who agree with Alleycat are pure and are grass rooty, while those who are waiting for a logical argument are corrupt. I grant that financial contributions to politicians do corrupt them, and perhaps that corruption has affected some votes on this issue. Yet why are you decrying that piddly amount of corrution and not the serious corrupting gobs of money the PEUs have poured into campaigns.
Consider this: In the 2009-10 election cycle, the grand sum contributed to all candidates for elective office in California by the American Chemistry Council was $45,500. (Source ([url]http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1011918&view=contributions&session=2009[/url]).)
By contrast, this is how much the Calif. Teachers Assoc. Issues PAC ([url]http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1045740&session=2009&view=contributions[/url]) gave to various candidates for state elective office: $24,044,069.70.
But that is not all. The CTA’s independent expenditure committee ([url]http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1312654&session=2009&view=contributions[/url]) spent $1,584,649.64 on state races.
But that is not all. The CTA’s IEC for 2010 ([url]http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1328666&view=contributions&session=2009[/url]) spent another $5,365,866.72 on state races.
But that is not all. The CTA’s Association for Better Citizenship ([url]http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1018473&session=2009&view=contributions[/url]) spent another $9,443,891.00 on state races.
So if your interest is in exposing who is bought and paid for by whom, it is surprising that you would direct your wrath at one group which spent $45,500 and ignore the corrupting influences of a group which spent in the same 2-year time frame 879 times as much (or $40 million).
Moreover, if you would go through the data on all PEUs, you would find the multiple is probably in the range of 15,000 to 1 for money spent to corrupt pols in comparison with the ACC.
[i]”Who gave us the right to pollute?”[/i]
Who gave you the right to declare without evidence that shoppers in Davis who use plastic grocery bags are some significant source of pollution in Davis?
[i]”The right to waste?”[/i]
Who gave you the right to arrogate as to what is waste and what is value to another human being? You come down on this issue like you have just left the burning bush on Mt. Sinai.
[i]”The right to make products that are toxic, harm wildlife and pose an expensive problem to municipalities, landfillers, recyclers, composters and the environment at large while selling these things so cheaply that they are practically free?[/i]
For the most part, your charges are not supported by any critically evaluated scientific data. But I would add what I said above: plastic grocery bags are less harmful to the environment than paper bags, and that has been proven by a scientific study ([url]http://www.asd.polyu.edu.hk/lab/upload/Journal_Papers/2009_An Exploratory Comparative Study on Eco-Impact of Paper and Plastic Bags.pdf[/url]).
Elaine wrote:
“According to statistics, plastic bag consumption increased by 10% in Ireland after the ban was instituted…”
According to this, you are not right:
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/182949_bags21.html
“The use of plastic bags in Ireland dropped more than 90 percent following imposition of the tax, and the government has raised millions of dollars for recycling programs”
Don Shor: [quote]Since this is an entirely symbolic proposal, with virtually no environmental consequences, it seems that incentives would be a better way to go. I also think the city council has more pressing issues. Local groups could raise funds by selling cloth bags in front of grocery stores.[/quote]
Right – Encourage. Educate. Promote alternatives.
I personally detest plastic carryout bags (as well the ubiquitous plastic overpackaging of many products). We don’t use them in our household, and don’t find that to be a burden. Some of the offers of plastic carryout bags that we encounter border on the surreal. (How often have you been offered a plastic bag to carry out a single item that will fit in your pocket?) Linda Book’s recent editorial in the Enterprise discussed the realities of converting to cloth bags, and provided good advice about converting. I would much rather see people switch to cloth bags because they realize the merit in doing so than pass yet another city ordinance on a subject like this.
There are plenty of good reasons for individuals to minimize the use of unneccessary plastic in all forms – but that doesn’t mean that our City Council or City staff should spend their time on this at this point. Don Shor is right: the City Council and City staff have more important issues to work on right now. Debating the merits and logistics of banning plastic bags is a distraction from the huge, crushing financial problems that the City faces.
Let’s encourage the City Council and the City staff to work on nothing other than solving the budget mess until they get it figured out. It won’t be as fun or as sexy as plastic bags or Zipcars, but it is the 800-pound gorilla that must be dealt with first. Once that is accomplished, then they can get back to debating stuff like this.
In the meantime, let’s rely on truthful education and helpful advice to promote alternatives to excessive plastic of all sorts.