As many know, I grew up in San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Obispo County, though coastal and more isolated, is in many ways similar to Yolo County – a liberal college town surrounded by more conservative rural areas. The main difference is that Woodland and West Sacramento are sizable urban areas and the rest of Yolo County is far more liberal than the rest of San Luis Obispo County.San Luis Obispo County’s waste board banned plastic bags by an 8-5 vote.
As the local newspaper noted, “Plastic bags lost the argument, as the waste board banned them on an 8-5 vote. But not before scores of people made their opinions known about the new law. What made the scuffle especially interesting is that the word ‘freedom’ popped up as often as the word ‘plastic.’ “
Sound vaguely familiar?
“Landfill operators said plastic bags are not only present, but are a huge problem for them,” the newspaper account continues. “In the end, the staggering numbers that have fueled the movement to ban plastic bags were too large to ignore. These folks talk millions and even billions when they describe the number of plastic bags used, the quantity of litter, and the number of wildlife damaged.”
The local paper reports, “On the local level, too many people, including members of the waste board, have participated in Central Coast creek and ocean cleanup days to buy the assertion that plastic bag litter is not a problem.”
There was more, “There was economic discussion – whether the ban would inconvenience tourists and push them away, or whether it would draw more visitors by keeping the environment pristine.”
Another issue that has surfaced here is health, “with some opponents claiming that the reusable cloth bags that will replace plastic bags will pose a health risk.”
However, “The California Grocers Association, county environmental health and many others disputed that. Supervisor Bruce Gibson called the charges ‘breathless hyperbole’ and ‘misrepresentation of health risks.’ “
“In the end, though, it was the notion of freedom that seemed to be at the crux of the issue for many citizens,” the paper continued. “Freedom, well … it clearly means different things to different people.”
One person called the new law “tyranny wrapped in environmentalism.”
Environmentalists said “regulation is the price of civilization, and some speakers added that we don’t have the freedom to do many things – running red lights, for example.”
A waste board member recognized “anti-smog laws that partially cleaned the air in her native Los Angeles as necessary regulations that serve the public good.”
On the other hand, “Some veterans who opposed the plastic bag ban said they went to war to preserve freedom, including the right to not have government tell them what kind of bag to use at a store. Other veterans, however, came down in favor of the plastic bag ban – the freedom to go to a store and not have their groceries thrust at them in a plastic bag.”
This is, of course, not the end of the story.
Yesterday the local San Luis Obispo paper ran a story entitled “Plastic bag ban leads to secession talk” and noted that some North County Officials want to know the ramifications for pulling out of the Integrated Waste Management Authority.
“Anger still lingers among some residents north of the Cuesta Grade about the county waste board’s recent vote to ban plastic bags, but earlier threats that some cities and community service districts might secede from the waste board have simmered down,” the paper reports, with officials now saying “The vote by the Integrated Waste Management Authority board of directors is ‘not a pressing issue.’ “
“The ordinance adopted by the board means that beginning in October, shoppers cannot be given plastic bags at most supermarkets, pharmacies, convenience stores and big-box stores. It allows retailers to charge 10 cents per paper bag,” the article continues.
The consensus is that “the consequences would be problematic for an individual jurisdiction leaving the waste authority,” however the fact that some communities thought about it is telling as to how charged the issue was.
There are a number of take-home messages from this incident.
First, Davis is not the only community contemplating a plastic bag ban.
Second, at least in San Luis Obispo County, plastic bags were a real environmental concern.
Third, the issue was highly contentious.
Fourth, we are not dealing with a Waste Management Authority, but rather the City of Davis.
Fifth, based on that, I think it is still unlikely that the city council will act to ban plastic bags at grocery stores.
However, if it gets banned in conservative San Luis Obispo County, it is only a matter of time before it happens in liberal Davis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Will we also ban the plastic bags that protect our newspapers from the rain?
The prospective ordinance only applies to grocery bags.
[quote]Environmentalists said “regulation is the price of civilization, and some speakers added that we don’t have the freedom to do many things – running red lights, for example.”[/quote]
Some of us believe there is more than one way to reach a goal, and do not believe a plastic bag ban is the way to do it…
[quote]”The ordinance adopted by the board means that beginning in October, shoppers cannot be given plastic bags at most supermarkets, pharmacies, convenience stores and big-box stores. It allows retailers to charge 10 cents per paper bag,” the article continues.[/quote]
In other words shoppers will be charged twice for plastic bags. The stores pass along the cost to consumers to keep the store stocked with plastic bags, then charge a 10 cent “tax” if a customer chooses to have their groceries loaded into a sanitary container…
San Jose banned almost all single use plastic bags as of January 1, 2012. It’s probably the most extensive ban on plastic bags passed (especially for a large city) in California.
http://www.sjrecycles.org/bags/
The UC Davis Bookstore now charges 25 cents for a plastic bag, sells a reusable bag for 75 cents or, of course, charges nothing to customers who bring their own bags:
http://www.theaggie.org/2011/11/30/“have-some-swag-bring-your-own-bag”/
To ERM re: “In other words shoppers will be charged twice for plastic bags. The stores pass along the cost to consumers to keep the store stocked with plastic bags, then charge a 10 cent “tax” if a customer chooses to have their groceries loaded into a sanitary container…”
I do not understand what you mean here? Why would a store be “stocked with plastic bags” if they cannot distribute them?
And the 10 cent “fee” is the approximate cost of recovery of a store for the expense of the bags and is kept by the store. The fee is not passed through to the state or local jurisdictions so it is clearly and legally not a “tax” although I am sure it is fun to characterize it as such to rally the torch-bearers.
And I think it is fair that the users of the paper bags pay for them instead of a store spreading out their costs among all customers. A store does not give away milk and spread the costs to non-milk drinkers. If I am conscientious and bring my own reusable bags, why should I have to pay to subsidize free paper bags used by others. This approach (a plastic bag ban and a fee on paper bags) has actually already been used by the Davis Coop for yeara and years and has not caused any major problems for them or their customers.
BTW – The “All-American City”, Sunnyvale also passed a plastic bag banning ordinance in December.
“In other words shoppers will be charged twice for plastic bags. The stores pass along the cost to consumers to keep the store stocked with plastic bags, then charge a 10 cent “tax” if a customer chooses to have their groceries loaded into a sanitary container…”
I believe you incorrectly read the article. There will be no plastic bags and stores can pass on a ten cost for paper bags. In addition, there is no evidence – as cited in the article (if you actually read it) that reusable bags are non-sanitary
Alanpryor:
“And I think it is fair that the users of the paper bags pay for them instead of a store spreading out their costs among all customers. A store does not give away milk and spread the costs to non-milk drinkers. If I am conscientious and bring my own reusable bags”
Hey Alan, how about that tax rebate that’s given on hybrid cars?
Do you think it’s fair that we all pay for that?
Rusty: Do you think it’s fair that my health suffers from your pollution?
David, how is your health suffering from my using a plastic bag?
David, so I guess you don’t drive a car, use a heater in your house, operate any electric appliances, buy any products already wrapped in plastic, use a washer or dryer, huggies for your kids…..
Should I go on? Or are you and your family totally garbage and carbon free?
You’re missing the point here. You asked Alan if it was fair that we all have to pay a tax rebate on hybrid cars – but you ignore the fact that pollution exacts a cost on all us as well. It’s not that any of us live a zero waste life, it is that we need to build in incentives to reduce as much waste as possible.
SLO is a coastal county. My understanding is these bags do the most damage when they get into the ocean. We are farther from the ocean.
Toad, the NRC gave up on that line as most of Davis, at least the one’s who aren’t gullible, saw through that.
Apparently the bigger problem was bags clogging up canyons and creeks.
Hey David, do you think it’s fair that my health suffers from your pollution?
“Apparently the bigger problem was bags clogging up canyons and creeks.”
Yeah, that’s the line they’re throwing at everyone now anyway.
[quote]I do not understand what you mean here? Why would a store be “stocked with plastic bags” if they cannot distribute them? [/quote]
My misunderstanding, altho the point is still the same. The store will have to stay stocked with paper bags (as opposed to plastic), the cost of which will be passed onto customers. Then customers are “taxed” (used in its widest sense of the word rather than technical sense) 10 cents again if they don’t choose to use a reusable cloth/plastic bag. And reusable bags used over and over again are unsanitary if not washed regularly. Some reusable bags have lead in the paint, so I would strongly advise purchasing reusable bags without colored dyes…
One of the purposes of doing that is to make the cost overt, whereas right now those are hidden costs.
“One of the purposes of doing that is to make the cost overt, whereas right now those are hidden costs.”
Because we all know that if the stores start charging for bags that our groceries will be so much cheaper. LOL
[i]”Apparently the bigger problem was bags clogging up canyons and creek”[/i]
Interesting choice of the word “clogging”. I’m unable to make that visual. If you have pictures, do share.
As a related point…
When will the poor wake up and recognize the damage done to them by the liberal ruling class?
– No more free plastic bags.
– No big box stores where you can pay less for goods and supplies.
– No residential development to help make housing more affordable.
– No oil pipelines and oil drilling to make the cost of energy more affordable.
– Crappy schools as they block education reform so your kids get locked in a cycle of poverty.
– Reductions in services to the poor to fund public employee unions.
– Elimination of charitable deductions so there are fewer private charities.
– Business-punitive taxes and regulations so there are fewer jobs.
But, those liberals provide the most free stuff, right? Right.
Wow, I could argue with every one of those, Jeff. Seems like an excellent start for a bulletin board post, could carry us right on through November.
Oh, except the “no more free plastic bags” one. I think you’re on to something there. I’m sure “the poor” will “wake up” and recognize that the conservative ruling class is going to keep their plastic bags free.
Jeff, once again you hit the nail on the head.
What’s a poor guy to do when all the free plastic bags are outlawed? I don’t think paper will work as well for him, do you?
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/PlasticBag1.jpg[/img]
Here is an idea… in all those liberal communities banning plastic bags, how about instead we just have a voluntary ban? Since the majority of the residents in these communities are lefties, the reduction in use of plastic bags should be significant if they all just stopped using plastic bags. Then these social do-gooders could wear a lapel bin and place a bumper sticker on their car announcing their evironmental superiority.
I would by okay with this approach… and I would respect those that did volunteer to give up plastic… something almost as difficult as giving up smoking certain stuff made from the same plant species that provides material for the plastic bag alternative demanded by the lefties.
“What’s a poor guy to do when all the free plastic bags are outlawed?”
I think it’s a non-issue. You either find grants to supply re-usable bags or use city money.
“how about instead we just have a voluntary ban?”
What would be the point?
[i]You either find grants to supply re-usable bags or use city money.[/i]
If the reusable bags are given out the shopping cart people will steal them from each other and try to sell them.
What city money?
The point to a voluntary band with our high density of environmentally-aware residents would be a significant reduction in single-use bags… AND it would preserve freedoms. Sounds like a win-win for all of us… including the shopping cart people.
Does anyone know if most grocery stores in davis have a plastic bag recycling bin?
I know Food-for-Less does (that is where I recycle my plastic bags); but I keep forgetting to check Nugget, Safeway, etc.
Also, I wonder what is done with these plastic bags in the recycling bins; are they actually recycled as plastic products?
“What city money?”
There is a decent amount of city money still available in funds like the one used for global warming type projects, i.e. the fund that provided the original money for zipcars. That could be used for this type of thing. Though to be honest, we should be able to get some companies to donate bags with their names on it – free advertising.
The problem with a voluntary ban, is the free rider effect. The problem with the free market overall and the environment is the impact on the environment is not factored into the costs of production and therefore treated separately in the market even though they are tied together. The other problem is that for the most part each person’s individual contribution to environmental degradation – it is only the collective impact that causes the problem. Therefore economists and political scientists have noted there is a collective action paradox where the individual incentive is not to participate in environmentally saving activities since the cost is born by them and their impact is negligible. However collectively, the combination of individual choices is detrimental to the whole.
What this means is that you can’t get to a solution without creating sanction or individual incentives to act in the “correct” way.
David, you need to get behind the personal freedoms, personal responsibility, and personal accountability concept. The outlaw plastic bag people have failed to make a case that there is enough of an environmental impact to warrant the taking away of yet another personal freedom. This is just another environmental cause looking for a real problem.
And another thing… I think the environmental wackos do not know how to stop. This is more about their identity than it is a rational public policy debate. They want to be part of the movement… whatever the movement is… and the facts really do not matter.
I can see them “progress” to a point where people are forced to purchase only what they can consume on premise due to the environmental impacts of ALL packaging. Of course too, only some food products will be allowed since others have greater environmental impacts.
We eventually get to that environmental-correct/wacko vision of a future state where we have a much smaller population of youthful people living in communal hemp huts, eating wild tubers and sustainable rodents.
[quote]What this means is that you can’t get to a solution without creating sanction or individual incentives to act in the “correct” way.[/quote]
YOu sure don’t have a very good opinion about your fellow man! They must somehow be “punished’ to do the right thing?
“David, you need to get behind the personal freedoms, personal responsibility, and personal accountability concept.”
I am. But I think you and I both agree that there are limits to that. For instance, I think we both think that murder is something outside of the personal freedom scope. I also believe that destroying the planet through incremental pollution needs to be outside of that scope as well.
” The outlaw plastic bag people have failed to make a case that there is enough of an environmental impact to warrant the taking away of yet another personal freedom. “
This is where we differ. I think there is enough of an environmental impact when we consider the waste and production costs (and the continued use of petroleum) to warrant taking away your freedom to obtain a “free” plastic bag at a grocery store.
“YOu sure don’t have a very good opinion about your fellow man! They must somehow be “punished’ to do the right thing?”
I don’t know where to be bemused or perplexed by your selective reading, I clearly said “sanction and individual incentive” and yet you clearly implied I said that be have to “punished” to do the right thing.
I will point out there is a real we have laws in this country and in fact laws in every country on the planet which threaten people with punishment if they don’t do the right thing. So obviously that is necessary. And yet I think most people act the right way not out of fear of punishment. So to impugn my statement as you have is a complete distortion.
My understanding is that a ban would affect only grocery stores (Safeway, SaveMart, etc.) but not stores that carry groceries in addition to everything else like Target and WalMart. Does anyone know if that’s true or not?
Oops, I’ll try again
“And another thing… I think the environmental wackos do not know how to stop. This is more about their identity than it is a rational public policy debate. They want to be part of the movement… whatever the movement is… and the facts really do not matter. “
Jeff
I would like to see your evidence that statement has any validity at all. Once one has started labeling ( wackos) and drawing up scenarios that no one is proposing, it is fairly clear who is discounting facts and arguments that do not agree with their point of view.
22 years ago when I was living in Claremont in Southern Ca, there was so much pollution that the sky was literally yellow most days. The comments being made by the “individual rights at all costs” folks were virtually identical to the arguments that you are making. Those of us in the health profession were keenly aware of the impact of pollution on the health of our patients and yet faced an uphill climb to convince the “don’t step on my right to pollute folks” to effect clearly needed change. No one is arguing that the plastic bag issue is of the same magnitude as the LA pollution of the 80s, but the principle of minimizing the adverse effects of litter and pollution is the same. If we had left it to voluntary compliance, LA and surround would still be under predomintly yellow skies.
Clearly this is a balance between those who feel that social incentives, either polite nudges, or laws if need be are a part of the fabric of living in a society and those who don’t want “others telling them what to do.. Rusty49, in other contexts has pointed out to me that illegal actions should be punished. The problem is not that he and I don’t agree that there must be laws, it is that we frequently don’t agree on what those laws should be.
Name calling and attributing ulterior motives instead of addressing the issues does nothing to attempt to arrive at mutually acceptable, if not perfect solutions.
medwoman: I use the term “wacko” for a reason… that is to bring attention to the fact that many environmentalists are single-minded and seemingly lacking objectivity for their causes. They also never stop… constantly lowering the bar for what constitutes an environmental crisis for them. They are obsessed in their pursuit of some pristine state of nature that excludes the human race.
It is a worthy cause to protect the environment, but like it or not, people are part of our natural world and require protection too. I think the human utility provided by single-use plastic bags far exceeds the environmental impact. I think people that are driving to ban plastic bags are a bit wacko.