For years Davis has prided itself on being one of the progressive leaders in the state and, indeed, the nation. From Village Homes to the Solar Array to bicycle paths to the smoking ordinance, the city of Davis has had a proud progressive legacy.
But in the last few decades, the rest of the state and, indeed, communities around the country have caught up and surpassed a Davis that has largely been living on its laurels. Even its biking legacy is tainted somewhat by the slow play on the Fifth Street redesign – which has been in the works for more than a decade.
Tonight, the Davis city council could become the 60th community in California to pass a local ordinance that prohibits or otherwise restricts the use of single-use shopping bags. The communities that most think of as the most progressive and environmentally conscious have already made the decision to ban plastic bags. Missing from that list is, of course, the city of Davis.
City staff and the Natural Resources Commission have laid out why this ordinance is needed.
The city’s EIR notes, “From an overall environmental and economic perspective, the best alternative to single-use plastic and paper carry-out bags is a shift to reusable bags. Studies and impacts from similar policies adopted in other jurisdictions document that restricting plastic bags and placing fees on paper bags will dramatically reduce the use of both types of bags.”
“Despite their lightweight and compact characteristics, plastic bags disproportionately impact the solid waste and recycling stream and persist in the environment even after they have broken down,” the city continues. “Even when plastic bags are disposed of properly, they often become litter due to their aerodynamic nature. The bags can be blown out of the landfill by the wind. Plastic litter not only causes visual blight, but can potentially harm wildlife.”
Up and down the coast of California, we have seen more and more communities ban plastic bags. Why? Several reasons. First, the use of disposable products in large quantities is ultimately not sustainable. We need to move away from the use of products that end up in landfills or, worse yet, on the side of the roads. They end up clogging waterways, causing damage to marine life and birds, and they are a general nuisance.
Some have tried to latch on to some of the more global reasoning – plastic bags end up in the ocean and endanger wild life. That is undoubtedly true, even if none of the bags from Davis ever make it from the slough into the Delta and into the ocean itself.
Bottom line, bags are pollutants in the environment, and their single usage is a waste of natural resources and energy.
The logic against a bag ban is one of wastefulness and, at times, inconvenience. It may be more inconvenient to have to go to more biodegradable products to deal with dog waste, but I have spoken to a number of dog owners who have been doing this for years.
Many make use of produce plastic bags. We will still have the lightweight produce bags, meat bags, bags that line processed foods -and the final fallback is that the city may be able to get a grant for biodegradable doggy bags that it could put in the dog park and perhaps in some other public places. For a few thousand dollars a year, we can have a much more environmentally-friendly and sustainable community.
There are well-intentioned citizens who argue that if we ban plastic shopping bags, people will go to more wasteful activities. But why? Isn’t taking care of the environment the responsibility of us all? Does taking care of the environment have to be convenient?
Bottom line is that there are alternatives to wasteful activities to compensate for the loss of plastic shopping bags.
If Davis strives to be a community that prides itself on environmental stewardship, it is not going to use the loss of plastic shopping bags as an excuse to become more wasteful.
There is also the red herring of reusable bags carrying diseases. There are several alternatives to this. First, simply wash your bags with the rest of your laundry. Why is that a big deal?
Second, the ban is for the take-out bags, not the produce and meat bags.
Third, there is no law that says you have to use reusable bags. You have the option of paying ten cents for a paper bag or doing it like Costco does, putting the groceries directly into your trunk.
Somehow people who shop at the Food Co-op and Whole Foods have survived. Somehow people in 80 communities under plastic bag ordinances have, as well.
Much of the debate has focused on the form of the ordinance. The council has already had the onerous recording provisions removed. The city staff has provided the council with several alternatives.
The staff developed the exemptions for good reasons. First, the exemptions still allowed the vast majority of bags to subjected to the ordinance. Second, the exemptions allowed those businesses that are smaller and for whom the ordinance would be a larger inconvenience to continue to provide bags.
But at the same time, the point has been made that Davis residents are already doing much of this on their own. Even small businesses that would be exempt under the Natural Resources Commission Ordinance have told several that the vast majority of their customers do not ask for bags and do not want bags.
If that is the case, even extending the ordinance to all and applying it to all equally will probably have only a minimal impact on those businesses.
The one approach I do not like is Brett Lee’s proposal that we do not prohibit any bags, but rather charge for all bags. I do not believe people should have the ability to buy themselves out of environmental stewardship.
The idea that people are going to drive to Woodland or Dixon to do their shopping, over bags, is largely ludicrous and wasteful of gas and mileage on their car. Generally, you are looking at 30 to 50 cents per mile that the IRS allows people to take off, and that gives you a ballpark picture of how much it would cost, gas aside, to drive to Woodland or Dixon for shopping.
The costs in gas alone more than offset the inconvenience and added costs of plastic bags.
Bottom line, it is time for Davis to put up or shut up. As I wrote about a month ago, I do not fear and I even embrace the idea of putting the plastic bag ban on the ballot. If it passes, then we can keep our name in the conversation as being among the more progressive communities in California – even if we are no longer leading the way.
But if the bag ordinance loses, it is all over for Davis. I have been arguing, for my seven years on the Vanguard, that Davis has the veneer of progressivism, so that if you scrape away you find regressive and downright reactionary policies at its core.
I have faith however, that the vast majority of Davis residents will support the plastic bag ordinance at the polls.
This is a critical testing point. Will the voices of progressivism that still claim to run this community prevail, or will the reactionary voices that gain a home with a certain newspaper columnist ultimately prove to be stronger?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Will the voices of progressivism that still claim to run this community prevail, or will the reactionary voices that gain a home with a certain newspaper columnist ultimately prove to be stronger?[/quote]
Instead of calling the people who say that getting rid of plastic bags are reactionary voices, I prefer to call them the common sense voices because getting rid of plastic bags isn’t going to do a damn bit of good and just cause unnecessary inconvenience and extra costs in order to make local liberals feel good about themselves.
How is shifting from wasteful environmental practices to more sustainable not doing “a damn bit of good.” I think you conflate not solving the overall problem with not doing a damn bit of good. We have to change the mindset away from disposable products.
Caring for the environment is not a progressive issue. My conservative parents–let’s call them crunchy conservatives–back in the 60s were the ones who told us about caring for our neighborhood and our town by picking up litter. They were the ones who taught me about composting. They were the ones that suggested we needed to live differently so that we could take care of the environment. Why this has become a “progressive” issue is beyond me. Care of one’s place, one’s neighborhood, one’s “nearby” is a profoundly conservative issue.
“They end up clogging waterways, causing damage to marine life and birds, and they are a general nuisance.”
Convinced me. As long as we pass ordinances against a few other general nuisances I’ve got in mind.
“The staff developed the exemptions for good reasons. First, the exemptions still allowed the vast majority of bags to subjected to the ordinance. Second, the exemptions allowed those businesses that are smaller and for whom the ordinance would be a larger inconvenience to continue to provide bags. But at the same time, the point has been made that Davis residents are already doing much of this on their own. Even small businesses that would be exempt under the Natural Resources Commission Ordinance have told several that the vast majority of their customers do not ask for bags and do not want bags.”
It’s interesting that we can argue that tiny, inland Davis just has to have a ban (although it has an incredibly high level of voluntary “no bag, please” progressives and conservatives) and, yet, argue for exemptions for small businesses and poor people.
Keep Davis quaint!
Robb
I partially agree with you. I would amend your statement to ” Caring for the environment is neither an exclusively progressive nor conservative issue.”
As a political liberal I adhere to my very politically conservative parents lesson “waste not, want not”. They were, and I am a dedicated conservation minded, environmental protection minimalist. We, as a family, both the conservatives and me as the black sheep liberal into sustainability long before that term gained popularity.
I believe that what our current parlance has created is a false dichotomy that causes some to reject what they might otherwise see as sensible suggestions ( such as reducing litter or smog) because they see it as being supported by those whose ideology they oppose. Surely a good idea is a good idea, no matter the political affiliation of the proponent.
“and, yet, argue for exemptions for small businesses and poor people.”
To be clear I’m not arguing for exemptions, I’m pointing out that the exemptions made some sense given their very limited impact on the number of bags and the few uses of bags within them. That is not an argument for the exemptions.
I’m just reading what you wrote that the exemptions have “good reasons” for their development. However, when I said “we can argue…,” it wasn’t intended as anything personal. The exemptions originally were part of the NRC’s first proposal, as I remember, and not really developed by the staff as alternatives this week.
My only problem with your approach is that, in trying to turn this into a test of our Progressive Manhood, you put the issue on par with bombing Syria.
—
medwoman, reducing litter is a very sensible suggestion and is not rejected by anyone that I know of, opposing ideologies or not. Criminalizing use of single-use bags takes a very sensible suggestion and moves it into a whole new (and unnecessary) level that wastes time.
However, I”ve decided I’ll vote for it if it means I’ll never again have to look at the phonyed-up photo with which David has littered up every Vanguard article on this topic.
That wasn’t my intention Just Saying. It has more to do with my pet peeve, that we like to hold ourselves up as something that we really aren’t any longer. We need to spit or get off the pot so to speak. Is single use bags an ultimate test? No. But it is the trend that I expect to be statewide within a few years.
Justsaying:
[quote]Progressive Manhood[/quote]
There’s no such thing.
Oh, spit! I’d be very pleased with a state approach as opposed to a partial-inland-city-within-a-county-within-a-state approach. I don’t need to prove my manhood–I just passed a kidney stone this weekend.
I’m inclined to give up the honor of having you glow in the happiness of living in the cocoon of a “progressive” community in return for keeping plastic bags.
i think the question is why do you need those kinds of plastic bags… also i kind of chuckle at the idea that relatively conservative people not being heartbroken over the loss of the progressive mantle in this community.
DP
[quote]i think the question is why do you need those kinds of plastic bags[/quote]
I think the question is why do you need many things in your life too. Why are you and your ilk the ones that decide what conveniences must be taken away and what is okay to use? How many times have you bought a newspaperor a magazine when you could’ve read them online? How many times have you purchased a hard covered or paperback book when you could’ve purchased an ebook instead? How many times have your children played in the sprinklers wasting precious water when you could’ve taken them to the community pool instead? How many times have you driven your car when you could’ve rode your bike? How many times have you driven to let’s say someplace like SLO when you could’ve used public transportation? We don’t need people dictating to others what conveniences are okay and what ones need to be taken away.
“I think the question is why do you need many things in your life too. “
i don’t think that’s really a point in question – i think it’s something that we all both personally, as a community, and as a society need to evaluate. i want this world to be around for my grandchildren, as it was for me. and for that to happen, that means all of us need to give things up.
“Why are you and your ilk the ones that decide what conveniences must be taken away and what is okay to use? “
that’s how you view it. i view as the community collectively making decisions.
” How many times have you bought a newspaperor a magazine when you could’ve read them online?”
i read all of my news online now.
“How many times have you purchased a hard covered or paperback book when you could’ve purchased an ebook instead?”
the only paper books i buy now are used, otherwise it’s through kindle.
” How many times have your children played in the sprinklers wasting precious water when you could’ve taken them to the community pool instead?”
my kids are grown. i live by myself at this time and consume very little water. i have redesigned my home to take out a lot of water-sucking vegetation. i think i have done a lot, but it’s not enough. the whole community – indeed the whole state, the whole nation and the whole planet need to change.
“How many times have you driven your car when you could’ve rode your bike?”
that’s something i need to work on.
“How many times have you driven to let’s say someplace like SLO when you could’ve used public transportation? “
i don’t tend drive far distances except for work.
“We don’t need people dictating to others what conveniences are okay and what ones need to be taken away. “
yes we do. or we are not going to have a planet for our grandchildren to enjoy.
[quote]yes we do. or we are not going to have a planet for our grandchildren to enjoy. [/quote]
That’s BS and you know it, we’re going to have a planet for our grandchildren to enjoy. The bigger problem is not the environment, but the financial sustainability of our country.
In the 1990s, tech stocks were hot. People jumped on the equity feeding frenzy band wagon without thinking deeply about the risks for investing in business with super high price-earnings ratios and little prospects for ever turning a profit. Then the market crashed. Duh.
Then in the 2000s, real estate was booming. Speculators, investors, flippers, “ownership society”, CRA, Freddie, Fannie, below market rates from the Fed… all of this caused more and more people to jump on the equity feeding frenzy bandwagon. Then it all crashed. Duh.
It is appropriate to compare these two things with plastic bag bans because they are indicative of our sheep nature. More specifically, we will follow the crowd toward some end that we haven’t sufficiently evaluated… just because that is what everyone else is doing.
We would rather go to that bad place with the rest of the sheep instead being left standing alone with our factually and intellectually honest assessment.
This is exactly where we are with plastic bag bans. Here in Davis, it is a stupid, idiotic, wasteful, damaging, and foolish pursuit. Yet some of us cannot drop it because of our anxiety of being left standing alone.
Once a sheep, always a sheep.
‘That’s BS and you know it”
i’ve read the projections on global warming. you might be able to argue that it’s bs – though i don’t think you have the background to do so without cutting and pasting a large number of questionable right wing articles – but to argue that i know it is unprovable and beyond the pale.
“It is appropriate to compare these two things”
it’s not. people were jumping on those things as a cheap and lazy way to make a quick buck and for most of them it was a low risk. you need to reevaluate your analogy.
Why do many if not most of you Davis liberals own a dishwasher when you can wash your dishes by hand, a clothes dryer when you can hang them outside, an electric lawn mower when you can use a manual one, electric trimmers………….and on and on.
It’s called modernization and life’s conveniences. Eliminating plastic bags in Davis does almost nothing in the overall scheme of things except create more inconvenience for those who chose to use them.
Robb wrote:
> Caring for the environment is not a progressive issue.
> My conservative parents–let’s call them crunchy
> conservatives–back in the 60s were the ones who told
> us about caring for our neighborhood and our town by
> picking up litter.
Just about everyone (on the right and the left) cares about the environment.
The difference is how they try to “protect”the environment. As a camper and fisherman I see more and more trails and areas closed to vehicles and camping since the solution to litter for many on the left is to ban ALL people from going in to an area or prohibit ALL people from getting plastic bags at the store while most on the right would like to only punish the people that actually litter.
My solution would be to eliminate fines for littering and make anyone caught littering pick up trash every Saturday for a month (two months on the second offence). We would only need to catch a few people before Davis was very clean.
P.S. I find it ironic that in areas of the state with a lot of Republicans/Conservatives (e.g. East Sacramento, El Macero, Atherton, Ross) there is almost never any litter, but most areas of the state with a lot of Democrats/Liberals (e.g. East Los Angeles, West Oakland, Berkeley, East Palo Alto) there is usually a lot of litter…
David:
[quote]i’ve read the projections on global warming. you might be able to argue that it’s bs – though i don’t think you have the background to do so without cutting and pasting a large number of questionable right wing articles – but to argue that i know it is unprovable and beyond the pale. [/quote]
Just as you can post a bunch of questionable left wing articles. You also don’t have the background or the proof to say such an outlandish prediction is true. I would have to say that since the Earth has been around for billions of years that the burden of proving that our grandchildren won’t have a planet to enjoy is totally on the enviro whackos.
Davis Progressive wrote:
> i think it’s something that we all both personally,
> as a community, and as a society need to evaluate.
> i want this world to be around for my grandchildren,
> as it was for me. and for that to happen, that means
> all of us need to give things up.
So why don’t we ban cigarettes and fast food (since in the hundreds of miles I cover running and riding around Davis I bet cigarette butts and fast food trash outnumbers single use bag trash about 100 to 1)?
David
[quote]it’s not. people were jumping on those things as a cheap and lazy way to make a quick buck and for most of them it was a low risk. you need to reevaluate your analogy. [/quote]
Just as Davis liberals are looking at banning plastic bags as an easy way to make them feel better about their environmental sensitivities to make them feel good even though it will do basically nothing for the environment and cause inconvenience.
SOD
[quote]So why don’t we ban cigarettes and fast food (since in the hundreds of miles I cover running and riding around Davis I bet cigarette butts and fast food trash outnumbers single use bag trash about 100 to 1)?
[/quote]
You’re so right, that’s been my experience too. These liberals have no answer for that.
“It’s called modernization and life’s conveniences. Eliminating plastic bags in Davis does almost nothing in the overall scheme of things except create more inconvenience for those who chose to use them.”
Eliminating plastic bags in Davis, does start us on the road to making changes to our lifestyles and that’s what needs to happen.
“So why don’t we ban cigarettes and fast food (since in the hundreds of miles I cover running and riding around Davis I bet cigarette butts and fast food trash outnumbers single use bag trash about 100 to 1)? “
We have basically banned cigarettes in this city as it is without banning them. Junk food is probably the next long fight we will have as a society. NY tried it, didn’t work, but if you think about health care costs, I suspect it’s not the last time that will come up.
“Just as you can post a bunch of questionable left wing articles. “
What I can post are scientific studies.
[quote]What I can post are scientific studies. [/quote]
So can I. Do you want me to?
[quote]Eliminating plastic bags in Davis, does start us on the road to making changes to our lifestyles and that’s what needs to happen.[/quote]
Why don’t you lead by example and show us how wonderful life is without plastic bags (or any plastic for that matter). And let other people make their own choices, instead of trying to use the power of the state to bully them into following your personal choices?
This attitude is reminiscent of religious extremists who try to force others into their religious practices.
[quote]What I can post are scientific studies.[/quote]
Posting is not the same as understanding.
Will these be like the same “scientific studies” that were telling us in the 70’s that global freezing was coming soon?
[quote]”So why don’t we ban cigarettes and fast food (since in the hundreds of miles I cover running and riding around Davis I bet cigarette butts and fast food trash outnumbers single use bag trash about 100 to 1)? [/quote]
Littering is illegal (i.e. not disposing of cigarette butts and fast food containers properly). Plastic bags can cause problem even when they are disposed of properly. (Cigarette butts don’t fly out of the landfill)
No they aren’t. For one thing, there is considerable evidence that global warming is here now. For another, that was forty years ago. Why don’t you compare your smart phone to your personal computer you had in 1978 (if you even had one)?
B. Nice: true, but cigarette butts are exceedingly bad for the environment.
[quote]”It’s called modernization and life’s conveniences. Eliminating plastic bags in Davis does almost nothing in the overall scheme of things except create more inconvenience for those who chose to use them.”[/quote]
I don’t understand how using paper bags is significantly more inconvenient then plastic ones.
[quote]What I can post are scientific studies.
So can I. Do you want me to?[/quote]
Can you guys do evolution too while your at it, I think that “theory” is also up for debate.
SOD, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
A related story. My wife and I and my business partner and his wife are all fans of the TV show Mad Men. It is set in the 1960s. It is a well-written show that, true to the liberal entertainment establishment tenancies, tends to amplify all the negative issues in a left political and social template. Basically, white men are pigs and white women are a close second in piggishness. Everyone else was victimized by them, even as they victimized each other and everything around them.
In one episode, the star, Don Draper (Jon Hamm) and his family were having a classic picnic in a beautiful park. Then Don says “time to go”, and he throws his beer can and picks up the blanket and shakes it so all the trash is sent flying to the grass. Then they pack up the car and drive away.
Days later at a dinner with the four of us, I commented “can you believe the writers went so far to amplify that point to kill any romance of that era by making good people out to be such polluters?” The wife of my business partner (both of them New England liberals from well-off families), said: “Oh, that was not any amplification, that was the way it was.” She and her husband proceeded to tell us stories about how, in college, they would drink and drive and just throw their cans and trash out the window of the car. By contrast I was raised in a red state Midwestern small town with my family living in a single-wide trailer park for several years.
I told them because of the fear of my father punishing me for that, combined with my education as a responsible camper and Boy Scout, I would never have considered throwing trash out the window of any car.
Of course this is just one encounter addressing your point, but I think there is a larger consideration related to environmentalism, politics and left versus right leanings. It was this encounter that caused me to connect some dots on ideological differences. I think people owning left-leaning politics tend to feel less able to control their own damaging impulses, and hence are more likely to support more rules and enforcement in consideration of what they think is the greater good.
People with right-leaning political tendencies tend to be more able to control their damaging impulses or at least accept that there is a personal responsibility price to pay when mistakes are made.
Live among liberals and you will likely live among many more rules. And it will be a rule-perpetuating situation as the population learns that self-control and self-regulation of behavior is not expected… and hence there will need be more rules to cover the unexpected consequences of the behavior caused by the prior rule.
Live among conservatives, and they will get a lot of this done by administering social and cultural norms… basically shaming and admonishing those that get out of bounds.
But that is another thing that liberals dislike… being made to feel bad because of their behavior.
So, instead of relying on the development of social and cultural norms, and accepting the “it takes a village” approach to keeping behavior in check, the liberal goes to the chief and council and demands one more top-down rule. This has a calming effect on a liberal, but is like nails on a chalkboard to the rest of us.
Next stop people, your backyard BBQ and smoker.
Whether or not to ban plastic bags is a state-wide issue as banning them in Davis will have no significant impact on the environment. This entire discussion is simply a distraction propagated by people who are not interested in finding solutions to real problems.
If the people of Davis really want to show off their ‘progressive’ leadership (whatever the ‘bleep’ that is) we would put in the work to solve the real world financial problems that our City faces.
The City Council should pass a resolution supporting a state-wide ban of plastic bags, and then get back to the real work of managing the City.
[quote]Whether or not to ban plastic bags is a state-wide issue as banning them in Davis will have no significant impact on the environment.[/quote]
I think like the smoking ban, these issues start with city’s and counties, then they move to the state, not the other way around.
“Next stop people, your backyard BBQ and smoker.”
You are ignoring critical differences in frequency and duration, also critical weather patterns.
David:
[quote]No they aren’t. For one thing, there is considerable evidence that global warming is here now. For another, that was forty years ago. Why don’t you compare your smart phone to your personal computer you had in 1978 (if you even had one)? [/quote]
Are you seriously comparing Earth’s atmosphere that has been around for billions upon billions of years to the evolution of the computer over the last 40 years?
[quote]”Next stop people, your backyard BBQ and smoker.”
[/quote]
Could be, but I think more likely they’ll come after your gas mower and edger unless of course you’re an illegal immigrant who runs a lawn business because liberals would see that as racist.
I also see you paying an extra quarter for that paper or styrofoam cup at our local coffee businesses unless you walk in with your own cup. This is just a foot in the door, that’s how it’s done.
Cloth bags shipped in from China for sale at the Co-op – how environmental is this, how sustainable?
Nugget’s plastic bags last forever.
If lots of people support re-usable bags, let them use them – then there’s no need to force an ordinance on everyone.
Plastic bag discussion tonight or an anti-war resolution re Syria?
“Are you seriously comparing Earth’s atmosphere that has been around for billions upon billions of years to the evolution of the computer over the last 40 years?”
No. I’m comparing sciences ability to model climate 40 years ago to today.
eagle eye
[quote]Plastic bag discussion tonight or an anti-war resolution re Syria? [/quote]
LOL, followed up by a resolution to back gay marriage. You know, Davis’s most pressing issues.
“followed up by a resolution to back gay marriage. “
That was two weeks ago.
[i]”Next stop people, your backyard BBQ and smoker.”
You are ignoring critical differences in frequency and duration, also critical weather patterns.[/i]
Well, my famous smoked pork ribs and brisket are on my backyard pellet smoker for 6-10 hours.
I also like to smoke a cigar every now and then in my back yard.
I think having you as a neighbor might be problematic for me.
Maybe instead of fireplace bans, we need a city ordnance to keep families with asthma contained to certain areas where they would not create problems for their neighbors… or allow them to opt out signing an agreement that stipulates acceptance of any and all generally-accepted (e.g., NORMAL) residential property uses, including those that produce a little smoke every now and then.
From a strictly resource conservation perspective, if you add up the staff time, meetings, transportation to and from, power usage, HV/AC costs, reports etc. on its two major initiatives (plastic bags and wood stoves), the NRC would have had a much more significant impact on the environment and the protection of our resources if it had disbanded.
Time to start working on our ‘real’ local problems, not the ‘feel good’ ones intended solely to improve our ‘progressive’ posturing.
B. Nice:
[quote]Can you guys do evolution too while your at it, I think that “theory” is also up for debate. [/quote]
Well, at least liberal’s 1970’s “science” of the coming ice age is no longer up for debate. I don’t know how old you are but if you were around then I’m sure you would’ve been all in behind that science.
Scientists are afflicted with liberal bias. The is a moderate center-left and center-right, but it is the extremists on either side that get the media attention and control the narrative of each position.
But that is what it is.
The real “problem” is the exploitation of the “stupid Christian conservative” media template by the foot soldiers of the political left. The fight about global warming is political, not environmental. The left can thank themselves for this… they put the very environment they claim to want to protect in peril because they can’t stop using environmental issues as a basis for polarizing political warfare.
From a 2011 Pew Research study: [quote]More than half of the scientists surveyed (55%) say they are Democrats, compared with 35% of the public. Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals; among the public, just 20% describe themselves as liberal.[/quote]
[quote]A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with [b]41 percent of Democrats[/b]. [/quote]
[quote]in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities (and view impacts from their Nantucket coastal mansions). The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”
Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left’s sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we’ve been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It’s the only way to feed billions of people.
Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change. [/quote]
Note too that liberals are also anti-frac drilling even though this new technology/method has made heating gas and oil much more affordable for low income people throughout the country (world).
Extremism, religious fervor… just put the words “liberal environmental” in front and you will label the main part of the story not reported on.
Please stay on topic: the single-use bag ordinance.
eagle eye wrote:
> Cloth bags shipped in from China for sale
> at the Co-op – how environmental is this,
> how sustainable?
As long as the Chinese prison children making the bags are fed orgainc food without GMOs the co-op people will be happy…
I find it interesting that the same people who claim government should stay out of their lives when it’s making decision on things that negatively impact everyone (plastic bags, smoking ordinances, wood burning restrictions) support the governments decision to get involved and ban things like gay marriage, which effects only gay people who want to get married. (and Frankly before you start on your it’s bad for kids argument thinks of all those poor kids with asthma who need to grab their inhalers so you can smoke your meat).
yes, gi forty year old outdate research …
Here are some made in the USA bags:
[url]http://www.truereusablebags.com[/url]
[quote]If lots of people support re-usable bags, let them use them – then there’s no need to force an ordinance on everyone.[/quote]
The problem is people aren’t using them, if they were they would not be flying out of landfills and into water ways, road, trees etc. Paper bags don’t do this, nor do reusable ones.
[quote]The real “problem” is the exploitation of the “stupid Christian conservative” media template by the foot soldiers of the political left.[/quote]
They give us such good ammo hough, you’d have to be super-human not to use it.
[i]Paper bags don’t do this, nor do reusable ones. [/i]
Paper bags most certainly do. So do wrappers, containers, and other plastic bags.
Why are you so fixated on single-use plastic grocery bags when there are many other types of bags and packaging that the wind moves around?
Your arguments are so nuanced they are nonsensical.
paper bags are biodegradable.
growth izzue…
[quote]Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. [/quote]
source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
[i]and Frankly before you start on your it’s bad for kids argument thinks of all those poor kids with asthma who need to grab their inhalers so you can smoke your meat)[/i]
I doubt my pellet smoker has any material impact on any kids or adults with asthma… although I’m sure there are wackos in Davis that would make the claim.
Conversely, there are material impacts on the children of same sex parents in terms of the kids’ development. Two moms do not make a dad, and two dads do not make a mom. And children lacking either a mom or a dad will be disadvantaged from those that have both… all other things being equal.
But the gay marriage debate is over. Gays and liberals win, conservatives and children lose. So let’s move on to something more important like banning plastic bags.
“children lose”
bigot
Wow. PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC!
you delete mine which was called for, but not his egregious comment about children losing due to gay marriage?
I am about to friggin’ delete about fifteen posts.
PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC, ALL OF YOU!!!
[quote]So let’s move on to something more important like banning plastic bags.[/quote]
I’m sure gay people who’s lives these decisions actually and profoundly effect appreciate your flippancy. You want government out of our lives fine, but I wish you’d be consistent.
“The City Council should pass a resolution supporting a state-wide ban of plastic bags, and then get back to the real work of managing the City.”
What a concept! This will meet most everyone’s objectives, including Don’s (ten-minute limit) and David’s (progressive credibility instead of being regressive and downright reactionary).
It won’t change litter pickup needs in town or at the county dump, or affect the swirling plastic mass in the ocean or save a single Pacific fish, mammal or bird, or put a dent in the environmental costs of bag manufacturing. Of course, a Davis-only store bag ban won’t either.
But, we’ll stop the waste of time and energy and focus. And, this rigged photo that illustrates every Vanguard update can get sent to the landfill.
what about the climate action report, just saying?
” this rigged photo that illustrates every Vanguard update can get sent to the landfill. “
didn’t the person who shot the picture, swear to it?
and what about the fact that “Davis adopted a Zero Waste Resolution on December 6, 2011”?
I’m facinated about how this pointless and silly topic engenders such strong feelings of outrage from the editor and from the usually moderate moderator, amongst others.
I don’t actually care that much about the topic, I just don’t want it to derail onto climate change or unrelated social issues.
“Why are you so fixated on single-use plastic grocery bags when there are many other types of bags and packaging that the wind moves around?”
This is why: People who work at the landfill claim they are a big problem. (60 other communities in California also see them this way.) I don’t hear people complaint about paper bags causing the same problems, plus paper bags are easier to recycle. Does banning these bags solve the entire problem? No. Does it begin to chip away at the problem. Yes. I believe in taking little steps forward toward a larger goal. This is a step we can take and I hope city council make it tonight.
” this rigged photo that illustrates every Vanguard update can get sent to the landfill. ”
“didn’t the person who shot the picture, swear to it?”
Actually, I think the duck got into the photo on its own. The bag is another story. Take a look at the convoluted way it’s attached to the two branches. Wind dynamics could account for one of the handle’s connections; the combination of the two requires an animal with opposing digits to complete.
[quote](60 other communities in California also see them this way.) [/quote]
Over 400 CA communities don’t have bag ordinances and I doubt that the other 60 see it that way, it’s more like a minority of busy body liberals with too much time on their hands who attend meetings and get heard by the various city councils. I mean who else would opt to be on a natural resources committee then someone who has an agenda to push their environmentalist policies.
I explained my self well enough. I can’t help it if you don’t understand the difference or chose to disregard it.
One thing about me that is consistent. I like, advocate and support kids more than I do adults. I very much dislike needy adults that put their interests above those of children. I agree that gay couples can be fantastic parents. I agree that single parents can raise fantastic kids. But a healthy, happy two-geneder, married-parent, family situation is the platinum standard as it relates to childhood development. Gay parenting is something less due to the (simple to understand point) of one gender lacking.
But back to the plastic bag discussion; what does that have to do with gay marriage? If you are making the point that I want government out of my life in terms of telling me what type of bag I can use, but I then am fine with government telling gays they cannot marry, there are several nuanced points you are missing.
1. My issues with gay marriage is 100% about my beliefs (backed by science) that children do better being raised by traditional two-gender parents (and I have to say “all things being equal since you will otherwise go off comparing a stable gay couple to two-gender broken homes)
2. Government is getting involved to force-change a standard societal and cultural definition. So, you have it backwards. I want government out of that business. Legal civil unions with all the protections would suffice.
3. I am not anti-gay or homophobic. But I don’t have a lot of tolerance for adults seeking public remedies for private emotional harm. I only care about material harm, and gays winning equal protection civil union laws would mean there would be no material harm.
With respect to government banning things, that material harm test is still my benchmark. What material harm are single use plastic bags causing, versus what material harm will a ban cause? My strong sense is that banning them will cause much more material harm from the loss of convenience and utility, than the material harm they (Davis’s plastics bags) are causing to the environment.
The final consideration is for alternatives. The fact is that we are moving toward a successful and significant voluntary use of paper and reusable bags in this city of all things right and relevant. This is another reason that I reject government intrusion to ban something else.
“This is why: People who work at the landfill claim they are a big problem.”
I’m not sure this is accurate. Those advancing a bag ban claim bags are a big problem there.
Employees go around and pick up blowing litter, of which single-use bags apparently comprise a significant portion. The real question to ask is, “How much of a change would the Davis bag ban make in the landfill operation, costs, etc.?” My guess is “absolutely none.”
[i] I believe in taking little steps forward toward a larger goal.[/i]
We are already taking steps with voluntary use of paper and reusable bags.
But like a lot of people on some environmental crusade, you just ignore the bigger picture and other impacts. First, paper bags are more harmful to the environment in terms of energy used to make them… and carbon in the air from their production process.
Those Davisites feeling so left out of the bag banning progressive environmentalist party are really big losers already. Why not jump to the head of the line with a REAL progressive idea to enhance the voluntary use of reusable bags?
Banning single-use plastic bags at this point will just make you seem breathlessly pathetic chasing the caboose of train that left the station a long time ago, but is not heading anywhere you really want to go.
B. Nice wrote:
> I find it interesting that the same people who claim
> government should stay out of their lives when it’s
> making decision on things that negatively impact everyone
> (plastic bags, smoking ordinances, wood burning
> restrictions) support the government’s decision to get
> involved and ban things like gay marriage, which effects
> only gay people who want to get married.
Most “conservatives” don’t want to get involved in what other people do, it is the small number of “religious nut jobs” and “family values activists” that care about who other people are married (or in many cases “not” married) to…
To come around to the topic most “environmentalists” don’t want to “ban” plastic bags it is just a small number of “environmental whack jobs” and “environmental activists” that are out to ban plastic bags.
P.S. There are also a small number of otherwise normal people that for some reason have made it their life’s mission to ban same sex marriage or single use plastic bags, but let’s not forget that the vast majority of conservatives and environmentalists did not even think about same sex marriage or single use plastic bags today…
[quote]Over 400 CA communities don’t have bag ordinances and I doubt that the other 60 see it that way, it’s more like a minority of busy body liberals with too much time on their hands who attend meetings and get heard by the various city councils.[/quote]
FIrst people voted on and elected these officials. Second this is a growing trend more cities will follow and in the near future there will be a state-wide ban.
“How much of a change would the Davis bag ban make in the landfill operation, costs, etc.?” My guess is “absolutely none.”
Again banning plastic bags in Davis is a step in the direction of solving the “litter” problem at the landfill. I disagree that is would be insignificant. The problem with bags extends beyond the landfill, as stated in the piece plastic bags blow to easily to places where they don’t belong, and there is any easy fix. If the city was saying stores were not allowed to provide any bags I would understand people’s resistance more. I don’t understand why people are so concerned about the material that makes up the bag that their purchases get carried home in.
[quote]I don’t understand why people are so concerned about the material that makes up the bag that their purchases get carried home in.
[/quote]
And as I have said many times, ban the plastic if you must but don’t force stores to charge for paper. If this was truly about plastic bags then why force stores to charge for paper?
The answer to that Growth Izzue is that simply substituting paper for plastic does not get the zero growth goal.
[quote]1. My issues with gay marriage is 100% about my beliefs (backed by science) that children do better being raised by traditional two-gender parents (and I have to say “all things being equal since you will otherwise go off comparing a stable gay couple to two-gender broken homes)[/quote]
This has nothing do with gay marriage. People gay or straight do not need to be married to have kids.
[quote]2. Government is getting involved to force-change a standard societal and cultural definition. So, you have it backwards. I want government out of that business. Legal civil unions with all the protections would suffice. [/quote]
Like they did during the civil rights movement, and the women’s liberation movement, should they not have forced change then. If all you care about is kids why does it matter wether it’s called a civil union or a marriage?
[quote]What material harm are single use plastic bags causing, versus what material harm will a ban cause? My strong sense is that banning them will cause much more material harm from the loss of convenience and utility, than the material harm they (Davis’s plastics bags) are causing to the environment[/quote].
What material harm will be caused by someone bringing their goods home in a paper bag versus a plastic one?
Just got this from Chamber:
[quote]City of Davis Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance
September 10th, 2013
The City of Davis has limited resources with which to solve the many important issues facing our community. This policy has been prioritized over many more important issues, with the most troubling part being the role that ideology has played in propagating misinformation about the impact of single-use carryout bags in our community and falsely inflating the relative environmental benefits of paper (even recycled) over plastic bags. Further, we find it troubling that this policy doesn’t appear to be dictated as much by the impending statewide ban from the State Legislature, but instead because “other cities are doing it” and the persistence of a small handful of vocal (many of them paid) activists at City Council meetings
We agree that the production and discarding of single-use shopping bags – plastic, paper and biodegradable – has an unsustainable economic and environmental impact on our planet. We also agree that from an overall environmental and economic perspective, the best alternative to single-use carryout bags is a shift to reusable bags. However, we do not believe that precious City resources should continue to be wasted on this topic.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct City Staff and the Natural Resources Commission to discontinue all work on this topic until such time as the CA State Legislature passes, and the Governor signs, legislation to regulate single-use carryout bags.
If, however, the Davis City Council feels it imperative to act on this policy now, the Davis Chamber suggests adopting the recommendations established by the Natural Resource Commission with an emphasis on the following components.
1.Ensure the Ordinance is Impactful: The merits and relative environmental impacts of paper versus plastic bags aside, the goal of the ordinance is to reduce the distribution of single-use carryout bags and encourage the switch to reusable carryout bags. The NRC’s draft ordinance identifies the largest distributors of single-use plastic bags. Our recommendation is to adopt this policy which is simple to understand, realizes the most immediate impact, and minimizes the burden on most small retailers.
2.Provide Education: The City should develop a robust educational program to inform consumers and retailers about the reason for this ordinance, its implementation and how it will affect them.
3.Evaluate Efficacy: No more than one year from the ordinance’s effective date, the City should assess the effectiveness of this ordinance and provide retailers any needed assistance with its implementation. Evaluation could include surveys, outreach meetings, and written communications with affected retailers. The City should be prepared to make timely and reasonable adjustments to the ordinance based on retailer feedback.
[/quote]
[quote]To come around to the topic most “environmentalists” don’t want to “ban” plastic bags it is just a small number of “environmental whack jobs” and “environmental activists” that are out to ban plastic bags. [/quote]
I support the ban and I hardly fall into either of these categories….most true environmentalist would be appalled at my irresponsible treatment of the environment.
Chamber gets it right.
Off-topic: Site problems. You disappeared at 10 a.m. for awhile. Also, now, if I click the “…add your comment HERE” link, I’m taken to the Hathway advertisement.
Back to business….phony photo update.
Just got to Dunning’s column today ([i]”Thing is, we couldn’t find one in Town”[/i]), exposing yet another use (misuse?) of photographic “evidence” of Davis’ plastic bag crisis.
Dunning writes of a front-page photo used in Sunday’s [i]Enterprise[/i]. Although the picture passes the aerodynamical smell test (unlike the [i]Vanguard[/i]’s illustration), Dunning questions the use of a stock photo from another location as well as the need for a bag ban at all: [quote]”Now, if this were truly a major problem requiring thousands and thousands of dollars of staff time, years of study by the Natural Resources Commission and months of debate by the Davis City Council, you’d think it would be a simple task for a trained photographer to find at least a slight bit of evidence of the crime somewhere within the Davis city limits. Put simply, no such evidence exists.”[/quote]The supposed littering of our community, of course, isn’t the only unsupportable argument that the NRC has imposed on this discussion. But, it’s the most effective in garnering citizen attention.
The [i]Enterprise[/i] column has generated some supportive comment, including an interesting post by our own vanished Rich Rifkin who takes on ideologue Alan Pryor’s “false tale.”
Will the city council bow to the NRC hysteria as it considers what Dunning calls, “the very definition of a solution in search of a problem”?
Or, will it take Mark West’s innovative, but tardy, solution of passing “a resolution supporting a state-wide ban of plastic bags” and getting back to its real work?
The server has been having problems. Need to raise enough money this fall for the new site and a new server. Those who enjoy this site should keep that in mind.
“Just got to Dunning’s column today (“Thing is, we couldn’t find one in Town”), exposing yet another use (misuse?) of photographic “evidence” of Davis’ plastic bag crisis. “
I think the problem is that it’s being characterized as though it’s a plastic bag crisis rather than the problem here is wastefulness. But of course, Dunning did not look at the road around the landfill, I drive past there a lot when I want to avoid the traffic on Mace and Covell, and there are a lot of bags out there that you see all of the time.
B. Nice wrote:
> I support the ban and I hardly fall into either
> of these categories…
Even normal people often have an issue that drives them nuts I have conservative friends that go nuts over the 10 round per clip limit in CA and liberal friends that just hate to see anyone driving a SUV and both conservative and liberal friends that go crazy if we are within 100 yards of a smoker…
My point is that most people (conservative or liberal) are not going home tonight and thinking about plastic bags, ammo clips, SUVs or smokers…
[quote]3.Evaluate Efficacy: No more than one year from the ordinance’s effective date, the City should assess the effectiveness of this ordinance[/quote]
Has this not been done in other cities that have implemented a similar ban?
“My point is that most people (conservative or liberal) are not going home tonight and thinking about plastic bags, ammo clips, SUVs or smokers…”
And a month ago most people weren’t thinking about Syria either, but sometimes that’s not a good thing.
[quote]”Just got this from Chamber. Don’t understand why they would issue this the day of the vote rather than a few days before and get it into the papers, but here it is. “[/quote]Wow!
My guess would be that the staff didn’t provide the chamber time to review and comment in time to get something to you and the [i]Enterprise[/i] last week. Typical.
Furthermore, we yet to see any effort to justify the staff failure to follow instructions to get feedback from the downtown business group.
What happened to all of the claims from the NRC and others that Davis businesses supported the original version with all its onerous record-keeping, policing, etc., aspects?
So, now we have another last-minute staff job that some people would like to see jammed through tonight.
Wow! I’m just astounded at the chamber’s request that the council: [quote]”Direct City Staff and the Natural Resources Commission to discontinue all work on this topic until such time as the CA State Legislature passes, and the Governor signs, legislation to regulate single-use carryout bags.”[/quote] I can support that. Or, Mark’s more aggressive idea of a resolution supporting statewide action.
It’s about time we listen to people who know the true impact of such regulations and bans, no matter how well intentioned.
[quote]My point is that most people (conservative or liberal) are not going home tonight and thinking about plastic bags, ammo clips, SUVs or smokers..[/quote].
But those, like me want-to-be-environmentalist, but are too lazy, or busy, or distracted by more day to day issues count on the true environmentalist to think about and act on these issues for us. (Just like similar type gun advocates count on the NRA).
B. Nice wrote:
> What material harm will be caused by someone bringing
> their goods home in a paper bag versus a plastic one?
When I lived in SF I would often walk to and from Safeway leaving my car in the garage since I can walk home with 6-8 plastic bags, but only 2-4 paper bags.
If you hang out in front of Save Mart you will see many people that live in the apartments on Alvarado walking home with multiple plastic bags. A plastic bag ban will push more people to drive to the store (doing things to the environment that Frankly does not believe in and Don does not want us to talk about)…
P.S. Anyone that has ever been riding home (without their cloth bags with them) that stops at the store for something they just realized they need can tell you that the paper bag loops over the handle bars do not work as well as the plastic bag loops over the handle bars…
[quote]David Greenwald: “But of course, Dunning did not look at the road around the landfill, I drive past there a lot when I want to avoid the traffic on Mace and Covell, and there are a lot of bags out there that you see all of the time.”
Rich Rifkin: I ride my bike all over the county and I’ve never seen a problem with plastic shopping bags along the roads or anywhere in sight. And as for Road 28H–which abuts the landfill and is strewn with a great amount of garbage which likely escaped from the backs of trucks on the way to the dump–there are no plastic shopping bags to be seen along that roadside either….”[/quote] And, just what are we supposed to believe from two such honorable and honest people? Perhaps, it’s just an eye-of-the-beholder phenomenon. But, still.
[quote]And as I have said many times, ban the plastic if you must but don’t force stores to charge for paper. If this was truly about plastic bags then why force stores to charge for paper?[/quote]
Besides encouraging usable bags, I think this helps protect smaller business’ that couldn’t absorb any increased cost associated with switching to paper. Larger stores could afford to not charge, and smaller stores would seem like cheap bad guys for doing so. Now they can just say, “the city is making us do this”. (I have no idea wether this is a motive for implementing the charge, just my thought on it)
David wrote:
> I drive past there a lot when I want to avoid
> the traffic on Mace and Covell
Where are you going when you drive by the landfill “a lot”?
Traffic is never that bad on Mace and Covell and unless it was under 5 mph (or the roads were closed) it does not make any sense to drive past the landfill.
It is about 4 miles from the Arco at Mace to Davis High via Covell and about 10 miles if you drive by the landfill to avoid the “traffic”…
Just Saying: What do you want me to do, take pictures?
SOD: Going from South Davis to Woodland, you can east on the extension of 2nd Street, cut up 104 and head west past the landfill to avoid the traffic lights and get to road 102.
Drive across the causeway, you will see plenty of stray bags. On one trip I mistook a dark bag briefly for a hawk circling it’s prey.
[i]This has nothing do with gay marriage. People gay or straight do not need to be married to have kids[/i]
Agreed, but those not married are even farther below the gold standard of optimal child raising. And, unfortunately there is no distinction between gay childless married couples and those with children, and since the welfare of children supersedes any of the selfish emotional needs of adults, we cannot accept the change for childless couples without discounting the needs of the children of those choosing to raise children. That is what we have done… discounted the needs of children to keep some adults from getting their feelings hurt.
I don’t see the gay marriage march as anything close to our finest hour. In my view it is just another of a long list of policies to satiate the unending demands of our generation of narcissistic and emotionally immature adults. We would have been much better off being open and honest about the differences and tooling for how we deal with them, instead of playing make-believe that everyone and everything is the same.
[i]Like they did during the civil rights movement, and the women’s liberation movement, should they not have forced change then. If all you care about is kids why does it matter wether it’s called a civil union or a marriage?[/i]
Because it creates a separation of difference that we can develop special policy and services for. But we are so damn afraid of stigmatizing any adult, that we throw those kids under the bus.
It is interesting that you bring up the women’s movement. That has had a similar trajectory. Some women getting what they thought they wanted… being able to replicate the lifestyle of the man she envied… only to discover that…
1. She was now too old to have kids after having pursued that pop through the glass ceiling.
2. She wasn’t really that happy working like men work, and craved more work-life balance.
3. She was having trouble meeting and retaining a suitable mate.
4. She didn’t have the greatest relationship with her kids, as she worked all those hours and missed the home time.
And in the end, we start to recognize that there ARE actually gender differences. Wouldn’t it have been a good thing to admit early on so our policies actually supported these differences instead of putting everyone in the same box so we can be “equal”?
Now back to the topic.
Let’s hope the city council does the right thing and stops this silly consideration of a bag ban.
I really hope they don’t mistake the noise of the wackos as the will of the people. I guaranty if they go forward with a ban, they will quickly hear a munch louder din, and see a line of cars heading to Woodland and other communities to do their shopping.
LOL. Drive past the landfill and spot trash. Imagine that!
Frankly-I don’t even know were to start-we will have to table this discussion (re women’s liberation movement, and gay marriage),one so we don’t get in trouble, and two Ive got to go back to school night, then maybe I’ll stop by the council meeting after and see how my wacko environmental friends are faring…
[quote]”Just Saying: What do you want me to do, take pictures?”[/quote]Good job! I would trust yours. LOL.
I believe both of you. It may be that you’ve gone by just before (and Rich, just after) a clean up run. Or, that every time you’ve gone by, you spot a big problem. And, every time Rich has gone by, he sees nothing to concern him. Neither of you are doing any scientific evaluation.
My point is that a Davis bag ban will do nothing to change what’s happening at the landfill, whether there’s a big problem of blowing bags or a little problem. Whatever’s there will continue pretty much exactly the way it is now, given that Davis provides only a portion of the landfill deposits.
B. Nice. Agree. We went off track, and the moderator is being extra nice not booting us.
I hope you have a good back to school night. It seems I was just there, and now my kids are all grown up and gone. That saying “the days are long, but the years are short” is absolutely true. So enjoy it while you can!
I have a dinner appointment tonight, else I would go support the ban the bag-banner wackos at the council meeting.
Days are getting shorter now that they are both in school:-).
Happy kids are going back to school…?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6PT_7afPSk&feature=player_detailpage[/url]
Council bans bags by a 5-0 vote, though Rochelle Swanson asked that the word ban not be used in the ordinance.
Watched it live. (Not to many wacko’s)
Don, did you mean “finish in 10 minutes” or “finish at 10 o’clock”?
Now, I can sleep…knowing that Davis is back in the forefront of the international environmental movement.
My shopping money is going elsewhere. I would encourage Woodland to advertise in Davis as the city that provides those significantly useful multi-use plastic bags that cost a fraction of the energy than paper bags take to produce. Sorry council, you screwed this one up. You succumbed to the drumbeat of irrational environmental extremism, and demonstrated that you may be good politicians, but you certainly are not effective leaders. Too bad… I thought this team was going to be different and worthy.
I remember when plastic wasn’t even an option, and I’m not that old, we managed then and will manage now.
Sure, if you are old enough, you also rode a friggin’ horse to the store.
But you can manage without my shopping dollars. And let me tell you, it tends to be on the high side.
I see this as just another in a long string of business unfriendliness… the council again giving the big finger to business to appease the freakin’ freaks that run the show. Again, I thought this group was something to get excited about. It is clear now that this group is something to replace.
Thanks council.
“Sure, if you are old enough, you also rode a friggin’ horse to the store.”
No one was riding horses to stores in the 1980’s, which is when I remember hearing the phrase “paper or plastic” in the Safeway store near my families home in the Bay Area.
“But you can manage without my shopping dollars. And let me tell you, it tends to be on the high side.”
Why make local business’ suffer from what you view as councils bad judgement and unfriendly business practices. Just get some re-usable bags and keep all that money yours in Davis.
That’s pretty funny Frankly, drive 10 miles each direction out of your way at the cost of $20 because of plastic bags. What are you going to do when the state bans it, shop in Nevada?
Frankly
[quote]But you can manage without my shopping dollars. And let me tell you, it tends to be on the high side. [/quote]
I believe I detect just a hint of irrational, emotion driven decision making in your approach. I remember not so long ago when you were excoriating me for my decision not to shop at one certain local hardware store because of what I perceived as political bullying by the owner with regard to the employees. And now here you are, deciding that you are going to punish all of Davis businesses, their owners, and their employees because you are mad at the 5 citizens who made this decision. Hmmmm…..entirely rational decision making ?
It’s a silly comment. Groceries are an inelastic demand. Even if Frankly carries through on his threat, the number of people who follow suit may be as low as zero.
[i]That’s pretty funny Frankly, drive 10 miles each direction out of your way at the cost of $20 because of plastic bags. [/i]
I live in West Davis on the North side. It is not much farther for me to drive to Woodland to shop than it is going into Davis. In fact, it is generally a bit easier to go to Woodland.
[i]I believe I detect just a hint of irrational, emotion driven decision making in your approach. [/i]
Although I am pissed about the council’s idiocy on this, it is a completely rational decision. I value the plastic bags, (we use them over and over for a variety of things), and I support stores that cater to shoppers needs and wants. I already stopped shopping at Whole Foods for this reason. And I reject the council’s vote and beleive it is right and appropriate to use my dollars in a way that demonstrates my opinion of their mistake.
I will shop at Davis Nugget, Safeway and Whole Foods periodically only if I need the convenience (in the area and short on time); but my planned shopping will be directed to Woodland. I will continue to shop at Delanos because it is in my neighborhood.
Frankly, with the Davis parking problems, and now this, I feel relieved that the council made this an easy decision for me.
Frankly
[quote]And I reject the council’s vote and beleive it is right and appropriate to use my dollars in a way that demonstrates my opinion of their mistake. [/quote]
And I agree it is your right to decide how to spend your money. So why did you criticize me for my desire to “demonstrate my opinion” of the actions of the local store owner who I felt utilized political bullying during the last presidential campaign. Surely if it is right for you to decide how to use your dollars, I must have the same right. Or is this a right only for those who see issues the same way you do ?
medwoman, I think the conflict with that is evident in you word “bullying”. I’m sure if you think deeply and honestly about that, you would recognize that you are inflating the situation. A business owner is certainly free to send a memo to her employees. It is not bullying in any sense of the real definition of the word. All those employees are covered by copious numbers of laws and regulations that protect them from any type of hostility or discrimination because of their political orientation or vote.
But, I certainly support you not shopping there because of your politics. That is your right.
And, in the end, it turns out that the business owner was correct. Retail workers across the country have had their hours cut.
[quote]And, in the end, it turns out that the business owner was correct. Retail workers across the country have had their hours cut. [/quote]
She was so correct that Obama had to delay the implementation of the employer mandate for a year because they could see what a clusterf… the whole mess was becoming. Mrs. Andersen deserves a big round of applause.
Again, retail worker having their hours cut, like CC decisions on bags are multifactorial. The fact that retailers have cut hours relies I believe on the overall economy. The fact is, if we all are being intellectually honest about this, is that the president whether Republican or Democrat has limited impact on the overall economy.
Otherwise, as I pointed out on a previous thread, you all would be crediting Obama personally with the decline in unemployment. I simply have not seen that happen.
meds, I think you are highly uniformed on this, or you are in denial.
Lots of business have cut the hours of their part-time employees to prevent the added expense of Obamacare mandates.
It has been all over the news.
[quote]An avalanche of “anecdotes” continues to pile up as workers across the country are having their hours cut and their health benefits slashed across a broad range of industries.
Loren Goodridge, the owner of 21 Subway franchises, says he has no choice but to cut the hours of his employees to 29 a week to avoid the law’s penalties.
The negative effects of the law reach the education industry as well. St. Petersburg College, a public university in Florida, is reducing the hours of 250 faculty members because the college says it cannot afford to provide them with health insurance.
Joseph Hansen, the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union that originally supported the law, says the health law will have a “tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced.”
Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that the ratio of part-time to full-time jobs has completely flipped this year from historical trends. Last year, six full-time jobs were created for every one part time job. This year, only one full-time job is being created for every four new part-time jobs.
The shift to part-time has accelerated over the past several months because of the “look back” provision in ObamaCare that sets the baseline this year for the number of full-time workers a company employs to determine their compliance with the employer pay-or-play mandate.
The administration may have been trying to stop the damage when it announced in July it would delay for a year the reporting requirements for the health law’s employer mandate – the requirement that businesses with 50 or more employees provide health coverage that is acceptable to the government or pay a fine of $2,000 to $3,000 per employee per year.
The statute is very clear that the employer mandate is to take effect on January 1, 2014, not a year later as the White House now has directed. The House of Representatives was more than happy to give the administration legal authority to delay the employer mandate and passed legislation in July to make the delay legal. But, astonishingly, the president vowed to veto the legislation if it were to reach his desk – which it will not because Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid will not bring it up for a vote. The president would rather rewrite the law by administrative edict instead of following the Constitutional route of asking Congress to change it.
The damage is real, and the one-year delay is unlikely to have a significant impact on hiring. Businesses are not going to hire full-time workers for year or less only to have to fire them next year.
According to a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 71% of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to grow. One-half of small businesses that must comply with the employer mandate say they will either cut hours of full-time employees or replace them with part-time workers. Twenty four percent say they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees.
Not only is the law taking a toll on part-time workers, but it also is increasing costs for families. ObamaCare’s new health insurance tax alone will raise premiums by $8 billion next year, increasing an average family’s premium by more than $350.
And big businesses are being hit, too.[/quote]
And IBM announced that it will be kicking its retirees off their healthcare plan and give them money instead to purchase their own policy on the insurance exchanges. That was another consequence that Democrats ignored and denied.
Obamacare is turning into even a bigger mess than we expected.
[quote]i’ve read the projections on global warming[/quote]
The UK’s MET Office [formally the UK’s National Weather Service] updated global temperatures for ’12 and the new dataset shows that an “unlikely” event has occurred, according to their own models: Global warming has been halted for 15 years and counting.
medwoman
[quote]Otherwise, as I pointed out on a previous thread, you all would be crediting Obama personally with the decline in unemployment. I simply have not seen that happen. [/quote]
Talk about someone in denial. We have less people working now as a percentage of the population then we’ve had in the last 35 years. Many of those that are working are part time and many more will be pushed back to part time because of Obamacare. If you don’t know this it’s time to turn the TV away from MSNBC because they won’t tell you this.
GI,
This quote from the reliable Hollywood actor near-communist Ed Asner might explain medwoman’s position.
[quote]”A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama”[/quote]
BTY, I agree with Mr. Asner, and this is proof to back up my reasons for why I think America was not ready for a black President. Liberal Democrats have gone so far to throw out unsubstantiated claims of racism to help them beat back the need to debate their ideas on merit; and now they are painted into a corner with Obama due to the risk that they too would be attacked as racists if they speak against him.
So, Obamacare has to be continually supported by these liberals even while it clearly is causing MORE damage than opponents said it would.
All of this is related to single-use bags?
You guys DO know that there is a Bulletin Board on the Vanguard where you can go on and on about the Affordable Care Act, liberalism in general, and any other topic you want? Right?
Yes Don. Sorry. I was just responding to other posters.
In other words “they started it!”
But then two wrongs don’t make a right.
I generally try not to drift unless I can connect to the topic. But so far I cannot find a conspiracy connection with Obama and Davis’s plastic bag [b]ban[/b], other than the fact that liberals tend to like them both.
Well, they mostly like sushi, too, for reasons that have always escaped me. Meanwhile: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgqf0yX5r4A[/url]
Don Shor:
[quote]You guys DO know that there is a Bulletin Board on the Vanguard where you can go on and on about the Affordable Care Act, liberalism in general, and any other topic you want?[/quote]
The Bulletin Board sucks.
Frankly wrote: [quote]My shopping money is going elsewhere. I would encourage Woodland to advertise in Davis as the city that provides those significantly useful multi-use plastic bags that cost a fraction of the energy than paper bags take to produce. [/quote]
I offer you a rhetorical knife with instructions for use:
Steps:
1. Grip handle of knife tightly
2. Insert knife beneath skin near nose
3. Keeping pressure on the handle, carefully cut around the nose until it is possible to remove it
4. Remove nose
5. Observe face in a mirror (sold separately)
6. Note that the face has been appropriately spited by the removal of the nose
Don
I like sushi. I have introduced many people to sushi who have subsequently gone on to love it themselves. But don’t worry, I won’t try
to push it on you as unlike what some might think, I have no ulterior
Sushi pushing motive .