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…