A little over a year ago, I went on a late night run for snacks and drinks in San Luis Obispo. When we got to the part about whether I wanted a bag, I was about to say yes when the cashier noted it was a ten-cent charge for a paper bag. I hesitated and decided to carry four drinks and snacks loose across the street.
It wasn’t a very good idea, but it did prompt the friendly cashier to note that most people are not willing to pay the ten cents for a paper bag, even though it is only ten cents.
So last week, as I stopped at Safeway to get my lunch, there was a line of people in front of me. None of them brought reusable bags. No one was willing to pay the ten cents for the paper bag. Interesting group behavior.
Over the course of the week, people’s behavior has changed somewhat. I have seen more reusable bags. I have seen people who have brought their old plastic bags for reuse – although clearly that is not a strategy that will last long. The ones I have seen are increasingly in bad shape.
At some point I’m sure I will purchase some reusable bags and actually place them where I can use them. However in the shorter term, it is remarkable how little the bag ban has impacted things, at least on my end. I have so far used just one paper bag and have probably saved using ten plastic bags that I really didn’t need.
Somehow 110 other communities have managed ways to deal without single-use carryout bags. Yes, there are secondary uses for some of these bags, but the number of people using grocery bags to carry dog poop is probably small compared to the number of grocery bags overall. There are alternatives, ranging from the re-use of other types of plastic bags to smaller and lighter weight biodegradable doggy bags.
We are not banning all bags, either. We have only banned one type – the single-use carryout bag. Contrary to attempts at humor, there is no law against people using these bags, in fact the city has put out messages on creative re-use of these bags. What is not permitted are merchants in Davis dispensing them.
So why the single-use plastic bag rather than a blanket ban on plastic bags in general? The city of Davis studied the issue and found that, by banning the single-use carryout bag, they could reduce overall plastic bag use by 90%.
Moreover, the city did a survey of five hundred shoppers at six large grocery stores in August 2012. What they found was interesting. “On average, 49.5% of carryout bags used were single use plastic, 20% were paper, 17.2% were reusable bags and 13.3% opted not to use bags.”
A similar survey in Los Angeles county found that 96% of transactions used plastic carryout bags.
In other words, the survey showed that Davis residents already use single-use carryout plastic bags at rates far lower than other jurisdictions and therefore the impact of the ordinance on the typical consumer would be far less.
However, do not let that persuade you that the ordinance was not necessary. The study found, “The use of single use carryout bags (plastic, paper, and biodegradable) has identified negative environmental impacts, including GHG emissions, litter, water consumption, solid waste generation and effects on wildlife. 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 study added, “Even when plastic bags are disposed of properly, they often become litter due to their aerodynamic nature. The bags can be blown out of landfills by the wind and can easily be blown from garbage sources within the City prior to collection. Plastic litter not only causes visual blight, but can potentially harm wildlife.”
Bottom line is that the city was able to implement a 90 percent plastic bag reduction through this ordinance. That means, yes, go ahead and use other plastic bags if you must to do things such as dispose of dog waste or baby waste. Use your plastic bag liners for your garbage. The idea here is that the use of grocery bags dwarfs all other uses for plastic bags and, even if there is some offset, we are achieving an overall waste reduction.
At some point I’m sure I will pony up for some reusable bags. I chuckle with humor at people who are concerned about their widespread use. My folks in San Luis Obispo have been using them for years. It’s not that difficult to care for them – throw them in with the rest of your wash every so often.
In the meantime, a dime here or there is a small cost to be reminded that paper and resources are not free. Now, if we could just get rid of the unnecessary product packaging, we could really reduce our waste.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Two thoughts
1) Thanks for mentioning unnecessary packaging. This is probably an even greater environmental impact than plastic bags albeit harder to quantify due to the wider variety of materials involved from various forms of plastic to paper to cardboard. My recommendation would be to buy as much as possible in bulk.
2) When choosing to carry items out in your hand rather than a bag, remember to keep the receipt until you have gotten out of the store unchallenged. Recently at a store in Hawaii one of our group was confronted by store security challenging her purchase of sunglasses. Luckily my son still had the receipt in his hand. Nevertheless it was a little embarrassing and a lot annoying.
Tia wrote:
> Thanks for mentioning unnecessary packaging. This is probably an even
> greater environmental impact than plastic bags albeit harder to quantify
Who get’s to decide what is “unnecessary” packaging? I have noticed that many “green” people in town have (in my opinion) lots of “unnecessary” clothing. I’ve made it 50 years without a single pair of Birkenstocks or a tie dye shirt yet quite a few people in town (often the ones who want to ban “unnecessary” packaging, plastic bags and fireplaces) have MULTIPLE pairs of Birkenstocks (and/or Crocks) and sometimes DOZENS of tie dye shirts (and despite saying they support recycling they have not recycled that Dead at the Cow Palace in 1978 shirt)…
P.S. When I was waling out of Nugget last week (after hearing a lot of complaining) I was chatting with a guy who said this reminds him of living in the south where the “right wingers” were in charge and they were able to push through something they liked to piss off everyone else when every meeting, and sporting event started with a prayer…
I tie dyed my plain white tee shirt when I got a stain on it.
I don’t wear Birkenstocks. I like Clarkes better…
I have tons of clothes that I purchased from Right and Relevant and the YSPCA Thrift Store.
Why does it bug you so very much that we are trying to get people to stop using plastic, which ends up in our oceans? I recommend Ted Danson’s book, Oceana, to you.
South of Davis
“and despite saying they support recycling they have not recycled that Dead at the Cow Palace in 1978 shirt)…”
It seems to me that anyone ( myself included) who is still using clothing that dates back to the 70’s is doing better than “recycling” since they are still using the initial item themselves. I don’t think that I have any garment older than 25 years that I still wear, but I do have some from the 80’s and when they don’t fit, then I donate them or cut them up for use as rags if they are wearing out.
I took my mother literally when she said “waste not want not”.
I really cannot see how you can criticize continuous first owner usage.
“Recently at a store in Hawaii one of our group was confronted by store security challenging her purchase of sunglasses.”
Since the bagophobes like to claim that plastic bags are made of petroleum–even though grocery bags are in fact made of polyethylene, which itself is a waste by-product of natural gas refining–I wonder how many bags one would have to use in order to equal the amount of marginal petroleum was burned per passenger on Tia’s round-trip flight to Hawaii?
My guess–not really sure how to do the math on this one–is that single round-trip excursion burned more petroleum per passenger than was consumed manufacturing all the plastic grocery bags used by every person in Davis in the last 10 years. Even if my guess is close, I don’t expect reality to trump the senseless, faceless, mindless and extremist ideology driving the bag ban.
Rich wrote:
> My guess–not really sure how to do the math on this one–is that
> single round-trip excursion burned more petroleum per passenger
> than was consumed manufacturing all the plastic grocery bags
Don’t forget that Al Gore probably burns more energy at his 10,000 sf + TN mansion then it would take to make free bags for Davis residents forever (the energy he uses at his VA mansion, CA mansion or SF luxury condo could probably make bags for most of N. Cal).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91252
Don’t waste your breath Rich, the bagophobes will just say that jet fumes don’t end up hanging from a tree or a fence on Highway 80. They always have their strawman arguments.
BP
No we won’t. See direct response to Rich.
I fully accept that I am not perfect. But I do not make up excuses for what I do.
I am well aware that airline travel is destructive. So are cars, but I haven’t managed to give my hybrid up either.
I do believe that small steps are better than no steps.
So you won’t give up flying because you still want to travel but feel it’s okay to advocate that others give up things they might like or use in their lives out of convenience? A word for that comes to mind.
Rich,
I agree with you but haven’t quite given up on airline travel though I know it would be better.
Tar me for the hypocrite I am. I accept that. But I will also do what I can where I can and not pretend that small changes cannot make a difference.
Tia, never mind that you are not making a small step forward for anything by not using plastic grocery bags. Of course, if that is your preference, even if it is mindless, it should be your right to choose. Alas, a tyrannical group of idiots has imposed this choice on everyone else.
On the other hand, if you drive or you boat or you fly in an airplane which uses petrol, you are (I think admittedly) making a step backward (in terms of polluting our atmosphere with CO2).
I don’t fault you for your latter moves. You should live your life as you see fit. Just don’t get up on your high horse and tell others you are doing your part–when you are not.
Rich
I believe that I just said that I agree with you on the issue of the use of airplanes. I am not sure why the need to reiterate. However, I do not
agree with you about the use of plastics. I do believe that if we can minimize the use of plastics it will be helpful in the long run. I certainly was not “up on my high horse”. I will stand my ground in favor of us each contributing in ways that we can. If one rides their bike even one day of the week, is that not better than driving every day ?
It is not perfect, but again small steps can make a difference cumulatively. I am really unsure about why you find the need to make this personal.
Rich–you’re sounding a little harsh on Tia!
I fully agree with Tia that small steps are better than no steps; and each person will have a different mix of what steps to take that will help out.
Not sure how I personally feel about the plastic bag ban yet. Have forgotton to bring plastic bags to store a couple of times; but didn’t mind paying 10 cents for a paper bag (I use a couple paper bags per week as my under-the-sink trash bag).
Yes, this is a Davis experiment. I would also support measures to increase the frog population in Davis
Tia:
Small steps are great, but who get’s to pick the small steps that we force on others?
Many of my friends don’t fly, should they be able to stop you (and other bag banners) from taking the “small step” and not flying if you can stop them from getting bags at the store?
Two thoughts
1) Thanks for mentioning unnecessary packaging. This is probably an even greater environmental impact than plastic bags albeit harder to quantify due to the wider variety of materials involved from various forms of plastic to paper to cardboard. My recommendation would be to buy as much as possible in bulk.
2) When choosing to carry items out in your hand rather than a bag, remember to keep the receipt until you have gotten out of the store unchallenged. Recently at a store in Hawaii one of our group was confronted by store security challenging her purchase of sunglasses. Luckily my son still had the receipt in his hand. Nevertheless it was a little embarrassing and a lot annoying.
Tia wrote:
> Thanks for mentioning unnecessary packaging. This is probably an even
> greater environmental impact than plastic bags albeit harder to quantify
Who get’s to decide what is “unnecessary” packaging? I have noticed that many “green” people in town have (in my opinion) lots of “unnecessary” clothing. I’ve made it 50 years without a single pair of Birkenstocks or a tie dye shirt yet quite a few people in town (often the ones who want to ban “unnecessary” packaging, plastic bags and fireplaces) have MULTIPLE pairs of Birkenstocks (and/or Crocks) and sometimes DOZENS of tie dye shirts (and despite saying they support recycling they have not recycled that Dead at the Cow Palace in 1978 shirt)…
P.S. When I was waling out of Nugget last week (after hearing a lot of complaining) I was chatting with a guy who said this reminds him of living in the south where the “right wingers” were in charge and they were able to push through something they liked to piss off everyone else when every meeting, and sporting event started with a prayer…
I tie dyed my plain white tee shirt when I got a stain on it.
I don’t wear Birkenstocks. I like Clarkes better…
I have tons of clothes that I purchased from Right and Relevant and the YSPCA Thrift Store.
Why does it bug you so very much that we are trying to get people to stop using plastic, which ends up in our oceans? I recommend Ted Danson’s book, Oceana, to you.
South of Davis
“and despite saying they support recycling they have not recycled that Dead at the Cow Palace in 1978 shirt)…”
It seems to me that anyone ( myself included) who is still using clothing that dates back to the 70’s is doing better than “recycling” since they are still using the initial item themselves. I don’t think that I have any garment older than 25 years that I still wear, but I do have some from the 80’s and when they don’t fit, then I donate them or cut them up for use as rags if they are wearing out.
I took my mother literally when she said “waste not want not”.
I really cannot see how you can criticize continuous first owner usage.
“Recently at a store in Hawaii one of our group was confronted by store security challenging her purchase of sunglasses.”
Since the bagophobes like to claim that plastic bags are made of petroleum–even though grocery bags are in fact made of polyethylene, which itself is a waste by-product of natural gas refining–I wonder how many bags one would have to use in order to equal the amount of marginal petroleum was burned per passenger on Tia’s round-trip flight to Hawaii?
My guess–not really sure how to do the math on this one–is that single round-trip excursion burned more petroleum per passenger than was consumed manufacturing all the plastic grocery bags used by every person in Davis in the last 10 years. Even if my guess is close, I don’t expect reality to trump the senseless, faceless, mindless and extremist ideology driving the bag ban.
Rich wrote:
> My guess–not really sure how to do the math on this one–is that
> single round-trip excursion burned more petroleum per passenger
> than was consumed manufacturing all the plastic grocery bags
Don’t forget that Al Gore probably burns more energy at his 10,000 sf + TN mansion then it would take to make free bags for Davis residents forever (the energy he uses at his VA mansion, CA mansion or SF luxury condo could probably make bags for most of N. Cal).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91252
Don’t waste your breath Rich, the bagophobes will just say that jet fumes don’t end up hanging from a tree or a fence on Highway 80. They always have their strawman arguments.
BP
No we won’t. See direct response to Rich.
I fully accept that I am not perfect. But I do not make up excuses for what I do.
I am well aware that airline travel is destructive. So are cars, but I haven’t managed to give my hybrid up either.
I do believe that small steps are better than no steps.
So you won’t give up flying because you still want to travel but feel it’s okay to advocate that others give up things they might like or use in their lives out of convenience? A word for that comes to mind.
Rich,
I agree with you but haven’t quite given up on airline travel though I know it would be better.
Tar me for the hypocrite I am. I accept that. But I will also do what I can where I can and not pretend that small changes cannot make a difference.
Tia, never mind that you are not making a small step forward for anything by not using plastic grocery bags. Of course, if that is your preference, even if it is mindless, it should be your right to choose. Alas, a tyrannical group of idiots has imposed this choice on everyone else.
On the other hand, if you drive or you boat or you fly in an airplane which uses petrol, you are (I think admittedly) making a step backward (in terms of polluting our atmosphere with CO2).
I don’t fault you for your latter moves. You should live your life as you see fit. Just don’t get up on your high horse and tell others you are doing your part–when you are not.
Rich
I believe that I just said that I agree with you on the issue of the use of airplanes. I am not sure why the need to reiterate. However, I do not
agree with you about the use of plastics. I do believe that if we can minimize the use of plastics it will be helpful in the long run. I certainly was not “up on my high horse”. I will stand my ground in favor of us each contributing in ways that we can. If one rides their bike even one day of the week, is that not better than driving every day ?
It is not perfect, but again small steps can make a difference cumulatively. I am really unsure about why you find the need to make this personal.
Rich–you’re sounding a little harsh on Tia!
I fully agree with Tia that small steps are better than no steps; and each person will have a different mix of what steps to take that will help out.
Not sure how I personally feel about the plastic bag ban yet. Have forgotton to bring plastic bags to store a couple of times; but didn’t mind paying 10 cents for a paper bag (I use a couple paper bags per week as my under-the-sink trash bag).
Yes, this is a Davis experiment. I would also support measures to increase the frog population in Davis
Tia:
Small steps are great, but who get’s to pick the small steps that we force on others?
Many of my friends don’t fly, should they be able to stop you (and other bag banners) from taking the “small step” and not flying if you can stop them from getting bags at the store?
Has it been a week already? I thought for sure the world would have ended by now.
Has it been a week already? I thought for sure the world would have ended by now.
Yes it has been interesting watching people fumble their groceries out the door while cussing about the f’in People’s Republic of Davis.
i have yet to see anyone fumble their groceries and cuss. it would seem strange that 110 communities can pass the same policy and yet we would blame it on the people’s republic of davis. are you sure you aren’t projecting? i have used re-usable carry out bags for years with no problem.
“i have yet to see anyone fumble their groceries and cuss”
I have.
DP wrote:
> I have yet to see anyone fumble their groceries and cuss
You must have someone shop for you…
Even on the Peninsula where the ban has been in place for a while and in Truckee I have never been to the store when I didn’t here a single person complaining about the bag ban…
i think that says more about people than about the ban
What people, do you mean the environmental zealots who feel feel they have to have control over other people’s way of life?
Yes, I think that people who support the bag ban want to impose their views on others, which is not ideal in a free society. In my Vanguard post of June 30, I discussed this issue in broad and specific terms:
“I learned in psychology class that humans respond to rewards and punishments but learn better with the former than with the latter. With this in mind, consider what will happen to me at a Davis grocery store after July 1:
I will want my purchases put into a plastic bag (since I reuse them, as explained before). These bags have been banned (punishment), but a paper bag is available for 10 cents (punishment), or I can use my own bag (neither reward nor punishment).
Contrast this with what could have happened after July 1:
I could choose from a plastic bag for 10 cents (punishment), a paper bag for 5 cents (punishment), or using my own bag for a credit of 5 cents (reward).”
In other words, the second approach would have used incentives and disincentives to achieve the same (or a similar) result while respecting my (and other people’s) freedom of choice. Why was this approach not considered or tried?
In a follow-up post, I drew attention to what the bag ban is really about–molding behavior–and provided a link to operant conditioning, which is the science of reward (reinforcement) and punishment. The link is below, in case anyone is interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning
In other words, the bag ban makes me feel that its supporters regard me as less than human, as a laboratory animal to be modified at (their) will. I am a human being and demand to be treated as such. I may have lost on this particular issue, but I will continue to advocate for the overall principle, which is freedom of choice.