Davis Should Implement a Ban on All Non-Recyclable Takeout Containers and Impose a Fee on Plastic Bags used at Retail Stores
By Pam Nieberg –
We are polluting the world’s oceans with petroleum based materials that take hundreds to thousands of years to decompose. Sixty to eighty percent of marine debris overall and up to ninety percent of floating debris is plastic. In at least one area in the Pacific, plastic debris outweighs plankton by a factor of six. This debris is carried across the globe by ocean currents, and, as it is broken down by the sun, it joins the huge masses of plastic particles in our oceans that threaten marine wildlife. According to the California Coastal Commission, more than 1 million sea birds, 100,000 marine mammals, including filter feeding whales, and countless fish are killed annually in the north Pacific alone from ingesting or becoming entangled in marine debris. Furthermore, due to their chemical composition, plastic particles can accumulate toxins on their surface which then poison the animals exposed to them.
Foamed polystyrene (Styrofoam) and plastic bag litter are some of the largest contributors to this marine debris. This article will address the issue of Styrofoam food packaging and other take-out containers and the use of disposable plastic from retail establishments. Despite efforts by dozens of other California and US cities, Davis has not taken the first rudimentary steps to stem this tidal wave of garbage. It is time Davis reasserted its environmental leadership position by immediately implementing appropriate regulations.
Non-Recyclable Take-Out Containers
Fast food and restaurant Styrofoam packaging generated in our society is measured in the millions of tons and virtually all of this waste is littered or land-filled. Although foamed polystyrene is technically recyclable, at least to a degree, most is not recycled and infrastructure for its recycling is limited. Due to its light weight (it is up to 99% air) foamed polystyrene poses unique problems for disposal and is subsequently one of our worst litter problems.
We are only beginning to understand the effects of polystyrene on our bodies. Foamed polystyrene is made from several petroleum-derived chemicals, many of which pose significant health threats to humans. Polystyrene is produced from styrene, a known human neurotoxin and animal carcinogen. Factory workers who work with styrene suffer from a variety of neurological and hematological disorders. Styrene can also leach out of the packaging under certain conditions, including contact with an acidic solution or when food containing vitamin A, which breaks down polystyrene, is microwaved. For years, scientists have been seeing an increase in the presence of styrene in our bodies. It is found in our fat, blood and breast milk.
As a result of the magnitude of the problem with non-recyclable plastic waste, the concerns over the cost of clean-up, and the overall environmental hazard of plastic waste, municipalities across the country are introducing ordinances to regulate or ban its use.
What has Davis done to address this problem? At a recent meeting of the city’s Climate Action Team, team members discussed, among other issues, problems in addressing waste and consumption. The only reference to addressing plastic waste in the environment was a recommendation to establish a program to recycle Styrofoam citywide.
Other communities have been much more active in addressing the Styrofoam problem. Some of the ordinances adopted or being considered in other communities would require restaurants to use only disposable food packaging products that are recyclable at the municipality’s curbside recycling program. This in most cases automatically prohibits the use of Styrofoam. These ordinances encourage the use of recyclable food package materials, such as paperboard and PET plastics or plant based and natural fiber products, and ensure that a major source of landfill material and litter is diverted to recycling, saving petroleum resources, reducing greenhouse gases, and protecting our environment.
Only 5% of Californians live in communities that require takeout packaging to be recyclable or compostable. Increasing this number is one of the easiest steps we can take to make this a better environment. 33 countries have programs to reduce the use of Styrofoam. Polystyrene food containers have been banned in several California communities including San Francisco, Oakland, Sausalito, Monterey, Capitola, Pacific Grove, Scotts Valley, Berkeley, Sonoma, Santa Monica and Fairfax. Berkeley banned use of foamed polystyrene containers in 1990. Similar bans exist in more than a hundred municipalities across the country.
Shouldn’t Davis, at one time perceived to be one of the most environmentally progressive communities in the state, be reaffirming our leadership by taking stronger action on this issue? Rather than recommend recycling of Styrofoam, shouldn’t Davis follow the leadership of other communities in California and ban the use of Stryofoam in all take out food packaging in our community? Unfortunately, Davis may once again be trumped by the State on this one.
A bill introduced in February by San Mateo Assemblyman Jerry Hill would prohibit the use of foamed polystyrene food packaging containers in California. Assembly bill 1358 would ban all food vendors, including restaurants and retailers, from putting prepared food into foamed polystyrene and other non-recyclable plastic takeout containers. Instead, vendors would use recyclable plastic or 100% recyclable paper containers. Vendors in areas with curbside compost collection could use compostable plastic containers.
Similar bills have been introduced in the past and did not become law. Davis still has a chance to show leadership on this issue by adopting an ordinance banning the use of Styrofoam food packaging containers in our community.
Currently, there is no environmentally friendly mode of disposal for most takeout food packaging. Many municipalities have invested in and promote comprehensive recycling and composting infrastructure, but many materials used in takeout food packaging are not recyclable or compostable in these systems. Reduction of single-use, unrecyclable food packaging is an important step in the reduction of plastic debris in our environment.
Plastic Bags
About 4 years ago, a Davis citizen went before the Davis Natural Resources Commission (NRC) and proposed that Davis consider a program to regulate the use of plastic bags in Davis. The Commission determined that they needed to study the issue before considering an ordinance, and the idea eventually died. More recently, the City’s Climate Action Team considered the idea of regulating plastic bag use in Davis, but determined not to pursue that as one of their recommendations to the City Council. This is unfortunate. The single-use plastic bag is one of the biggest contributors to plastic waste in the environment. And reducing the use of single-use plastic bags is one of the easiest steps we can take to help clean up the planet.
Plastic bag litter is a dangerous, expensive and growing problem. The free plastic bags we get at grocery stores, department stores and restaurants are contributing to an epidemic of plastic waste. About 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are used world wide each year. Though plastic bags can be recycled, only a small percentage actually is recycled. In California, we use roughly 19 billion single-use plastic bags per year, and less than 5 % of those are recycled. The rest are littered or land-filled. Despite their lightness, plastic bags and wrappings made up 3% of the volume of all litter in California on state roads and in parks in 2000. That amounted to 283 tons of bag litter statewide.
Because of their light weight, plastic bags are quickly transported into the watershed and eventually end up in the oceans as marine debris. Plastic bags do not biodegrade. Instead, they remain in the environment where they slowly break up into smaller and smaller particles that pollute soil and water and enter the food chain when they are accidentally ingested. It has been scientifically documented that roughly 267 species have been impacted by this plastic waste.
Governments incur significant costs attempting to deal with plastic bag litter. One study in San Francisco concluded that every plastic bag cost the city roughly 20 cents in clean-up expenses. City officials estimated that they spend $8.5 million annually to dispose of plastic bag litter. It costs the State of California roughly $25 million annually to land fill plastic bags. Southern California cities have spent more than $1.7 billion to clean up plastic trash in waterways. The annual cost to clean Los Angeles County’s 31 miles of coastline is over $4 million. The environmental group Californians Against Waste estimates that in the United States we use roughly 84 billion bags annually. The costs to deal with this waste are enormous.
Because of the costs and environmental dangers associated with plastic bags, several communities in California have passed ordinances banning or regulating plastic bags, including San Francisco, Los Angeles city and county, Huntington Beach, Oakland, Malibu and Fairfax. Dozens of other localities are considering similar requirements.
There is also a growing international movement to ban or discourage the use of plastic bags because of their environmental effects. Countries all over the world are cracking down on the use of plastic bags. Countries that have banned or discourage the use of plastic bags include Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Belgium, Denmark, Eritrea, Kenya, Sweden, Switzerland, Somalia, Ireland, Italy, South Africa, Uganda, Taiwan and China. Mumbai, India has also banned plastic bags.
In March 2002, Ireland became the first country to require retail stores to charge for plastic bags. They instituted what is called a “PlasTax”, an assessment of about 20 cents per bag that retail customers paid for each plastic bag they used. The use of plastic bags in Ireland dropped more than 90% following the imposition of the tax while raising millions for the government for recycling programs. Similar legislation has been introduced in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
In Australia, about 90% of businesses have signed up for a voluntary program to reduce use of plastic bags. A law that went into effect in Taiwan in 2003 requires businesses to charge customers for plastic bags and utensils. This law has resulted in a 69% reduction in the use of plastic products. China, never an environmental role model, instituted a nation-wide, universal ban on the use of plastic bags. Prior to the ban, China used more plastic bags than any other country in the world, squandering 37 million barrels of crude oil on plastic bag production annually.
In California, there have been several attempts to regulate plastic bag use. In 2006, AB 2449 (Levine) was introduced. This bill required all California grocery stores to take back and recycle plastic grocery bags. AB 2449 was signed by the Governor on September, 2006. Starting in 2007, AB 2449 began a pilot program that requires most grocery stores and other retailers to set-up and in-store recycling program for plastic bags. In addition, plastic bag manufacturers were required to work with the grocery stores to help ensure proper collection and recycling of the bags. Despite this program, only a small percentage of plastic bags are actually recycled.
AB 2058 (Levine-Brownly-Davis) introduced in 2007 would have required a fee be placed on single-use plastic bags used at large grocery stores and pharmacies. This bill passed in the Assembly and senate committee, but did not reach the governor. It is being held in the Senate Appropriation Committee. There is no current action on this bill.
AB 68 (Brownley), introduced in December of 2008 would require beginning on July 1, 2010 a $0.25 charge for each single-use plastic bag distributed at large grocery stores, pharmacies and convenience stores. As of April 9, this bill is active and has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.
AB 87 (Davis) introduced in January of 2009 would also require that consumers pay a $0.25 fee on single-use plastic bags including green bags at large grocery stores, pharmacies and convenience stores. If passed, implementation would be sooner and the requirement for manufacturers of plastic bags to develop and provide to the store educational materials to encourage reducing, reusing, and recycling of plastic bags would continue beyond the current termination date of January 1, 2-13. This bill is active and is currently in the Assembly Natural resources Committee.
Similar bills are introduced nearly every year and, so far, every one has failed to make it to the Governor for signing. Thus, Davis still has a chance to live up to its environmentally-correct image. We encourage the City to consider an ordinance to charge consumers for single-use plastic bags at grocery stores, pharmacies, and convenience stores. It is working in other communities around the world to significantly reduce plastic bags in the environment. Even if Davis is no longer an environmental leader, it is at least time for Davis to follow the lead of these other progressive communities.
It is shameful that we continue to pollute the ocean with this toxic waste. There are vast lines of this stuff going on for miles bordering the edges of ocean currents. We can live without these mere conveniences. There are higher values.
Our council needs to act.
Al Lewis
This is not enough. We need to ban the use of single us plastic bags completely and entirely. China, Uganda and a slew of other cities and states have done just exactly that. If entire countries can ban the use of single use plastic bags then we can. It’s about high time but that’s another story. I agree with you, but Davis is definitely not green at all. It has claims to this label but this died off when off the republican yuppies moved in to take advantage of the great way of life. They moved in with their suv’s and voc’s and pretty much made this the dirtiest city in the world. Let’s not forget we are surrounded by yolo county and it’s merry band of republican farmers that are dirtying up the place with their toxic pesticides, herbicides and outrageous use of water. These guys are the real environmental criminals and they must be stopped. If Davis is green we must galvanize as a community and work to stop all the environmental pollution that’s destroying our quality of life and environment. If not, then I’d just assume to leave this god forsaken town and let all the republican yuppies and farmers get cancer, alllergies, and pay the surcarge for living in this outragously expensive city. It’s not worth living here. It’s so expensive. I saw three houses for sale the other day and they were all for 600 thousand dollars or more. Why hasn’t the housing crisis hit here? Because people think it’s safe, and green and nice, but it’s not. The well water is filled with TCP and local, and county government unionized workers are sucking the city coffers dry. Where is all the tax money going that we pay? Into the deep pockets of the workers and administraters. It’s disugsting that in these times they refuse to take a pay cut while everyone is suffering.
I think the key question is not what the city council should do. The key is what you can do. I suggest we all use each plastic bag until it breaks. And when it does, recycle. For those who think Davis is not green I ask you to note the number of cloth bags coming out of Davis grocery stores. Can the community do better? Of course. But I think we need to look at ourselves before we look at the authority figures downtown. As far as the take out boxes are concerned, we could solve several problems if we asked that smaller portions be served. We eat too much anyway. And we can avoid the take out food box problem if we avoid take out food.
This piece is outrageous. It basically advocates people giving up their freedom to make purchasing decisions. We shouldn’t buy plastic, we shouldn’t buy styrofoam, and the government should make sure we don’t. That is not america. That is Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and the Soviet Union.
California and ban the use of Stryofoam in all take out food packaging in our community?
More recently, the City’s Climate Action Team considered the idea of regulating plastic bag use in Davis, but determined not to pursue that as one of their recommendations to the City Council. This is unfortunate.
Says you.
Because of the costs and environmental dangers associated with plastic bags, several communities in California have passed ordinances banning or regulating plastic bags, including San Francisco, Los Angeles city and county, Huntington Beach, Oakland, Malibu and Fairfax.
I did not sign up with the confederacy of SanFrancisco, Berkely, and Oakland. They don’t dictate my personal choices.
We encourage the City to consider an ordinance to charge consumers for single-use plastic bags at grocery stores, pharmacies, and convenience stores.
You have decided the individual can’t have plastic bags, the government needs to take action.
There is a famous expression: “who died and made you yoda?”
There is a famous scenario for this:
Socialism is where you have two cows, your neighbor has none, so you give one to your neighbor.
Communism is where you have two cows, the govt. takes them both and gives you some of the milk.
Capitalism is where you have two cows, you sell one, and buy a bull.
Also, America is not a great country exclusively because we can vote for our elected officials or have free speech rights. It is also because we have the freedom to make our own choices. We can buy the cars/items we want, go to the places we want to go, and choose our own careers. Maybe that doesn’t work for you, but don’t impose that on me.
Honestly, I’m getting a bit tired of having the burden of going green always placed on the shoulders of the consumers. How about putting it on the shoulders of the manufacturers? Instead of banning plastic grocery bags (which I do re-use, by the way) why not insist that they be made biodegradeable to start with? If I can buy biodegradeable “poop pick up bags” for the dog, then the technology to do this is there. For those who think all plastic bags should be banned, I’d like to suggest going to the local shelter and borrowing a dog for the weekend. Let him play in your yard and take him for walks in the park. Then, try to pick up after him with something other than plastic and let me know how that works for you.
” China, Uganda and a slew of other cities and states have done just exactly that. If entire countries can ban the use of single use plastic bags then we can. It’s about high time but that’s another story. I agree with you, but Davis is definitely not green at all. It has claims to this label but this died off when off the republican yuppies moved in to take advantage of the great way of life. They moved in with their suv’s and voc’s and pretty much made this the dirtiest city in the world. “
China has banned plastic bags yet they stink up the air more than anyone else. their people don’t even own SUV’s either.
Could we also ban styrofoam packing peanuts? There are green alternatives (paper, popcorn etc.).
Why don’t we just ban packaged food altogether? I mean, you all have gardens in PRD, right? Right? Who needs grocery stores at all?
First off, this whole series on the “browning” of Davis is VERY shoddy in its research.
Secondly, I don’t have time to dig up primary source material, so I’ll follow the norm here: shoot from the hip and hope someone else will find the data to back me up.
Thirdly, when judging environmental matters, please keep in mind that curbing environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions are not always achieved together.
Case in point: banning plastic bags is great to curb litter BUT the carbon footprint of paper bags is exponentially larger. So, the real solution is to encourage the city-wide use of reusable bags at all grocery stores. I believe that the CAT has reccommended such a program.
Lastly, styrofoam. A very, very small percentage of styrofoam enters the waste stream from takeout containers. The real culprit is packaging of consumer goods, think t.v.’s and computers. The People’s Republic of Davis would have difficulty convincing Apple and Samsung to change their packaging for Davis alone, so the CAT suggests that we capture that waste and recycle it… something only Scandanavians do at this point.
Also, styrofoam has a tiny carbon footprint… its mostly air, super light… and it does it’s job pretty darn well.
So, how about you folks stop being so negative, find out what our environmental leaders are actually doing. did you even go to a CAT meeting? did you at least chat with a CAT member and ask some questions before disparaging their work? constructive criticism is great and all, but only when based in reality.
“find out what our environmental leaders are actually doing”
What environmental leaders are actually doing is not going to styrofoam, and it seems that what they are actually doing is going to reusable bags. So I’m not sure where this comment is coming from.
I can also tell you that the individual who wrote this did go to the CAT meeting, which you would have known if you had been there.
JayTee:
It would be great if we could convince manufacturers to make biodegradable plastics. But we have not been too successful with that, although it is happening. The easier thing to do is to ban the use of the non-biodegradable plastics, and then the manufacturers might get the message, and we will have at least taken steps to clean up the planet.
I used to have three dogs. Never used a plastic bag to pick up their poop. I reused all my plastic bags in the kitchen until they fell apart. To clean up after my doggies, I used to use a shovel and put the poop in a paper bag. Oooops! But at least they biodegrade.
Green solutions are complicated.
Obviously the author did do some research, as there are references and exact figures in the article. So not just shooting from the hip.
“Also, styrofoam has a tiny carbon footprint… its mostly air, super light… and it does it’s job pretty darn well”
Styrofoam is a petroleum product. You yourself just said that vast quanities are used for packaging goods. It has a huge carbon footprint. Anything we can do to reduce its use, we should do. Starting with a ban on take out containers is an easy first step. Then, maybe we work on legislation to get manufacturers to make biodegradable packing material. On that subject, I used to work in a lab, and several years ago, we started to get packages with packing material made from corn starch. Then it stopped. What happened to that?
Bobby Lee:
Take several deep breaths and calm down. You can still drive your Hummer and suck every last drop of fossil fuel out of the ground and spew it into the atmosphere. You can use plastic bags to your heart’s content. You can toss your styrofoam into the trash, just as you always do. But some of us do care about our world and would like to continue to live in it and actually pass it on to our children maybe a little better than it was when we were here.
“the CAT meeting”? i was under the assumption that they’ve been meeting regularly for over a year, so i bet there was more than one meeting… oh, and a quick glance at the City website… yep, many meetings!
i don’t know what Pam Nieberg looks like nor do I track her movements, so I couldn’t say if she attended the CAT meeting. the questions were really directed at all of the negative nancy’s in town.
but “This is interesting”, don’t you have anything of substance to say about why simply banning plastic bags and styrofoam take-out containers is a simplistic non-solution?
“I did not sign up with the confederacy of SanFrancisco, Berkely, and Oakland. They don’t dictate my personal choices.” etc.
I enjoy reading this lazy, uber-libertarian position, as wrong-headed as I think it is.
–My right to pollute, to stink up the air, to fart in your face, blow smoke in your lungs if I damn well please. Don’t dictate my personal choice to mess up your environment and cost you money.
California comes up with the emission or efficiency standards, the rest of the country complains about how liberal and radical those California standards are, then eventually the president signs it into law with the auto industry standing over ready to take credit for being such socially responsible citizens.
“This in most cases automatically prohibits the use of Styrofoam. These ordinances encourage the use of recyclable food package materials, such as paperboard”
I find this statement highly amusing. As a nation, we went to Styrofoam because paper products meant trees were destroyed. The idea was to “save trees”. But the development of Styrofoam had unintended consequences – it is not as biodegradable as paper! Which just goes to show you that a knee jerk reaction is not always the best solution, such as some of the ideas being floated out there about global warming. We need to think through solutions more carefully before implementing them.
Instead of punishing people who use plastic bags with what is essentially a tax, why not give a store coupon/discount for those who carry groceries/merchandise away in their own reusable cloth bags? I’ll bet you would get more support than the punishment route!
“There is a famous scenario for this:
Socialism is where you have two cows, your neighbor has none, so you give one to your neighbor.
Communism is where you have two cows, the govt. takes them both and gives you some of the milk.
Capitalism is where you have two cows, you sell one, and buy a bull.
Also, America is not a great country exclusively because we can vote for our elected officials or have free speech rights. It is also because we have the freedom to make our own choices. We can buy the cars/items we want, go to the places we want to go, and choose our own careers. Maybe that doesn’t work for you, but don’t impose that on me.”
This is absolutely correct. Why not build in INCENTIVES to change people’s habits, rather than imposing them? There is an old saying “You get more with honey than with vinegar”.
@ E Roberts Musser: agreed! a thoughtful and balanced program of mostly incentives (with some regulations) would be the best way to move forward.
But some of us do care about our world and would like to continue to live in it and actually pass it on to our children maybe a little better than it was when we were here.
Then tell China to stop stinking up the planet. Somehow they don’t have hummers plastic bags and they still beat us in terms of pollution. that tells me hummers, styrofoam, and sorts are not the problem.
@ yolo watcher: acchh, i’m procrastinating… so here is a little more research and info on polystyrene aka styrofoam
“vast quanities are used for packaging goods. It has a huge carbon footprint.” in comparison to any other packaging material, it has a tiny carbon footprint. polystyrene is 98% air… think of all the vehicle miles transporting goods packed in lightweight polystyrene vs heavy corn starch etc etc.
http://www.greenearthalliance.net/a_17.aspx
corn starch packaging disappeared? probably too expensive…
@ ALL: you know those fancy bio-degradable containers at Bistro33 and your biodegradable doggy poop bags? if you simply put them in the trash, they’ll go to the landfill and stay there for a VERY long time… the landfill does not have the proper conditions for them to actually break down. you’ll need to actually compost those items in a compost bin or (gasp) support the CAT’s suggestion that the City start picking up compostables curbside!
fuel your car! http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/05/ps-biodiesel-20090504.html
E. Roberts Musser:
We were bambozzled by industry to turn to styrofoam in the name of saving trees. What we did not know then about its dangers, we know now. There are other options than using paperboard. There are corn-starch based plastics, but then we get into the whole “plastic vs food” thing, just as we get into the whole “biofuels vs food thing”. There are no easy solutions, but there is clear evidence of the dangers to the environment and to human health of styrofoam, and we need to address that. Banning the use of styrofoam, an environmental pollutant and human health hazard, is hardly a knee-jerk reaction.
Incentives work to some extent, but do not eliminate the culprit–the non-recycled, non-biodegradable plastic bag. Nugget has an incentive program, but the vast majority of shoppers there do not bring their own bags, so the problem of plastic bag litter continues. The article suggests a fee for each single-use plastic bag. We can always bring our own bag, be it plastic, paper or cloth and avoid the fee. Where is the punishment in that?
Bobby Lee:
Until very recently, the United States led the world in global warming gas emissions (“stinking up the planet”), and we held that position for many years. China has just passed us. China and India are both embarking on major industrialization and their global warming gas emissions are indeed enormous. I don’t know whether China has Hummers or not, do you? But that is not the only issue. All plastics are petroleum based and contribute to the depletion of this non-renewable resource and to the release of large amounts of global warming emissions in their production. They are costing us billions of dollars in clean-up costs. They kill thousands of marine animals every year. China is saving 37 million barrels of crude oil per year by banning plastic bags. I am not sure how that translates into Hummer miles, but it is a significant number. Of course, Hummers and plastics are part of the problem, and whatever we can do to lower our emissions, the better off we all are.
“Then tell China to stop stinking up the planet.”
You’ve repeated the same thing multiple times. So here are the facts.
In 2006, China passed the US in total emissions of carbon gas. However, China has more than 4 times the amount of people as the US.
So in terms of per capita China emits far less per person than the US. In 2004, China ranked 91st in the world in per capita emissions and the US 10th.
So Chinese people are not especially high consumers of carbon emitting products, China just has a helluva lot of people there hence as whole they are tops in emissions.
None of that really bears on this discussion however.
so, I just did a bit more research… this time on the author of this piece, Pam Nieberg.
first up on the google search, turns out that Pam is a leader of the local Sierra Club chapter… great!
but wait, wasn’t a Sierra Club member appointed to the CAT? quick look on the CAT website: http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/agenda.cfm?c=32… and, yup, Stacie Frerichs of the Sierra Club, same chapter and everything! what are the odds?
then, dig a little deeper into the latest CAT Public Forum and wonder of wonders: Stacie Frerichs was on the Consumption and Waste Reduction committee of the CAT!!!
Question to Pam Nieberg: Did you ever talk with your organization’s CAT representative about plastic bags and polystyrene containers? That would probably have been more effective than this post…
looks like some weird, internal, political gamesmanship to me… but that’s par for the course for this site
Green solutions are complicated:
Yes, of course I talked with Stacie about this. More than once. She told me they considered it, but decided not to address it. I believe they could not reach consensus on it.
2006, China passed the US in total emissions of carbon gas. However, China has more than 4 times the amount of people as the US.
So in terms of per capita China emits far less per person than the US. In 2004, China ranked 91st in the world in per capita emissions and the US 10th.
So Chinese people are not especially high consumers of carbon emitting products, China just has a helluva lot of people there hence as whole they are tops in emissions.
It is not necessarily the Chinese people at all. It is Chinese businesses, which pollute more than ours do.
“None of that really bears on this discussion however.
Wrong. It has everything to do with the discussion. It goes to the heart of whether or not you genuinely care about pollution vs. wanting to control what American people do. I think what concerns me also is it appears we always have to justify ourselves. We always have to justify how much we use or don’t use, how much pollution we put out, how much we drive our car, what type of bags we use when we shop, etc. etc.
I find it interesting that when China’s pollution gets mentioned you are dismissive, unconcerned, no demand for Kyoto Protocals. Their pollution doesn’t count, or at least not enough to get on your high horse. Only America’s counts enough.
Also, I’m little interested in the opinion of someone from the Sierra Club, which has its own agenda to push.
“We were bambozzled by industry to turn to styrofoam in the name of saving trees.”
All the more reason to think out solutions very carefully. Take into account the pros and cons. It is not different than using prescription drugs. We know they have side effects – so is it worth the risk. I guess my question would be was there ever a risk assessment done on the use of styrofoam? I suspect that everyone was convinced too quickly that there was an emergency need to protect trees at all costs, as of primary importance, never giving consideration to the “side effects” of unbiodegradable alternatives.
“There are corn-starch based plastics, but then we get into the whole “plastic vs food” thing, just as we get into the whole “biofuels vs food thing”. There are no easy solutions”
If we can put a man on the moon, I have faith that we can come up with better solutions with less “side effects”. We can be very ingenious when we want to be.
“Incentives work to some extent, but do not eliminate the culprit–the non-recycled, non-biodegradable plastic bag.”
I’ll bet if people got a discount on their grocery bill, they would start remembering to bring a cloth bag! How about if you received a free collector’s gift? A chance to win a raffle, or a lottery ticket? We haven’t really tried the incentive approach, only the punishment approach. If you want a plastic bag, you have to pay a tax of 5 cents. You get more w honey than w vinegar.