The emerging debate on plastic bags is reminding me a lot of the previous debate on wood burning. There is emerging research and evidence that shows that plastic bags are harmful to the environment and in opposition to declared goals on waste and consumption.
The city’s Natural Resources Commission will eventually take up this issue. One proposed ordinance suggests that markets and retailers would no longer stock plastic bags by the beginning of next year. They would be required to offer free or for-sale reusable bags or charge customers 25 cents for paper bags.
But from two Davis Enterprise columns and public comments on the Enterprise and on our site, the public does not appear to be there yet.
So, this is likely to become an emotional issue like the wood-burning issue became, where everyone digs in and no one looks toward moving the debate along.
As Elaine Fingerett, Alan Hastings, Ann Savageau and Michael Siminitus write, “Single-use plastic bags are everywhere. It seems so easy to have our groceries put in one of those light plastic bags. It is only one bag a time, so what can the problem be?”
“The problem is that there are so many of them, and they last nearly forever. How many? In California alone, more than 19 billion — yes, BILLION — bags are used each year,” they continue.
“Each is used for an average of 12 minutes, and these “free” bags are subsidized through higher grocery prices of approximately $530 million annually in California alone,” they write. “Another cost is the wasting of a precious resource — oil. In the United States alone, 12 million barrels of oil are wasted in the manufacture of single-use plastic bags every year.”
However, the average consumer does not think in those terms. They think of the plastic bag in terms of cheap and convenient ways to escort their grocery, confine their trash, and even protect property against rain and weather.
Part of the problem is that our economic system, while being able to assess supply and demand, incorporating the cost of production into the value of an item, fails to take into account externalities such as the cost of clean up in the environment and damage to wild life in landfills and in the ocean.
It is here that Rich Rifkin, the intrepid Davis Enterprise columnist, took umbrage last week, mocking claims that Davis should ban plastic shopping bags because they “kill turtles and whales.”
Writes Mr. Rifkin rather maliciously, “Apparently, the authors of that opinion piece don’t own a map. They seem not to understand that Davis is not on the coast.”
He continues, “Not one whale or a single sea turtle will die if you take home your groceries in a plastic bag in Davis. If you don’t believe me, buy a map — or check Google Earth.”
But is he correct and if even if he is, is he missing the broader point through his focus on the minor detail?
This is a typical tactic of Mr. Rifkin, focusing on the small detail rather than the broader point.
After all, the key points in the column are the large number of bags consumed by California consumers, the average use of those bags and the large amount of oil used in the manufacturing of single-use bags.
And yet my wife’s relatives like to point out that they use their bags to line their garbage, as though somehow doubling the use of bags to two is going to change much or prevent the bags from ultimately lying in the landfill where they will not biodegrade.
So yes, we can focus on small details, such as the fact that Davis bags may not end up in the ocean, but they may. After all, if they end up in the storm drains, that water ends up in the Sacramento River which ends up, you guessed it, in the oceans.
Mr. Rifkin argues that 19 billion bags equate to just under 10 plastic bags per person per week which, when you exclude some things, is probably closer to 15 to 20 plastic bags per person per week. I do not think think that number is that high, particularly when you take into account business uses and defective bags.
If we are not using reusable bags, for our family of five, we are probably visiting the grocery store on average two or three times a week, each time using at least a handful of bags. But even that does not equate to even 10 bags per person.
The problem is that Mr. Rifkin is probably not taking into account industrial and non-private uses of plastic bags.
The 19 billion figure is cited in the Assembly report on plastic bags.
We could research it more to find out where the figure comes from, or we can settle on the fact that where it is 1 billion, 5 billion, 10 billion, or 20 billion, we are using a lot of plastic bags and it is a wasteful practice and uses oil and other scarce resources, it is not biodegradable and the uses are limited.
In a separate comment, Mr. Rifkin argues his emails are running 20 to 1 against banning plastic bags. If true, that would suggest that there is much education to do on this issue
Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning has also weighed in.
“I’m still trying to figure out the practical implications of banning all plastic bags in Davis,” he writes, “presumably, when our esteemed council members get around to enacting this ordinance — trust me, they will — they’ll also ban the transmission of nasty germs at the bottom of our reusable bags.”
Rich Rifkin concludes, “Ultimately, this comes down to consumer choice. If you prefer to bring your own canvas bag for your groceries, then do so. You have every right to believe that is the best alternative. But don’t use the force of government to impose your decision on the rest of us. A ban on plastic bags in Davis is a solution in search of a problem.”
While I do not agree with Mr. Rifkin’s conclusion here, I would argue that his entire case shows the need for a more concerted public campaign on the issue.
Just as the public is not there on the banning of wood burning, despite mounting evidence of its detrimental health impacts which are every bit as serious as cigarette smoking, the public is clearly not here yet.
So, while I favor a long term approach toward the banning of plastic bags, in the shorter term, I think incentives for the use of recyclable bags is a good first step, along with a surcharge on the use of plastic bags to mitigate for clean-up efforts.
That should be an approach most people appreciate, as it imposes the true market cost of consumption of plastic bags, that right now is not factored into the equation.
If we even charged a nickel per bag, how long before it would be more cost effective to purchase even a reusable cloth bag? Is that not the type of market approach that people like Mr. Rifkin would prefer?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]The emerging debate on plastic bags is reminding me a lot of the previous debate on wood burning. [/quote]
I hope you are wrong here since I favor limiting plastic bags but I find the wood burning debate to be unconstructive.
Mr. Rifkin has a point that since we are not on the coast its not as critical an issue but some bags would make it to the coast.
But to me the important issue is that if the City of Davis limits plastic bags there is also a good chance it will influence future policy elsewhere, especially if we do so in a thoughtful way. Perhaps a surcharge would make more sense or some other limit.
Frankly, I could care less what Rifkin or Dunning have to say.
Correction: I could NOT care less.
dmg: “There is emerging research and evidence that shows that plastic bags are harmful to the environment and in opposition to declared goals on waste and consumption.”
Whose “declared goals on waste and consumption”? Obviously those who would ban plastic bags but not necessarily mine. This is nothing more than an attempt by a vocal minority to foist their world views on the way the world ought to be run onto the rest of us. If a majority wanted to stop using plastic bags and move to reusable bags, they could and would have already done so (but have chosen not to). Now this minority of self-appointed/self-annointed “righteous” and overzealous “plastic bag police” have decided that everyone should follow their myopic world view that plastic bags are the new “scourge of the earth”, just as paper bags were deemed to be a scourge some years ago. Yet we went to plastic bags bc these same idiots insisted paper bags were bad for the environment, killing trees, and strongly advocated for the very plastic bags they are now condemning!
If plastic bags are such a problem, why stop there and not ban plastic altogether? After all, more pollution probably results from disposable diapers, condoms, plastic syringes, plastic bottle rings, plastic packing bubbles, styrofoam, plastic bottles, plastic wrap, plastic packaging, plastic garbage bags, plastic hip replacements, and on and on it goes. Why stop at just the little ‘ol plastic bag?
And there is the rub. When the majority starts allowing a strident minority to dictate how we all shall live, what will be banned next? Plastic computers, plastic phones, plastic television sets, plastic toothbrushes, plastic cups, plastic silverware, plastic furniture, plastic carts, plastic shoes, plastic notebooks, etc. The public education that needs to take place is instructing those in the minority who would tell everyone else what to do that we live in a free society, not in a socialist state. I like New Hamshire’s state motto: “Live free or die.”
According to the National Academy of Sciences, probably 1/3 of the ocean’s pollution results from merchant ships dumping garbage into the sea. Secondly, there is a simple solution to plastic pollution – sort the garbage at destination and recycle all plastics at the landfill sites. Thirdly, a lot of the reusable bags have lead based paints and dyes in them, and are not recommended for use by children. Fourth, reusable bags require an up-front cost (pointed out by Lois Wolk), and are often inadvertantly left behind at home. Fifth, plastic bags are often used to clean up dog poop, line trash cans, and a myriad of other uses. Explain exactly how reusable bags will work for cleaning up dog poop or lining garbage cans? Sixth, recycle stations appear at grocery stores to dispose of unused plastic bags. How about giving a penny per plastic bag to customers for each plastic bag they return as an incentive?
dmg: “Just as the public is not there on the banning of wood burning, despite mounting evidence of its detrimental health impacts which are every bit as serious as cigarette smoking, the public is clearly not here yet.”
With all due respect, this sounds to me like a very condescending statement if I ever heard one… “plastic bag banners” do not have a lock on all things right and relevant/what is the true path in life to walk… I know, I know, poor dumb ignorant me just doesn’t understand the issue and all the “emerging” “evidentiary” “statistics” out there that “proves” plastic bag banners are “right” and anyone who disagrees with them is totally “wrong”…
And what a silly issue to concentrate on at a time when people are literally out of work bc politicians are not keeping their eye on the ball. Oh yes, let’s give politicians a red herring they can latch onto so they don’t have to address the real issues of the day…
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzeeee… you definitely pushed my buttons with this article! I’m sure I’ve pushed some buttons myself w my frank response/opinion… just reflects my myopic world view that we should “live free or die”! I agree w Rich Rifkin here – a plastic bag ban is a solution in search of a problem…
ERM
Well said, my sentiments exactly. Typical liberals, they’re in the minority but they know what’s best for everyone and if you don’t agree it must only be because you need more education.
“…focusing on the small detail rather than the broader point.”
Taking the “broader point” view, these plastic bags will ultimately be consumed in molten lava as they submerge into of trenches between the earth’s crust plates.
Biodegradable plastic bags are probably very feasible and it is only a matter of the public/lawmakers mandating biodegradability for these bags.
daviste2: “Taking the “broader point” view, these plastic bags will ultimately be consumed in molten lava as they submerge into of trenches between the earth’s crust plates.”
LOL Great point!
davisite2: “Biodegradable plastic bags are probably very feasible and it is only a matter of the public/lawmakers mandating biodegradability for these bags.”
Another good solution that is getting lost in this silly discussion…
rusty49: “Typical liberals, they’re in the minority but they know what’s best for everyone and if you don’t agree it must only be because you need more education.”
Well said!
Like many environmental debates, opponents to plastic bags (mostly older people) are pretty much thinking of themselves while proponents are thinking of the world we will live to our children. I think the baby boomers has pretty much screwed the environment up enough for one generation just as they have screwed up our financial system. It is time for greedy old people to sit down and shut up. The baby boomers’ day has come and gone. We had our chance to make the world a better place and we blew it. Now stop whining about YOUR rights, and YOUR liberties, and start thinking about the legacy you are leaving the next generation who has to live with the filth we leave behind.
BTW – who says plastic bag ban proponents are in the minority? Maybe they are at tea party rallies and old folks homes but ask the same question up at UC Davis or even at Davis High and you’ll get a completely different response from the majority of young people.
“The baby boomers’ day has come and gone. We had our chance to make the world a better place and we blew it. Now stop whining about YOUR rights, and YOUR liberties”
“who says plastic bag ban proponents are in the minority? Maybe they are at tea party rallies and old folks homes”
ERM, now there’s a good example of what we’re talking about. WE just have to shut up and do what we’re told because we’re old Tea Party wrecking the Earth creatins.
[i]”… the average consumer does not think in those terms. They think of the plastic bag in terms of cheap and convenient ways to escort their grocery, confine their trash, and even protect property against rain and weather.”[/i]
In other words, plastic grocery bags bring value to shoppers; and that value is not being considered properly by the bag banners.
[i]”Part of the problem is that our economic system, while being able to assess supply and demand, incorporating the cost of production into the value of an item, fails to take into account externalities such as the cost of clean up in the environment and damage to wild life in landfills and in the ocean.”[/i]
You assume there is environmental damage from bags in Davis, and then you assert a market failure. The problem here is that you bag banners have never been able to demonstrate the environmental damage in Davis.
What I do know is that Davis bags are not winding up in the ocean. That is an unassailable fact. The cockamamie stories the bag banners in Davis are presenting about bags flying nearly 7 miles to the east and landing in the Sacramento River and then floating 85 nautical miles to the Golden Gate are hysterically implausible. The alternative theory that they are entering the water stream by way of the storm drains and making an impossible trip by streams and bogs and various other waterways out to the Sacramento River and then again floating another 85 miles to the Golden Gate is utter nonsense, too.
Moreover, those who are making these fantastic claims offer no proof whatsoever. They just make this stuff up and hope no one notices it is total nonsense.
Finally, as to landfills being clogged with plastic grocery bags: the evidence is entirely in contradiction to their claims. They say we are using 19 billion bags each year. Yet the state government studied this issue and found that these bags make up just 0.4% of our landfill waste.
The notion that this is a serious problem because the bags won’t biodegrade is silly, too. Without sunlight or oxygen, your garden waste won’t biodegrade, either. In fact, most products buried in landfills will never biodegrade.
[i]”Writes Mr. Rifkin rather maliciously, ‘Apparently, the authors of that opinion piece don’t own a map. They seem not to understand that Davis is not on the coast.'”[/i]
I love your total lack of humor about maps. It’s hilarious.
[i]”(Rifkin) is he missing the broader point through his focus on the minor detail?”[/i]
That’s just it–there is no broader point about banning bags in Davis. The banners pretend there is, but can’t articulate any reason why it is to our advantage to destroy the value shoppers get out of plastic bags. It’s irrational to destroy something when it does not leave our community better off.
[i]”This is a typical tactic of Mr. Rifkin, focusing on the small detail rather than the broader point.”[/i]
I love your total lack of humor about this, too.
[i]”So yes, we can focus on small details, such as the fact that Davis bags may not end up in the ocean, but they may.”[/i]
Wait. That is no minor detail, sir. That is the basis of the argument against plastic bags–that they are killing turtles and whales in the ocean. But the Davis banners have failed to prove that Davis bags are doing so. Moreover, if you read the pro-bag banning literature, such as this information from Greenpeace ([url]http://oceans.greenpeace.org/raw/content/en/documents-reports/plastic_ocean_report.pdf[/url]), it is clear that inland cities like Davis play no part in the problem of oceanic plastic waste.
[i]”After all, if they end up in the storm drains, that water ends up in the Sacramento River which ends up, you guessed it, in the oceans.”[/i]
You do understand that any garbage in our storm drains WILL NEVER wind up in the Sacramento River. It is physically impossible.
[i]”I think incentives for the use of recyclable bags is a good first step, along with a surcharge on the use of plastic bags to mitigate for clean-up efforts.”[/i]
Why don’t you show us where this problem of our streets, gutters, parks and so on are being cluttered with plastic bag litter? I have never seen it.
[i]”That should be an approach most people appreciate, as it imposes the true market cost of consumption of plastic bags, that right now is not factored into the equation.”[/i]
If we had an actual problem with strewn bags, you would be right. But you are wrong, because we don’t have that problem.
[i]”If we even charged a nickel per bag, how long before it would be more cost effective to purchase even a reusable cloth bag? Is that not the type of market approach that people like Mr. Rifkin would prefer?”[/i]
People like Rifkin prefer not to impose a solution on a problem which does not exist.
So what will they go after next? If I go to Taco Bell will I have to pay a quarter for that plastic cup? A dime for a plastic fork? Do I have to bring a cloth bag in order to bring my takout home or do I pay an extra quarter for a plastic bag? There’s endless possibilities where this can be taken, are plastic bags just the foot in the door?
For me, this issue is another fascinating look into the liberal-progressive mind versus the rest.
Those of us that blog on this site are probably all compatible in intelligence and education. We are generally of the same or similar economic classes. We can count many more things that we have in common than not. The differences we have are generally few and much nuanced. However, the plastic bag ban, as with the wood burning ban and other similar policy desires pushed by progressives, are examples of how we line up differently over our tolerances for protecting individual freedom versus allowing more central control of our lives.
It is a shame that we have this difference, because, without it, I suspect most of us would admit to owning the same or similar goal for keeping the environment as clean as possible. We should be able to work together on this goal. The problem is the use of hyperbole and hype distorting the facts and hiding the truths, I guess to expedite “progress” at the cost of our individual freedoms. I bristle at this approach, and despite the honorable end goals desired by progressives, I will continue to block these attempts only to prevent the continued erosions of our individual freedoms.
To work together on the goal of protecting the environment from the plastic bag, first we need to get off the argument that plastic bags are horrendously-worse than paper bags. They are marginally worse when calculating the total environmental impact. Next we need to get honest that the vast majority of people in this country – because they are not the food-coop, reusable-bag-owning types – are going to use single-use bags to carry their groceries. Lastly, we need to calculate the value of convenience between the options that would drive consumer preference. Then, as to the role and benefit of government to move the needle, we need to factor all of these things and come up with a strategy which motivates free people to make the choice that most benefits the environment.
For example, I would be in favor of a city-wide drive to make reusable natural-fiber bags affordable and more convenient. Local businesses and individuals could contribute to this program having their names listed. I would develop a local PR campaign and ask local grocers to display a fact-based sign that encourages reusable – paper – plastic (in that order). However, since the ultimate best solution will be developed by the free market, I would look to encouraging local and national R&D for creating a viable biodegradable plastic.
If your progressive solution for any problem other than ensuring my safety and protection of my property is to give more power to central government to control my decisions, reduce my choices, and take away my freedoms, I will fight against you no matter how noble your intentions. Because, for me, that fight is infinitely more important than is the fight over plastic bags.
Per Rifkin -“If we had an actual problem with strewn bags, you would be right. But you are wrong, because we don’t have that problem.”
Have you have considered the possibility that we don’t have a problem with strewn plastic bags because governments spends countless millions picking them up every year. They are the no. 1 type of garbage collected by CalTrans on our highways and the No. 1 contaminant in municipal green waste going to compost facilities. Only 5% of plastic bags are recyled in California. Take a trip out to the local landfills after a windy day (either Yolo Co dump outside Davis or Solano Co dump on Hay Rd. outside Dixon). The bags are literally fluttering in the breeze and flying in every direction out onto local roads which means someone has to be paid to pick them up again – for the 2nd or 3rd time!
1 The notion that people oppose this proposal because they need ‘education’ is patronizing and somewhat offensive. They might need persuasion. Education is not lacking.
2. People who oppose this proposal are not old people, tea partiers, and baby boomers. Again: offensive.
This is a feel-good proposal that would have little or no actual effect on the issues for which it has been proposed (protecting sea animals, reducing global warming). The only way that it is similar to the wood-burning proposal is that the proponents are being equally supercilious, and are thus undercutting their own arguments. Positive incentives would probably work. Shaming and insulting people is not an effective way to change behavior.
[i]”Have you have considered the possibility that we don’t have a problem with strewn plastic bags because governments spends countless millions picking them up every year.”[/i]
I go everywhere in Davis and frankly we don’t have a problem with strewn bags or other strewn garbage. It just does not exist in any serious way.
(The only strewn garbage exceptions I can think of in Davis are 1) along Chiles Road near the auto dealerships and McDonald’s; and 2) near the W. Olive Drive homeless encampment. In both cases, the waste problem is mostly one of paper products. Would you ban paper, too?)
You did not live in Davis when we had an actual waste problem on our streets and parks. You lack historical perspective.
The erstwhile problem was mostly with beer cans and to a lesser extent soda cans. They used to litter Central Park and Community Park. We used to have clean-up days to deal with that waste. The problem finally went away with the introduction of the CRV. But it is false to assert Davis is covered now with plastic grocery bags.
Surely some small percentage of the waste found in our greenbelts and picked up by landscape maintenance workers is plastic bags. But it is no large percentage. You are inventing a problem which does not exists to satisfy some larger ideological issue with petroleum.
As to the statewide costs of picking up this garbage, the Assemblywoman from Santa Monica who is pushing the ban claims that it costs government $25 million a year to clean up plastic bags. Let’s assume for argument sake that she is right. That means the cost of clean-up is 1 cent for every 7.6 bags. In other words, it’s next to nothing.
*I have volunteered at clean-up efforts in Putah Creek (outside city limits) and at the West Davis Pond. Some of the strewn waste is plastic garbage bags, but it’s a small percentage.
According to the bag banners Davis residents are using 33,124,000 bags each year. Yet some few dozen are being strewn? We just don’t have this problem in Davis.
[i]”They are the no. 1 type of garbage collected by CalTrans on our highways and the No. 1 contaminant in municipal green waste going to compost facilities.”[/i]
They make up 0.4% of landfill waste. That is nothing.
As to contaminants in green waste, that is already illegal in Davis.
[i]”Only 5% of plastic bags are recyled in California. Take a trip out to the local landfills after a windy day (either Yolo Co dump outside Davis or Solano Co dump on Hay Rd. outside Dixon). The bags are literally fluttering in the breeze and flying in every direction out onto local roads which means someone has to be paid to pick them up again – for the 2nd or 3rd time!”[/i]
I bike out by the Yolo County landfill all the time. I have never once seen a single plastic bag flying out of the landfill and landing on or flying over County Road 28H. The roadsides there are as clean as the roadsides on any county road anywhere in Yolo County.
Moreover, we have giant wastewater ponds just east of the landfill. If your “facts” about waste flying out of the landfill were true, why don’t the ponds have plastic grocery bags all about them?
Good article on biodegradable plastic bags: [url]http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/18562/?a=f[/url]
As the price comes down, these will begin to replace standard plastic bags as it is good business to be green.
And consider that the increased use of biodegradable bags will benefit the environment while continuing to provide our local food coop types bragging rights that they are still more environmentally-conscience owning reusable bags.
Coming your way,
plastic bag education camps.
“They would be required to offer free or for-sale reusable bags or charge customers 25 cents for paper bags.”
Why would customers be charged for paper bags that we now get free?
I thought this was about plastic bags.
Rich: And we wonder why so many Arab countries have difficulty developing a working economy. I understand that Sharia law and Muslim traditions are not friendly to banking in general. However, this is a new twist.
Mr. Shor – Actually I have not seen anyone opposing this who is not a tea partier or an aging baby-boomer. I am sorry if you find that present company offensive. Strangely, though, I didn’t hear you complaining when Rifkin calls proponents of the plastic bag ban “ideologues” and then says “their friends” are “Hamas” and links to something about bank robbers. On second thought, you may be right. That is not offensive…just plain ole crazy!
[i]”Why would customers be charged for paper bags that we now get free?”[/i]
I keep thinking about the poor folk… the ones cannot afford to purchase reusable bags, the ones that have to walk or bike to the store that are used to these lightweight, waterproof plastic bags to dangle from their handlbars or that they carry five in each hand. Even if they bring their own bags, 10 of them can be wadded up and put in a pocket. Contrast this to 10 paper or reusable bags will require them to find transportation to the store and then back again. Sad.
Alan: [i]I have not seen anyone opposing this who is not a tea partier or an aging baby-boomer[/i]
To my knowledge, Rich Rifkin is neither.
So Mr. Pryor,
Anyone who opposes this who’s not a baby boomer identifies themselves to you as a Tea Partier? Bunk !
I know a good way to keep the plastic bags out of the landfill, just throw them on the log fire in your fireplace.
I think that people are resisting being told what to do and how they should go about their lives. I think a lot of people make an effort to use re-usable bags and it’s a growing trend. But there is nothing that is going to replace the plastic bag when it comes to picking up after your dog on a walk.
I have two COOP cloth grocery bags that I use most of the time so I now run out of grocery plastic bags that are perfect for lining small waste-baskets and for disposing of my new grandson’s poopy diapers(disposable). I have to remember to ask for “plastic” at the checkout counter when my supply needs replenishing.
[i]”Actually I have not seen anyone opposing this who is not a tea partier or an aging baby-boomer.”[/i]
I have not seen anyone who favors this who can mount a logical argument why Davis would be better off to take away this choice.
Some make up facts: like Davis plastic bags are magically making their way to the ocean where they are causing harm.
Others make up other facts: that public spaces in Davis are awash in strewn plastic bags.
Many seem to assume that because they choose to bring their own shopping bags–a choice I defend–that everyone else who makes a different choice is inferior and wrong.
FWIW, I have no association with the Tea Party or its adherents. I am not ideological, left or right. That said, when you put me up against someone on the far left I appear right. And when you put me up against a right-winger I appear left. That’s not because I am left or right, but because rigid ideologues force that relative measurement.
As to the Baby Boom, that has no apparent connection. I was born in 1964, which was technically the last year of the post-WW2 Baby Boom. However, insofar as the real Baby Boomers were shaped by the U.S. Civil Rights movement, the British rock invasion and by the Vietnam War, I think it is experientially a mistake to place people my age as real Baby Boomers.
We were 8 years old in 1972, for example, when almost all American troops had been withdrawn from Vietnam. Even though my grandmother grew up in Hanoi, I don’t think, when I was in second grade at WDE, I had any idea what Vietnam was. Likewise, the assassinations of MLK and RFK in 1968, when I was 4 years old, were events which had no impact on me. I didn’t know they happened at that time. I had never heard of either of those men when I was 4 years old. And I was still just 6 years old when the Beatles broke up. It’s not that I am not a fan of the pop music of the 1960s–it’s just that kids my age didn’t really experience that when it was going on.
I echo Don Shor’s sentiments. telling the public they need to be educated more about why they should not be able to have plastic bags sounds arrogant and above oneself.
“People ought to know what’s good for them because I say so,” is a real turnoff.
And just where does this end? first it will be plastic bags, then plastic containers, and everything plastic. Just as it was with paper bags awhile ago, like Elaine said. People switched to plastic because they thought they were helping the environment by not cutting down trees with paper – what little did they know that it didn’t stop there – and I guarantee you it will not stop with the plastic bag ban – it will be something else tomorrow – in fact wood burning comes to mind. These people always need a cause to dictate to others how to run their lives.
Since this story came out, I have been keeping an eye out for wayward plastic bags. I have yet to go anywhere in town without seeing at least 1 single-use bag along the road or bikepath. (I usually see several) I am not even counting the thin clear produce bags; only the ones with handles and typically a store logo on them. I don’t buy into the notion that there is an acceptable amount of trash that we should tolerate in our city.
I would welcome a local ban on single use bags and I think a majority of Davis would also support it.
I love some of the comments where people are SO ANGRY THAT YOU’VE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, WHEN THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DEBATE. Talk about misplaced anger. Why don’t those people angry about David penning some words on this topic use that energy to start another blog that focuses on the REAL ISSUES.
As for the many of the other posters. Y’all are so OLD and CRANKY and opposed to change that it saddens me. No matter what happens, Rifken, you’ll be able to find enough plastic bags for your dogs poop and for your trash, you just won’t have 40-50 at one time. The world won’t end and Socialism won’t rear its Red tinted head again trying to tell the Cranky Old Americans they can’t do something so important to their FREEDOM.
To civil discourse and others blogging in favor of plastic bag ban:
One issue that tends to be lost on folks constantly seeking change for change’s sake is that you can’t change everything (or even very many things) at once. If you “scattershot” your efforts across a broad range of issues, a couple of really negative things can happen:
1. Th public grows tired of the shrill cry about “how we must change this now” for issues which, in their hearts, they know to be realtively minor. I think it is evident that alanpryor, among others, has earned this reputation in Davis. Unfortunately, even if alanpryor makes a legitimate point or raises a critical issue now, his opinion is less likely to be persuasive for a growing number of people.
2. Creating a false sense of urgency about a long list of issues, some of which are far from critical, can cause the public and politicians to lose focus on the really important stuff (they’d really rather deal with the petty issues). By way of example, watch the Davis City Council spend hours on a zip car contract or listen to experts debates the pros and cons of woodburning in the beginning hours of a meeting, and be left with no time to discuss the important stuff like budget or city financial issues.
Finally, I conclude the following after watching the plastic bag,wood burning and zip car debates: Most Davis citizens must not perceive stress levels in Davis haven’t reached really difficult levels. If we were in a community where the financial stress of the city and people were much higher, plastic bags and wood burning wouldn’t make it on the city council agenda. I mean really – you only debate or spend time on these petty things because people perceive that that there aren’t more important issues to debate.
“I keep thinking about the poor folk… the ones cannot afford to purchase reusable bags”
Seems to me pretty obvious that they would be issued reusable bags one way or another. It would be cheaper than passing the true costs of the bags on to the consumer – at least in the medium term.
Alan: My parents took offense to your comment, they said they have been using reusable bags for years.
I would say the “ban the plastic bag” issue is losing mightily/not very popular in this blog!
So much passion about plastic bags? Just a request for clarification:
“They would be required to offer free or for-sale reusable bags or charge customers 25 cents for paper bags.”
1. Would the charge be for “paper” bags or “plastic” bags?
2. Would the 25 cents be a required purchase price, or a tax? I don’t see how a merchant can be required to set the price of an item, but a tax, much like the current bottle tax, would be reasonable.
A final observation: The question may become moot. It is my understanding that Walmart is already planning to phase our or charge for plastic bags, and as Bob Dunning points out, Costco does not offer them. Perhaps the big boxes are taking the lead on this environmental issue. That would be interesting.
I score this 6 against, 4 pro ban, and 3 no clear stated position. This doesn’t appear to be losing mightily from my perspective.
I happened to go to the dump to day and find it hard to believe that Mr. Rifkin considers this pristine bicycle riding territory. There were too many plastic bags on the side of the road to count. To Mr. Rifkin’s defense, I also didn’t see any bags “flying out of the landfill and landing on or flying over County Road 28H”. They must have come from some other source other than people’s garbage cans.
[i]”They must have come from some other source other than people’s garbage cans.”[/i]
They come from people like you who drive to the dump with in pickups.
I can’t believe that something so simple to solve still has so many people with their undies in a bunch. What part of “make the damn bags biodegradeable” do they not understand? As far as paying a small price for bags, I rarely get out of a grocery store for less than $40 so paying another quarter or fifty cents for bags wouldn’t create much of a problem. People will still have the option of bringing their own bags if they choose to do so.
Arguably, the total ban of flimsy plastic bags and charging for paper bags will affect the average Davis resident more than the Wildhorse Ranch project would have. Yet a small group want to tell everyone how to behave via what could be as little as a 3-2 vote of 5 people on a Tuesday night, and one of those 5 have not been elected by the community at large. I propose that the proponents spend the next year or so educating the community of the benefits of their proposal, and see if there is enough community interest (via the initiative process) to put the issue on the ballot. We have both a primary and general election next year. I see no rush. If a majority of the community want to proceed, fine. If not, the community should ignore those who would change behaviors based on governmental edict, and rely on education and example, instead.
~90% of the time I use my bags, made variously of cloth, canvas, recycled plastics, and/or nylon. About 6% of the time, I get the paper bags, which I use to contain shredded paper for recycling. ~ 3 % of the time, I can keep my purchases in only the packaging they came in.
BTW, with the ban, how will our newspapers be kept dry on rainy days?
Now there’s a thought . How about we ban both the newspaper and the bag thus saving the trees and the environment?
Just joking EMR and Rifkin!
“….you’ll be able to find enough plastic bags for your dogs poop and for your trash, you just won’t have 40-50 at one time.”
Cuba, as part of its vigorous government eco-sustainability policies, limits the production and number of bags available to Cuban grocery shoppers. This has generated a “black-market” for these bags which brings a few more pesos to street-corner plastic grocery bag entrepreneurs ….
Pro Bag Ban arguments:
They waste natural resources.
They create dangers to wildlife.
They are a disposal problem.
Anti Bag Ban arguments:
If I want to waste resources, it is my right because I’m paying for it.
It’s not that big of a problem.
There are more important issues.
I don’t believe it is within people’s rights to waste when there are reasonable alternatives. I also think this is a bigger problem than people want to admit and we are trivializing it because the alternative will inconvenience us or cost us a little more. And I don’t buy into the either/or mentality; I think we can address issues like this AND tackle the more important issues.
To Adam Smith and other “bloggers” against the plastic bag ban.
Y’all are thinking too much about this. Who cares? My point was plastics bags won’t cease to exist, and you’ll be able to find them around to use for stuff. You may not be able to reach from wherever you are sitting right now to grab one (my guess is we all have 40-50 plus bags in our house at this very moment!) but you will have them. Plenty of them.
So quit whining about “false sense of urgency” and “freedom of choice” and move on to more important things in life.
Plastic is bad. Producing slightly less of it (that is what we are talking about) is good. End of story. Banning them from supermarkets is fine, it is pretty much a non-issue / who cares, and you’ll all forget about this issue one year after it eventually happens, saying “huh, I still have plenty of convenient plastic bags and I’m not a Communist, life is pretty good, I don’t feel much different than when I had 40-50 bags instead of only 10.”
You greenie good earthers are more than welcome to bring your your little cloth bags to the market if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside but leave the rest of us alone.
cd: “Plastic is bad. Producing slightly less of it (that is what we are talking about) is good. End of story. Banning them from supermarkets is fine, it is pretty much a non-issue / who cares, and you’ll all forget about this issue one year after it eventually happens, saying “huh, I still have plenty of convenient plastic bags and I’m not a Communist, life is pretty good, I don’t feel much different than when I had 40-50 bags instead of only 10.”
Shall we ban all plastic? Where does it end. Let’s ban alchohol bc of all the deaths it causes from drunk driving…
I’m wondering if ban advocates don’t realize that “more public education” cuts both ways for those who are trying to prohibit any particular act or thing. We’ve seen this process before:
[u]Step 1[/u]. Someone comes up with something that makes life easier or better. We love it.
[u]Step 2[/u]. We find out that (as usual) there are unanticipated consequences or that some negative trade-offs are more substantial than we thought they’d be. We educate and adjust our habits to reduce the bad effects.
[u]Step 3[/u]. Some early adopters of the new approach decide that their neighbors aren’t being responsive fast enough and demand a ban so all those recalcitrants will be forced to do the right thing.
[u]Step 4[/u]. The battle is joined. The specifics don’t matter; first, it’s pretty much philosophical. It’s the end of our environment and the world versus the end of freedom and the American Way. Both sides undertake education campaigns to convince the public or, at least, the potential ban’s decision-makers. Interests that would end up as a ban’s financial winners and losers start throwing money around to influence the outcome.
[u]Step 5[/u]. One side (almost always the green side, interestingly) exaggerates for effect so much that the anti-ban forces usually win the education/propaganda war and, eventually, of the ban battle.
[u]Step 6[/u]. With an outright prohibition off the table, the majority of the environmentalist team return to their original and fallback educational program encouraging voluntary compliance. That allows the anti-ban folks free to move on to the next perceived threat while keeping an eye on the minority of banners they figure will keep lurking until they spot another opening to start the cycle again. “¡Tierra y Libertad!”
The best recent local confirmation for this universal process is the attempt to outlaw wood-burning in Davis–which failed once better education led the public and the city council to realize that the problems were being misrepresented and the ban idea would be ineffective and unnecessary.
It looks as though the next NRC major goal, the “elimination of plastic bags” in Davis, is headed down the same route. Does our city council and staff really have time to engage in another divisive Battle of the Bans?
JustSaying: Nice post.
Once upon a time, people used to aggitate for cause and then go back to their jobs and lives. Now we have career aggitators. They cannot stop because their causes define them more than their jobs and lives do.