Friday, January 25, 2013 marked the beginning of a one-month public review of the city’s proposed ordinance for a plastic bag ban. The city has prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the City of Davis Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines.
On September 25, 2012, the City Council directed staff to contract with ESA to do an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the City of Davis Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines.
“The City of Davis has prepared a draft Initial Study and intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Friday, January 25 marked the start of the 30 day public review period, which ends at 4:30pm on February 25, 2013,” according to a communication from Utilities Manager Jacques DeBra.
“On December 6, 2011, the City adopted a Zero Waste Resolution in which the City strives to implement zero waste strategies,” the city writes. “It is the desire of the City of Davis to conserve resources, reduce GHG emissions, waste, litter and pollution. The use of single-use shopping bags (plastic, paper, and biodegradable) have negative environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, litter, water consumption, solid waste generation and effects on wildlife.”
The city adds, “From an overall environmental and economic perspective, the best alternative to single-use plastic and paper carry-out bags is a shift to reusable bags. Studies and impacts from similar policies adopted in other jurisdictions document that restricting plastic bags and placing fees on paper bags will dramatically reduce the use of both types of bags.”
“Despite their lightweight and compact characteristics, plastic bags disproportionately impact the solid waste and recycling stream and persist in the environment even after they have broken down,” the city continues. “Even when plastic bags are disposed of properly, they often become litter due to their aerodynamic nature. The bags can be blown out of the landfill by the wind. Plastic litter not only causes visual blight, but can potentially harm wildlife.”
At the local level, many cities and counties throughout California have adopted ordinances banning plastic bags, including San Francisco, San Jose, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, Alameda County and others.
The draft ordinance would apply to all grocery stores, convenience stores, liquor stores and large drugstores, approximately 45 businesses. It would apply to all events held at city facilities. It restricts the distribution of single-use plastic bags and places a minimum 10 cent paper bag pass-through fee on all paper bags.
Reusable bags may be sold for no less than 10 cents, and cannot be given out for free (except during a time-limited promotion). And the city has produced low-income exemptions.
Applicable stores include all retail establishments, not including food vendors or restaurants, that provide “Single-Use Carryout Bags to its customers as a result of the sale of a product.” These include all supermarkets, convenience food stores, foodmart, or other entities that sell canned food, dry groceries, or perishable foods.
The full list of applicable stores is available here. Examples of non-applicable businesses include Davis Ace, Newsbeat, Watermelon Music, Ken’s Bike, Fleet Feet, Mother and Baby Source, Haute Again, Office Max and any restaurants.
The initial study by the city was completed this month.
The study finds, “In an effort to characterize carryout bag use within the City of Davis, staff conducted a survey at 6 large grocery stores in Davis in August 2012. At each store, five hundred shoppers were surveyed and the number of different bag types (plastic, paper, reusable, or no bag) that shoppers carried out of the store were counted. 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.”
The study shows, “The results of the survey indicated that Davis residents already use single use carryout plastic bags at a lower rate compared to larger jurisdictions such as Los Angeles (where 96% of transactions involved single use plastic bags).”
The study found that according to the Yolo County Central Landfill, they estimate that “plastic bags make up approximately 50-60 percent of the litter and it was estimated that 1,815 man hours per year were spent picking up litter at the YCCL. This equates to roughly $34,000 a year spent for plastic bag litter clean up costs (City of Davis, March 26, 2012 NRC Staff Report).”
“Implementation of the proposed ordinance will result in the reduction of single use carryout bags from distribution and potentially reduce the amount of litter and associated aesthetic impacts and will not result in any new potentially significant aesthetics impacts,” the report finds.
The study also found, “Implementation of the proposed ordinance will have the direct physical impact of greatly reducing single-use carryout plastic bags from distribution within the City from approximately 45 larger retail establishments, and to be replaced with ‘recycled’ paper bags and reusable bags. While the exact number of carryout bags to be removed and replaced with paper or reusable bags is not known, plastic bags would not be replaced by paper bags on a one to one ratio since paper bags have a higher capacity.”
They continue: “In light of anticipated education efforts and the public’s existing concern for this issue, at least some percentage of plastic bags are expected to be replaced by reusable bags rather than paper bags.”
They find: “Any increase in the use of paper bags resulting from the proposed ordinance, coupled with any cumulative increase in paper bag use associated with the adoption of other similar ordinances from other jurisdictions located within the State of California, would be relatively small with a minimal increase in energy consumption. Any potential air quality impacts related to increased truck traffic associated with the distribution of carryout bags is expected to be less than significant.”
The study also finds: “Single-use carryout bags, when compared with reusable bags, have a much higher chance of becoming litter and entering creeks, streams, and other sensitive habitat. Implementation of the proposed ordinance would serve to reduce this type of litter and have a potentially beneficial effect to creeks, streams, and other sensitive habitat within and around the City of Davis.”
The study also expects a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as the result of the ordinance.
They write: “The data showed there was an overall reduction in the total number of carryout bags distributed and a shift to using reusable bags or no bags at all. Ultimately, Greenhouse Gas Emissions associated with the shift from plastic to paper and/or reusable bags were projected to decrease by over 20 percent (Santa Clara County, 2011). The data was considered to be conservative because it assumed that no recycling of paper bags occurred. Thus if the data was adjusted to account for existing recycling rates, the resulting greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced further.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David wrote:
> The study found that according to the Yolo County
> Central Landfill, they estimate “that plastic bags
> make up approximately 50-60 percent of the litter
There is no way that plastic bags are more than half the litter at the dump/landfill.
I pick up a lot of trash around town when I’m walking and paper napkins, Kleenex and cigarettes are what I see most often.
Why not ban paper napkins, cigarettes and Kleenex (we happen to use cloth napkins at home, we don’t smoke and I’m probably the only guy in town under 60 that carries a handkerchief)?
I don’t know who is funding this in Davis, but the “studies” that showed how bad the bags were for SF were funded by the re-usable bag industry…
“There is no way that plastic bags are more than half the litter at the dump/landfill.”
This is what the landfill told the city. The study was conducted by the landfill.
“Why not ban paper napkins, cigarettes and Kleenex “
You’ll have to have the cigarette debate another day, but my guess is that paper napkins and Kleenex are biodegradable.
“I don’t know who is funding this in Davis, but the “studies” that showed how bad the bags were for SF were funded by the re-usable bag industry… “
This was a city funded environmental study.
Councilmember Brett Lee asked me to pass along: “The city council has not approved a plastic bag ban. We have yet to discuss and vote on the best way forward.”
The comment period refers to the EIR of the draft ordinance.
“[i]The comment period refers to the EIR of the draft ordinance.[/i]”
Why are we spending time/money on an EIR if the Council hasn’t decided if this is a good idea? Who authorized the allocations of funds.
It’s a catch 22 – how do you make a decision without studying the issue?
We learned a lot for a relatively low cost.
The problem with reusable bags…
[quote]“Whatever type of bag is used, the key to reducing the impacts is to reuse it as many times as possible,” the summary states.” Grocery shoppers must us their cotton bags 131 times to see the environmental benefits touted by global warming alarmists.[/quote]
[quote]Researchers from the University of Arizona discovered that reusable bags are seldom, if ever, washed and often used for multiple purposes. Large numbers of bacteria wee found in almost all bags and coliform in half. E. coli were identified in 12% of the bags and a wide range of entire bacteria, including several opportunistic pathogens. When meat juices were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours the number of bacteria increased 10-fold indicating the potential for bacterial growth in the bags. Hand or machine washing was found to reduce the bacteria by greater than 99.9%. The results indicated that reusable bags can play a significant role in the cross-contamination of foods if not properly washed on a regular basis. A poll revealed that 97 percent of shoppers who use eco-friendly bags never washed or bleached them[/quote]
[quote]Many reusable grocery bags contain almost seven times the lead limit set by many states.
The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) released lab results showing that a number of major retailers’ reusable shopping bags contained excessive levels of lead.
[/quote]
How did Office Max and Davis Hardware (both substantial plastic bag providers) get excluded? Why would the landfill be using $60,000-a-year employees to pick up litter in the area (of which up to 60% is paper bags) and by what measure (piece, weight, volume)? What percent of the plastic bags estimated are the targeted “carry out bags” and what percent are the exempted single-use plastic/paper produce and meat bags?
“And the city has produced low-income exemptions,” you note. Details, please, on how this feel-good exclusion will work.
This “relatively low cost” study (how much?) found that Davis residents already are big reusable bag users; why not support this voluntary effort with some “relatively low cost” awareness programs. And, if non-biodegradable is bad, why not switch to biodegradable plastic and paper instead?
You don’t mention the previously incorporated store record-keeping and inspection by city employees requirements. Have they been eliminated from consideration?
Odd to see a municipality with all the financial problems that face it spending money and time to implement and enforce such an imposition on its citizens. What next, paper cups, wood burning, dress codes, snoring in apartments?
…of which up to 60% supposedly is PLASTIC bags…. Sorry.
Jeff, are you sure about these health risks? They don’t seem to be mentioned in the list of “overall environmental and economic perspective” issues here. Maybe we need an EIR that reviews all the environmental effects of this proposed ban.
It amazes me what a trigger topic this is for some. Personally I am for a ban. But since some people just hate to be told what they can and can’t do/have, charging something significant for them and not having some businesses exempt would go a long way toward getting rid of much of their single use.
As for the litter being 50-60%, they do not mean volume, I’m pretty sure they mean what escapes and needs to be recollected so as not to blow away into the environment.
How does one comment?
JS: I think an EIR on reusable bags is a good idea. I think the CDC needs to take a lead role given the potential for new superbugs to develop in the festering meat juices that these reusable bags will absorb.
How many children must we sacrifice for feel-good environmentalism?
[quote]When meat juices were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours the number of bacteria increased 10-fold indicating the potential for bacterial growth in the bags. Hand or machine washing was found to reduce the bacteria by greater than 99.9%. [/quote]
Well that is not surprising. Bacteria is everywhere. They find e.coli in our food including almost all meats, many milk samples, and a smaller percentage of fruits ad vegetables. Drinking water standards actually allow for small levels of e.coli in it. It is on public door handles and toilet seats and found on clocks and phones and cabinet surfaces in motel rooms…E.coli is truly ubiquitous.
Properly protecting yourself by minimizing exposure and personal hygiene is the only solution including washing your hands after the bathroom, thoroughly cooking meats, keeping dairy products refrigerated, rinsing your vegetables, etc.
So wash your reuseable bags occasionally along with the rest of your clothes and towels and napkins! What is the big deal with that?
[i]So wash your reuseable bags occasionally along with the rest of your clothes and towels and napkins! What is the big deal with that? [/i]
Sure Alan, and people should just wear seatbelts and helmets too.
“When meat juices were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours the number of bacteria increased 10-fold indicating the potential for bacterial growth in the bags.”
This is a rigged and inaccurate scenario to real life. Who leaves bags in the trunk for 2 hours with meat in it? And if they did, who would not leave the bags to dry out or likely wash them. Just letting them dry will quash the bacteria, they don’t live and replicate without moisture.
Also, superbugs are formed by challenge, not lack thereof.
Shopping Bags Can Also Carry Stomach Flu Virus
[url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/05/09/152328893/shopping-bags-can-also-carry-stomach-flu-virus[/url]
[quote]Shopping Bags Can Also Carry Stomach Flu Virus
[/quote]
So do people…and restaurant food…and deli counters…and school door handles…and shopping cart handles…and…well, you get the idea.
“Toronto study, the University of Arizona study and the Oregon research all have demonstrated that reusable grocery bags have the capacity to capture and host viruses or bacteria.”
“Health Canada has already issued public alerts about the need to sanitize reusable grocery bags, and the United States Military has recognized the health risk inherent in reusable grocery bags and urged proper sanitary procedures.”
“According to a recent study funded by the American Chemistry Council, 97 percent of people using reusable grocery bags do not wash them regularly—if ever. That lack of sanitation results in a dangerous mixture of bacteria scientists say may contribute to cross contamination of food.”
Sorry, maybe my question was ambiguous. How does one make a [i]public[/i] comment to the city?
Exactly Alan, and I have yet to find that the virus outside the body lasts “for weeks”. Once outside the body viruses die, more infectious ones do last longer than others, usually the range is hours (example: HIV) to 1 week (example: Hep B).
dlemongello, requiring all merchants to charge for bags seems like a much more common-sense approach. The charge could be set at actual cost or at a more severe penalty level. This triggers for me because it unnecessarily outlaws a useful practice without considering the costs and incorporating a moving target of benefits and affected parties.
Some environmental ban proposals gain widespread public support. The fact that this one doesn’t should tell our city council something important in their deliberations.
With respect to the litter figures, I think it’s clear that the estimate reflects that plastic bags make up more than half of the litter around the landfill, but by what measure? What a concept, litter at a landfill. I realize someone needs to pick up, but do we really pay $60,000 a year for the task?
That’s what raises questions for me about the $34,000 annual cost and how this could change by imposing a ban on some plastic bags in one of the cities that delivers its trash there. Did the study determine what percent were carry out bags vs. exempted plastic bags or which were from
applicable stores vs. exempted stores or which originated from Davis vs. West Sac or Woodland or wherever? I’d bet on the implied litter savings ending up closer to $0 than $34,000 before I’d put money down on this year’s Super Bowl.
Finally, this issue triggers for me because David keeps using that Safeway photo, one that either is set-up propaganda or violates the laws of thermodynamics. The noted ducks don’t buy it, and they should know how the awkwardly contorted carry out bag got in that illogical position.
“‘…Shopping Bags Can Also Carry Stomach Flu Virus’
‘So do people…and restaurant food…and deli counters…and school door handles…and shopping cart handles…and…well, you get the idea.'”
I do. And, i’d just as soon we ban every friggin’ one of them! (Well, maybe just the first one and only the ones who want to ban everyone else’s behavior.)
I can only imagine what kind of bacteria would grow on our clothes if we didn’t wash them. The answer is not to get disposable clothing – is it?
“It is estimated that there are about 76,000,000 cases of foodborne illness in the United States every year,” stated the study. “Most of these illnesses originate in the home from improper cooking or handling of foods. Reusable bags, if not properly washed between uses, create the potential for cross-contamination of foods.”
So, according to the study, we know that 97% of people who use reusable bags don’t wash them regularly, if ever, yet they should be washed after every use. So in essence, by pushing people into using reusable bags and going by their normal sanitation habits this new mandate would be putting its residents at more risk of getting an illness.
David:
“I can only imagine what kind of bacteria would grow on our clothes if we didn’t wash them. The answer is not to get disposable clothing – is it?”
David, do you transport your food in your clothing?
This type of law will be detrimental to the “other” Davis. WHat steps will be taken to make sure the lower class and minorities are not adversely affected?
[quote]The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) released lab results showing that a number of major retailers’ reusable shopping bags contained excessive levels of lead.
[/quote]
From the CCF website home page – [i]A growing cabal of activists has meddled in Americans’ lives in recent years. They include self-anointed “food police,” health campaigners, trial lawyers, personal-finance do-gooders, animal-rights misanthropes, and meddling bureaucrats….They all claim to know “what’s best for you.”[/i]
These folks have an obvious agenda and are not exactly a repository of objective information.
That said, the ordinance does contain provisions limiting heavy metals in the definition of allowable reusable bags sold by stores. They were found in paints & dyes used in Chinese-made reusable bags much like they were found in Chinese-made childrens’ toys.
Rusty: I have two babies. I wear food on my clothing quite often.
M.O.: “the city has produced low-income exemptions.”
Why exclude businesses? Make everyone play by the same rules.
And why are we spending yet more City money on an EIR? What a waste. It’s been well-studied to death in other nearby jurisdictions.
We ban those platic bags, or we don’t. And make it applicable to all shops, or not.
Mr. Obvious, good point. How adversely affected will be that part of the population who don’t have easy access to a washing machine? Being that we just had the ‘crisis’ of the possible closure of the Wash Mill in East Davis and there’s only one other laundromat in town how are these people going to keep their reusable bags sanitized?
Ban the plastic bags, retain the paper bag option and eliminate the paper bag compliance paperwork, and this thing would likely pass without much objection.
My concern has been, from the start, that a cumbersome ordinance would be enacted and then expanded to every retailer. I see that is already being advocated on this thread. I have very good reasons for giving my customers bags for their products, such as bat guano and organic pesticides. And I have every reason to expect that, if enacted, it will eventually be broadened to all of us. Because that is what happened in San Francisco. Strip this down, keep it simple, and limit it to plastic bags.
Don, It already is limited to (carry-out) plastic bags, I am not sure what you are advocating. I am sure your products come either prepackaged or if they are in bulk would be put into the still allowed “vegetable bags”. Then there is the outer bag (paper or reusable cloth or heavier plastic) it is carried home in. Please clarify.
M.O.: “the city has produced low-income exemptions.”
Twice contended, never explained. But, that’s the way to pick off another reason not to ban.
Don, have the onerous burdens on retail businesses–and the related city staff enforcement expenses and time–been eliminated? Or just left out of this story?
Is it possible that you and Davis Ace are the only ones selling toxic materials that should be in a carry-out bag rather than my filthy reusable?
Just Saying: I don’t know if the record-keeping provisions have been eliminated. I also don’t know if the outrageous penalties that were originally proposed* are still there. I could look it up, but I’ll let someone else do that. Since this story doesn’t indicate any changes to the original draft, I’ll assume it still is all the same as in our previous discussions. Requests for feedback on this topic have generally not met with any results.
* From my previous notes: “The City of Davis may impose civil liability in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for the first violation of this chapter, five hundred dollars ($500) for the second violation, and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the third and subsequent violations.”
dlemongello: I was specifically referring to boxes of organic fertilizer, which commonly leak a bit. And it is a risk with pesticides — organic or otherwise. But we also use (second-hand) plastic and paper bags for carryout of plant materials, bulbs, roots, tubers, seeds, etc. I have been assured that this ban will not apply to us, but I also repeat that San Francisco has extended the ban to all retailers. And I note the comments on this thread already pushing in that direction.
If it came to that, I’d probably just ignore it. I’m certainly not going to track my sales of paper bags.
Mr. Obvious stated:
“This type of law will be detrimental to the “other” Davis. WHat steps will be taken to make sure the lower class and minorities are not adversely affected?”
To which I replied:”Mr. Obvious, good point. How adversely affected will be that part of the population who don’t have easy access to a washing machine? Being that we just had the ‘crisis’ of the possible closure of the Wash Mill in East Davis and there’s only one other laundromat in town how are these people going to keep their reusable bags sanitized?”
So what’s your reply to this David and Alan?
Don Shor, the answer that will satisfy almost everyone is to let stores still give away paper bags without the mandatory 10 cent fee.
“So what’s your reply to this David and Alan? “
Until I see the proposal, I have no reply.
“the answer that will satisfy almost everyone is to let stores still give away paper bags without the mandatory 10 cent fee. “
That simply swaps one problem for another.
I’m not sure what Don’s objection to the fines are, but they remain in place:
[quote]Any person violating this article shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to a fine in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) for the first violation, two hundred dollars ($200) for the second violation, and five hundred dollars ($500) for the third and subsequent violations occurring within a one-year period.[/quote]
I don’t see how the ban would work without fines for non-compliance.
[quote]I don’t see how the ban would work without fines for non-compliance.[/quote]
How about we let the plastic bag ban be the restorative justice petri dish of Yolo county instead of imposing fines.
I’d be in favor of that.
[i]That simply swaps one problem for another.[/i]
It swaps paper for plastic. All of these articles focus on the litter, the waste stream, the adverse impacts of plastic bags. They barely mention the paper bags. How about if you just focus on one problem? Paper bags are recyclable, they don’t litter, they don’t blow around, they don’t get into waterways, they don’t harm wildlife.
So for example: “At the local level, many cities and counties throughout California have adopted ordinances banning plastic bags, including San Francisco, San Jose, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, Alameda County and others.”
Yes. How many of those have complicated tracking schemes and pricing structures for paper bags?
A ban on single-use plastic bags could be a single-sentence ordinance. And the fines, if any, should be a lot lower.
[i]Who leaves bags in the trunk for 2 hours with meat in it?[/i]
Meat juice from the last shopping trip… not the meat.
One problem with reusables is that many people do their grocery-shopping on the way home from work. So, they would need to carry a supply of reusable bags with them in the car.
My wife does this, and it was this last summer where I noticed a smell in the car. She also transports the dog to the park, so I thought the dog might have had an accident. I checked and the culprit was one of the bags… there was a small package of cheese that had been over-looked from a previous shopping trip and it was a massive science program by that time.
The entire episode got me thinking about the sanitation problems with reusable bags.
Sure we made the mistake of leaving a package of cheese in the bag, but the result proved that even a small amount of organic matter left in a bag stored in a hot car can explode in fungus and bacteria.
Also, it wasn’t until that point that I recognized the problem keeping these bags stored in the back of the hatchback where the dog rode. Bad idea.
So, then where do we keep the bags in the car?
Frankly, there is nowhere to keep them in a car that is sanitary enough.
Which brings me to my final repeated point… we are a car-driving society and our grocery shopping generally happens driving home from work. Reusable bags are an unsanitary option for people that do their grocery shopping this way. For those retired, underemployed, state-employed, or lucky enough to work and live within easy walking distance of a grocery store, it is much less of a problem. But the former are the majority, and the later are the minority.
My general recommendation for all the social and environmental do-gooders… get rid of the word “ban” from any and all causes where there is scant evidence that doing so would solve more problems than it would cause. Instead, focus your brilliant progressive mind on ideas to incentivize public behavior. If plastic bags are truly responsible for a social cost, then quantify that cost and tax the bags at a commensurate level and use the funds to mitigate the social cost.
Yes, you probably shouldn’t store reusable bags in a car that reaches 120F+ every day during the summer, unless you wash them very regularly. The growth rate of bacteria and fungus is very rapid under those conditions. Commuters and late-day shoppers beware.
I once had a coke can explode in my car due to the interior temperature.
In formulating any regulations, I urge the city council to consider the K-I-S-S principle.
We are so into “apples and oranges” now I don’t know where to begin. I’m sorry, but you are having a hard time differentiating the cheese from the bag, the fact that you need moisture with that to grow microorganisms. So a hot dry car is not a good incubator at all for dry residue. Coke in a closed container and open drying bags are 2 totally different animals as far as the affect of them being in a hot car. Frankly the bags can be filthy and if they are dry very little is going to happen/grow in them. Whereas if you washed them and left them in the car wet, then you’d have a real “garden” of mold and other “flora” unless the car is warm and so they dry.
Plastic bags blowing around and needing to be disposed of since they do not degrade are a problem. How to solve that problem is what we should be talking about rather than pretending it isn’t one because we are so used to our “conveniences”.
[quote]”At the local level, many cities and counties throughout California have adopted ordinances banning plastic bags, including San Francisco, San Jose, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, Alameda County and others.” [/quote]Now, what do these communities have in common with each other and not with Davis? Bob Dunning knows.
“How many of those have complicated tracking schemes and pricing structures for paper bags?”
I’ve been to several of them and they all charge for bags.
But do they track them? Charge and keep it simple.
“Now, what do these communities have in common with each other and not with Davis? Bob Dunning knows.”
But it is strange that they pick those comparison points rather than similar communities like San Luis Obispo.
[i]”Now, what do these communities have in common with each other and not with Davis? Bob Dunning knows.”
But it is strange that they pick those comparison points rather than similar communities like San Luis Obispo.”[/i]
Like Davis, all of these other cities are coastal locations.
[quote]Like Davis, all of these other cities are coastal locations. [/quote]
But then you have this:
[quote]The study found that according to the Yolo County Central Landfill, they estimate that “plastic bags make up approximately 50-60 percent of the litter and it was estimated that 1,815 man hours per year were spent picking up litter at the YCCL. This equates to roughly $34,000 a year spent for plastic bag litter clean up costs (City of Davis, March 26, 2012 NRC Staff Report).”[/quote]
That would seem to indicate that it’s a problem whether we are in a coastal area or near a wet lands and an entry point to the delta.
dlemongello… on your dry car versus wet car points…
[url]http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11604166-reusable-grocery-bag-carried-nasty-norovirus-scientists-say?lite[/url]
[i]”…This equates to roughly $34,000 a year spent for plastic bag litter clean up costs ..”
[/i]
So how much is it costing to pick up paper bags?
But to me that isn’t the critical question, the critical question is if we simply replace plastic with paper, we are maybe dealing with some of the biggest concerns specifically dealing with plastic, but we are not dealing with the core issues. And btw, what’s wrong with charging people more overtly for the bags?
Jeff, the 2 hour in the trunk part looks to be taken from the other reference without noting it was the rigged meat-juice laden bag. As for the norovirus, if it was on the bag it was also all over the other surfaces and same bathroom they shared as a common hotel room was used, even though the people were not there at the same time. And if the bag had been in a hot trunk the virus would probably have died sooner than it did in a cooler environment.
David:
“That would seem to indicate that it’s a problem whether we are in a coastal area or near a wet lands and an entry point to the delta.”
How many plastic bags have made it from Davis to either the delta or the ocean? 3? 4?
Comeon David, even the NRC gave up on pushing that phony problem.
How would we know? Have we studied the impact? Where does our water run off end up going?
And you are discounting the cost of litter pick up completely?
Alan Pryor:
“These folks have an obvious agenda and are not exactly a repository of objective information.”
I’m sure some would say the same thing about the NRC.
Why are you turning the NRC into the issue Rusty? the NRC did not conduct the studies or the EIR. They didn’t approve the expenditure of funding.
David:
“How would we know? Have we studied the impact? Where does our water run off end up going?”
How would you know?
“Why are you turning the NRC into the issue Rusty?”
Hello, the last time I looked it was the NRC pushing the bag ban.
I reuse every plastic bag that I get from the supermarket, either lining my medium-size “waste baskets” or disposing of dirty diapers. A ban will simply force me to use(and buy) plastic bags to replace the ones I now get for free. I assume that the manufacturers of plastic waste container liners are all for this ban. How about issuing a card to each household that would be punched for every plastic bag received. This could set a limit to how many each household can get/month. This would also allow for a new addition to the “underground” economy, the illicit street-corner sale of plastic bags.
…..add to this, all of the dog owners who now carry a FREE plastic bag with them to pick up their faithful canine companion’s poop, another new customer base for the plastic bag manufacturers.
“How would you know? “
I asked three questions, you have answers for any of them?
“Hello, the last time I looked it was the NRC pushing the bag ban. “
And the decision was made to do the EIR study and the draft ordinance, so at this point, so whether the NRC has an agenda has little bearing with the issue moving forward.
Sorry, David, but I’m pretty much confused by your comments here. You’re equating the Davis situation with the expansive coastal areas you’ve cited, not acknowledging that they have legitimate concerns that volumes of their bags blow out and foul up the Pacific and we don’t. Our bags blow into the fences around the landfill where we allegedly pick them up at a cost of $34,000 a year. You already know the answers to your three questions.
You also know that the NRC has a significant tie to what the council’s considering. Why chastise Rusty49? Had it not been for the dedicated NRC members and hangers on, we wouldn’t be spending a minute as a dinky little town with our dinky little contribution to the plastic and paper bag crisis. And if it weren’t for the pressure coming from them, the city council would have disposed of this matter the first time it showed up on the agenda. It wasn’t well thought out the first time around and it looks just as bad this time.
Just tax single-use bags a few cents per, and use the tax receipts to fund the clean-up. If people don’t want to pay the tax, they will use reusable bags.
I think Westlake Market charges $.05 per bag, but they are extra nice recycled plastic bags.
It would be a bit of a hassle for the retailers, but then banning plastic bags will be a bigger hassle for the retailers I think.
All right, let me ask this, what do you all think about the concept of zero waste as a goal? Because this issue is just a piece of that bigger issue. As a society we are so used to what we take for granted that we can’t even fathom giving up just one kind of plastic bag, let alone stop filling our landfills. There is work being done on how to use the waste to generate energy, since every piece of waste is a little mass of pent up energy. This may be part of the answer, but I think the other part is to use less and not pollute.
Theoretically this process can be used to turn trash into oil and other useable compounds.
[url]Theoretically this process can be used to turn trash into oil and other useable compounds.[/url]
Try again…
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization[/url]
1) I am for zero waste as a goal.
2) What Jeff is citing are articles that prove that bacteria can be grown from reusable bags. They can also be
grown off handles of shopping carts, the surfaces of products purchased from grocery stores, and your own
hands. What would be needed to determine if this is a real danger are comparative population studies of
the rates of coliform induced illness in matched populations of exclusive users of plastic vs cloth bags. The
last time this subject came up, I was unsuccessful in finding any such studies. Speaking purely anecdotally
and observationally, on three separate trips to Europe, no plastic bags were to be found. The natives all
brought their own reusable bags. I was unaware of any sweeping outbreaks of coliform disease.
3) For those who think that Davis being “dinky” means that we should be free to not at least attempt to do our
share to lower the overall amount of waste, I completely disagree. As a small, well educated, relatively
prosperous community, I see it as our responsibility to be as proactive on environmental issues as possible.
We should be a leader in this area, not dragging our collective feet.
4) To those who feel that plastic bags are “free”, I would suggest that they are not “free” just because they are
not itemized on our receipt. Their cost is simply added on to other items. As a dog owner myself, I do not
see any reason that the non dog owning members of my community should in fact be subsidizing my dog
clean up efforts by helping to purchase my “free” bags. I should either be paying for them myself, or using
biodegradables to clean up after my beloved companion.
As the suvey pointed out, our conscientious, well-educated Davis residents are leaders in voluntary use of reusable shopping bags. We are dinky in size by comparison to the other communities listed here and in our infinitesimal contribution to plastic in the Pacific. Illogical bans are the way to be proactive on environmental issues.
I chose to use reusable shopping bags and reuse every single “single use” plastic bag that comes into my possession. No one ever has picked up one of my plastic bags at the landfill or found one hanging on a bush or floating toward Hawaii. I don’t need no stinking NRC/CC ban that burdens businesses (but only some!) and their customers and increases our taxes in order do my dinky bit for environmental improvement. Let’s concentrate on things that Davis can do that will make a difference.
[i]Speaking purely anecdotally and observationally, on three separate trips to Europe, no plastic bags were to be found. The natives all brought their own reusable bags.[/i]
This isn’t Europe. Different culture. Different infrastructure. As I pointed out, a much larger percentage of shoppers are driving to the grocery store. Where do your store the reusable bags in your car? You are glossing over that problem.
The point made about people using so-called single use bags for picking up dog waste is that the bags are not single-use. And if they no longer exist, a lot of people will stop picking up the dog waste because they don’t have the money or time to purchase other bags.
We should be a leader developing community policy that is factual, measured, common-sense and that serves the greatest good… not that just satisfies some progressive worldview.
“Speaking purely anecdotally and observationally, on three separate trips to Europe, no plastic bags were to be found. The natives all brought their own reusable bags.”
I visit Europe frequently as I have family in Germany. On a recent trip I saw a Nugget plastic bag drifting down the Rhine. If you don’t belive me that a Davis plastic bag can make it all the way to Germany show me an impact study that proves me wrong.
medwoman, thank you for another of your very considered, comprehensive and constructive posts. You really have a talent for it.
[i]What Jeff is citing are articles that prove that bacteria can be grown from reusable bags. They can also be grown off handles of shopping carts, the surfaces of products purchased from grocery stores, and your own
hands.[/i]
Why are you comparing apples to watermelons?
The question is, do they grow on single-use plastic bags?
Let me answer it… No, but it would not matter anyway because they are single-use.
Single-use plastic bags are a more sanitary and safe alternative than are reusable bags for groceries. That is more than clear. Why is it so hard for some to admit?
I will certainly admit that single-use plastic bags result in more garbage than do reusable bags. It is still a bit unclear though if reusable bags save the environment. As I posted early in this thread, you would need to re-use the bag well over 100 times for there to be an environmental pay-back. Then there is the washing and bleach to prevent the growth and spread of deadly bacteria. I am guessing that the environmental impact for the water use and chemicals has not been factored.
Jeff:
“Then there is the washing and bleach to prevent the growth and spread of deadly bacteria. I am guessing that the environmental impact for the water use and chemicals has not been factored.”
You can bet your sweet bippy on that.
Jeff, I know you quoted something and stated this but how was the over 100 use thing calculated, that’s the point, what was factored in? And I doubt there is DEADLY bacteria otherwise there would be documentation of the deaths caused by them. Looks like I’m not going to convince you Jeff, but I think your premises are misplaced. Bacteria is everywhere, much of it is harmless or even beneficial bacteria we live with every day. I expect you know you are loaded with bacteria.
[i]I expect you know you are loaded with bacteria.[/i]
Now that was funny! You made my day dlemongello!
Okay now, here is the word from your loving and caring government:
[url]http://www.foodsafety.gov/blog/reusable_bags.html[/url]
Note the following:
[quote]The fabric or materials in reusable grocery bags can get contaminated with germs like Salmonella or E. coli from food or other items. These germs could then cross-contaminate other food or items we carry in the reusable bag and make us sick.[/quote]
[quote]Always put raw meats into a disposable plastic bag before putting them in a reusable bag. [b]ISN’T THAT A CRACKUP… YOU NEED TO USE A DISPOSABLE PLASTIC BAG TO SAFELY USE A REUSABLE BAG![/b]
•A disposable plastic bag helps contain any juices that drip off of raw meat packages, which can touch other foods and contaminate them. Disposable plastic bags are usually available in the raw meat or produce areas of your store.
•Throw away disposable plastic bags used for raw meat immediately after use. Never reuse bags that contained raw meat or poultry.[/quote]
[quote]Store reusable bags at home in a cool, dry place, not in the car.
•Store reusable bags in a cool, dry place, such as in your home or in the garage. Higher temperatures, like those inside of a car or a car’s trunk, can cause germs like Salmonella bacteria to grow faster.
Do not use reusable grocery bags for other purposes.
•Bags used for groceries should be used only for food. Don’t carry items such as baby bottles, toys, gym clothes, and other items in the same reusable bags that you take to the grocery store.[/quote]
All of this gets me to one of my theories that most extreme environmentalists are either unemployed, partially employed, employed by the government (where they tend to work fewer hours than their private-sector peers), or are employed by companies that make their living pushing or riding on environmental causes.
Because, I am too busy to be washing any reusable bags. Also, if I cannot store them in my car, how I am going to use them when shopping on the way home from work?
[quote]Also, if I cannot store them in my car, how I am going to use them when shopping on the way home from work?[/quote]
You could do it the way I do. Launder the bags as needed with the regular laundry. Hang them from a convenient hook, maybe near where you hang your coat or keys, pick them up with said item when walking out the door and place them in your car. It’s not difficult.
Also, you have chosen not to address what really occurs in real life. I await your comparative study between populations using reusable bags and those using plastic single use.
Also, having carried meat in a plastic bag certainly does not disqualify that bag from being used to clean up dog poop , dispose of baby diapers, or line the inside of a small trash can.