So, we may factor in the costs of producing billions of plastic bags but not the cost to the environment that is paid for by your tax dollars to clean up the mess.
In today’s Sacramento Bee, there is an op-ed by Lisa Foster, described as “a social entrepreneur and president of 1 Bag at a Time Inc., a company she founded in 2005 to introduce reusable bags to American consumers.”
She writes, “In California, many cities have banned plastic bags, but none have placed a fee or tax on them. That’s because plastic bags are tax-free here, by law.”
“The law known as California Assembly Bill 2449, also known as the bag recycling law, prohibits governments at all levels from charging any type of fee or tax on plastic bags,” she continues.
She adds, “It expires a year from now on Jan. 1, 2013. If cities have a right to regulate as they see fit, it’s a law that should be allowed to expire.”
A tax can become an incentive to reduce usage or stop it altogether, and it can become a fund by which to supplement those who might be less able to afford reusable bags which will become the industry standard within certainly the next ten years, if not the next five years.
Is a tax a dirty word and thus too onerous to carry out? Ms. Foster argues no, and she points to Washington DC, a city with a large disadvantaged population.
She writes, “It’s a tax you’ll never have to pay, and most people won’t, if what happened in Washington, D.C., is any indication. City leaders there imposed a mere 5 cent tax on plastic carry-out bags in January 2011, and plastic bag use fell off by 50 percent, according to the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue.”
She argues, “No one is sorry that revenues are less than a third of the original income estimates. It’s a tax that can reduce government spending by literally reducing waste.”
How much does clean up and landfill expenditures of plastic bags cost? Back in 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors calculated the amount as 17 cents per bag.
According to Ms. Foster, the Board of Supervisors was going to impose that on the use of plastic bags, however, “while this measure was being debated, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 2449, outlawing the proposed tax.”
So the Board of Supervisors said fine, and banned bags altogether.
Writes Ms. Foster, “Their bag ban – as all bans since then – does not fully prohibit all plastic bags from all establishments. Supermarkets and pharmacies with more than 10,000 square feet of retail space cannot hand out thin plastic bags, but mom-and-pop stores, liquor stores, convenience stores, take-out restaurants and the like can continue to hand out as many as they like.”
On the other hand, “Supermarkets are allowed to hand out thicker plastic bags, which the law defined as reusable.”
However, she argues that as a result, there is an unintended consequence which might be that there is more plastic, rather than less plastic in circulation.
She writes, “San Francisco and other cities continue to spend time and resources strengthening and widening the bans to make them more effective.”
“Bag fees are easier and fairer to implement,” she argues. “Big stores and small stores are affected proportionally. If you forget your bag, the remedy is a simple fee. If you don’t want to pay the fee, remember your bag. It’s a pay-as-you-throw system – a tax you don’t have to pay.”
Many people on this site have defended the use of plastic bags, arguing that the poor will be negatively impacted as they will not be able to afford the reusable bags.
Ms. Foster has a counter to that argument, arguing, “The truth is that there is no free bag for the poor or anyone else.”
How so, you ask? Because, in a way, people pay for the bags one way or another, it is just that right now, you do not notice that you are paying for them.
She writes, “According to Trash Free Maryland, a nonprofit group committed to trash reduction, average Maryland consumers pay $37.50 in hidden bag costs every year. Stores embed the cost of bags into food and other products to cover their expenses and pass the cost along to consumers as a hidden cost.”
Moreover she writes, “Municipalities also hide costs for bags in taxes to clean up and landfill all those bags. According to Heal the Bay, California cities, states and counties spent an estimated $1.3 billion in 2009 for litter clean-up.”
She argues, “How much of that is for bags we will never know, but it is likely that the poor are disproportionately hit by budget cuts in services even as government outlays for trash disposal continue unabated.”
“California cities should have the right to regulate carry-out bags as they see fit,” she argues.
She concludes, “Whether they seek to ban bags or impose fees, local municipalities should be able to decide. If sunshine is the best disinfectant, then let’s clean up our act by allowing the light of day to shine on the true price of carry-out bags, and let the sun set on AB 2449.”
We agree. We do not know the ideal way to approach this issue. But we need to begin having a mature discussion, omitting the scare tactics on both sides and figuring out the best way to solve this problem.
Many consider this a solution in search of a problem. Given the costs and wastefulness, I think they are largely burying their heads in the sand.
It is not just about Davis, Davis is only a small city in the midst of a much larger nation and globe. We teach our kids to think globally and act locally, but how responsible are we being if we ignore the broader global problem simply because we do not see a lot of plastic bags flying around our neighborhood?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A plastic bag tax is already being implemented in MD as we speak, so CA is “way behind” other states on this “environmental” issue. Secondly, environmentalists insisted plastic bags were better than paper; now are insisting paper should be given out rather than plastic; now concede there are not a lot of plastic bags flying around as previously claimed; now concede Davis plastic bags probably do not find their way into the ocean as previously claimed, so how much credibility do environmentalists have on this issue? Thirdly, there is no question the poor will be adversely impacted unless given free reusable bags. Fourthly, the dye issue on reusable bags needs to be addressed.
Personally, I think the plastic bag ban proposal is a solution in search of a problem. My fear is it will end up being a slippery slope to more “environmentalism run amok” as is the case in San Francisco. My youngest daughter was renting a room in a house in which there were six separate trash cans for different types of recyclables. I would much prefer the convenience and cleanliness of plastic bags, and have the recycling done at destination (the dump/landfill)…
“Secondly, environmentalists insisted plastic bags were better than paper; now are insisting paper should be given out rather than plastic”
No one is insisting that. No one. The move is towards reusable bags and those are not paper.
the vanguard, in another article, ripped on its readers for focusing too much on plastic bags, and not focusing enough on “the real issues” like water/sewer after it had written previous opinions on the plastic bag ban. now the vanguard changes its mind again and decides plastic bag ban is an issue needing serious attention…
“Lisa Foster, described as “a social entrepreneur and president of 1 Bag at a Time Inc., a company she founded in 2005 to introduce reusable bags to American consumers.”
So we all know where she’s coming from. I say the numbers she uses in her article are very skewed to push an agenda. 17 cents per bag? First of all there’s no way to determine that, it’s just SF supervisors throwing out numbers. I would venture to say that the cost per plastic bag is closer to zero. We don’t send out crews specifically to pick up plastic bags, they might pick some up if they are on a cleanup crew to pick up ALL TRASH. Once in the dumps the bags are just part of the fill that includes ALL TRASH. No special treatment is put towards plastic bags that is not administered to ALL TRASH. If plastic bags are going to be taxed then why not tax ALL TRASH.
David is correct… many (if not most) of those pushing for the elimination/taxation of single use plastic bags want to eliminate/tax the use of paper bags, as well. My significant other and I use reusable bags from home ~ 97% of the time… our choice… ironically, many of the bags we use are made (in part) of re-processed plastic bags…. there are many members of the Davis community who are “two-faced”… they want to be ‘pro-choice’ when it comes to them, but want to dictate others’ choices when they don’t like those choices made by others.
“they want to be ‘pro-choice’ when it comes to them, but want to dictate others’ choices when they don’t like those choices made by others.”
Thank you, you are ‘pro-choice’ when you and your wife choose to use reusable bags but hopefully you don’t condone telling others they have to use reusable bags too.
Yeah, I’m fine with the idea that you can choose to use single-use bags but you’ll have to pay for their production and clean up.
Mr. civil rights and standing up for the little man against police brutality – wants to criminalize behavior as benign as driving too and from the grocery store with groceries in a plastic bag.
“Mr. civil rights and standing up for the little man against police brutality – wants to criminalize behavior as benign as driving too and from the grocery store with groceries in a plastic bag. “
Really? Show me one place where I said I want to criminalize this – show me one.
“Yeah, I’m fine with the idea that you can choose to use single-use bags but you’ll have to pay for their production and clean up.”
No, you’re fine with the idea of having the the plastic bag taken away as one of my options. David, how much trash do you and your family produce from your home? Are you paying for the production and cleanup of all of that individual trash?
[quote]I’m fine with the idea that you can choose to use single-use bags but you’ll have to pay for their production and clean up. [/quote]The “production” people already pay for… you had that right too… built into the ‘price of doing business’. The clean-up part is interesting… unless the tax/charge goes to the entities who actually pickup ‘bag litter’, it’s just a tax/fee. For those who responsibly dispose of paper/plastic bags, they are already paying for disposal… built into garbage rates. I don’t think a ban will lower consumer costs at either end of the ‘stream’… I might be wrong, but I doubt it… other market forces govern. Quite frankly, I don’t see plastic/paper bag use as being a truly economic issue.
Rusty, under this plan you could still have the option of plastic bags. My ultimate goal is get down close to zero waste. I certainly think we as a society and Davis as a community can get there. I’d like my kids to still have a decent chance at a good life. I worry that past generations have lacked on the stewardship part of making that possible.
I’d point out to Kane that no proposals that I have seen criminalize the use of bags. The control would be on the supply not the consumer side and it would carry fines not criminal sanctions. The environment is a big area that needs government intervention so long as the economy doesn’t factor in externalities.
“I’d like my kids to still have a decent chance at a good life.”
And banning plastic bags is going to do that for them?
“My ultimate goal is get down close to zero waste.”
So you and your friends in Davis are just getting started.
I am delighted that so many people have taken an interest in finding better uses for waste plastic bags and to find the right solution to keeping them out of our streams, rivers and eventually- the ocean.
I have spent several years working with organizations like Ocean Recovery Alliance (www.oceanrecov.org) and have some away with the feeling that the real culprit isn’t here, but primarily in Asia. Cities where garbage is routinely dumped at sea without any concern for its long-term impacts.
Paper vs. plastic in a landfill is a moot point- paper turns to methane in a landfill, which is 21 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. Banning plastic just shits one environmental problem to another one.
The right answers are twofold:
1) Help fund solutions to cleaning up the sea. I have talked with the EPA and there are zero funds for this kind of work. What about a voluntary $.25 donation on each plastic bag used at a store, colllected at the register and pooled and sent on the US EPA for use in cleaning up these messes? A city like Davis could quickly generate a very substantial fund, and the program could be used as an example that could be used across the nation.
2) Recycle all waste. Whatever kind of bag you use, whatever kind of waste generated- it needs to find a better use than being thrown into a hole in the ground. Communities like Davis should lead the nation in developing innovative waste recycling programs. I work in waste gasification – where 100% of the waste placed into the system is turned into clean gas and recycled products. http://www.sierraenergycorp.com is based here in Davis for example.
In short, intelligent financing based on plastic bags could be the solution to a global problem.
“And banning plastic bags is going to do that for them? “
By itself no. But changing the way we consume and eliminating waste could.
In our household, supermarket plastic bags are used as small container waste container liners and disposable diaper container liners. I do not think that we ever throw out an intact plastic bag of this type without “recycling” it. We do have our own grocery bags(cloth) that we use most times. We would definitely be purchasing more plastic bags to replace these free grocery plastic bags.I wonder how many in Davis have a similar experience and just how many of these intact plastic bags are discarded intact and without secondary reuse.
[quote]I do not think that we ever throw out an intact plastic bag of this type without “recycling” it. [/quote]Sorry to get technical, but you describe “re-use”…. which is good, but it is not “recycling”… recycling would be to take the used plastic bags, and use the matter to make new plastic bags, or carpeting, insulation, etc. Zero waste+no consumption. Good luck with zero greenhouse gas production… that would require every mammal to stop breathing (and eating chili!). Even if you stop breathing, your rotting corpse will emit greenhouse gases. We need to be efficient, and good stewards of resources. Zero waste? Not a happening thing… minimizing waste, re-using, recycling, in an environmentally & economically responsible fashion = good thing.
It is all about the costs of litter –
The current proposal before the Davis Natural Resources Commission is actually a somewhat watered down version of restrictions placed on single-use bags in 15 other jurisdictions in California including San Jose, Palo Alto, Santa Clara Co., Marin County and others in Northern California. These municipalities are considered among the best run (and cleanest) cities in California. Over 50 other cities or counties in California are also actively considering similar restrictions. So Davis is actually way behind the curve in this matter. Even whole countries now have placed severe restrictions on the use of single-use plastic bags including complete bans in places with completely different political systems ranging from China to Ireland.
The rationale for eliminating the use of plastic bags varies depending on the locale. China has restricted the use because they claim it utilizes vital natural resources (imported petroleum) which can be used elsewhere more beneficially in their society.
Many coastal locales such as San Francisco and LA County are opposed to distribution of plastic bags because many of the bags do actually end up in the ocean and/or foul their beaches. While few of the waste bags in Davis probably reach the ocean, they still end up in the City’s storm water holding ponds where hundreds must be collected every year else they head on out to the wetlands.
Indeed, the strongest argument against plastic bags is that they are a severe litter nuisance and locally require countless thousands of dollars annually just to pick them up and contain the litter. Naysayers only have to take a trip to our local landfill where they can see thousands of these bags fluttering in the wind. Wind-borne plastic bags are so problematic that the county had to construct huge cyclone fences to try to catch and contain the bags before they are blown off site. Even with the fences, though, one can often see 2 or three people at a time walking the periphery of the landfill picking up the bags and retrieving escapees that have blown onto neighboring properties.
Some may say, “Who cares?…That’s the dump’s problem!” But it is actually a problem that every ratepayer in Davis subsidizes through increased utility fees. And hardly a day goes by when I am walking along the bike paths in Davis when I don’t see at least a few wayward plastic bags. I have talked to the Parks and Rec crews on a number of occasions and have been repeatedly told that plastic bags are the number one litter problem in our parks and along our paths. I have talked to Davis Waste Removal and have been told that plastic bags are the number one contaminant in our green waste and recyclable waste streams. They also claim that the plastic bags are continually jamming their sorting and disposal equipment because they are wrapped around gears and conveyor belts. Who pays for this? The citizens of Davis through increased waste disposal fees.
The cleanup of these bags requires real people that are paid real money out of municipal and county coffers. A number of estimates have been made by various entities as to how much this litter actually costs a municipality. The average of these cost estimates comes to between 1.5 to two cents for every single bag that is distributed within a city. The study most often cited is the City of San Francisco where in their Environmental Review document supporting their restrictions they claim to spend $8.5 million dollars per year on the problem. $8.5 million divided by 1,000,000 population divided by 500 bags per person (the California average use) equals about 1.7 cents per bag. (Note that the original submittal to the NRC had a typo which incorrectly reported this number at 17 cents per bag). Even if the residents of Davis are using only half as many bags per capita and it costs the same 1.7 cent cost per bag to clean up, the City is still spending over $250,000 per year in all to clean up all the plastic bags or deal with the problems they cause in our waste collection stream (68,000 people times 250 bags per person times 1.7 cents per bag).
Why should the entire ratepayer base in the City have to spend this amount of money annually so some people have a “choice” of bags at the grocery store? I would much rather just charge a fee for all single use bags and have that fee go to the local public works department to pay for the cleanup. But since this is not possible in California, the only other option is to restrict the distribution of plastic bags to eliminate them from the waste stream.
And by the way, the very powerful California Grocers Association is on record as supporting a statewide ban on plastic bags. They are a giant headache for them also.
Mike Hart
Appreciated your post and think that this is the direction in which we should be heading.
I truly believe that minimization of waste should be encouraged to the point where it becomes the new norm to replace the thoughtless consumption that has characterized much of my time on this earth in this society. like many of you, I would favor that this be done voluntarily rather than by law. But I think it is irresponsible to pretend that there is no problem just because it has not blown onto our doorstep.
The Cuban government severely severely restricts the manufacturing and distribution of these grocery plastic grocery bags as part of their policies supporting economic and environmental sustainability. Many of these bags end up sold for reuse on street corners by those who need a few extra pesos….a secondary benefit
medwoman
I think that we are talking about two different issues though when it comes to waste generation. I agree with you that plastic bags are a problem that needs to be resolved. But I am focused on the waste in the Pacific Ocean and the waste characterization studies are all very solid as to the source of waste being Asia and many Pacific islands where they have inadequate means of disposal. That is not to say that plastic bags aren’t a problem! I am just suggesting that there is no funding of any sort right now to help clean-up the problem in the Pacific and that a voluntary fee on the bags being used here could go a very long way toward solving the problem there.
[i]”So Davis is actually way behind the curve in this matter.”[/i]
Which ironically means that Davis is far in front of these other communities that have increased shopper inconvenience by implementing bans on plastic bags.
Being late to the race to the bottom is nothing to fret about.
Mike Hart: You make great sense. I am with you on your analysis and recommendations.
Solution in search of a problem in Davis.
[i]”While few of the waste bags in Davis probably reach the ocean, they still end up in the City’s storm water holding ponds where hundreds must be collected every year else they head on out to the wetlands**.”[/i]
The first part of this sentence is true … but the second probably is not.
Maybe five times over the last 20 years I have participated in the one-day annual clean-up of the West Davis Pond. (Due to family responsibilities I have not done so for the last five years.) I think Mike is accurate that at the WDP there are somewhere between 200 and 400 plastic bags which make their way from storm sewers to the pond each year. Most of them are in the southeast-most corner (near Arlington Blvd). Maybe half of the plastic that makes it there is wrapper-pastic. That is, food-packing wrappers. The other half is a combination of the to-go bags that Greenwald hopes to ban and the kind of plastic bags everyone uses to hold a handful of carrots or tomatoes or apples or broccoli. (Most of the rest of the clean-up of the WDP is simply picking up trash that people toss over the fences which surround the pond.)
Where I think Mike is mistaken is with the notion that this pond garbage will make it out to “the wetlands.” I concede it is possible that a bird might pick up a plastic bag from the ponds and deposit it elsewhere. But the ponds don’t flow anywhere else.
**Does any Davis stormwater flow directly to a wetland? If this happens and this is what Mike is saying, I did not know that. The only place I could imagine this taking place is around the bike/pedestrian path north of Willowbank in South Davis. That water is … disgusting.
DG –[quote]The control would be on the supply not the consumer side and it would carry fines not criminal sanctions.[/quote]
David, when a judge orders a ‘fine’ as the only sanction in a criminal matter is that fine NOT a criminal sanction?
[quote]“There is a running thread in the commentary I have seen opposing plastic bag bans – [u]many are acting as though this was an idea invented in Davis, and thus ludicrous.[/u]”[/quote]Funny, I think I’ve read all of the [u]Vanguard[/u] articles on plastic bag bans and never, [u]never[/u] saw such a “running thread in the commentary.”
How many people have even suggested that the idea of banning bags was “ludicrous” because it was a concept “invented in Davis”? I’ve reread today’s commentary several times and haven’t found any examples here.
So, is this ridicule of your opposition a good way to lead off your commentary on “A Different Approach To Regulating Plastic Bags”? Or, is setting up a phony straw man critical to making your argument? (I’m also wondering what’s the “Different Approach” you’re advocating for regulation?)[quote]“But we need to begin having a mature discussion, omitting the scare tactics on both sides and figuring out the best way to solve this problem.”[/quote]Great idea, maybe we could start here instead of saying that people who have a different view than yours “are largely burying their heads in the sand.” Act locally?
[quote]“It’s a tax you’ll never have to pay, and most people won’t, if what happened in Washington, D.C., is any indication. City leaders there imposed a mere 5 cent tax on plastic carry-out bags in January 2011, and plastic bag use fell off by 50 percent, according to the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue.” [/quote]Here’s Ms. Foster’s argument for establishing a bag tax. I’m still trying to decipher it.
Ms. Foster’s “op-ed” view is understandable–she’s sells bags, but not the “single-use” ones she wants punitively taxed. She also out after her competitors who sell [u]recycled[/u] PP fabric bags (“the quality is not very good, and it is very expensive to make”). I’m sure she’s for us buying the bags she sells, however, regardless of the cost ($9 jute, $29 SnapSac Bundle in popular colors).
I’m pleased to be a multiple-use bags buyer–we’ve a half-dozen in the car, large, small, insulated, etc. But, I’m sure it has very little to do with Ms. Foster’s lobbying efforts to get rights for cities to tax consumers more than they do.
[i]”The Cuban government severely severely restricts …”[/i]
… voting, free speech, civil rights, everything about liberty, free association, freedom of conscience, freedom to form political parties, freedom of religion, freedom to criticize the Castro dictatorship, the freedom to travel, free enterprise, freedom to move … and plastic bags. Ah, you have to love communism … if you hate liberty.
[img]http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451eb0069e2012877075257970c-800wi[/img]
This reminds me of all the activist attempts to outlaw disposable baby diapers in the late 1980s early 1990s. The media ran with the story that disposables were polluting the environment. Eventually someone did a study that demonstrated the higher pollution caused by processing cloth diapers, and the activists went back to their caves. Seems they are all back fighting the plastic bag battle now.
What these environmental activists really seem to be against is people. They don’t like so many people. It would be better if we could just get rid of so many people so we can all live some bohemian minimalist lifestyle.
So in this new world order where I have to ride my bike to work because Obama has forbade any new drilling and environmental attorneys have blocked all frac drilling, where will I store all my multi-use bags and how will I transport my groceries to my home? I guess environmentalist activists want me to go on a diet too.
JB: [i]”So in this new world order where I have to ride my bike … where will I store all my multi-use bags and how will I transport my groceries to my home?”[/i]
Jeff, here are three possibilities for you:
[img]http://www.bicyclelaneindustries.com/bli/cartbike/cartbikefrontside.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.spraguephoto.com/stock-photos/06bd323-Many-carrying-heavy-load-on-bicycle-cart.-Dhaka,-Bangladesh.|15091.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07_28/bike_cart.jpg[/img]
Jeff
” I guess environmentalist activists want me to go on a diet too.”
If your BMI is over 25 that would be a good idea, both for your health and longevity, but also in terms of decreasing over all health care expenditures and conserve medical equipment and supplies. Talk about a win-win proposition!
Rich – I just love the shopping cart bike! Where can I get one? I’ll never use a plastic bag again!!
“…Obama has forbade any new drilling….”
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/29/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-claims-there-has-been-just-one-ne/[/url]
AB2449 is classic special-interest legislation, and should certainly be allowed to expire.
Regarding AB 2449:
http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/current_legislation/ab2449_06
Supporters:
Alameda County Waste Management Authority
Californians Against Waste
California League of Conservation Voters
Planning & Conservation League
Sea Turtle Restoration Project
City of Adelanto
City of Millbrae
Sierra Club California
Poly-America (maker of recycled plastic trash bags)
Trex (maker of recycled plastic lumber)
***
I’m confused.
[i]”Obama has forbidden any new drilling …”[/i]
I have a nephew who owns a company which raises investment dollars for oil and gas wildcatting–some of it in California*, but most in Texas (where he lives), Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas. Just so Jeff understands that not only is Jeff wrong to think Obama has shut down new drilling off-shore, Obama has never stopped any new drilling for oil or gas in the heartland, either. We may be well past peak, but new oil is being found every week.
Drillers don’t lack anything to keep trying to extract fossil fuels. In fact, due to fracking, gas production in the US is way up since 2008 ([url]http://205.254.135.7/naturalgas/review/[/url]).
[img]http://www.tylertexas.info/images/postcards/east-texas-oil-field.jpg[/img]
*My nephew funded a gas hit in Colusa County a couple of years ago.
Other than shutting down deep water drilling, and supporting congressional Dems continuing to block drilling in ANWR, the EPA under Obama has denied or blocked several permits required by oil companies. Obama has blocked the Keystone Pipeline. He has blocked shale drilling in Ohio. There are currently 100+ offshore drilling plans awaiting review by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Total permits issues are down over 30 percent from the historical average even after the deep water moratorium was lifted.
Gas was $1.90 when he came into office, it has been over $3.00 for most of his presidency.
Gosh, that’s a lot different than “Obama has forbidden any new drilling” and certainly different than the whopper Michelle Bachmann told. You’re right: this isn’t the Bush administration. But permits are definitely being approved. Keystone has been delayed. I’d be willing to bet that it will proceed within a year. ANWR won’t happen.
Your gas price comparison is an amazing bit of cherry-picking, considering that gas was over $4.00 a gallon in August 2008.
[url]http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx[/url]
So I guess the Obama energy policy is better than the Bush policy was. Hm.
Seriously, apparently your hostility to the Obama administration isn’t even constrained by facts.
Now, back to the plastic bag issue…let’s just pass this thing and get it over with. It’s a trivial issue and the proponents have made major concessions to make it workable.
Obama did forbid drilling for months after the deep water Horizon disaster.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/gas.jpg[/img]
What is interesting about gas prices compared to the same during the Bush administration… the economy was humming during most of the Bush admininstration and so the cost of gas was explainable by simple supply and demand. In fact, you can see where gas prices fell as a result of the economy. Also we had the gulf hurricanes that knocked out the main refineries.
But, since the Great Recession, oil and gas demand has fallen and we have not had any hurricanes. However, gas prices have continued to soar.
Remember how the media and Dems beat up Bush for high gas prices? Apparently Obama gets a pass for the same.
We set the bar much lower for Obama’s performance expectation. I think I know why, do you?
“Eventually someone did a study that demonstrated the higher pollution caused by processing cloth diapers, and the activists went back to their caves. Seems they are all back fighting the plastic bag battle now.”
That “someone” (or at least one of the “someones”) was Proctor & Gamble, which owns Pampers, so one could hardly call this report unbiased. This study basically used different accounting procedures for cloth diapers than it used for disposables, and took as a major assumption that the energy in the disposable diapers was recovered in a waste-to-energy facility (which, by and large, did not happen).
Also, on the cloth diaper side, a lot of energy-intensive steps were attributed to cloth diaper use (such as multiple soakings, bleach and even ironing)–several of which are not necessary, and/or have not been widely practiced since the 1950s (ironing diapers).
Environmental issues are complex, to be sure, and we probably do not know the extent of environmental impact from disposable plastic bags. However, there has got to be a happy medium between mindless super-consumption and a “bohemian minimalist lifestyle,” and if people will not do it by choice, some kind of regulation is the way to go. We are going to end up leaving our children and grandchildren a dump upon which to live, and that is not fair.
Part of the problem is that these products are convenient. Disposable diapers and single-use plastic bags are both great inventions saving humans many hours of time/labor. That extra time can be used for other economic pursuits or for relaxation to recharge batteries to deal with a stressful life.
I have a much greater concern that we are leaving our children and grand children a dump of poor economic opportunity than I am worried they will have too much polution to deal with. We have done a fantastic job protecting the environment… often at the expense of economic growth.
I love the outdoors. I have a small second home in the mountains and like nothing more than climbing Mt Lassen or Brokeoff Mt. in Lassen park when there are few people and nothing but pristine nature. Frankly, the biggest polution problem in this area are from people without the means to pay for a trip to the dump, instead dumping their old appliances and trash in the forest.
Poor people tend to be less friendly to the environment since this is something higher up the scale of human needs and they are focused on the lower level needs of keeping food on the table and keeping a roof over their head.
This is why I see some of the more rabid environmentalists as wacko… they push for more and more regulation that hurts the economy and makes living more expensive… while they also opine to help poor people.
Of course, the 2/3 drop in oil production from Africa’s largest oil producer through 2011 wasn’t a factor, nor the unrest in the Arab world. Right. It must be Obama’s fault.
Your statement was flat-out wrong. Michelle Bachmann’s was an outright lie. And apparently you can’t even acknowledge that. Obama derangement syndrome knows no bounds.
“Poor people tend to be less friendly to the environment”? Wow. Totally unprovable. Just demographically, I think it [i]is[/i] provable, or at least arguable, that the lower your income, the less harm you do to the environment simply by consuming less.
Banning re-use plastic bags ultimately doesn’t have to cost anyone anything.
[quote]2) Recycle all waste. Whatever kind of bag you use, whatever kind of waste generated- it needs to find a better use than being thrown into a hole in the ground. Communities like Davis should lead the nation in developing innovative waste recycling programs. I work in waste gasification – where 100% of the waste placed into the system is turned into clean gas and recycled products. http://www.sierraenergycorp.com is based here in Davis for example. [/quote]
How about disposal at destination instead of superficial plastic bag bans? Recycle all waste (as much as is feasible anyway) into something usable/useful at the dump site? What an idea! And one that makes a whole lot more sense to me…
And by the way, there was a push by environmentalists to offer paper rather than plastic, bc environmentalists finally conceded plastic bags were not a good idea even tho they themselves were the architect of plastic bag use over paper bag use to “save trees”…
[quote]DMG: “My ultimate goal is get down close to zero waste.”
rusty49: So you and your friends in Davis are just getting started.[/quote]
Yes, I have to wonder what is next on the “zero waste” agenda? Plastic bottles? Plastic wrap? Plastic syringes? Plastic linings on disposable diapers? Plastic hip replacements? Plastic in computers and other electronic appliances? Plastic candy wrappers? Plastic wrap on meats? Plastic hangers? Plastic cups, silverware? Plastic pens, pencils? Where does this campaign end? Shall we ban plastic altogether? And replace it with what?
[quote]dmg: The control would be on the supply not the consumer side and it would carry fines not criminal sanctions.
AdRemmer: David, when a judge orders a ‘fine’ as the only sanction in a criminal matter is that fine NOT a criminal sanction?[/quote]
Bingo, AdRemmer!
Don, You should read this book “THE REAL ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS: Why Poverty, not Affluence, Is the Environment’s Number One Enemy”
[quote]Drawing a completely new road map toward a sustainable future, Jack M. Hollander contends that our most critical environmental problem is global poverty. His balanced, authoritative, and lucid book challenges widely held beliefs that economic development and affluence pose a major threat to the world’s environment and resources. Pointing to the great strides that have been made toward improving and protecting the environment in the affluent democracies, Hollander makes the case that the essential prerequisite for sustainability is a global transition from poverty to affluence, coupled with a transition to freedom and democracy.
[/quote]
Hollander is talking about poor [i]countries[/i], not poor people. I doubt that he would extrapolate his thesis, as identified in reviews of his book, to anything resembling your assertion about poor [i]people[/i] being less friendly to the environment. Developing countries are often environmental disasters, making an excellent case for a regulatory role for their federal governments.
Single-use plastic bags strike me as a bit of a luxury, more likely to be widely used in affluent countries, but I have no data to substantiate that.
[i]”Developing countries are often environmental disasters, making an excellent case for a regulatory role for their federal governments.”[/i]
Economists would say: a clean environment is (effectively) a societal good which usually comes with a price. When your society is poorer, you will buy less of a “clean environment.” As you get wealthier, you tend to buy more.
That fits our pattern of development, as well as the patterns of all Western European countries, Japan, Taiwan, etc. It is more and more true of the former Warsaw Pact countries (excluding Russia). China pollutes more today than it did when 90% of the population (under Mao) was living in poverty. However, that is largely explained by the huge increase in manufacturing in China. I would bet that on a per dollar of product made, China pollutes less today than it did in Mao’s time. I assume China will be a mostly middle-class country by 2030. Chances seem strong it will, around that time, evict the Communist Party and thereafter demand (and pay for) a lot more environmental protection. (There is a large environmental movement in China today. But like all of civil society, it is impotent.)
If India ever becomes a middle class country, it too will likely follow the pattern of greate and greater environmental protection. However, India is not following China’s model of bottom-up development. I see no reason to think that the vast majority of India’s population in the next 20 years will be middle-class. The only saving grace of India’s idiotic top-down development model is they manufacture very little. Most Indian pollution results from coal energy production. And I would not be too surprised that the rich bureaucrats who run India will try to diminish coal and replace it with cleaner fuels over the next 20-30 years.
Don, the point was made. Poverty creates more pollution and bad environmental consequences.
[i]”When your society is poorer, you will buy less of a “clean environment.” As you get wealthier, you tend to buy more.”[/i]
This gets us back to human needs. When basic needs are met, higher level needs and wants can be considered.
The left-leaning view…
– People are made wealthy from their exploitation of natural resources that cause pollution and environmental impacts.
The right-leaning view…
– It is only because we are wealthy that we can protect the environment and wealth is created by economic activity that is reduced and destroyed by too much environmental regulation.
There is obviously a need for balance in both economic and environmental policy as they relate to each other. It would be interesting to see a fully comprehensive study of the economic impacts from moving from single-use plastic bags to reusable bags. My guess is that it would put many more people out of work and would have other secondary impacts from people buying fewer groceries and forgoing shopping when they forget to bring reusable bags with them.
The irony I see from the environmentalists on the left is that they are also the same people prone to agitate to eliminate poverty. The closing of wood mills to protect forests is a great example of this irony… many logging and milling communities lost their economy and became impoverished overnight after logging was restricted. Now they dump their old refrigerators in the forest, and put their used florescent light bulbs in the trash.
[i]”The left-leaning view… – People are made wealthy from their exploitation of natural resources that cause pollution and environmental impacts.”[/i]
I guess it depends on how far left you are going. However, my take on what ‘the left-leaning view’ of wealth creation is slightly different:
People (aka capitalists) are made wealthy from their exploitation of [s]natural resources[/s] [b]workers or peasants[/b] [s]that cause pollution and environmental impacts[/s] who are pitted against one another for the benefit of said capitalists. Likewise, rich countries (aka imperialists) are made wealthy from their exploitation of [s]natural resources[/s] [b]the people and resources of poor countries [/b] [s]that cause pollution and environmental impacts[/s] by pitting the poor countries against other poor countries which results in a vicious circle of poverty.
If all of that sounds cartoonishly stupid–it does to me–it’s pretty much what leftist political economists I had as teachers–for example, Chalmers Johnson ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson[/url])–was teaching when I was in school.
Rifkin: How could you complete a class taught by someone spouting those types of ideas?
It begs the question: how many demonstrations of stupidity or extreme nuttiness does one have to endure before disqualifying that offending person from being allowed a paid position of influence?
Rifkin and Jeff
So is it your position that people ,aka capitalists., do not “exploit” in the sense of utilize for advantage or profit, the labor of people who do not earn as much or have as high a standard of living as they have ?
This comment has been moved to our Bulletin Board: null ([url]/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=286&Itemid=192#286[/url])
[Great post by Jeff, seemed like a good topic for the bulletin board.–Don]
So, unions want to regulate plastic bags?