Forty-nine agencies in California have recently adopted at least some form of local ordinance discouraging the use of plastic bags and encouraging the use of reusable bags, but if staff gets its way, Davis won’t be one of them any time in the near future.
On this week’s consent agenda, staff notes that two city commissions have weighed in on this topic: “The NRC [Natural Resources Commission], which believes that moving forward now with an ordinance is prudent for the environmental benefits; and the BDEC [Business and Economic Development Commission], which believes proceeding with caution is warranted and is concerned about possible local business impacts from such a policy.”
Without explanation, staff writes that it recommends “that the City Council delay final policy direction at this time until the results of the currently active state legislation to ban the use of single-use carry-out bags state-wide are known. Thereafter, staff would return to City Council seeking final City policy direction.”
Previously, in 2011, during a joint meeting with the NRC and city council, priorities “were established for the NRC going forward, including the development of a bag policy to discourage the widespread use of plastic bags and encourage the use of reusable bags.”
In March, the NRC by a 4-2 vote put forward a recommendation that staff begin preparation of the environmental review necessary for the city council to consider the proposed Single-Use Bag Ordinance, similar to one passed in San Luis Obispo County.
The proposed ordinance approved by the NRC was almost identical to recent ordinances passed in San Luis Obispo County and the City of Sunnyvale.
As Alan Pryor wrote in the Vanguard in March, “Indeed, the format of the proposed Davis ordinance is currently somewhat of a standard for municipalities considering such regulation. Essentially, the proposed ordinance banned distribution of single-use, handled plastic bags by all sellers of grocery items and drug stores in Davis including convenience and liquor stores.”
A growing number of communities in California including San Francisco, Palo Alto, Fairfax, Malibu and Santa Monica have already acted.
Back in 2010, Julia Brownley, an Assemblymember from Santa Monica, sponsored a bill that failed in the Senate 21 against, to 14 in favor. One of those opposing it was Davis’ Senator Lois Wolk.
“This is a sad day for California,” Assemblywoman Brownley said. “Communities across the state were waiting for the state to adopt a uniform, statewide ban on single-use bags before they adopt their own ordinances. The state failed them. But, this is an environmental movement that won’t be stopped, even by big-money interests like the American Chemistry Council. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when consumers bring their own bags and become good stewards of the environment.”
That was two years ago, and in that time much has been learned about plastic bags and many more communities have banned them.
Assemblymember Brownley has introduced AB 298, co-authored with Assemblymembers Wes Chesbro, Roger Dickinson, Jared Huffman and Fiona Ma. The Senate co-authors are Senators Kevin De Leon and Noreen Evan.
According to information in the Legislative Digest: “This bill would prohibit a manufacturer from selling or distributing a reusable bag, as defined, in this state if the bag is designed or intended to be sold or distributed to a store’s customers, unless the guidelines for the cleaning and disinfection of the bag are printed on the bag or on a tag attached to the bag.”
Attached to Davis’ staff report, as well, is the city-adopted Zero Waste Resolution, “in which the City strives to implement zero waste strategies. It is the desire of the City of Davis to conserve resources, reduce GHG emissions, waste, litter and pollution.”
The city’s adopted policy indicates that “the use of single-use shopping bags… have negative environmental impacts… 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.”
The policy adds: “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. 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.”
The newly elected councilmembers in a Sierra Club survey supported some measure of reduction of the use of plastic bags, though most stop short of supporting a ban on the use of single-use bags.
“I would certainly support measures to curb the use of single-use bags,” Dan Wolk wrote. “No matter where one stands on this issue, I think we can all agree that such bags pose significant environmental and economic challenges. I commend the NRC for sparking a community dialogue on this issue and devising an ordinance to address it.”
He supports the idea of a fee on single-use bags. He writes, “This idea has not been fully explored because current state law prohibits it, but that law is set to expire on January 1, 2013. I think we should seriously explore this fee option, which has also been endorsed by the Sierra Club.”
“Single-use plastic bags are an environmental nightmare. I would really like to see CA statewide plastic bag legislation that is consistent and easily implementable,” Lucas Frerichs wrote.
He adds, “In lieu of a statewide ban, one way in moving toward a statewide law is to pass local regulations and once momentum is gained through the local legislation and best practices are known and unintended consequences are understood then passable legislation could be drawn up at the state level. The local ordinance that was just recommended for a CEQA review by the NRC has some good components and I generally support bag/styrofoam ordinances that are incentivizing in nature, not penalizing.”
At the same time he has concerns about the component of the proposed ordinance that involves the tracking of bag use by the businesses.
Finally, Brett Lee argued, “Require businesses of all sizes (no exemptions) to charge 10 cents for disposable bags (paper or plastic). Implement rule after Jan 1, 2013, since the current state law prohibiting charging for plastic bags expires on Jan 1, 2013. I am not a fan of an outright ban on plastic bags. For many consumers, the plastic bag choice is the optimal choice.”
He added, “Plastic bags and paper bags both have their environmental drawbacks. By charging for both types of bags, communities that have done this have found a dramatic reduction in uses of both.”
“I do not believe there is a need for an outright ban on either paper or plastic bags; charging for the bags should be sufficient to achieve the goals of reduction in resource use and a dramatic reduction in pollution (bag litter),” Mr. Lee wrote.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Forty-nine agencies in California have recently adopted at least some form of local ordinance discouraging the use of plastic bags and encouraging the use of reusable bags, but if staff gets its way, Davis won’t be one of them any time in the near future.”
Go staff!
“That was two years ago, and in that time much has been learned about plastic bags and many more community have banned them.”
Yes, the public has learned much, such as they know that Davis plastic bags don’t end up in the Pacific Ocean as the bag banners had attempted to tell them that they do.
[i]”The proposed ordinance approved by the NRC was almost identical to recent ordinances passed in San Luis Obispo County and the City of Sunnyvale.”
[/i]
Wow. No, it wasn’t. It wasn’t even similar to the one in SLO. . Go back and look at the old threads on this topic.
True, they end up on my front porch and in my back yard due to idiosyncrasies of the direction of the wind in my area of Old East Davis near the tracks. I think that just because the bags are not an issue for some blog participants, just as I am not particularly troubled by graffiti, which I rarely see,does not mean they are not troublesome for others. I think are three council members have made reasonable suggestions worthy of further exploration.
“I generally support bag/styrofoam ordinances”
Like many have stated, it won’t just be plastic bags. This is just the start of many more ban ordinances to come. Once they get their foot in the door……
[quote]Without explanation, staff writes that it recommends “that the City Council delay final policy direction at this time until the results of the currently active state legislation to ban the use of single-use carry-out bags state-wide are known. Thereafter, staff would return to City Council seeking final City policy direction.”[/quote]
I was at a recent BEDC meeting, in which they voted in favor of city staff’s position to put off consideration of the plastic bag ban. The reasoning of city staff was because the state’s law (AB2449) that preempts municipalities from charging a fee for plastic bags at checkout is set to sunset Jan 1, 2013, and it is expected the state will probably enact some sort of legislation to replace it. It seemed the most sensible approach was to wait and see what the state will do – since it would only be a few months away.
Perhaps we should consult with some of the more forward thinking cities and counties that have implemented a ban or restriction on plastic bags such as Austin, Brownsville, Fort Stockton,and Pecos Texas, as well as Seattle, Bellingham (WA), Portland, Los Angeles, San Jose, and Santa Clara County, to name a few. They could tell us if their ban/restriction resulted in a collapse of the local economy, bag riots, mass starvation because people had no way to carry their food home, or any other unanticipated consequences.
[quote]Like many have stated, it won’t just be plastic bags. This is just the start of many more ban ordinances to come. Once they get their foot in the door……[/quote]
What I find amusing is that environmentalists insisted the ban of paper bags to save the trees, and that is how we got plastic bags in the first place. Now environmentalist want to insist we use reusable bags. Well a group of girls at a soccer tournament got very sick (norovirus) from a reusable bag recently. See [url]http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6720/Norovirus-Outbreak-Tied-to-ReUsable-Grocery-Bag.aspx[/url]
Elaine
[quote]Well a group of girls at a soccer tournament got very sick (norovirus) from a reusable bag recently. [/quote]
I am not sure whether or not you intend this as a reason for not using reusable bags. But I would like to point out
that the bag itself would probably not have made much difference in this case. Norovirus can be transmitted by sharing food, so the very act of reaching into any bag ( plastic, paper, or cloth….all of which can harbor Noro)
would probably have been enough. Also, if I recall correctly from another posting of this story, that particular bag had been placed in the bathroom for storage, presumably to make more room in the living area for the girls. Not a particularly hygienic practice. To prevent Noro transmission, the better practice would be to place bags in a clean environment, then tip the food out into the awaiting hands or plates of each girl, rather than have them reach into a communal container of any type.
Also, I am not sure what is amusing about one attempt at environmental responsibility being responsible for unintended consequences. Life is full of unintended consequences. The point to me is to recognize problems, whether or not we are responsible for making them, and attempt to correct the problems. Just as the invention of the automobile was largely responsible for smog in certain areas of the country. To me that doesn’t mean we should laugh at or demean the automakers, but rather we should encourage cleaner technologies.
To medwoman: The bottom line is that plastic bags from the store are sanitary bc they haven’t been “reused”. When society introduces reusable bags, people don’t always use good judgment, or may inadvertently pick up diseases bc of handling the reusable bags improperly, etc. So it is clear that reusable bags pose more of a health risk than sanitary plastic bags dispensed at the store. And yes, the plastic bags can be reused at a later time – but not at point of origin. It reminds me of the old revolving cloth towel that used to be in public restrooms – it just isn’t as sanitary.
Unintended consequences can often be avoided if more thought is put into doing something in the first place. I comment the BEDC for doing just that…
Cprrection: …commend the BEDC for doing just that.
ERM, my mother’s senior apartment complex went through a Norovirus outbreak and they ended up being quarantined for awhile. People got deathly sick and afterwords she never felt the same living there. Your cloth towel analogy hits the mark, or think of an old used sponge sitting up on one’s sink. Reuseable bags will have to be washed often in order to protect from diseases and that alone defeats the environmental purpose, think of all the extra soap and precious Davis water going down the drain and into the ecosystem.
ERM:
“What I find amusing is that environmentalists insisted the ban of paper bags to save the trees, and that is how we got plastic bags in the first place.”
That is amusing, they trip all over themselves trying to come up with their supposed solutions. That’s like the environmentalists warning of global freezing in the 1970’s and somehow just a short 30 years later they’re they shifted to global warming.
[quote]That is amusing, they trip all over themselves trying to come up with their supposed solutions. That’s like the environmentalists warning of global freezing in the 1970’s and somehow just a short 30 years later they’re they shifted to global warming.[/quote]
I forgot about the global freezing theory. I was too busy with college to pay much attention. LOL
See article on global freezing: [url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html[/url]
A just out study shows a heavy negative economic impact from such bans.
[url]http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st340.pdf[/url]
First of all, the headline and premise of this article are misleading. It is not a “plastic bag ordinance” because it also applies to paper bags. It is the requirements that would be placed on merchants regarding paper bags that are most objectionable. That is also how it differs significantly from the San Luis Obispo ordinance.
So the headline is misleading and the statement that it [i]”was almost identical to recent ordinances passed in San Luis Obispo County”[/i] is incorrect.
Get those corrected, and maybe we can have a reasonable discussion about this ordinance. Because it really isn’t the plastic bag portion that is most problematic. But until people know what we’re actually dealing with, it’s hard to have the conversation.
I have often complained that past elected leaders of Davis never lost an opportunity to proclaim from the dais their environmental bona fides. The truth, however, is that our City has become an across-the-board also-ran in implementing progressive, environmental policies. As in the case of building efficiency standards, waste diversion goals, climate action plans, and landscaping water conservation standards, Davis has simply waited until the State imposed a law and then we blindly followed it like a dog on a leash. But yet our leaders have simultaneously brashly proclaimed ourselves environmental leaders even though we only meekly follow the state’s minimum environmental mandates in most cases.
Why has Davis lagged so far behind so many other communities in so many areas? I think Councilmember Frerichs hit it on the head when he spoke about his views on Integrated Pest Management in Davis in the Sierra Club questionnaire completed by all candidates before the last election. In that questionnaire he discussed how the City of Arcata transformed its IPM program from non-existence to a successful showcase almost overnight. How did they do it? According to Councilmember Frerichs, “The real key in getting all the new changes implemented in Arcata? All the long time city staff (that was resistant to innovative changes), retired. New city staff was much more amenable to trying out new ideas.”
We are clearly facing the same dynamics in Davis. In many areas, Davis has the same old entrenched staff that has been successfully resisting similar environmental changes in Davis for over a decade. For instance, two years ago Staff also recommended that the City do nothing about plastic bags until they see if the then proposed state law passes. It didn’t. Then Staff claimed they wanted to finish their long overdue Integrated Waste Management Plan before they discussed restricting plastic bags. The plan has not yet been finished. Then Staff claimed they wanted the Council to adopt the (non-binding) zero waste resolution before taking on plastic bag restrictions. That was a year ago when that passed after Staff’s hid its existence and withheld it from the Council for over 6 months. Then Staff again resurrected the argument that they wanted to finish the long-awaited and yet-to-be-completed Waste Management Plan before taking on plastic bag restrictions. The NRC overrode those objections and proposed moving ahead. Staff then took their concerns to the sympathetic EDC for their input. The EDC proposed to continue studying the matter for another 6 mos. to a year (no surprises there) which proposal the NRC subsequently unanimously rejected. So now Staff has come back full circle again and say they want to wait until they see if yet another proposed state law passes before moving forward. I have to say one thing about our Staff; they have become unmatched experts at not doing anything about any environmental agenda in Davis for the past decade. They are really, really good at doing nothing.
It will be interesting to see if our new elected Council, our new City manager (Steve Pinkerton), and our Public Works leader (Herb Niederberger) can assert themselves and change this dynamic or whether our middle management staff will continue to run this town just as they see fit. It seems like it is time for the tail to quit wagging the dog in Davis.
Elaine
Please understand that I am continuing to write about this not to badger you personally, but to debunk a common misconception about causality in medical situations which causes people to generalize incorrectly from a specific situation to general policy.
[quote]So it is clear that reusable bags pose more of a health risk than sanitary plastic bags dispensed at the store.[/quote]
To me, this is anything but clear. By looking into this particular investigation further I found the following :
[quote]When one of the girls began to feel ill she moved into a room with one of the chaperones. Soon after the vomiting and diarrhea occurred the girl and chaperone withdrew from the tournament — but more people started to get sick after she left.
Researchers were able to pinpoint the spread of the virus to a reusable bag that held snacks (including grapes) and was kept in the bathroom the sick girl used. When the virus aerosolized it settled on various surfaces in the bathroom, including the bag. Everyone who came down with the stomach flu after the girl left had either eaten snacks from the bag, or handled the reusable bag itself.
After reading this, you might want to be more mindful as to where you set down your reusable bags in the future. And you might want to wash your stash of bags more often.
But when it comes down to it, how often do you wash a leather handbag or a backpack? The virus could just have easily spread from hands, the bottom of a shoe, or any other object that made its way through the contaminated bathroom.
[/quote]
So in other words, any object in that bathroom would have been a likely transmitter of norovirus. It could just as easily have been a paper bag, a single use plastic bag, or any of the objects mentioned in the above article. The problem is that a paper bag or plastic bag would more likely have been discarded and therefore not discoverable as the transmitter. But if discovered from one of these sources, would we then be correct in concluding that plastic bags, paper bags or any of these objects are inherently less safe than reusable bags ? Of course not.
The only way to conclude that reusable cloth or net bags, both of which are common use in Europe would be to determine that the populations who use these bags have higher instances of GI infectious diseases than do communities using single use bags. In fairness to your position, I attempted to ascertain this but was unable to find any supportive evidence. If you have further evidence other than this anecdotal case which does not actually support your conclusion for the reasons I have stated, I would be very willing to consider it.
And in an attempt to be fair in this investigation, my information is based on an article published in The Journal of Infectious Disease which is peer reviewed and to the best of my knowledge, not politically biased or oriented.
Why should four yes votes from some ad hoc committee (which in my opinion has an agenda) dictate to our city how we should live our lives? In fact it basically comes down to one vote because if one of the yes votes had voted no then the proposal for the ordinance wouldn’t have passed. The city staff needs to stick to their guns and not be pressured by a few individuals.
To Rusty49 – What “ad hoc committee” (which, in your opinion, has an “agenda”)are you referring to? The NRC has been the Commission that recommended to the Council that this proposal go forward. And the NRC is appointed by the City Council (i.e. it is not an ad hoc committee) with a very specific mission statement that includes advising the Council on ways to reduce waste and increase recycling (i.e. their “agenda” is stipulated by the Council).
But ultimately it is the City Council’s decision what environmental initiatives passed on by the NRC that do or do not get approved. So the NRC (or any Commission for that matter) can hardly dictate how you live your life. And besides, if you don’t like what the NRC or any other Commission is doing, perhaps you should consider joining or at least attending some of the meetings instead of incessantly complaining from the sidelines. The NRC rarely has any public citizens present when we meet.
My recommendation to the city council from our discussion of this issue in March:
Ban single use plastic bags.
Eliminate any discussion of paper bags.
Eliminate any record-keeping provisions (moot if the paper bags are allowed).
Reduce penalties significantly.
Remove any provision that requires ongoing staff oversight. This ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis only.
I would prefer to see a provision that limits it to the current store sizes and types, prohibiting expansion such as San Francisco just did, but I don’t know how future city councils could be bound by that.
Dear plastic-bag-hating liberal progressive:
I will make a deal with all of you… especially those that fixate over near-imaginary environmental concerns and demand ping-pong policies requires to make adjustments for their tendency to over react.
Ya’ll start supporting politicians that support unpopular positions to reduce our spending and committments to balance budgets and bring us back to fiscal sustainability, and I will start support your feel-good, look-at-us-aren’t-we-so-progressive-and-caring, policies. Frankly, if we had balanced and sustainable budget with a 4-5% unemployment rate, we could consider a city program to supplement local retailers offering reusable bags. We could look at all sorts of neato policies that would puff the chest of even the most cynical of us.
Today you can continue to point the finger at those mean old conservative farts not supporting your creative social engineering ideas; but the fact is that Democrats – the party most of you consistently support – have taken away your credibility and influence. They have screwed up this state so bad, that very few people want to listen to your ideas for saving the world from the scary plastic bag monster.
Your political behavior has been bad… very bad.
At the state level you should have supported Meg Whittman, but instead you supported union-friendy Jerry Brown who has failed to make any substantive dent in the obscene pay and benefits going to his pulbic-sector union buddies. So, we continue to have less and less for all your save the world ideas.
At the national level, you are working over Paul Ryan with accusations that he is going to throw granny over the cliff, instead of thanking him for being one of the few politicians brave enough to come up with a viable plan to reform Medicare… the entitlement that threatens to consume more and more of the federal budget that you want to use to save more of the world with.
The bottom line is that we are way beyond full-leveraged. And until we get back to a level of fiscal sanity, most will reject any progressive idea that has even the slighest hint of negative fiscal impacts. And, many will reject your ideas on principle of being quite upset with your bad political behavior.
Start making political decision that show you REALLY care about saving money to save the world; and I will start believing that you deserve more latitude to try and do so. Until then, count on this groucy, cyncial conservative to just keep saying no.
[quote][/quote]A just out study shows a heavy negative economic impact from such bans.”
Quoting a study by the National Center for Policy Analysis about whether there are any negative effects from plastic bag restrictions is like quoting a study by the KKK about whether there is any racism in America.
According to SourceWatch.org, “The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a free market think tank primarily funded by private foundations established by wealthy conservative business families and billionaires, including Charles and David Koch. It is a “communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today’s public policy problems … ” — NCRP, The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations. It develops and promotes private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, and encourages reliance on the private sector.” You have to look no further than the folks touting the worth of NCPA to understand their agenda and to see where they are coming from (e.g. Newt Gingrich, Tommy Thompson, John Stossel of Fox News,et al).
Even a cursory review of the NCPA report shows their study has serious shortcomings and would never survive a serious peer review. For instance, they report all of their results in percentages instead of raw number and actual dollars. So when they talk of all this serious economic harm they do not drill down to how much damage is supposedly caused in real dollar terms.
In contrast, a recently released LA County staff report shows that the ordinance has resulted in an overall 94% reduction in single-use bags, including a 24% reduction in paper bags. More than simply eliminating more than 244 million single use plastic bags, and millions in clean up costs, the ordinance is projected to save LA county retailers and consumers more than $10 million annually in bag costs.
Extrapolating these results to Davis, the implementation of this ordinance has the potential to eliminate 14.5 million single use plastic bags, 1.2 million paper bags, and save Davis retailers and consumers more than $400,000 annually in bag costs.
This issue has been before the NRC no less than 4 times over the last 9 months. Additionally, staff, commission members and supporters have had numerous meetings with affected businesses. Over the various public meetings, the Commission has heard from dozens of supporters. Two representatives of covered stores spoke in favor of the ordinance (Harley Delano, owner of the Westlake Market and Tim James of the California Grocers Association. The only opposition/concern has come from 3 businesses that are not covered by the ordinance, but concerned that at some point they might be in the future (Ace, Avid Reader, Newsbeat).
[quote]I have often complained that past elected leaders of Davis never lost an opportunity to proclaim from the dais their environmental bona fides. The truth, however, is that our City has become an across-the-board also-ran in implementing progressive, environmental policies. [/quote]
A-F-ing-men!
Alan is right on. We are an afterthought. I hope David writes a commentary attacking this city as a hypocrite.
The only people complaining about this is right wing conservatives who are well outnumbered in this city. I have the feeling that council overrides staff on this.
I lived in SF when plastic bags were banned I did not notice any change other than I got paper bags at Safeway and Whole Foods and had to start “buying” plastic bags to line my bathroom trash cans.
A better idea than banning bags in Davis would be big fines for littering that would go to cleaning up trash and buying free reusable bags for anyone that wants them. The free bags could say something like “I’m a better person than you are since I care about the environment”.
If the city does ban plastic bags (and I’m betting it will) they could send out this 1 1/2 minute video to retailers to show them how to treat customers that don’t like the bag ban:
http://www.ifc.com/portlandia/videos/portlandia-no-grocery-bag
Why is this still coming up? The same old bad science, onerous business requirements and untruthful reporting about other jurisdiction’s actions and the magnitude of the “problem” time after time after time? (And, now adding challenges about the manhood of our elected leaders and city staff as though that might sway their opinions?)
Don Shor is the only one who makes sense. Start with a reasonable proposal and the rest of us would be ready to discuss the matter.
Growth issue:
“The only people complaining about this is right wing conservatives who are well outnumbered in this city.”
This “right wing conservative” isn’t stopping you from taking your reuseable bags to the market. Have at it until your little left wing liberal heart is content. But tell me, what gives you the right to tell everyone else what they have to do?
I agree with JustSaying. Deja vu all over again. What has changed since the last time this ordinance came up? Then as now, concerns have been raised about various faulty provisions of the ordinance, the NRC has glossed over them, ignored them, or set-up strawman arguments.
“The only opposition/concern has come from 3 businesses that are not covered by the ordinance, but concerned that at some point they might be in the future (Ace, Avid Reader, Newsbeat).”-Alan Pryor
Shame on you, Alan. This statement is blatantly false as are a number of other noteworthy statements such as the SLO statement already pointed out by Don Shor. The entire Davis Downtown board has unanimously opposed the ordinance due to the various flaws contained therein. The board sent the executive director, Stewart Savage, to make a statment at the NRC hearing stating our opposition. You conveniently ignore this fact.
In my mind, if advocates of any cause have to misrepresent the facts supporting their cause, the cause is suspect. That said, Davis Downtown supports all reasonable efforts to reduce our impact on the environment including keeping plastic bags out of fields, ditches, etc.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Downtown Co-Prez
SouthofDavis, that was a funny video. You can just see the smug liberal do gooders looking down their noses at you when you ask for a bag like that guy did.
Rusty: perhaps the same thing that gives the government the right to tell you how fast you are permitted to drive in your car.
Growthissue, that’s already been tossed around on here. Not the same thing, driving a car is a safety issue but banning plastic bags is nothing more than a liberal feel good issue. Don’t compare apples and oranges.
In your opinion you may not see a speed limit issue and an environmental issue as being comparable, but I think they are. Government has a legitimate authority to impose laws when public safety issues arise.
“Government has a legitimate authority to impose laws when public safety issues arise.”
So tell me what’s the public safety issue with plastic bags? ERM has already posted a story about a public safety issue with reuseable bags. Maybe the government should ban all reuseable bags.
To all my fellow conservatives on here, Octane, Jeff, ERM, JR….and any liberals if you feel like enriching yourselves.
Go see 2016 Obama’s America. It’s well done and worth your time.
[quote]According to SourceWatch.org[/quote]
Quoting SourceWatch.org is like getting an opinion from Stalin on human rights.
See for example the investigation of SourceWatch at
[url]http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=7352[/url]
You see Alan? Anyone can make a cheap shot to divert an argument by attacking sources. Why don’t you try addressing the issues raised instead.
[quote]Alan Pryor: The NRC overrode those objections and proposed moving ahead. Staff then took their concerns to the sympathetic EDC for their input. The EDC proposed to continue studying the matter for another 6 mos. to a year (no surprises there) which proposal the NRC subsequently unanimously rejected. [/quote]
Are you even willing to concede there are countervailing interests that need to be taken into consideration?
[quote]medwoman:The only way to conclude that reusable cloth or net bags, both of which are common use in Europe would be to determine that the populations who use these bags have higher instances of GI infectious diseases than do communities using single use bags. In fairness to your position, I attempted to ascertain this but was unable to find any supportive evidence. If you have further evidence other than this anecdotal case which does not actually support your conclusion for the reasons I have stated, I would be very willing to consider it. [/quote]
Are you really trying to argue that first time dispensed plastic bags and reusable bags are equally sanitary? Logic and common sense tells me otherwise. See:
[url]http://ctwatchdog.com/health/reusable-grocery-bags-could-pose-health-risks[/url]
[url]http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/06/shopping-bags-health-risk/1#.UDJtoN1lTWo[/url]
[quote]http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2012042310145868[/quote]
Are all these sources wrong? I think not…
[url]http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2012042310145868[/url]
Medwoman:
Re. you point about reusable grocery bags not being less sanitary.
Why doesn’t the medical industry conserve by reusing latex gloves?
“Are you even willing to concede there are countervailing interests that need to be taken into consideration?”
Given the current make up of the council, don’t you believe that whatever choice the city makes will take into account both environmental concerns and business concerns?
[quote]Given the current make up of the council, don’t you believe that whatever choice the city makes will take into account both environmental concerns and business concerns?[/quote]
Yes…
Elaine and Jeff
Good heavens…….can we get back from claims I never made:
[quote]Re. you point about reusable grocery bags not being less sanitary.
[/quote]
to what I actually said.
If you look back at the first part of my post, I made it very clear that my point was about the inherent error in generalizing from a single anecdote to policy. My point was not, nor did I ever say that reusable bags are not potentially less sanitary. It was that this case is not a good illustration of the point and should not be considered in this argument. The reason is that in this case, the reusable bag was not the source of the norovirus. Any bag, or any of its top contents in the bathroom at the time the virus was aeresolized would have tested positive for the virus. The grapes that the girls ate, had they not been consumed and therefore not available for testing would have tested positive for the virus. If a single use plastic bag had been in the room, it would have tested positive.
There is of course a legitimate case to be made that if there is leakage of products ( meat, fish, contaminated greens) onto the material of a bag, which is then not laundered appropriately, of course there is more risk than if the bag is discarded as would be the case for paper or plastic. This was not an example of this and the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of the constituents of the bag because the bag was not the source of the virus but merely the object on which it was identified.
No where did I make the claim that any kind of bag is more or less sanitary….or safe….only that the only way to know if this is a significant public health risk is by large comparative studies, not by anecdote, especially when the anecdote does not support the claim. Does either of you seriously disagree that epidemiologic studies would be needed to determine the societal risk or lack thereof ?
[quote]Does either of you seriously disagree that epidemiologic studies would be needed to determine the societal risk or lack thereof ?[/quote]
I don’t need to waste money on a study to prove that reusable bags are less sanitary than new plastic bags from the grocery store. I have three sources I gave you that already make the point – you have to make sure and wash the reusable bags regularly.
ERM, you are so right. Anything that gets “REUSED” is definately going to be dirtier and have more of a chance of carrying viruses than something that is only used once. That’s just common sense, not even worth a discussion.
“I don’t need to waste money on a study to prove that reusable bags are less sanitary than new plastic bags from the grocery store. “
I think you’re quite wrong on this point. Reusable bags are likely to gain increased usage. If there is a true health concern it should be based on hard data and not on somebody’s guesswork and hunches.
Elaine
[quote]I don’t need to waste money on a study to prove that reusable bags are less sanitary than new plastic bags from the grocery store. I have three sources I gave you that already make the point – you have to make sure and wash the reusable bags regularly.[/quote]
It seems to me that you are a being a little selective in when you want to have reams of data to support your position, such as that on global warming, but remarkably casual about studies on the impact of other issues once you have made up your mind. The fact that bacteria and viruses can exist longer on some surfaces longer than others, is not in and of itself the point. If that were the case, you should be arguing for replacing all door knobs and handles with automatic opening devices since these are primary transmitters of disease since we repetitively touch them with our hands. It is not enough to demonstrate that the pathogen is present, which is what your studies demonstrated. In making policy, it is necessary to demonstrate the pathogen poses a greater potential for harm in that location than in another location. This is why the overall outcome on public health needs to be assessed, not merely the presence of a pathogen.