Category Archives: Environmental Impacts

On The California Ballot in November 2016

Proposition 67, California Plastic Bag Ban Referendum

Seal of California - Public Domain
Seal of California – Public Domain

Proposition 67 is a Referendum to overturn the California Statewide Ban on single-use plastic bags.  A “YES” vote would uphold the law and a “NO” vote would overturn it.

Fight The Plastic Bag Ban recommends a NO vote on this proposition.

In 2014, the California State Legislature passed a ban on single-use plastic bags which was signed into law by Governor Brown.  Subsequently, the new law was challenged through the referendum process by the American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA).  The APBA collected signatures on petitions and a sufficient number of signatures were collected to put the law (SB-270) on the ballot for voter approval/disapproval.

If the law is upheld, the use of single-use plastic carryout bags would be prohibited and most but not all customers would be forced to pay 10-cents for each paper or plastic reusable bag distributed at the point of sale.

If the law is upheld, the law would create two classes of shoppers.  One class of shoppers would have to pay the 10-cents bag fee for each store-provided paper or plastic reusable bag; the other class of shoppers would be exempt and receive store-provided bags at no cost.  Customers who pay 10-cents each for store provided bags would subsidize the cost of providing bags to customer who are exempt from the bag fee.  The customers who are exempt from the bag fee are those customers who participate in public assistance programs, such as food stamps.

Whatever happened to treating all customers equally?

The 10-cent bag fee is not subject to sales tax and the entire amount collected is kept by store providing a huge windfall to grocers.  It should be noted that the law died in the California State Assembly, until the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Safeway struck a deal regarding the 10-cent bag fee.

It should be noted, that voting NO on this proposition will not repeal local bag bans.  However, if voters reject the statewide bag ban, it will provide impetus to opponents of local bag bans and greatly assist in repealing them.

For more information about Proposition 67 see the following article: California Plastic Bag Ban Referendum, Proposition 67 (2016).

In addition, check out the following articles:

Plastic Bag Bans – Designed to Generate and Protect Bag Revenue from Competition!

Referendum to Overturn Ban on Plastic Grocery Bags Qualifies for 2016 Ballot

Dallas, TX City Council Repeals Bag Fee – Rejects Bag Ban

Arizona Governor Signs Bill to Prohibit Plastic Bag Bans

Proposition 65, Carry-Out Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute

Proposition 65 is an initiative statute that would redirects money collected by grocery and other retail stores through sale of carry-out bags and require those funds to be deposited into a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board to support specific environmental projects.  If voters pass Proposition 67 to uphold the state’s current carryout bag law, Proposition 65 would require that bag fees collected from shoppers be redirected to the state.  Revenues are expected to exceed tens of millions of dollars annually.  Revenues would be used for grants for certain environmental and natural resources purposes.  If voters reject the state’s current carryout bag law, there would likely be minor fiscal effects.

Fight The Plastic Bag Ban recommends a YES vote on this proposition.

For more information about Proposition 65 see the following article: California Carry-Out Bag Revenue Initiative, Proposition 65 (2016)

A plastic bag ban does not produce any significant environmental benefits in proportion to the cost and effort expended by shoppers.  In the article “Bag Bans – A Waste of Time and Money!” the author argues and demonstrates that bag bans are large on cost with negligible environmental benefits.  Proposition 65 if passed would deny a financial windfall to grocers and instead put that money towards real projects that benefit the environment.

In addition, check out the following articles:

Plastic Bag Bans – Designed to Generate and Protect Bag Revenue from Competition!

Plastic Bag Manufacturers File New Initiative

 

Plastic Bag Bans – Designed to Generate and Protect Bag Revenue from Competition!

Short Canyon in Owens Peak Wilderness – By Bureau of Land Management – via Wikimedia Commons

Most people believe that laws banning plastic grocery bags are all about protecting the environment from plastic bag litter that damages the environment and harms wildlife. However, the real reason for a plastic bag ban has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with generating profitable bag fees and protecting those bag fees from being eliminated or eroded away by competition.

This paper makes the case that grocers, reusable bag manufacturers, and environmental organizations have teamed up to pressure state and local officials in passing bag ban laws in their own self-interest at the expense of consumers while doing very little for the environment. Continue reading Plastic Bag Bans – Designed to Generate and Protect Bag Revenue from Competition!

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch Myth Debunked

By NOAA [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Pacific Garbage Patch by NOAA [Public domain via Wikimedia Commons]
We have all heard the expression “I’m from Missouri”. This response is usually uttered by a person who is skeptical about what they have heard or read. In fact, a smart person, is a person who is skeptical and who has learned how to discern truth from falsehood and who will not let emotional arguments sway them but searches out the truth and the underlying facts.

Despite the fact that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has been shown to be a myth, this myth is still repeated in public testimony before city councils in support of plastic bag bans.

It is refreshing to see several well written articles that debunk this myth about floating islands of plastic debris in the ocean, and how this particular myth got started. You will enjoy reading these well documented articles:

Are we really “choking the ocean with plastic”? Tracing the creation of an eco-myth

And here’s the earlier article the author refers to:

An Ocean of Plastic

Santa Barbara County Passes Bag Ban

Santa Barbara-County Courthouse by Eugene Zelenko (own work) , from Wikimedia Commons
Santa Barbara-County Courthouse by Eugene Zelenko (own work) , from Wikimedia Commons

On Tuesday, August 25 the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors passed an Ordinance on a 3-2 vote to ban Single-Use Plastic Bags at Markets and pharmacies in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County.

Supervisors Salud Carbajal, Janet Wolf, and Doreen Farr voted for the bag ban and Supervisors Peter Adam and Steve Lavagnino voted against the bag ban.

Opponents of the California statewide plastic bag ban successfully challenged the state law by collecting enough signatures from registered voters to put the measure on the 2016 ballot through the referendum process, a safeguard provided in California’s Constitution. The statewide referendum will finally give ordinary citizens the opportunity to vote on this unpopular measure.

Supervisors Lavagnino and Adam stated that they were not comfortable with the idea of getting out in front of the statewide referendum. (McNulty, 2015) Continue reading Santa Barbara County Passes Bag Ban

Austin’s Plastic Bag Ban a Colossal Failure!

Austin City Hall Front
Austin City Hall – By M. Fitzsimmons via Creative Commons (CC) – Wikimedia Commons

In June 2015, the Austin Resource Recovery Service released a candid report entitled “Environmental Effects of the Single Use Bag Ordinance in Austin, Texas” questioning the effectiveness of the city’s own bag ban. The report noted that the ordinance reduced litter from “single-use” or “lightweight” plastic carryout bags, but that the unintended consequence was an increase in the use of 4-mil reusable plastic shopping bags (disposed of after just a single-use), and the increased cost to consumers and retailers. (Waters, 2015, p. 28)

The primary goal of the Austin Single-Use Bag Ordinance was to reduce the volume of plastic carryout bags dumped in the landfill. The city’s own self-assessment reported that the weight of 4-mil plastic reusable bags disposed of by shoppers after just a single use was just as much as the lightweight plastic bags disposed of in the landfill before the ban. (Cape, 2015) In other words, the bag ban backfired and resulted in a much higher environmental cost. (Waters, 2015, p. 25)

To view or read the entire article click on the following link: Austin’s Plastic Bag Ban a Colossal Failure

Bag Bans – A Waste of Time and Money!

Redwoods Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park
Redwoods Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park – by Miguel Vieira, Walnut Creek

Most plastic bag bans follow the simple formula of banning plastic grocery bags and placing a fee on paper bags in order to force shoppers to bring and use their own reusable bags. A bag ban is justified because littered plastic grocery bags are unsightly litter that can cause harm to wildlife through ingestion. However, absent from the discussion are three key issues: (1) the magnitude of plastic grocery bag litter; (2) the cost to consumers to comply with a bag ban; and (3) the impact on reducing litter, particularly plastic debris, that finds its way to the ocean and potentially causes harm to wildlife through ingestion.

When these issues are honestly looked at we discover that plastic bag litter is negligible and the cost to consumers is disproportionate to the results achieved. For example, plastic bag litter comprises only 0.6% of roadside litter of which about only half (about 0.3%) is plastic grocery bags. Hence, a plastic bag ban will still leave 99.7% of litter that must be cleaned up through traditional litter abatement methods. The effort to clean up the remaining 99.7% of litter could easily include the other 0.3% (e.g. plastic grocery bags and retail carryout bags) as part of the total effort. In other words, a plastic bag ban is not needed and certainly NOT JUSTIFIED for the small amount of plastic grocery bags littered in the community.

Furthermore, the cost to consumers to eliminate plastic grocery bags from roadside litter averages about 12-cents for each 2-cent plastic bag eliminated by a bag ban. Add to that the cost of plastic bag bans by local and state governments and costs incurred by retailers increasing the total cost far more than the 12-cents cost per plastic bag incurred by consumers! If you compute the annual cost per littered bag, it will be on the order of $250.00 per littered plastic bag per year. Obviously, this is NOT a good deal for consumers! So not only is a plastic bag ban a waste of time and money for the public; it is also a waste of time and money on the part of the environmentalist who promotes bag bans for such a miniscule reduction in litter, when traditional comprehensive litter abatement methods exist that will not only eliminate all plastic bags but also other plastic debris that makes its way to the ocean potentially harming wildlife.

To read the entire article, click on the following link: Bag Bans Waste of Time & Money

Huntington Beach Plastic Bag Ban Repeal Passes Final Hurdle

A Sunny Day on Huntington Beach
A Sunny Day on Huntington Beach

On Monday, 4 May, 2015 the Huntington Beach City Council voted 6 to 1 to finalize the repeal of the two year old ban on plastic bags and the mandatory 10-cent fee on paper bags. The repeal is effective on 3 June, 2015 when stores can again issue plastic carryout bags. (Carpio, 2015)

Council-members Mike Posey, Erik Peterson, Billy O’Connell, Barbara Delgleize, Dave Sullivan, and Jim Katapodis voted to finalize repeal the ordinance and Mayor Jill Hardy voted to keep the ban in place. (van Leeuwen, 2015)

According to Council-member Mike Posey, the plastic bag ban was never an environmental issue, but an issue of personal freedom. (Sharon, 2015)

After the Council Meeting, Mike Posey told conservative website Breitbart, “It’s a freedom issue. . . . Litter from plastic bags is caused by misuse and not use, and I object to punishing everyone because some people choose to litter.” (Broder, 2015) Continue reading Huntington Beach Plastic Bag Ban Repeal Passes Final Hurdle

Huntington Beach City Council Votes to Repeal Plastic Bag Ban

Flag of Huntington Beach
Flag of Huntington Beach

On 20 January, 2015 the Huntington Beach City Council voted 6 to 1 to start the process of repealing the city’s plastic bag ban. Councilmembers Mike Posey, Erik Peterson, Billy O’Connell, Barbara Delgleize, Dave Sullivan, and Jim Katapodis voted to repeal the ordinance and Mayor Jill Hardy voted to keep the ban.

The agenda item that was voted on instructs the city manager to begin the repeal process including preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which is estimated to cost $5,000. The EIR is expected to take between two and three months to complete, and when completed, the issue will go back to council for final approval.

The proposal to repeal the plastic bag ban was put on the council agenda by Councilman Mike Posey who expressed that he and others have issues with what they believe is overreach by the previous city council. (Carpio, Plastic bag ban repeal process starts in Huntington, 2015) Continue reading Huntington Beach City Council Votes to Repeal Plastic Bag Ban

San Jose’s Bag Ban Useless in Solving Litter Problems –Should Be Rescinded

Palm trees lining streets in San Jose, California
Palm trees lining streets in San Jose, California (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As previously noted in the blog article titled “San Jose Painfully Learns Litter Problems Were Not Solved by Plastic Bag Ban!”, the City of San Jose is painfully discovering that it’s much touted plastic bag ban that cost residents millions of dollars did virtually nothing to solve the city’s serious litter problems. According to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), one of the stated reasons for implementing the bag ban was to reduce litter on city streets, in creeks, and in storm drains. (City of San Jose, 2010) Two years after the plastic bag ban was implemented, that there has been no reduction of overall litter. Furthermore, the case is made, using San Jose’s own litter surveys and claims of bag ban success, to show that the plastic bag ban was never needed but was a very expensive mistake.

Although the exact number of single-use paper and plastic carryout bags used in the city is unknown, the city estimates that 68 million paper bags and 500 million single-use plastic carryout bags are used every year. In fact the Draft EIR identifies that 1.4 plastic bags are used per day by every living person in the City of San Jose which equates to 511 plastic carryout bags per person per year. (City of San Jose, 2010) This means that a family of four would use 4 x 511 or 2044 plastic bags per year.

In a November 20, 2012 memorandum to the San Jose City Council from Kerrie Romanov (Director of Environmental Services for San Jose) the following statement was made:

Reducing the use of single-use carryout bags … supports the City’s Stormwater Permit requirement to reduce trash from the storm drain system from entering local creeks and enhance water quality: reduces litter in City sheets and neighborhoods: and lowers the cost of litter control.” (Romanov, 2012, p. 2) Continue reading San Jose’s Bag Ban Useless in Solving Litter Problems –Should Be Rescinded

The California Bag Ban Scam

Capture10Statewide and local bag bans were a SCAM from the very beginning. These measures can best be characterized by deceitful scheming, repeated lies and distortions, backroom deals, a supportive one-sided media, and enough politicians succumbing to political correctness to force this law and the resulting shopping behavior changes on the people of California.

Not only were Californians deprived of more reasonable and acceptable solutions to address plastic bag litter by the shenanigans of bag banners but will also pay an additional $1 Billion per year just to take their groceries home.  And after spending all that money, litter will hardly be  affected at all!  More than 99.6% of litter will still be there waiting to be picked up.

These measures were passed by progressive politicians, and even though the measures affect every one of their constituents, both financially and through the expenditure of personal time, none were allowed to vote for it. In fact, to date, no member of the public  has ever been given the chance to vote for or against these measures!

The paper “The California Plastic Bag Ban Scam” examines and exposes the methods used by the bag banners to push bag bans at the local and state level, and how they were able to push through a law that is not only unpopular, but also sets new dangerous precedents in governmental power and law.

To read or download the article, click on the following link: The California Plastic Bag Ban Scam.

The authors welcome any feedback or corrections to this article.