Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) document the environmental impact of a specific project including alternatives. In the case of EIRs supporting Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinances a specific solution to a plastic bag litter problem is proposed that requires a ban on plastic carryout bags and imposes a fee on paper bags in order to encourage (i.e. coerce) shoppers into using reusable bags. The environmental analysis to support this proposed solution is never provided. For example, if plastic carryout bags are bad and should be eliminated, then an analysis should be provided to show that using paper bags instead of plastic bags results in an environmental impact that requires mitigation by reducing the use of paper bags and using an alternative product. That analysis is never performed or provided. In fact, the objectives of the EIR specifically prevent that analysis and alternative from ever being analyzed. If brought up during the public comment period, the response is that it does not meet the objectives. In other words the objectives are cleverly used to defraud the public of an important analysis and a legitimate alternative solution. Instead of impartially evaluating alternative solutions, someone else’s pre-conceived solution is shoved down your throat by misguided public officials.
English: Toyon landfill inside Griffith Park, Los Angeles, California, before the May 2007 fire. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance has a detrimental impact on landfills that has not been clearly identified. While the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies that plastic carryout bags currently end up in the landfill, unbeknownst to proponents of the ordinance is that the amount of material deposited in the landfill after the ban has been implemented is far greater than before the ban. Landfill impacts for both the State of California and for Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties are presented in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. While landfills can absorb the additional material with no problem, an unintended consequence of the single-use carryout bag ordinance, it is California’s Zero Waste Goal that suffers a setback that will have to be made up through other waste reductions!
To read more click on the following link: California Landfills Impacted By Bag Bans. This article is an update of the article previously released and titled “Fact Sheet – Landfill Impacts” originally released 16 April 2013. The new article includes the California statewide impacts in addition to the impacts to Santa Barbara and Ventura County landfills.
On 16 December 2013, the Ventura City Council voted 6 to 1 to go ahead and prepare a Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance and BEACON EIR addendum for consideration in six months by the City Council. The council also voted to support the efforts of State Senator Padilla to pass a bill to institute a statewide single-use carryout bag law rather than a local ordinance.
Currently there are two bills going through the California State Legislature concerning plastic carryout bags. SB-405 is authored by State Senator Padilla and AB-158 by Assembly member Levine. Both bills appear to have started out with the same text which is being marked up as the bills goes through the different committees in their respective houses.
Official seal of County of Santa Barbara (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
At the 15 October 2013 Santa Barbara County Supervisors board meeting, the Santa Barbara County Public works Department, Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division (RRWMD) requested Supervisors to receive and endorse the draft Single-Use Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance for the unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County and to direct staff to initiate review of the Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, Supervisors were requested to designate the County Public Works Department, Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division as the Lead Agency under the CEQA. Supervisors approved the request by a vote of 3 to 2. Continue reading Santa Barbara County Supervisors Not Well Served→
Bag Ban Proponents like to point out that the recycling rate for plastic carryout bags is 5% or less and that because of the low recycling rate, plastic carryout bags should be banned.
Bag Ban Proponents totally miss the point. When plastic carryout bags are reused as trash bags, waste can liners, to pick up pet litter, dispose of kitchen grease, dispose of dirty diapers, or the myriad of other uses and end up in the landfill filled with trash, they cannot be recycled. Bag Ban Proponents appear to have a particularly difficult time comprehending this simple fact. Continue reading Plastic Bag Recycling Rate – A Non-Issue→
As more and more communities pass ordinances to ban plastic carryout bags, a key question remains: Are these bag bans successful? Proponents of bag bans are quick to point out that once the bags are banned, fewer plastic bags will be found as litter in the environment. Of course, that is true. If the use of plastic carryout bags is sharply reduced by a bag ban then the quantity of plastic carryout bags found as litter will be similarly reduced and reflected in litter surveys. But does that single measurement signify the success of the ban? Or are there other factors that must be considered before a bag ban can be declared a success? In this paper we will look at this question and attempt to provide a reasonable answer.
English: Montage of San Jose, California pictures. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In November of 2012, ten months after implementation of the San Jose Bag Ban, the city issued a report claiming success. The memorandum contained an analysis of litter surveys and claimed a reduction of on-land plastic bag litter of 59%, 60% in creeks, and 89% in storm drains. The latter figure is widely used by bag ban proponents as proof the law works. However, problems with the underlying data as well as the methodology used indicate that these reduction figures are questionable. Other factors such as a cost analysis was never done by the city nor were other less costly alternatives investigated.
In an article “San Jose Bag Ban Report Rebuttal” the authors respond to the claims of success in a stinging rebuttal. The authors claim that the wrong parameter was measured, measurement methodology was unscientific and flawed, bag usage observations were not taken at a broad cross-section of stores, no cost/benefit analysis was conducted, and serious negative impacts were never addressed.
The authors present an analysis of plastic bag litter reduction calculations by the city as well as supply their own. Also presented is a pre ban and post ban cost analysis of carryout bag use showing the cost increase that is incurred by consumers.
On 27 August 2012, the Homer City Council voted 4-2 to pass an ordinance to ban plastic bags. Subsequently, on September 7, 2012 Mayor James C. Hornaday vetoed the ordinance. The bag ban was intended to reduce litter and retailers are prohibited from distributing plastic carryout bags at the checkout counter. The ban excludes thicker plastic shopping bags, trash bags, bags for prescription drugs, and bags used to package bulk foods and newspaper bags. (Alaska Dispatch, 2012) Paper bags are not banned nor is there a fee on paper bags. Councilman David Lewis stated that he hoped people would bring reusable bags. One of the complaints was that plastic bags are so light they blow away at the dump. (Dubois, 2012) The council subsequently voted 4-2 to override the mayoral veto. The ordinance banned the use of plastic bags effective January 1st 2013. (Alaska Pride, 2013)
A group of citizens in Homer hoped to overturn the plastic bag ban. Justin Arnold, Dan Gardner, and Marlina Hogdon filed paper work with the city clerk to circulate a petition for 90 days. They were required to get 230 signatures in order to place the issue on the ballot. Justin Arnold stated there are many reasons why he wants to overturn the ban, the main reason is to give citizens a chance to vote on the matter. Radio talk show host Chris Story also took up the band-wagon when he said the city council is not here to protect the environment but to conduct city business on behalf of city residents. He also stated that the council spends too much time “changing your behavior in alignment with a larger agenda.” The measure is on the 1 October 2013 ballot. (Klouda, 2013)
On 1 October, 2013 citizens of Homer, Alaska overturned the plastic bag ban by a vote of 56% to 44% or 661-519. A total of 1,180 votes were cast out of 4,337 registered voters for a 27.2% voter turnout. (City of Homer, 2013)
Most residents who objected to the ordinance simply objected to the coercion, many of whom already use cloth bags. The sentiment expressed was the problem with progressive politicians who rely on the ban-hammer as the first weapon of choice rather than the last resort.
Klouda, N. (2013, April 17). Residents aim to reverse small Alaska town’s plastic bag ban. Retrieved October 4, 2013, from Alaska Dispatch: http://newsle.com/article/0/70599330/
English: Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
On 1 October 2013 the Santa Barbara City Council voted to deny the appeal by Save The Plastic Bag Coalition (STPB) and to go ahead with the Plastic Bag Ban. The issue will come to the council for a second reading of the ordinance in two weeks.
On August 8, 2013 the Santa Barbara Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to certify the Beach Erosion Authority for Clean Oceans and Nourishment (BEACON) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a City of Santa Barbara Addendum without notifying interested parties in a timely manner. As a result interested parties, such as myself and STPB, were not able to attend the public meeting to answer questions or to present a case why the EIR is flawed and should be rewritten. After finding out about the action, STPB filed an appeal which was heard at the 1 October 2013 City Council meeting.
Bag Bans are the wrong solution to control litter from plastic grocery bags. Many communities are driven to ban these bags because they are a very visible form of litter. But is banning these bags the right solution? I don’t think so, and neither should you!
Plastic bags of all kinds make up only about 0.6% of litter. So a ban on plastic grocery bags would at most eliminate no more than 0.6% of litter. The other 99.4% is still out there waiting to be cleaned up!
All carryout bags have a negative environmental impact. Paper bags and reusable bags have a higher negative environmental impact and larger carbon footprint than plastic bags. In fact, 10 out of 14 environmental indicators go up after a bag ban is implemented, meaning a bag ban is a bad idea from an environmental perspective.
Fight The Plastic Bag Ban 