Tag Archives: California

Plastic Bag Ban – Paper Bag Fees Unequally Levied

Carryout Bag Fees, Economic Costs, Freedom and Liberty, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , ,
New Horseshoe Checkstands
New Horseshoe Checkstands (Photo credit: SaCaSeA)

Currently, retail stores distribute plastic and paper bags to customers at checkout to carry their purchases home at no additional charge.  The cost of these bags is included in retail prices paid for and shared by all customers.

Customers who choose to use no bags or reusable bags still pay a small portion toward paper and plastic bags, even when they choose not to receive such bags.  However, some stores do credit customers for every reusable bag used.

 A bag ban imposes a minimum fee of 10-cents for each paper bag distributed in order to discourage paper bag use and also creates an exemption to that fee for those who participate in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) or in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) also known as the Food Stamp program.

In other words, the ordinance creates two classes of shoppers regarding paper bag fees, non-exempt and exempt: Non-exempt shoppers, pay a fee for each paper bag received; Exempt shoppers, receive paper bags free of charge. Continue reading Plastic Bag Ban – Paper Bag Fees Unequally Levied →

Lake Tahoe Passes Bag Ban With A Twist

Carryout Bag Fees, Economic Costs, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bags, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , ,
Highway 50 through South Lake Tahoe
Highway 50 through South Lake Tahoe (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On 1 October, 2013 the Lake Tahoe City Council voted 3-2 to ban “single-use” plastic bags distributed at the check stand for customers to carry purchases home.  Councilmembers Hal Cole, Angela Swanson, and Brooke Laine voted for the ban and Mayor Tom Davis and councilmember JoAnn Conner voted against the ban.  What makes this plastic carryout bag ban ordinance different from others is that is does not mandate a fee for paper bags; does not require retail stores to keep records and report to the city on the number of paper bags distributed and fees collected; and does not implement an enforcement mechanism by the city.  The council decided that it is up to the retailer to decide if he wants to charge a fee for paper bags or recover the cost of paper bags through higher retail prices.

To read the entire article, click on the following link: Lake Tahoe Passes Bag Ban With A Twist

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Bag Bans: Trading One Problem For Another

Environmental Impacts, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Reusable Bag Health Hazards, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Australian Green Bag
Australian Green Bag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Officials in many communities across California and the Nation have implemented bans on the distribution of plastic carryout bags at selected retailers including a fee on paper bags.  The fee on paper bags is imposed for no other reason than to coerce shoppers to switch to using reusable bags.  The reason most often given by these officials is the litter and aesthetic problem posed by plastic carryout bags and the harm caused to marine and terrestrial environments including wildlife.

These officials, have unfortunately, succumbed to political correctness and the self-interest of being seen as “green” and supportive of the environment.  However, instead of due diligence to carefully evaluate alternative solutions, officials adopt the same populist prescription implemented by other communities.

Although Bag Ban Proponents are passionate about their zeal to protect the environment, their ideas are generally disconnected from reality and their solutions don’t work and are unrealistic.  Nowhere is this more aptly illustrated than in the communities of San Jose and Santa Monica where bag usage surveys reveal that shoppers opt for paper bags or no bags over reusable bags by a ratio of two-to-one.  In other words, the majority of shoppers reject using reusable bags.

Because officials do not carefully evaluate the litter impact of plastic carryout bags compared to the impact that a plastic bag ban will have on their citizens, officials have unwittingly traded one problem for another.  In other words, the bag ban doesn’t really solve a problem, it only shifts the problem from one area to another.  What is worse, a plastic bag litter problem which has no impact in your personal life, now after a bag ban presents a series of challenges, in your face, each and every time you go shopping.

To read the entire article click on the following link:  Bag Bans – Trading One Problem For Another

Be sure to follow my blog by clicking on the Follow button and entering your email address to keep you informed about future posts.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Plastic Bag Bans and California’s Drought

Economic Costs, Environmental Impacts, Freedom and Liberty, Local Ordinances, Reusable Shopping Bags, Statewide Bag Ban, , , , , , , , , ,
California Condor on the 2005 California State...
California Condor on the 2005 California State quarter (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On 17 January 2014, Governor Brown declared a Drought State Of Emergency for California which included a call on Californians to reduce water usage by 20%!  In signing the declaration, Governor Brown stated “We can’t make it rain, but we can be much better prepared for the terrible consequences that California’s drought now threatens, including dramatically less water for our farms and communities and increased fires in both urban and rural areas. … and I’m calling all Californians to conserve water in every way possible.” (Brown, 2014)

Felicia Marcus, chairwoman of the State Water Resources Control Board, stated “This is the most serious drought we’ve faced in modern times” and that we need to conserve the water we have for future use.  Similarly, State Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin stated that there simply is not enough water to meet the needs of farmers, communities, and “the conservation efforts intended to save dwindling populations of salmon and other fish throughout Northern California”. (Associated Press, 2014) Continue reading Plastic Bag Bans and California’s Drought →

Paper Bag Fee Setting A Bad Precedent

Carryout Bag Fees, Citizens Fighting Back, Freedom and Liberty, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, , , , , , , , , , ,

California_State_Capitol_Building256The paper bag fee sets a dangerous and illogical precedent.  Paper bags from the paper aisle are taxed at the check stand, but paper carryout bags purchased at the check stand to hold your groceries are not taxable.  Furthermore, the fee paid for paper carryout bags subsidizes the free paper bags provided to certain low income groups, providing a powerful argument that the fee is a tax instead.  So far court rulings have stated that the paper bag fee is not a tax since the fees are retained and used by a private party.  Under current court rulings, a state or local government jurisdiction can enact a statute or ordinance which requires payment of fees to a private party and then dictate how the moneys are spent by the private party and as long as no monies are remitted to the state or local jurisdiction then the scheme completely bypasses constitutional tax limitations and constitutional protection of citizens from a continual barrage of new taxes and fees.

To read the entire article click on the link: Paper Bag Fee Setting A Bad Precedent

 

Santa Barbara County Supervisors Not Well Served

Bag Ban Myths and Misinformation, LandFill Impacts, Local Ordinances, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bags, Recycling Impacts, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , , , ,
Official seal of County of Santa Barbara
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 →

Plastic Bag Recycling Rate – A Non-Issue

Bag Ban Myths and Misinformation, LandFill Impacts, Local Ordinances, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bag Disposal, Plastic Carryout Bags, Recycling Impacts, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , , , ,

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 →

Bag Bans – Market Driven Solutions Superior

Economic Costs, Freedom and Liberty, LandFill Impacts, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bags, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The movement to ban plastic carryout bags is growing as more and more California communities enact single-use bag ordinances.  These ordinances are very similar to one another and go beyond banning plastic carryout bags to implementing a very specific solution.   This solution attempts to change the shopping paradigm where shoppers supply their own reusable bags rather than receive store supplied disposable bags to carry their purchases.  To ensure that consumer behavior is changed, retailers are required by the local ordinance to charge a minimum fee for each paper bag issued. 

By implementing a specific solution, mandated by the government, innovation is stifled and businesses are no longer free to pursue alternative solutions that are in their best interests.  Government officials and their staffs simply do not have the expertise and time to investigate alternative solutions to solve the underlying problem or have the motivation to improve retailer customer service, therefore the government mandated solution locks an inadequate and antiquated solution into place.  Furthermore, freedom of choice on both the part of retailers and consumers is unnecessarily sacrificed, restricted, and infringed.

To read more, click on the following link: Bag Bans – Market Driven Solutions Superior.

Related articles

Rebuttal of the San Jose Bag Ban Results

Economic Costs, Freedom and Liberty, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bag Disposal, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
English: Montage of San Jose, California pictures.
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.

Related articles

Santa Barbara City Council Votes To Move Ahead With Bag Ban

Economic Costs, LandFill Impacts, Local Ordinances, Paper Carryout Bags, Plastic Bag Litter, Plastic Carryout Bag Ban, Plastic Carryout Bag Disposal, Plastic Carryout Bags, Reusable Shopping Bags, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
English: Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
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.

To read the entire article click on the following link:  Santa Barbara City Council Votes in Favor of Plastic Bag Ban.

Related articles