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→
Welcome to Historic Durango (Photo credit: Steven Conte)
On November 5, 2013 voters in Durango, Colorado voted to overturn the Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance by a vote of 2,674 to 2087 or 56.16% to 43.84%.
In August, 2013 the Durango City Council voted 4-1 to adopt an ordinance that places a 10-cent fee on both paper and plastic bags distributed by the city’s three grocers and any other business that chooses to opt-in. Under the ordinance, the 10-cent fee on paper and plastic carryout bags is collected by the retailer with 50% going to the city. The funds collected by the city can only be used for environmental projects. (Hurst, 2013) The fee was intended to encourage shoppers to purchase and use reusable bags instead of paper and plastic disposable carryout bags. (Slothrower, 2013) Continue reading Carryout Bag Fee Overturned By Voters In Durango, Colorado→
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.
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.
City Hall South, Issaquah, Washington. The building houses the council chambers and municipal court. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
On October 21, 2013 the Issaquah City Council voted to put the newly qualified citizen’s initiative to “REPEAL of Plastic Bag Ban and Forced Bag Charge” on the February 11, 2014 ballot. Giving citizens the opportunity to resolve the ban’s fate.
Thanks to the hard work of Craig Keller, co-founder of Save Our Choice, and a small team of volunteers. More than 15% of all Issaquah voters signed the petition to force the city council to either repeal the ordinance or refer the decision to voters.
Earlier in October, the King County Department of Elections concluded that enough valid signatures were collected to qualify the initiative for the ballot and issued a Certificate of Sufficiency for the Save Our Choice petition to Issaquah City Council. A total of 2626 out of 4266 signatures collected were found to be valid to qualify the initiative.
According to Craig Keller, there is mounting dissatisfaction with ban and the majority on the city council had the power to correct their earlier bad decision. In fact, once the King County Department of Elections certified that the initiative had collected enough valid signatures, the city council could have repealed the ordinance but instead voted to put the issue on the ballot in 2014.
Now residents of Issaquah, Washington will have a voice on whether the plastic bag ban and fee on paper bags will be repealed.
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/
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.
The majority of reusable bags currently in use in California are made from non-woven Polypropylene (PP) or fabrics such as cotton. While PP is technically recyclable, currently there is no recycling infrastructure for PP bags in the state of California. Furthermore, although cotton bags are technically compostable, there is no composting facility currently available. Hence, both PP and cotton reusable bags must be disposed of in the trash or landfill.
A very small percentage (much less than 5%) of reusable bags are made from High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) or Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE). These bags are recyclable via the In-Store Recycling Bin at your local retail store.
Environmentalists like to say that the recycling rate for plastic grocery bags is only 5% and therefore they should be banned. But the recycling rate for reusable bags is closer to 0%. Should they not be banned?
English: This is a paper bag from Victory Supermarkets (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Have you ever wondered why grocery stores are in support of a plastic bag ban? Well, I have. I wondered if they supported the bag ban in order to cozy up to local officials? Or was it because they wanted to be good citizens? Or, is there some kind of financial incentive?
Before a bag ban, stores purchased plastic and paper bags and distributed these bags at checkout for “free”. They really weren’t free, the retailer purchased and paid for the bags and passed the cost to you in the form of higher retail prices. Plastic bags cost less than 2 cents each and paper bags from 5 to 8 cents each in bulk quantities. The cost of plastic and paper bags is considered an overhead cost or an indirect cost and is indirectly paid for by customers. Continue reading Why are Grocers For Plastic Bag Bans?→
Fight The Plastic Bag Ban 