Before they came for our light bulbs, they targeted our plastic bags. And they’re still after them.
It all began in 2002, when Ireland enacted a plastic-bag tax for the clearly stated purpose of lowering the amount of litter in the country. The fact that it would also raise tax revenue was an added bonus. And sure enough, weeks after its passage, the New York Times was already reporting a 94 percent drop in plastic-bag use, as reusable bags quickly caught on among Irish shoppers.
So naturally, when San Francisco (big surprise) became the first U.S. city to pass an all-out ban on plastic grocery bags, in 2007, supporters were quick to highlight Ireland’s case as an example of the positive impact such legislation would have on the environment. Aside from making up a sizeable percentage of total litter, they argued, the bags took up a large amount of space in landfills and were difficult to recycle.
Advertisement
In the years since passage of the San Francisco ban, several more municipalities have enacted similar legislation, including bans in Santa Monica and the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and a tax in Washington D.C. In Oregon, a statewide plastic-bag ban has been introduced in the legislature, as have prospective statewide bag taxes in both Indiana and Maryland. And why not? Such legislation reduces the amount of solid waste, promotes the use of reusable bags, and (in the case of taxes) increases much-needed revenue for state and local governments all at once, right?
Well, not quite.
Unfortunately, study after study has shown that most of the supposed “benefits” of these bans and taxes have a negligible effect on the environment at best, and can actually have unintended consequences that cause greater environmental harm. Take Ireland, for example. When the New York Times reported the 94 percent decrease, it neglected to specify that it was referring only to plastic grocery-bag use. Sales of non-grocery plastic bags (garbage bags, etc.) rose an astonishing 400 percent, amounting to a net increase of 10 percent in total plastic-bag consumption. In an interview with National Review Online, Patrick Gleason, state-affairs manager of Americans for Tax Reform, explains why.
“I don’t know about you, but bags from the store I usually keep to reuse again, to line waste bins, clean up after a pet, etc., so when you don’t have a stockpile built up and aren’t saving these bags, you have to go buy new ones. This goes together with the nonsensical nature of this policy, which has no positive impact on the environment. What’s the point of discriminating against bags on one side of the checkout from bags on the other?” Similar results were found in San Francisco, where, as Gleason notes, “not only was there no change in [the amount of] total litter, but plastic bags comprised a greater share of the litter after the ban.”
The fact is that in most U.S. locations, plastic bags account for a small fraction of total litter and landfill space. Philip Rozenski, director of marketing and sustainability for Hilex Poly, the largest plastic-bag manufacturer in the U.S. (and admittedly not a disinterested party), told NRO: “It has been shown over and over again that bags are less than 3 percent of litter, and in many locations, like San Francisco before the ban, it was less than 1 percent of litter.” Contrary to the beliefs of many ban proponents, plastic grocery bags are 100 percent recyclable, and according to the EPA, 13 percent of bags and wraps were recycled last year. “Theoretically we can go up to 90 to 100 percent recycled content,” noted Rozenski, “but 60 percent of the bags are reused as bin liners by consumers, so we have an industry goal to get to 25 or 30 percent.” Unfortunately, banning the bags has usually led grocery stores to shut down their plastic-recycling programs, contributing further to the problem that was meant to be solved.
When it comes to envirozealotism, the operating factor is, "Out of sight, out of mind." As long as it is out of the envirozealot's sight, they don't mind it. Who cares if China is a toxic cesspool? Our forests are pristine, even though our citizens have to suffer, but we're not suffering so it doesn't matter.
And this is supposed to be considered serious public policy.
We have zealotry of this stripe in spades here in CA. We are also told by the regulators that they are in effect tired of cleaning up after us. As if the attitude of the servant should have any bearing on those who pay the bills. The most visible impact of plastic shopping bags is in the inner precincts of LA where they are strewn in the streets and accumulate against chain link fences. Try changing the hearts and habits of those who throw trash in the streets rather than always reaching for the low hanging fruit of those who actually comply with law.
Environmentalists have caused more problems than they have solved. Going back to the diaper fiasco when they decided it was bad to wash cloth diapers and thought it would be soooo much better to use disposable diapers which end up in land fills not to mention the fact that probably half are filled with human feces. Then of course came the paper bag vs. the plastic bags. Evidently we could no longer cut down trees which I always thought was a replenishable resource and when they end up in landfills they are biodegradable so they end up going back into the earth....no problem there....but plastic is better???? Now we're working on banning the incandescent light bulb and replacing it with fluoriscent which contain mercury.....wonder how long it will be when they wonder how mercury levels are rising in the water and soil.....gee, do you think we the taxpayers will then be hit again with the need to clean up the mess? But I guess it's all for the good of the earth, right???
The point about finding e-coli in re-usable shopping bags could probably be applied to other areas of the "green" and "natural" and "eco-friendly" movements, as well as the "communal living" ideal as well. It is probably not quantifiable how much disease is being passed around out there, necessitating all these doctor, clinic and emergency room visits and driving up health care costs. Don't even let's get stated on the social and economic costs of "spreading the love" resulting from the hippie counter-culture and its various spawn.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --C.S. Lewis
You have to understand, liberals believe that feeling good about themselves is much more important than actually doing good.
They were told that the plastic bags were evil, so they banned them. Asking them to now determine whether the bans were effective would totally destroy the good feelings they have now developed.
If a liberal can make himself feel good at no cost to himself, then he has found true nirvana. Hence the liberals love affair with raising taxes on other people in order to give money to the poor.
They get to believe that they are saving humanity, and it doesn't cost them a dime.
The anecdotes about reusable bags in Nat Brown’s piece about bag taxes are backed up by polling data: When voters were asked whether or not they reused their plastic bags, a full 93 percent of them said that they used their plastic bags for another purpose – everyday uses like lining trash cans, cleaning up after pets, or carrying lunches to work. Perhaps that’s why 85 percent of voters agree that customers should have a choice as to what kind of bag they use and a full two thirds of voters oppose measures that would restrict or tax plastic bags.
"...a problem that prompted a statement by Sen. Chuck Schumer on the issue..."
As we Schumer-suffering New Yorkers know, it takes next to nothing to get Schumer to make a statement on something. He's out there every Sunday, yammering away about whatever, so that he can be on the news first thing Monday. I think he's had Sunday press conferences on whatever happened that morning -- the menace of burnt toast, the unpleasant wait for hot water in the shower forced on consumers by their rapacious water heaters, the poor quality of modern shoelace manufacture, etc., etc., repeat until you want to kill yourself.
As a grocery store owner I was worried about the ban here on Maui. The paper bags were more expensive but I came to realize that where I used three plastic bags I was now using only one paper bag. As a surfer I was always pulling plastic bags out of the water. As a cyclist I viewed mile after mile of plastic bags blowing around the island until they would get trapped in trees or hit the water. Since the ban I see less of this mess.
I know the ban does nothing to alleviate land fill issues and may increase sales of other plastic bags, but to keep Maui "flying bag free", I have no problem with the ban.
Well, we have a pile of misinformation here. Who ever claimed that plastic bags took up a substantial amount of landfill space? Of course they don't, but they're an EYESORE as litter, which is why most of us liberals object to them. The landfill issue is the least of it. If they were in some way necessary to daily life, we might need to live with it, but since they're completely unnecessary, why not ban them?
Of course banning plastic grocery bags reduces the total amount of plastic used. An industry claim to the contrary is beyond suspicious. If the Irish found that they were actually using more bags after the ban than before, don't you think they'd do something about it? Instead, they are thrilled with the result. Or perhaps the Irish are secretly in the employ of plastic manufacturers, and the whole bag-ban was just a scheme to INCREASE plastic consumption. Sure, that makes sense.
And speaking of landfills, there is still someone alive who thinks that landfills are designed to break down waste and return it to nature? No, no, no! Landfills are designed to keep waste separate and intact for centuries, which they do pretty well. Landfills are great But they don't make "mulch" for chrissake.
Your reusable bag has lead and e-coli on it? Then don't eat out of your recycled bags! You all want to keep using plastic grocery bags for your health?
Eliminating plastic grocery bags modestly reduces our use of fossil fuels and modestly improves the look of our roadsides. Yep, the benefits are modest. But it's also incredibly easy to accomplish, it IS worthwhile, so why not do it?
MattInAlexandria : facts not in use. What modest improvements are you referring to if plastic bags 'sales' increased, more than offsetting the grocery bag ban?
For me, you answered it yourself. The benefits are modest. At best. Absent a significant issue, the government should not tell me what to do.
Essentially you are asking the wrong question. With any government regualation the question should be, "Why do it?" And the bar should be fairly high.
For the record I own some of those cloth bags and use them when I remember to, which is pretty often. I think they are a good idea. I also recycle, which is not mandatory where I live. I am also careful when I dispose of used motor oil, etc. I also use CFL's extensively(although I am a little nervous about the mercury issue. Not sure about that.)
Convince me to do these things of my own free will. Quit telling me what to do.
Shoot! I was just about to use plastic bags to dispose of my incandescent light bulbs. Now what do I do? I can't put trash in the "reusable" bags ... Hmmm ... Wait! Maybe I can put them in a Happy Meal bag from McDonalds ... Shoot!
Don't even think of messing with my Happy Meal. That would be the last straw.
I would grind up my CFL's, mix them with motor oil, line my recycle bags with plastic bags to hold the mixture, put it on your front door step, light it on fire, ring the door bell and run.
Sometimes you just have to stand up for what's right.
As to the litter problem...those who have no respect for social space will throw away paper bags as easily as they do plastic. No one who would toss his waste onto public property will be stymied in his slobishness or converted to tidiness by the lack of a plastic bag. He will just throw the paper bag on the ground, as he does his beer cans and fast food wrappers.
First, environmentalists managed to eliminate paper grocery bags, as "we" were cutting down too many trees to make them.
Secondly, they want to eliminate plastic bags because they don't recycle well, are eyesores, and can't always be reused. And they are made of chemicals. We are encouraged to use reusable bags of materials or, well, "woven" plastic.
Now, the "new" plastic woven bags split and become useless after a while, and the TV stations have bulletins about how the bags made of canvas or other materials are becoming a "heath hazard". Evidently these latter bags soak up whatever spills in them, especially juices from meats, and "may" get contaminated.
When is this idiocy going to end?
With every governmental decree, we lose more and more of our liberties.
The government has absolutely NO business telling us if we can or can't eat something, what kind of light bulb we can use in our homes, what kind of food a restaurant can serve, or, yes, Mayor B...this means you...I find your ban of smoking anywhere in NYC un-American - and I don't even smoke!!!
The government is everywhere and they are NOT here to help us...rather to rob us of our personal responsibility and the ability to make individual lawful decisions!!!!! It is time to put government intervention into our every thought, word and deed to rest!
