Banning of Plastic Bags in PDX
Being a lover of knowledge, I tend to bookmark and/or read dozens of online articles on any day when I have internet access. Today, while reading the current news stories on the BBC website, I came across this article about how one woman is aiming to give up plastics for one month. The linked article is going to be the first in a series of blog posts about her successes, difficulties, and experiences in the endeavour. As one would hope the comments are mostly positive. However, a couple are extremely negative and take the all too typical stance of attacking without facts and using anti-liberal or anti-environmental bullshit rhetoric.
The usage of plastic in my life has been on my mind quite a bit over the last few months, ever since I posted an entry about the misconceptions about recycling plastic (thanks to Christian), and the follow up in the comments concerning municipal recycling programs. Sadly, none of my emails to those in charge of Portland's recycling ever received a response, so I really am not sure how much plastic PDX recycles or how much money it makes or loses in the effort. Disappointing, really.
In a recent Oregonian article, the issue of plastic bags has been brought into the limelight. Sam Adams, city commissioner extraordinaire and future mayor, wishes to impose a fee on those who receive plastic or paper bags to hold their purchases, instead of using a reusable cloth or plastic bag1. The comments, this time, are a bit more interesting and arguments against the proposal are more compelling (as long as you ignore a few of the trolls that have inevitably shown up). I highly suggest you read through them and try to keep an open mind. When I did so, I realized I was not entirely sure Sam's "fee" proposal was a good one, so I did a bit more research for my own edification.
Fact: Despite scientists not having a clear number, it is fairly obvious that plastic biodegrades extremely slow compared to other items in a typical landfill. For plastic bags, the possible number of year given seems to vary anywhere between 500 years to 1000 years, when buried. When exposed to UV radiation the polymer chains break down faster, but I think it is safe to say that plastic bags are more likely to be buried than hung outside to breakdown.
Fact: Plastic bags can be harmful and even deadly for wildlife and nature. They clog water systems, choke animals trying to eat them, and can trap animals. Plastic, in general, is not exactly good for the environment either, even when it breaks down into microscopic pieces.
Fact: The recycling of plastic bags is a complete and utter failure. According to the Oregonian, only five percent of the plastic bags given out in the United States are ever recycled. According to this Toronto Star article from last year, San Francisco, a strong, progressive city, was only recycling a single percent of its plastic bags before its own ban.
Fact: Using a reusable cloth or plastic bag (or backpack!) is far more environmentally friendly than getting fresh bags every single time you purchase your groceries.
So, I think it is fairly obvious that plastic bags are an extremely poor choice for anyone even remotely caring about the environment, especially when reusable bags are so easily acquired and used. I, myself, bike to the grocery store on average every two days and use my backpack for carrying the food home. With my backpacks' three pockets, I do not even need to put fruit and vegetables in plastic bags as I can separate them out during checkout. Obviously, I am anti-plastic bag.
My minor quibble2 with this proposal is that it seems like a moral taxation by our local government. Does anyone else feel that it is not the place of elected officials to have fees and taxes placed on items and services to improve the behavior of the citizenry? Eating meat is not particularly good for the planet either and many people, especially in Portland, would feel it is immoral to eat animals. Should we start taxing meat as organizations such as PETA suggest? Even if I agree wholeheartedly with both ideas, eventually there will be one with which I disagree. As much as I want to impose my will and beliefs on others, it is not right.
Now, the two redeeming thoughts against that quibble, for me, is that a) a fee on non-reusable bags is not a 'sin' tax per se but is essentially a 'pollution' tax, an important distinction; and b) there is no better, feasible solution coming to mind.
For the second thought, an outright ban will not work as one cannot always have reusable bags on their person whenever they decide to shop, so plastic bags and paper will still likely need to be around. So, if we cannot eliminate them entirely, then we should try to reduce their usage. While numerous local stores have already provided strong programs to promote the usage of reusable bags, they are still be consumed and disposed of in astronomical numbers, so simply informing the public is not enough.
All things being fair, we are left with two options. One, we encourage people to use reusable bags through some manner of incentive, likely financial. Two, we provide a penalty to not using them to encourage people to buy and bring them along. Which would you choose? Keep in mind this fee is on the order of 5 to 20 cents per bag.
-----
1. I focused primarily on plastic bags here and not paper bags, which have their own environmental, carbon, and financial costs that are worrisome, even with good recycling programs. Research further about those, if you so desire. Many related arguments apply.
2. There is another argument against this which involves checkout personnel not wishing to touch unclean reusable bags. That seems to be an excellent point but could easily be remedied by having a clause that allows employees to refuse to use reusable bags that seem unsanitary or filthy.
-----
Update: More research has shown that plastic bags perhaps are not such a detriment to marine wildlife as previously believed.
Update II: If you have not, check out the comments for this entry. Far more information is presented and I think I have reached my own conclusion.
The usage of plastic in my life has been on my mind quite a bit over the last few months, ever since I posted an entry about the misconceptions about recycling plastic (thanks to Christian), and the follow up in the comments concerning municipal recycling programs. Sadly, none of my emails to those in charge of Portland's recycling ever received a response, so I really am not sure how much plastic PDX recycles or how much money it makes or loses in the effort. Disappointing, really.
In a recent Oregonian article, the issue of plastic bags has been brought into the limelight. Sam Adams, city commissioner extraordinaire and future mayor, wishes to impose a fee on those who receive plastic or paper bags to hold their purchases, instead of using a reusable cloth or plastic bag1. The comments, this time, are a bit more interesting and arguments against the proposal are more compelling (as long as you ignore a few of the trolls that have inevitably shown up). I highly suggest you read through them and try to keep an open mind. When I did so, I realized I was not entirely sure Sam's "fee" proposal was a good one, so I did a bit more research for my own edification.
Fact: Despite scientists not having a clear number, it is fairly obvious that plastic biodegrades extremely slow compared to other items in a typical landfill. For plastic bags, the possible number of year given seems to vary anywhere between 500 years to 1000 years, when buried. When exposed to UV radiation the polymer chains break down faster, but I think it is safe to say that plastic bags are more likely to be buried than hung outside to breakdown.
Fact: Plastic bags can be harmful and even deadly for wildlife and nature. They clog water systems, choke animals trying to eat them, and can trap animals. Plastic, in general, is not exactly good for the environment either, even when it breaks down into microscopic pieces.
Fact: The recycling of plastic bags is a complete and utter failure. According to the Oregonian, only five percent of the plastic bags given out in the United States are ever recycled. According to this Toronto Star article from last year, San Francisco, a strong, progressive city, was only recycling a single percent of its plastic bags before its own ban.
Fact: Using a reusable cloth or plastic bag (or backpack!) is far more environmentally friendly than getting fresh bags every single time you purchase your groceries.
So, I think it is fairly obvious that plastic bags are an extremely poor choice for anyone even remotely caring about the environment, especially when reusable bags are so easily acquired and used. I, myself, bike to the grocery store on average every two days and use my backpack for carrying the food home. With my backpacks' three pockets, I do not even need to put fruit and vegetables in plastic bags as I can separate them out during checkout. Obviously, I am anti-plastic bag.
My minor quibble2 with this proposal is that it seems like a moral taxation by our local government. Does anyone else feel that it is not the place of elected officials to have fees and taxes placed on items and services to improve the behavior of the citizenry? Eating meat is not particularly good for the planet either and many people, especially in Portland, would feel it is immoral to eat animals. Should we start taxing meat as organizations such as PETA suggest? Even if I agree wholeheartedly with both ideas, eventually there will be one with which I disagree. As much as I want to impose my will and beliefs on others, it is not right.
Now, the two redeeming thoughts against that quibble, for me, is that a) a fee on non-reusable bags is not a 'sin' tax per se but is essentially a 'pollution' tax, an important distinction; and b) there is no better, feasible solution coming to mind.
For the second thought, an outright ban will not work as one cannot always have reusable bags on their person whenever they decide to shop, so plastic bags and paper will still likely need to be around. So, if we cannot eliminate them entirely, then we should try to reduce their usage. While numerous local stores have already provided strong programs to promote the usage of reusable bags, they are still be consumed and disposed of in astronomical numbers, so simply informing the public is not enough.
All things being fair, we are left with two options. One, we encourage people to use reusable bags through some manner of incentive, likely financial. Two, we provide a penalty to not using them to encourage people to buy and bring them along. Which would you choose? Keep in mind this fee is on the order of 5 to 20 cents per bag.
-----
1. I focused primarily on plastic bags here and not paper bags, which have their own environmental, carbon, and financial costs that are worrisome, even with good recycling programs. Research further about those, if you so desire. Many related arguments apply.
2. There is another argument against this which involves checkout personnel not wishing to touch unclean reusable bags. That seems to be an excellent point but could easily be remedied by having a clause that allows employees to refuse to use reusable bags that seem unsanitary or filthy.
-----
Update: More research has shown that plastic bags perhaps are not such a detriment to marine wildlife as previously believed.
Update II: If you have not, check out the comments for this entry. Far more information is presented and I think I have reached my own conclusion.
– Posted: August 03, 2008, 01:39 pm