Seattle Bag Fee

This will accomplish nothing.

It's total nonsense to say that plastic will never degrade. If that were so, the material would be too expensive to use for bags -- it would be used to make cars, houses, and other things exposed to the elements.

The notion that plastic doesn't degrade probably refers to plastic in landfills. Yet, even in landfills things eventually degrade. My city's landfill captures "landfill gas" (methane) and generates enough electricity with it to provide for over 4,000 homes.

If the stuff takes a very long time to degrade -- then, plastic bags are a way of sequestering carbon. That's supposed to be a "good thing" -- to prevent global warming.

A large proportion of plastic bags are reused -- for garbage bags, to pick up dog waste, etc. If they are banned -- then people will simply have to purchase alternatives.

The bags can easily be recycled -- most large grocery stores will take them back.

This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture -- the type politicians love, because they don't think it comes at any costs (other than the loss of personal freedom). Clearly, there will be a cost -- if existing alternatives were better, people would be using them of their own free will.

To Tundrasea,

For accuracy's sake, this article does not say that "plastic will never degrade," as you have written. Rather, the article states that plastic "will never biodegrade...." The difference between photodegradation (which plastic undergoes) and biodegradation is an important distinction and the link below highlights why.

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-04/why-trashing-oceans-more-dangerous-we-imagined

obso1337:

Yes, let’s have some accuracy.

The proponents of bans on plastic bags take a factoid about the durability of bags in a sealed landfill -- then talk about them "floating in the pacific ocean" forever and forever. Clearly, they will quickly photo degrade -- contrary to the bag opponent's propaganda.

Just what are these bans supposed to accomplish?

Litter reduction? If that's the objective, at least be honest enough to admit that photodegradation will take care of the problem quite quickly. The bags will not last for hundreds of years -- the litter will not just keep building up forever. Besides, the vast majority of bags are already being reused, recycled, or disposed of in the trash.

Greenhouse gas reduction? If the bags did last forever, then the greenhouse gas has effectively been sequestered -- problem solved. If the article you linked to is to be believed -- even if the bags are reduced to molecules by photo degradation -- they remain molecules of plastic, and the carbon is still sequestered.

Plastics that 'degrade' may appear to be assimilated harmlessly into the environment, but, the link provided above has this to say:

"Even when they have been smashed into the tiniest bits physically possible, they are still plastics.
What’s worse, the plastics act as a kind of magnet for toxins in the water, accumulating chemicals on their surface. The worry now is those toxins will be transferred to the bodies of the animals eating the debris."

As for building plastic houses... I imagine the burning of one to the ground might release untold amounts of toxic fumes... not that a wood house burns cleanly mind you.

A large part of a car's makeup is plastic already, composites are used more and more.

Maybe I'm retarded, but maybe doing things that nature itself hasn't done might not be such a good thing for nature, and we're part of nature, like it or not. Nothing that's artificially produced should be produced without a way to unmake it. If you build a car factory, build a plant beside it to deconstruct those cars and recycle them.

Same goes for pretty much everything.

podboq

Another Popular Science article on this site describes the coating GM just developed for Corvettes -- at $1000/gallon.

Even the best plastics -- used to make Corvettes, for instance, degrade under the effects of sunlight and ozone.

Many houses are already covered in plastic -- i.e. vinyl siding. It lasts a long time, but it eventually degrades. It is also costs more than the plastic in plastic bags. My point was simply if plastic bags never degraded -- the material would be too valuable to use in disposable bags. It would be used to weatherproof valuable objects.

The self-proclaimed "environmentalists" who push for vacuous, symbolic gestures like bans on plastic shopping bags use a lot of deceptive propaganda. According to them, plastic bags take 1,000 years to degrade -- the clear implication being that they will pile up forever, until the world is covered in them -- like the picture accompanying this article.

In fact -- the bags do degrade, and outside they do degrade very rapidly. Saying that plastic bags "don't degrade" is just lying.

Also -- there are biodegradable plastic shopping bags. They cost several times more than the "non degradable" type -- but still only a fraction of the $0.20 levy that Seattle will put on all plastic bags. If the concern is with biodegradability, why not allow people to chose to use biodegradable bags? Just what is this ban supposed to accomplish?

BTW, if it weren't for "doing things that nature itself hasn't done" -- you wouldn't have been able to post your message. You would have had to keep your concerns about your possible retardation to yourself.

That's a provocative picture. Where is it? It wasn't labeled, and it doesn't look like Seattle or San Francisco to me.

first of all ireland hasn't banned plastic bags outright. we pay a fee, as is proposed for seattle. as the main article in the ny times shows, it just puts the problem in peoples minds, that constantly taking plastic bags, often just for the sake of it, is a waste.

people here now use reusable bags, and it has meant a reduction (90% according to the article) in wasted plastic bags. in short, it's a simple solution to a minor environmental problem. there's no need to get on high horses about how long it takes a bag to bio-degrade. if that's your main beef with the piece, you've completely missed the point.

podboq; massively agree on the subject of your last paragraph.

To porch:

What environmental problem?

If the bags never degraded -- as the proponents of banning (or exorbitant fees) would have us all believe -- then there might be a problem. Pictures, such as the one accompanying this article, would be truthful -- rather than part of a propaganda campaign.

The simple truth is -- the bags degrade. They won't cover the planet in liter. If people were told that simple truth – they would be unlikely to support bans (or confiscatory fees). For that reason – the people are lied to.

In addition, the vast majority of bags are reused, recycled, or at least properly disposed of.

This is a non-solution to a non-problem.

BTW -- the "Shift" key is located on both sides of your keyboard for a reason.

^^^^

so the picture in the article isn't truthful then. right, so zainub went to a lot of trouble to set up that little scene eh? tin foil hat time i think.

i don't think many people believe the planet is going to be covered in plastic bags. the bags degrade, yeah fine, but isn't it better to have no bags littering the place than some that will degrade in 20 years? as i said, it's a simple solution (that works!) to a small problem (that does exist!), but you just keep your fingers in your ears and watch the world go by.

bY tHe WaY, I FouNd thE SHifT buTTon. bUT I Can'T sEeM tO Get iT wOrKiNg ProPerLy. AnY HeLp wOulD be ApPreCiaTeD.

To porch,

Let me try to explain it so that even you can understand.

The picture used is far from a representative sample of what our environment looks like -- even urban environments. Even the landfill in our city is much neater looking than that scene.

Of the countless billions of pictures that could have been picked to go with the article, why was that one selected? Clearly, it was chosen for its potential impact. It is intended to reinforce the notion that plastic bags never degrade, and will therefore continue to accumulate, until the entire earth looks like the photograph.

Democracy needs truth to function. When self-righteous activists resort to propaganda techniques to achieve their goals; they are undermining democracy. People need facts to make good decisions -- instead, the activists are feeding us propaganda.

How much support would plastic bag bans (or fees) gain if people were truthfully told that the bags degrade in well under 20 years in the environment (rather than 500 years, or 1,000 years)?

How much support would the bans receive if people were told that most of them are reused, recycled -- or at least properly disposed of in landfills? Once in a landfill, the carbon used to make the bags is sequestered for a considerably long time -- thus removing a potential greenhouse gas. If the bags do last 1,000 years when buried in the ground, isn't that a good thing?

What is more important -- symbolic gestures to make you "feel good", or actual results? The bag bans are vacuous symbolic gestures.

To Tundrasea:

You've said quite a few things in your posts that amount to unsubstantiated claims. You really should do some research....

Annual use of polyethylene bags in world is estimated at 500 billion to 1 trillion based on extrapolation from EPA statistics. Seattle's share is about 360 million annually according to Seattle Public Utilities numbers. If the US of A is only recycling 2% of plastic bags, and 60-70% are making it to landfills (to sit in sealed containers not designed to degrade anything let alone plastic).

That means on the low end 28% of the 92 billion bags (25.76 billion) are left to photo-degrade into smaller and smaller bits of plastic. That takes anywhere between 20-1000 years. You seem to think every plastic bag will take 20 years. The thing is, we have not had plastic bags for 60 years let alone 1,000. I'm not really excited to find out which end of the scale its on if billions upon billions of them are being thrown away each year. Maybe that sounds like a good idea to you, but how about you keep the pollution from the plastic you use to yourself? Everything toxic that results from your actions will just end up in the land that you and your family live on, polluting your water and your food. Oh wait, you can't do that. The whole world is one system. What YOU DO affects everything and everyone else. Once you wait up from the myopic world view that what you do is all that matters, and begin to understand the interconnectedness of all things this will make more sense to you.

The root of the problem is the very concept of waste, and a linear system of resource use. The idea that the a grocery bag is the market's most effect solution assumes that the market accurately prices the bag. When the production of something results in pollution that is not accounted for in the price its called an externality. These externalized costs are paid by society (see asthma, cancer rates etc.) and more directly by the environment. The whole system is designed around the conversion of raw materials in to products to be consumed and disposed of. That may sound like heaven to you, but I don't want to live your or anyone else's garbage heap.

Taxes and bans are not the answer. They are quick fixes that fail to address the real problem: we live in a corporate run democracy. We are awash in advertising for the next big something to be consumed. Until the people have a government represents the interests of the people, and makes decisions that place a higher value on community than money than even the best intentioned law is doomed to fail.

Use this as an opportunity to resist the government taking away your choice by taking your own bag. Foil those government and corporate plans to get your money and keep on reusing it over and over. How about you buy less too, that will keep them from controlling you through your purchases. The thing is if your worried about your liberties being infringed you should look to D.C.... a bag tax should be the least of your concerns.

You mention that the picture is a form of propaganda. You are in a way right, it is purely used for effect. But the conclusion that you draw is disturbing, you accept the ridiculous waste that disposing those 63% of bags represent and then explain away the others as simply going to photo-degrade in 20 years or less. So say that only a couple percent of those 500 billion bags a year make it to the ocean. If you haven't read, we've pretty much effed the oceans straight up....we don't need to added another thing to worry about. Ohh wait. Ever heard of the the North Pacific Gyre (1000 miles off California) aka the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, Plastic soup, the Eastern Garbage Patch, and the Pacific Trash Vortex. (see the link below if you think its propaganda)

Check out the book The World Without Us or Cradle to Cradle.....maybe you might rethink

p.s.
"Once in a landfill, the carbon used to make the bags is sequestered for a considerably long time -- thus removing a potential greenhouse gas"

What? You mean the carbon released in the mining of oil and natural gas, shipping that oil and gas, refining it, manufacturing it into bags, and transporting those bags that actually does contribute to the greenhouse effect, is somehow sequestered when a bag is put in a landfill. How is putting a bag in a landfill going to have any effect on future greenhouse gas emissions. That would only make sense if you were talking about the GHG from the oil if it were used in some other way. The oil used for plastic bags is a drop in the bucket compared to worldwide use. Sequestering the carbon from the oil used to make the bag, instead of burning it for fuel is a fools dream.

How about we leave the oil in the ground and just take our bike and our own bags. Or is that too hard for you.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0902_030902_plasticbags.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23923334/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shopping_bag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

To: halcyonfire

You seem quite articulate, and are obviously impassioned about the subject. I can respect those things. However, before you indulge your desire to micromanage everyone else's life; you should at least get your facts straight.

First -- plastic bags don't take 1,000 years to degrade in the open environment. The 1,000 years figure often bandied about is in reference to plastics in landfills. It's not even proven for landfills -- i.e. it's just a factoid. Exposed to the elements, plastic bags last well under 20 years – even the best acrylic, or vinyl-acrylic house paints don’t last that long – and they’re designed to withstand weathering.

To reiterate my point, and put it into as plain as possible language -- proponents of plastic bag bans are either liars or ignorant, or both when they proclaim that the bags will last for 1,000 years (or even, as many say, "forever"). These lies are reinforced by propaganda pictures -- such as the one accompanying the PopSci article -- that suggest we are going to be buried in plastic bags. The reality is very different.

It's perfectly reasonable to debate the merits and demerits of plastic bags. It's unreasonable, and undemocratic to use lies and other propaganda tools to push for a ban.

You mention the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and other scary-sounding things that were just recently discovered and labeled. Perhaps a little elementary school math would help you put things into perspective. The Wikipedia article you referenced states that 5.1 kg/km2 of plastics were collected from the surface of the North Pacific Gyre. The concentration drops rapidly at lower depths.

An area of one sq. km, by 1 meter depth contains 1 billion liters of water -- or 1 billion kg. of water. The concentration of plastic is less than one part in 150 million (allowing for the lower density of plastic, compared to water). That’s one part in 150 million on the surface, of the area of the ocean that contains the highest concentration of trash. One part in several trillions of the total water in all oceans.

I'm not saying that any amount of trash is a good thing -- but, one part in trillions is a far cry from: " we've pretty much effed the oceans straight up..." as you claim.

Shopping bag bans or fees are vacuous, symbolic gestures that will accomplish nothing meaningful. The proponents, and opportunistic politicians have used lies, exaggeration, emotionalism, and other propaganda techniques to con the public into supporting these empty gestures.

Tundrasea-

Thanks for the math. I really feel better about all that floating trash now that I know there is so much more water than trash in the oceans. Actually the "effed the oceans up" comment was regarding the effective extinction of many of the world's major fish species (28% is what I remember). But I'll let you do your own research on that.

I agree that sensationalism and pandering to fears are poor tools for motivating people to change their habits, something that I abhor about the 'environmental' movement. It serves to marginalize people, whatever many say, that really do care about the world they live in. But that sensationalism is a model of discourse that has come to dominate media and government. It often proves too tempting for writers to avoid when covering 'environmental' issues. It makes me wonder what type of communication can effectively convey the seriousness of an issue and encourage people to act, that doesn't use propaganda to achieve its end.

When I hear people start talking about eliminating the concept waste and redesigning how products are made I'll gladly join that discussion. Hell I may even try and start the conversation. But until then, if Seattle can achieve the same reductions that other places have achieved with their taxes (i.e Ireland) I will support that. I'd love to trust consumers to make the choice based on information, but I'd be a fool to think they make decisions based on anything other than money at this point.

To halcyonfire:

I've been a practicing environmentalist for my whole life -- so I can understand the desire to "do good".

However, using propaganda (or outright lying) does not help democracies make good decisions. Self-proclaimed "environmentalists" who use lies, spin, exaggeration, and other propaganda techniques will eventually bring environmentalism into disrepute. It's best to avoid the dark side.

We need to consider both costs and benefits in making decisions. If the costs far outweigh the benefits -- then that is a waste of resources. The price system has proven itself far superior to centrally-planned administrative systems at allocating resources. Wasted resouces are wasted resources -- regardless of whether they were wasted for a "good cause". Consider the environmental disasters in the former Soviet Union.

There are many instances where externalities distort the price system -- and, I would agree that those externalities should be priced into affected products. If you can't identify and quantify externalities -- then the best solution is to let people make their own decisions concerning the utility of goods and services.

Tundrasea-

Thats interesting that you say your an environmentalist. It doesn't seem to fit with your argument that the "price system" is better at making decisions about resource allocation. That sounds an awful lot like letting the "free market" decide. America has anything but a free market system, and we clearly have different ideas about what superior resource allocation means. I would say the price system has done an absolutely abysmal job at allocating resources, purely based on the impacts from mines, clearcuts, over fishing, monocultures, etc.

Cost benefit analysis is great if it includes accurate accounting of the costs of both intended and unintended consequences. But companies rarely make decisions that are based on thorough C/B analysis, let alone including environmental or social costs. These externalized costs are considered unimportant to business because they have only a responsibility to profit, growth, and their shareholders.

It seems like your saying that if we can't put a price on externalities that we should just let them slide. Let the consumer make the decision. Thats a nice idea, but it isn't very reflective of the market in which consumers make decisions. If your argument is more based on the failings of government's command and control style of regulation, I couldn't agree more. Laws that try to control the market too much and set pollution limits with fines for exceeding the limits, end up being repressive. We must find better ways to provide incentives and disincentives for businesses that do not include subsidies and lawsuits. There is a way to craft laws that encourage businesses to act responsibly, but it will take representatives that are not beholden to corporate interests.

But this is a circular argument. We need more participation in government to change laws to reflect the needs of communities. We need better sources of information so people can be inspired to participate. We need a wide variety of independent and reliable news sources to get better information. We need corporations to act responsibly. We need laws to inspire corporations to act responsibly...but I repeat myself.

Until there is more participation in government, there will never be any laws that attempt anything more than quick fixes.....in a time when we direly need fundamental solutions.

I'll leave you with this quote to think about:

"it takes the same energy to say why something can't be done as to figure out how to do it"
Jaime Lerner - Mayor of Curitiba

Not to say that all things are worth doing, but just imagine all the energy you've expended saying why this and other things wont work instead of spending that energy building something that will work?

To halcyonfire:

A free-market system is clearly superior to any command-and-control system. The environmental disasters of the former USSR, and China should be sufficient proof. We could also look at most African nations -- and in particular Zimbabwe.

There is nothing inherently at odds between the market system and environmentalism. Nothing. A market system is simply a massively distributed decision-making system -- a system for empowering the individual. One of the things that individuals (especially individuals in rich countries) want is a good environment. We spend a great deal of money for that objective.

That does not deny the possibility of market failure. Clearly, markets can fail for a number of reasons, including: monopolies; imperfect information; free-rider situations, including the "tragedy of the commons". Some sort of corrective government action is warranted in the case of market failure.

However, an administrative (command and control) system of resource allocation is to substitute for a free market -- then it is imperative that the decisions be based on good information.

This brings me back to my recurring theme in this thread -- the information being used is not good. Most of it is wrong, some of it is duplicitous, and some is just plain lies.

If there is a "free-rider" problem -- or a problem with negative externalities -- it is appropriate to add a charge to cover those externalities. The Seattle bag fee might purport to be such a charge -- but, there is no evidence that the externality is any where near $.20/bag. For instance, one of the biodegradable bags featured in another PopSci article here, costs only 3 or 4 cents more than the polyethylene bags. A fee of only 5 cents per poly bag (and none for the starch bag) would be enough to cause people to switch. There is no justification for charging 20 cents -- and no indication that the biodegradable bags will be exempt from the fee in Seattle.

I’ll leave you with a quote from management guru Peter Drucker:

“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.”

tundrasea,

I believe, podboq, is describing the relatively new science of Biomimicry. It is true that we as a species would be much better off by replicating the models, systems, and processes provided for us by nature...

Title: Biomimicry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biomimicry (from bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning to imitate) is a relatively new science that studies nature, its models, systems, processes and elements and then imitates or takes creative inspiration from them to solve human problems sustainably.

In her 1997 book, "Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature" (ISBN 0-06-053322-6), author Janine M. Benyus introduces biomimicry, presents examples, and explains why the field is important now. She writes, "Our planet-mates (plants, animals and microbes) have been patiently perfecting their wares for more than 3.8 billion years ... turning rock and sea into a life-friendly home. What better models could there be?"

- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomimetics

...Here is an interesting article on the subject...

Title: Cow Used in Man-Made Spider Web

Dragline silk makes up the radiating spokes of a spider web and is five times as strong, by weight, as steel. "It's incredible that a tiny animal found literally in your backyard can create such an amazing material," Turner said.

"Spider silk is a material science wonder," Turner said. "A self-assembling, biodegradable, high-performance, nanofiber structure one-tenth the width of a human hair that can stop a bee traveling at 20 mph without breaking."

- Source: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/01/49828

...Plastic is made from oil. So, the less plastic used the more oil we conserve. The more oil conserved the less oil imported from foreign countries. The less oil we import from foreign countries, the more money that circulates within our own economy.

Plastic shopping bags are a petrochemical product that end up in landfills and take several decades to degrade because of the lack of water, oxygen, and sunlight. Cities are starting to replace plastic shopping bags with reusable shopping bags. This is a good thing for the economy as well as the environment.

I'm glad Americans are conserving more oil by driving less. Every little bit helps.

The real "Green" in this story is about all the $$ the city of Seattle will make. The Seattle Time estimate $3.5 million, the city's own website put that number at $10 million. Between $500,000 and $750,000 are estimated for enforcement (so what 10 "bag police" at 50k a year) although the city states it will be for "education" not tickets (uh huh). That leaves between $3 and $9.25 million for city coffers. Yet today's Seattle Times (Aug 2) the city is stating they want a 29% INCREASE for garbage collection. Huh? So $9 million + 29%? I can see why the Seattle City Council thought this was such a good idea.

For environmental news about Seattle and the Pacific Northwest, go to www. greenhuman.org