- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Tim Shestek: Clearing Up ‘Myth-Information’ About Plastic Bags
Few topics engender such “myth-information” as plastic bags and the environment (Noozhawk, “Santa Barbara Council Gives the OK to Research Voter Survey on Bag Tax”). And, unfortunately, misinformation can lead to misinformed policy.
Case in point: When San Francisco banned the use of plastic grocery bags, most shoppers simply switched to paper bags. Little did they know that plastic bags require 70 percent less energy to manufacture, produce 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions and create five times less waste than bulky paper bags. The result? San Francisco unwittingly increased energy use, greenhouse gases and waste.
Regardless, many California jurisdictions continue to propose bans on plastic carryout bags. Now, the city of Santa Barbara is looking to spend taxpayer dollars (up to $50,000, according to the article) to survey whether voters want to impose a tax on themselves for choosing store-provided bags at the checkout.
Readers’ opinions were abundantly clear as expressed in their comments on the Noozhawk article and in Noozhawk’s poll of its readers: Santa Barbara doesn’t need an expensive poll or a new tax.
Many Santa Barbara residents and Californians across the state apparently are taking a simpler approach: Reduce, reuse, recycle. Even the city’s “Where’s Your Bag?” campaign encourages shoppers to do precisely that.
How? Nearly every major retailer sells inexpensive reusable bags, so consumers can easily pick up a reusable bag on any shopping trip, and then they can bring their own. Ninety percent of consumers already reuse plastic grocery bags at home to pack their kids’ lunches, to line their trash cans and to clean up after their dogs. And with innovative new recycling programs spanning the state, consumers can return any leftover plastic bags to grocery stores for recycling.
A recent state law requires large grocers to offer recycling bins for plastic checkout bags — plus dry-cleaning bags, newspaper bags and plastic wraps from bread, paper towels, cases of soda and more. Plastic bag makers are partnering with retailers and recyclers to give these products another life as durable backyard decking, home-building products, city park benches and new plastic bags.
Rapidly growing infrastructure has helped the recycling of plastic bags and wraps grow 27 percent nationwide since 2005, and growth is expected to continue as a result of new state laws such as California’s combined with innovative recycling programs.
If Santa Barbara wants to keep plastic bags out of the waste stream, perhaps the city could look into a recently enacted law in Madison, Wis. This forward-looking city has simply barred clean plastic bags from municipal garbage. Residents who choose plastic bags can return them to local grocery stores or one of 10 municipal drop-off points to be recycled. In addition to diverting this valuable material from the waste stream, the law increases the supply of reclaimed plastic, which is in high demand in California and across the country.
No bans, no taxes, no surveys. Madison residents are asked simply to do what many already are doing — returning their bags to the store that provided them.
Plastic bag makers affiliated with the American Chemistry Council, which represents more than 80 percent of plastic bag production in the United States and some plastic bag recyclers, fully support efforts to increase the recycling of plastic bags. Contrary to information attributed in Noozhawk’s article, the American Chemistry Council hasn’t been a party to lawsuits to prevent bans on plastic bags.
Instead, we work with local partners to educate shoppers about the importance of efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle plastic bags and product wraps — something many Santa Barbara residents already have proved willing to do.
— Tim Shestek is the director of state and local public affairs for the American Chemistry Council.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 01.18.10 @ 08:33 AM
What Mr. Chemical Lobbyist conveniently neglects to mention is that paper bags are not found floating in the middle of the worlds’ oceans YEARS after they became litter to the world. The polyethylene from which plastic bags are made photo degrades VERY SLOWLY (taking as much as 1000 years), and when it finally does, its residue is toxic/lethal to animals which ingest it. He also does not mention the embedded energy saved by using cloth bags which last for years, instead pushing his industry’s toxins in bag form by saying that cities could always ban them from landfills - easier said than done, since municipal waste doesn’t get sorted, and if it were would increase labor costs hideously. Paper, because of its biodegradability, is clearly preferable to plastic, even with its initial energy input. Cloth is better than both.
Petroleum hydrocarbons belong in the ground, not in the environment in plastic form, regardless of what a mouthpiece for the plastic chemical industry is paid to say. This is a global problem, with 500 billion to one trillion bags manufactured annually, and the only way to address the problems they create is to stop their manufacture.
As to Noozhawk’s providing space for this article, should the propaganda of paid commercial advocates find space here? It’s one thing to provide space to contributors participating in the market place of ideas/opinions, but this guy is clearly a paid advocate for a single topic and it doesn’t sit well that he and his industry get free space instead of being labeled “paid advertising.”
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 09:04 AM
This article only proves that environmentally conscientious shoppers need to use “reusable bags”. The “bag tax” should be charged on any bag used that is NOT reusable—paper or plastic.
“Returning the bags to the grocery store where they got them” does NOT take care of the problem because these flimsy plastic bags are NOT recyclable (they gum up the recycle machines), and they often end up out in our oceans where the Albatross mistake them for seaweed and feed them to their young. The toxic petroleum chemicals in these bags are poisoning unknown numbers of our sea critters and are thought to have been the cause of breast cancer recently discovered in Balooga whales. There is a veritable toxic. plastic, waste dump the size of Texas out in the Pacific Ocean because of our carelessness—Google it!
Please, people, buy a few attractive reusable bags. Don’t listen to this “Public Affairs CHEMISTRY COUNCIL Director”—his title says it all…he is obviously trying to convince us that petroleum based plastic chemicals are just fine for the environment. They’re NOT.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 09:11 AM
Why not use the money to provide each household reusable bags. This would probably not cost any more than a study about the use of plastic bags.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 09:18 AM
Mr. Shestek,
What happens to the bags once we take them to be recycled? I understand that there is no market for them now and that they may end up in a landfill anyway. It is not enough to dump the problem in someone else’s lap. We must be sure that the system works all the way through to the end. The best answer is reusable bags, but if I need to accept a bag from the grocery store, I will use paper. At least it will not end up in the gut of some wild animal, causing it a painful death.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 09:32 AM
It is nice to hear from an opposing view.
I remember the last time we were sold a “no brainer”, “must do” strategy in 2002… about a year later we were sitting in Iraq under you break it you buy it doctrine. The zealous rush to ban plastics seems to be so much the same…people are criticizing any one that advocates caution or that we discus more than sound bites…
Questions that arent being answered…
-I saw a report that over 3 billion reusable bags were imported and given away and that most are plastic anyway and just not reused and cant be recycled…are we just substituting one for another…
-The plastic that is in the ocean is it comprised of plastic bags or other plastics…are we going for the main challenge or being distracted?
-What is the impact of the billions of bags being made in china relative to plastic bags?
-What would it take to increase recycling before substitute a cradle to cradle with a cradle to grave bag?
So much is being silenced in the name of what is “right”...
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 09:35 AM
MJWells…here is an article that could help with your question about recycling bags…
Plastics News: Hilex Poly opens expanded film recycling plant in Indiana
http://www.plasticsnews.com/headlines2.html?id=17498
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 09:40 AM
The plastic bags are recyclable. They can be used to produce non-wood lumber which can be used in construction of playgrounds, decking and other uses where real wood could be avoided. Additionally, when people talk about only 1% of plastic bags being recycled that doesn’t account for the high percentage, pegged at 35% or higher, of plastic bags that get reused around the house as bin liners and other uses. A tax is not the way to solve things. That will just create another slush fund for our politicians to waste. Instead, work to reclaim the bags or offer better alternatives. If the cloth bags were not so expensive I think more people would buy them. How about an exchange program. Bring in 50 plastic bags and get one cloth bag. I bet you would have people going through their own garbage for that one.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 09:58 AM
What about the study that showed that more than 60% of bags were reused as trash bags and for pet waste, saving many plastic trash bags…also when the 1% recycling rate was reported in 2001 with recent numbers showing 7-12% so it is more likely that they are reused or recycled about 67-72% of the time…
No one ever states how old the data is when they say 1%.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 10:18 AM
It seems to me, as stated by the readers below, that the question is not which type of bags to use. Both paper and plastic are wasteful. The simple truth is that reusing cloth bags or NO bags are best. For at least 25 years (since 1985 when I was in Germany) Many European countries have not offered ANY bags at their supermarkets. If you don’t have your own bag, you take your items in the shopping cart to the trunk of your car and load them in one by one. Now that is NOT taxation, but it does put the responsibility in the right place. Plastic prevails. Why? Convenience, economy, and larger profit margins for the industrial complex. We all have choices. Sometimes the harder choices take more effort and are less convenient. It’s up to each of us to do our part.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 10:25 AM
One must appreciate the talent of a paid liar such as this. Half-truths amid occasional blushes of accuracy. Ignoring the actual devastation that his industry wreaks upon the world’s oceans with not redeeming value in return. The ONLY purpose served by this product is the profit of the chemical industry who use this otherwise useless product to make bags. China, Ireland, and dozens of other jurisdictions have banned the free distribution of this product due to the harm it does. Of the 16 BILLION plastic bags distributed annually in California, less than 5% are recycled. Most of the rest escape into the environment where they degrade into smaller and smaller pieces, never going away, permanently polluting the earth and sea. The Chemical Industry Council would defend any practice or product its members pay them to defend. Don’t be tricked by this nonsense.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 10:29 AM
The Madison solution is also an example—regretably rare—where liberal environtmentalists and conservatives were
on the same page. It can and should be copied. We need to
recycle and reduce plastics in the waste stream. At the
same time, raising taxes and fees, even small ones, tend to be counter-productive in a recession. So by all means,
let’s copy this good idea from Madison.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 10:42 AM
The wacky left are destroying American jobs..
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 12:16 PM
The irony about this debate and the challenge is knowing who is really getting paid to talk.
If you search the internet for “facts” about plastic bags you get all kinds of reusable bag companies (actually importers) that just want to create as big of a need as possible so they can squeeze money out of someone.
If you dont think they are having these $1 bags made in China/India for a mere $0.05-$0.20/each you may have been distracted by the debate.
Really they are all just people looking for a way to take you for a buck and they have nicely crafted this debate to profit off all of us.
Its was all designed / hyped to get your money. Reusable bag companies are just the latest in a long line of environmental carpet baggers…don’t be fooled they are just made from plastic and hugely marked up. We always could simply reuse our plastic bags but they dont want to point out the obvious.
Reduce, redesing, reuse, recycle(compost) and resell all of your products. If they cant be, then buy ise other products…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 12:26 PM
It takes effort to be green, to recycle, to reuse, to compost. It is that effort and thoughtfulness that keeps us healthy. Our bodies need mindful activity.
I’ve heard every excuse on why consumers still pull plastic off the roll for produce and bulk foods. Yet it costs under $13 for a consumer to suit up with a set of reusables that will last for years.
I’m encouraged that a local Canadian government body is taking action. They are researching makers of reusables and matching them up with major retailers step 1. Then they plan to institute a bag charge for every kind of plastic bag in the stores Step 2. Brilliant!
I love it. Not just because I produce 4 types of produce & bulk bags here in Vancouver, B.C., but because it’s the right thing to do.
We don’t care whose bag you buy. We tweet little adverts about our competitors, use our bags or use theirs. It doesn’t matter whose reusables you prefer as long as they are produced locally (not overseas) and you use ‘em. Disposables are a thing of the past.
Diana http://www.carebagsonline.com
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 12:29 PM
As the sticker on my bumper says: Plastic Bags Blow. I see so much plastic trash in the ocean, much of it escapes from trash cans and blows into gutters and creeks. I am all for banning plastic bags, paper bags, disposable cups, cigarette filters, plastic straws, etc—this wind blown crap is going to be the death of the ocean.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 02:40 PM
While the local recycling centers still refuse to take plastic bags.
This tax talk is not about saving the environment - it’s just another excuse for a tax that moron liberals will be happy to support. If the City actually cared about bag use they would first require recycling centers to recycle bags. Let’s start with the first common sense step before inconveniencing and taxing (punishing) the consumer.
Plastic bags are the tip of the iceberg of plastic use - banning or taxing plastic bags will hardly put a dent in the problem. Go after the manufacturers of other products who use it en-masse in packaging materials. Look in the meat section of your grocery store look on the racks at OSH if you want to see disposable plastic that will eventually find its way to the landfills and the ocean. - banning bags will not fix much.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 03:27 PM
Why not spend the money on a few billboards saying “buy less crap.” then we get the bonus of less crap to throw away, AND fewer bags to hold it in.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 03:54 PM
1) There is no incentive to reuse such bags and even then there have been advocacy campaigns since the 1970s to “recycle, reduce, reuse” and that hasn’t curbed the growth of plastics landfilled and improperly discarded.
2) HDPE consumer containers (bags, bottles, etc) accounts for a high volume of landfill and along with PS (polystyrene) due to being improperly disposed (and in the case of Santa Barbara we cannot recycle polystyrene), a large amount in tonnage of the waste recovered from storm drains. There are large numbers recovered from oceans and who knows how much more that floats around unaccounted for. Both HDPE and PS breakdown and pose environmental risks to marine and bird species that mistake them as food in our coastal community.
3) I would like to see any proof of the return bag programming being a success compared to early projections of how many would participate. Again, without incentive, many just toss the bags and dispose of recklessly—and we know that based on how much gets landfilled.
For this reason if we want a bag program to work properly it needs to be met with a CRV.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 04:48 PM
What I find incredibly sad is that people like “Former Barbarian” don’t actually listen to what people say, but judge them based on who they work for. Obviously, if someone promotes a cause they work for, and believe in, they are wrong. By that logic, anyone working for Greenpeace can’t be trusted on matters that Greenpease supports.
Here’s the thing… plastic isn’t the enemy, litter is the enemy. The largest environmental problem isn’t the island of trash in teh ocean (yeah, I know it’s bad) but carbon emissions. As seen in San Fran, take away plastic bags, people use paper. What Mr. Shestek says above about that is true, and if you do a little research you would know that. Paper is far worse environmentally than plastic.
And if you read the article, he is also promoting the use of reusable bags - the manufacture of which does nothing for the American Chemistry Council, since they are all made in China.
Now, after I’ve tiraded a bit, I’ll state for the record that I work for a bag manufacturer. There’s this weird claim on the internet that there is no market for recycled plastic, and that just ain’t true.
So before you go spouting off, actually READ what people are saying and do some RESEARCH. You may find that people who work in an industry may actually know a little bit more about it than you.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 04:54 PM
Tim,
You present clear and practical ideas. Well written article.
But keep in mind this is Santa Barbara, where nothing practical happens. The “environmental” groups must have the drama and angst in their lives. Surveys must be taken, at a cost of $50,000+ that the City does not have, because it will make them feel better about themselves.
The most important thing in Santa Barbara is making people feel guilty about not doing enough for the environment.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 05:55 PM
How about biodegradable plastic bags. That should make everyone happy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.18.10 @ 07:53 PM
CNN recently ran a story about a few Northern California Walmarts removing the disposable plastic bags from checkout lines and offering reusable polypropylene bags for 15 cents and 50 cents for larger sizes. One of the people interviewed said he’ll need to buy the bags each time he goes to the store because of the inconvenience. The emission from one of those bags equals 11 disposable plastic bags. Considering that there is many more people out there just like this guy, the real winner in this scenario is Walmart.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.19.10 @ 09:08 AM
The inane surveys constantly undertaken by prior “progressive” City Counsels were largely for the purpose of using the survey as an excuse to propel some of the most ridiculous and hairbrained ideas disguised as scientific research. The installation of the traffic hazardous “bulb-outs’ and “Chicanes” to constrict and impede the flow of traffic in the name of “increasing safety” or making streets “pedestrian friendly” is a prime example. So is the construction of “roundabouts in small intersectiions where the real experts in their use, have already determined that such a use of roundabouts is ineffective and inapproprriate and even dangerous.
What happens is the counsel hires some traffic consultant at a high price and usally at the behest of staff to make unsupported, fabricated or exaggerated claims and propagate junk “science” to justify that which common sense decries! These are people who’s very business is to sell their overpriced services as “consultants” and promote the use of such so called “traffic calming devices” most often where they are not needed or are wholly ineffective.
They then spend time and the tax payers money to teach City (or sometimes County) staff on the ways they can con the public, overcome any public resistance to these hairbrained schemes and sell the to members of the public to those who’s common sense (and sometimes superior knowledge) tells them how ridiculous they are.
This plastic versus paper bags dispute is just the latest fad to be promoted by the City Counsel and the local cadre of the “liberal”/“progresive”/“greenies” to feather the nest of the junk scientists and “consultants” and establish more of these overpaid beaurocrats which will be funded by taxes. Some olf these folks are nothing but well intended sheep who follow the pipers of these often faux causes, without using any rational thought processes at all. To them, the utopian or percieved “ends” will always justify the means!
Like the extra 2% bed tax added on to the price of a hotel or motel room here supposedly for “creek improvements” which have never happened. The grand jury should examine the books of these agencies which sprung up to consume the extra bed tax money in order to determine how much of the money was actually spent on “administrative expenses” (i.e. salaries) versus how much actually went into physical creek improvements. (I don’t mean overpriced videos, television adds, pamphlets, or painting signs on curbs) I mean hard improvements to creeks upon which the tax was voted in!
If government were really serious about reducing the plastic bags that might make it into the environment they would give consumers a tax break to purchase a small shredding/compacting machine that would shred these bags, not still in use by the consumer after point of sale, and they would be packed into a container that could be either picked up or dropped off and the shredded plastic recycled. Once shredded these flimsy bags take up very little space and can be compacted into a very small area for periodic recycling purposes.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.20.10 @ 08:08 AM
If you want to use these bags, pay for them. People should have to pay for the bags they use, both paper and plastic. The rest of us pay for their pick up, their recycling, their mess, their pollution. Why should all of us have to pay for something like bags, the cost of which is added to groceries and to our environment and eventually our health and taxes, that many of us neither want nor use?
We have been fighting this same battle for over 30 years. It’s time to make some progress. Get the hand of these giant corporations, banks and Wall Street out of our pockets. Stop privatizing the profits and socializing the costs.
If you want those stupid bags so much pay for them at the store. Buy them like everything else you get at the store.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.21.10 @ 11:35 AM
Keep the bag tax within the store! All retail stores can create a policy (with the urging of the City) of bagging only with reusable bags charged to the customer. Now that’s incentive! I use those bags for practically everything now - except at grocery stores - because they’re at home filled with laundry, kids books, beach gear, etc. But I would be outraged - then eventually incentivised to keep empty bags on hand and in the car. Go ahead, Mr Checker- cram those heavies on the bread- Don’t make me pay for another bag! You know what would also help? Require half of the plastic bags to be black, like you just hit the liquor store for booze, cigarettes, and other items worth concealing from public view. What’s in the bag, creep?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.22.10 @ 12:54 AM
Regardless of which side of the argument you are on, there is no question that cloth reusable bags can only help preserve our environment for future generations. At http://www.conservingnow.com, we are encouraged by the rapid growth of our large community of individuals who have made the switch to reusable bags.
The feedback from our community members has shown, however, that it is a challenge to actually remember to bring your reusable bags with you and into the store. We know that old habits die hard and changing behavior is never easy. Which is why http://www.ConservingNow.com is offering every visitor a FREE car window static cling to help remind you to use your reusable bag for every shopping trip.
Get yours today… Together we can make a difference!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.10 @ 04:39 PM
I remember a time, not so long ago, when we lived in a free country. We could pick and choose the type of light bulb we favored, drive a car we loved that got whatever gas mileage, and select the grocery bag of choice. I am so glad that I don’t have the pressure of choosing for myself. I can’t wait until we all make $33,000 per year, drive Prius’ and have the roof of out homes painted white! P.S. Thank you Government of California for bringing mercury filled light bulbs into my home. I love having to open my windows in the dead of winter to air the house out when they break. I wonder how much bigger my carbon footprint got reheating my house. I’m sure it was well worth it. Oh, and I had to wash my canvass grocery bags when my tofu leaked out on them and ruined the interior of the Prius. I am sure that didn’t use any energy either. If only I could find my eco-friendly hemp infused deodorizer to get that smell out. Oh wait, that’s just the hippie I’m carpooling with…he drives me to the Co-Op weekly. I feel so good about myself now. See, I am patting myself on the back right now! Oops…I gotta run. I’m late for yoga!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Approval from Santa Barbara County Supervisors the Last Step for Venoco’s New Pipeline
The board will consider an ordinance allowing the company to begin transporting oil via a pipeline that has already been built, instead of by barge
Pacific Storm Expected to Bring Rain, Wind Back to Santa Barbara County on Tuesday
Weather officials say South Coast could receive up to 1½ inches of rain with wind gusting to 30 mph
Santa Barbara-Goleta-Montecito Open House Listings: Feb. 5, 2012
Coldwell Banker, Prudential and Sotheby's post Sunday open house listings
Open House Listings: Feb. 4 & Feb. 5, 2012
Weekend open house listings for Santa Barbara, Goleta, Montecito, Carpinteria and Santa Barbara County
Big-Rig Driver Killed in Highway 101 Crash Was Under the Influence of Meth, Officials Say
The tractor-trailer struck a sedan, trapping a woman and her young daughters inside the vehicle as it dangled over a bridge railing
Weather: Overcast 58.0º
Search Noozhawk »
