CA plastic bag ban would hurt environment

CA plastic bag ban would hurt environment

Plastic bagsIn this dysfunctional state, it figures the Legislature likely soon could ban plastic bags at stores. AP reports:

Senate Bill 270 passed the Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee on a 5-3 vote following the failure of similar bans on single-use grocery bags in recent years. The latest legislation won support from grocers for including a 10-cent fee on paper bags and from a handful of local plastic bag makers for including $2 million for worker training and assistance to shift to production of reusable bags.”

So it’s yet another tax increase that especially will slam poor people, who tend to have larger families and shop more for groceries. If a family needs, say, two bags of groceries a day, that’s 20 cents a day, or $73 a year. Not chump change if you’re poor and pinching pennies, which pretty much describes life in Taxifornia if you make <$150,000 a year.

Yet SB 270 is sponsored by two state senators with a lot of poor people in their districts, Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, the incoming Senate president pro tem; and Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles.

The plastic bags ban also supported by such celebrities as Julia Louis-Dreyfus, the wealthy TV comedy star, whose father is multi-billionaire Gerard Louis-Dreyfus.

But according to James Agresti of Just Facts Daily:

In 2011, the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency released a study that evaluated nine categories of environmental impacts caused by different types of supermarket bags. The study found that paper bags have a worse effect on the environment than plastic bags in all nine impact categories, which include global warming potential, abiotic depletion, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and photochemical oxidation.

Furthermore, the study found that the average supermarket shopper would have to reuse the same cotton tote from 94 up to 1,899 times before it had less environmental impact than the disposable plastic bags needed to carry the same amount of groceries. This wide-varying amount of reuse that is required until the breakeven point is reached depends upon the type of environmental impact, but the median is 314 times, and it is more than 170 times for all but one of the 9 impact categories.

For example, a shopper would need to reuse the same cotton tote 350 times before it caused less fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity than all of the plastic bags that it would replace over this period. Given the improbability that the same cotton tote would last that long (its expected life is 52 reuses), in most cases plastic bags will have less environmental impact.

Why is this? Because the environmental impacts of supermarket bags are dominated by the energy and raw materials needed to manufacture them. Plastic bags are inexpensive because relatively small amounts of energy and raw materials are needed to make them. These same attributes that make plastic bags affordable and light also make them easier on the environment than alternatives like paper bags and reusable cotton totes.

So the new legislation is perfect for California: It does the opposite of what’s intended, hurts poor people to make rich leftists feel good, and raises taxes.

5 comments

Write a comment
  1. Donkey
    Donkey 15 May, 2014, 10:22

    Eco-control freaks are running the asylum. We’re rapidly becoming a nation of pathetic weaklings devastated by a single word. Putin could invade us with loudspeakers on trucks yelling “you’re all gay” and the heads of a significant number of our leaders would explode like the Martians in “Mars Attacks.”

    Everyone I know uses these bags for trash, dog waste, and any other number of uses, this is about a sociopath attempts at complete control. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  2. Bud Led
    Bud Led 15 May, 2014, 21:52

    Plastic lasts a long time– bad for the planet—

    Reply this comment
  3. EastBayLarry
    EastBayLarry 16 May, 2014, 07:14

    It’s the leftist/statists desire to ‘do something’, even if it’s wrong. As long as the end up feeling good about themselves they are satisfied regardless of how much real world damage is done.

    Reply this comment
  4. Queeg
    Queeg 18 May, 2014, 22:34

    Constant dumb rants about government while globalists are cleaning you out….Gasoline cost, big box stores, service business slavers.

    Reply this comment
    • Donkey
      Donkey 20 May, 2014, 11:55

      It’s the RAGWUS that is cleaning everyone out Queegy, the corporations of which I was at one time are doing their best to keep it out of the feeders hands. In case you are unaware the corporations, through their employees, along with a few small businesses that are not incorporated pay almost all the taxes in this nation. The RAGWUS feeder pays not one penny in taxes, though the regurgitation of a few stolen dollars is seen by people like you as a burden, but in reality it’s just slight of hand. 🙂

      Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Tags assigned to this article:
Alex PadillaJohn SeilerKevin de Leonplastic bags

Related Articles

CARB draws sharp fire on AB 32 — from the left

David Roberts — a Grist.org journalist who has an easy command of energy issues that makes his NRDC-style environmentalism easier

Union Targeting City Management

Katy Grimes: With Wisconsin’s Governor and Republican legislators trying to repeal the state’s collective bargaining law for public-employee unions, as well

California attorney general rebuked for stacking deck against fuel tax repeal

Continuing a longstanding bipartisan tradition, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra came under fire in July for ballot measure language considered