Register now for free, or sign in with any of these services:
Could someone please cite a road or sewer project that isn't currently moving without this legislation? And, would the urban areas really need this supposed road or sewer project -- or would it just exacerbate sprawl?
Unfortunately not. "Biodegradable" bags only breakdown when composted. They will still persist in the marine environment and cause problems for ocean life. So, compostable bags must be part of a comprehensive waste management stream. This is the approach taken by the mayor's proposed ordinance. However, plastic doesn't make for very good compost -- so it's hard to see a strong market for compostable bags developing.
1. Reusable bags can be used.
2. Plastic bags are unlikely to be completely banned -- if they meet a minimum thickness, then they will likely be classified as reusable.
3. A 5-cent charge on paper bags will probably be more advantageous to a small retail store like yours than a large one, given your higher per-bag costs.
Plastic bags is Far West Fibers 30-40% of their operating costs because the bags gum-up their machines, which is why they support a bag ban
Single-use plastic shopping bags will not be available for purchase at retail checkout stands. While you'll be able to purchase plastic trash bags, ziplock bags, and doggie-poo bags off the store shelves, the ultra-thin plastic bags will not be available.
Both China and India have banned plastic bags.
Since "compostable" bags require high heat and microbial activity, they won't biodegrade in the marine environment and therefore are still an ocean pollution problem. That's why the Mayor's draft ordinance allows compostable bags if there's a way to handle them so they actually decompose.
It really doesn't matter for the ocean how many times plastic bags are reused. Plastic doesn't biodegrade. It only breaks into smaller and smaller bits. Plastic is forever.
Plastic in our oceans has tripled since the 1980s and now outnumbers plankton -- the fundamental food source of our ocean -- about 40-to-1. This plastic absorbs toxic chemicals at a million times the rate of the surrounding seawater. And while the scientific community still doesn't precisely know how bad this microplastic problem is for our ocean, we do know that's really bad. The UN estimated that all native fish stocks in our oceans will collapse in our oceans within the next 40 years as a result of deteriorating conditions.
So, in short, a person could reuse a bag over and over, but if it ends up in the litter & waste stream, it's going to cause problems. Ban the Ban advocates aren't concerned about the reuse of plastic bags. It's what we do with them when we stop using the bags. And there's just no good way to handle them.
Fortunately we have cost-effective alternatives to plastic bags, so we should take the small -- very small -- step of no longer using plastic bags.
The Save the Plastic Bag Coalition has not "successfully" challenged any ban. It has challenged bans, and various cities have asked courts for clarification on whether they need to do an environmental assessment pursuant to the California State Environmental Protection Act. The courts said yes. So, a a report was developed for all California cities to use in order to comply with the SEPA. The report describes the environmental attributes of paper, plastic, and reusable bags. It's available at http://greencitiescalifornia.org/mea.
It's true, the lifecycle of a paper bag may produce more greenhouse gases than plastic bags. But question of paper versus plastic is simply not a global warming solution. Moreover, a 5-cent fee on paper bags will limit the number of paper bags used. Washington DC saw an 85% reduction in overall bag usage in the first month of implementing its 5-cent bag fee. Shifting to reusuable bags is obviously the best thing for the environment -- not the continued use of plastic bags.
It's ridiculous to think that 80% of the waste stream can be eliminated by taking the plastic bags to grocers' recycling bins. First, not many grocers have recycling bins. Second, there's no assurance these properly returned bags are in fact recycled. Third, plastic bags still amount to 30-40% of material recovery facilities' costs because they gum up sorting machines.
To answer some basic questions about this problem, I've written an FAQ available at http://www.environmentoregon.org/great-pacific-cleanup/more-info/faqs3. NOAA also has FAQs at http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/faqs.html and http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/plastic.html.
Two simple points:
(1) The Ban the Bag advocates agree with Elizabeth Hovde! We should have a statewide ban on plastic bags at retail checkout stands! It makes the most sense. In the meantime, it's also just a worthy of a cause to ban the bag in Portland -- and Eugene, Hood River, Bend, Lake Oswego, Oregon City, Lincoln City, Cannon Beach, and every where! There's no sense in waiting. Let's do the public education and community outreach so all Oregonians understand the problem.
(2) The Ban the Bag advocates don't disagree that single-use plastic bags aren't always "single-use." The phrase is used as a simplification for the thickness of the bag sought to be banned (3 microns & smaller). These then bags are designed to be used just once. In any case, it's not the fact that they're single-use why advocates seek to "ban the bag" (although there is certainly an aspect of outrageousness to think of how bag manufacturers have designed a product that is so short lived), but rather the reason is to protect our oceans from plastic.
The headline does not tell the reader what the editorial board is calling for. In fact, the headline appears to attempt to sell the headline writer's own opinion regarding the wind projects and the BETC. If the headline writer has an opinion independent from the editorial board, s/he should write another op-ed or guest column.
Even Theodore Roosevelt, who liked to kill everything living animal in sight, believed all hunting should be banned in Yellowstone National Park. He even hired military personnel to assure that anyone who poached in Yellowstone would be criminally prosecuted, and upon hearing that a bison was killed by a poacher, famously said that he wanted to shoot the man point blank in the face. So Safari Club, I think you're off your rocker and more than a 100 years behind the times.
I completely disagree with Elizabeth Hovde. Differences in personalities not withstanding, the mayoral race will be won or lost on a policy issue: whether more or fewer Vancouverites despise tolling the CRC or are instead apathetic toward tolling.
Hovde is right, there is very little policy difference between Pollard and Leavitt. But paying a third of a $4.2 Billion Boondoggle Bridge through tolling is not being lost on Vancouver voters.
No matter who wins, the very fact that votes are splitting between Leavitt and Pollard almost solely on the CRC tolling issues is prima facie that most Vancouver voters are against tolling - one of the most significant financial legs supporting the 12 lane mega-bridge.
This article makes no sense. First the cougar chases the biker, then the biker jumps off his bike and starts yelling at the cougar? What actually went down?
Perjury? It seems Marie Bulgin may have either lied when she stated under oath that no-open range transmission had been documented, or she wrongfully represented herself as an expert in the field.