Best of 2009: How I learned to love the bag fee
When you look into the oceans of problems plastic bags create, the case for Seattle's well-crafted grocery-bag fee becomes overwhelming. And the opponents' arguments are underwhelming.
Flickr
Editor's note: This story, another in our series of Best Crosscuts of 2009, originally was published on August 3, 2009.
Should Seattle voters take a modest step to dike a small part of the rise of disposable plastics flooding the world? Referendum 1 on the August 18 primary ballot puts the question by asking for a 20-cent fee for the disposable paper or plastic bag you otherwise would still get “free” at the drugstore, convenience store, or grocery.
Your green reflex won’t help you decide this one. The green voice for yes comes from some of the familiar environmentalists — always worth listening to, never to be given blind allegiance. On the other side the voice for no is embodied in well over a million greenbacks thrown against Referendum 1 by the people who make disposable plastic bags. With them spending at that rate, you won’t be able to avoid listening, even when you get tired of it.
Seattle’s Referendum 1 isn’t a single-minded crusade to save the world from plastics. Seattle shouldn’t try to do so. Plastic’s future is here, just as Mr. McGuire in The Graduate, a movie enshrined for younger generations on YouTube, famously predicted four decades ago to Ben Braddock.
I started out skeptical of Referendum 1, especially when it was first touted as a greenhouse gas reduction measure. That seemed a real stretch. But I’ve come around, endorsed the referendum and kicked in a $100 contribution. Here’s why.
Plastics are truly valuable in a host of realms. But it’s also true that with the use of plastics exploding at exponential rates, their manufacture and their very long-term persistence offer some real problems. There can always be too much of a good thing. Use can go beyond usefulness. That’s the case with disposable plastic bags. We are using too much plastic for more disposable bags than we need. And paper grocery bags, too — in Seattle, 360 million paper and plastic bags a year.
Referendum 1, we must remind ourselves, is even-handed. It’s not a push just to besmirch plastic and switch all the shoppers to kraft brown paper bags, which people around these parts used to call a sack. Paper grocery bags or sacks have their own problems. So no need here to argue about whether taking home the shopping in paper or plastic has the bigger carbon footprint or consumes the greater space in landfills.
Instead, Referendum 1 might be called the “disposable bags are no free lunch” program. The idea is that it would be cheaper all around, and usually better, if you carried your groceries home in an old-fashioned shopping bag that you would use and reuse. Like for example, re-using gloves, a hat, or a razor. A reusable shopping bag is much better than a plastic or paper high-tech throwaway product that has to be sorted out by Allied Waste when dumped by the recycle truck at the waste station at Third and Lander in SODO. Or blown around the city landscape as litter. Or, if it’s plastic, ingested by fish, turtles, whales, dolphins, shrimp, and marine micro-organisms after its found its way to break slowly, slowly into smaller pieces in Puget Sound and ultimately the oceans. These polyethylene plastic bags break up, but they don’t biodegrade. Ever.
If Referendum 1 passes, it’s still your choice. You can still take home a disposable bag, paper or plastic, from the store for just 20 cents. Undoubtedly sometimes you will, but a lot less often than before.
From watching the Referendum 1 debate, it seems that the people with the biggest interest in keeping the world safe for “free” disposable plastic bags are the people who make them. Specialized and privately held plastics bag manufacturers. Think Superbag Corporation in Houston, Texas. And a website, More Than Just a Bag, so green you would think the company had gone to the other side. Or Interplast in Lolita, Texas — the company whose pride is "Turning Plastics into Gold." And Advance Polybag, Inc. in Sugar Land, Texas.
These manufacturers band together under the umbrella of the American Chemistry Council, in an industry association called Progressive Bag Affiliates. They concede, “More can be done to address environmental concerns.” But Progressive Bag Affiliates do not want to talk about the troubling long-term questions of non-degradable contributions to land and marine pollution. The environmental tune they want to hum is about the vaunted opportunities to do better recycling. That’s the ever-convenient, but not automatically satisfactory, common default for most tough “what do we do with this stuff” questions presented to a throw-away society.
But that’s only part of the industry’s strategic arsenal of shifting discussion away from solutions (cloth bags?) and always keeping ready the big artillery of litigation. Not a word, "progressive" or not, on whether the world might make more sense if disposable plastic grocery bags were a smaller feature of tomorrow’s life.
So they are eager to remind you that you probably aren’t so happy with city government these days (but we don’t actually need snow plows for plastic bags, at least not yet). And that you don’t like taxes (but the bag fee obviously is not a tax). The radio and newspaper ads from the Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax even suggest that Referendum 1 gives an unfair break for the big guys, saying that Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, or Fred Meyer “may be exempt” from charging the fee.
That’s true for Wal-Mart, because they don’t have a store in Seattle — a little bit of local knowledge that must have eluded the ad writers. But Costco won’t be exempt from the fee and neither will Target or Fred Meyer. That’s clear when you read the referendum. But when was the last time cost-conscious Costco put your groceries in a disposable plastic bag, which should tell you something about “free” bags. And when you go to Renton to join the crowds that shop at IKEA, you’ve been paying a nickel at the checkout for every plastic bag you’ve decided you needed since 2007.
Friends of plastic bags have also mounted a morality play to suggest that food banks and food bank customers will suffer a new “pressure point” from the fee. Hard to figure, since no disposable bag given by food banks to their patrons will trigger the 20-cent fee. That’s an understandable exemption, of course, and there’s no doubt of it in the referendum. There are other exemptions. The thin bag you put your broccoli in at the produce section isn’t covered. Neither is the bag you shovel pistachios into from the bulk food bins before you scribble the bin number on the bag tie with those little square pens on the coiled cords.
Last week Lilliputian Edmonds actually passed a ban on disposable plastic bags, joining many other communities and even countries around the world that have taken such a step and not yet seen the collapse of modern life. Edmonds was not moved by the arguments from Progressive Bag Affiliates. It enacted, from the standpoint of plastics, a far sterner measure than Referendum 1 offers in Seattle.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 8:17 a.m. Inappropriate
Please read the City Attorney's Explanatory Statement in your Voters' Guide. I am no friend of plastic bags; I keep reusable bags in my car. But I am SURE to vote NO on this referendum. I do this because no one has thought of part 2--implementation. Think of the overhead caused by implementing this bag fee. Small business will probably stop using plastic bags to avoid the hassle. And note that the City of Seattle will create two new jobs to implement this fee--with all the costs of payroll and benefits for these 2 employees.
Instead Seattle voters should reject this referendum and hold City Government responsible so Seattle can follow Edmonds lead and just reject plastic bags--period!
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 8:41 a.m. Inappropriate
I for one am sick of going into a store and purchasing one or two items only to have them stuffed into a bag before I can even protest. Perhaps the imposition of a small fee would at least give customers the option of saying yes or no.
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 11:06 a.m. Inappropriate
When it comes to plastic bags, it turns out that today's convenience is tomorrow's poison. This rule would be only one small step in reversing the onslaught of the throwaway society, but it is a good step.
It's fair, it's well thought out and it's way overdue.
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 12:02 p.m. Inappropriate
I am for having the city find local sponsors to support (logo) reusable bags to be sent to every man, woman, and child in Seattle. Possibly have local school children design a Seattle bag logo.
This is not unlike the Seattle City Light - PCC bag.
Positive, cost neutral solutions, that promote a solution in the affirmative is more likely to not even require a vote.
Instead we have a 20 cent hand slap, a dumb and complicated solution that does not provide a direct solution.
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 12:04 p.m. Inappropriate
Mossback said in his mayor column that he could not endorse a candidate because of the non-profit status of Crosscut. Does the same hold true of a proposition on the ballot?
Also they should ban bags altogether instead of creating more government bureaucracy.
Things that will probably happen if this passes:
1) Businesses will stop carrying plastic bag but will figure out a work around that is worse (Similar to Station Wagons because SUVs)
2) The government will project increased revenue that will not materialize
3) We will have another underfunded government service
This is the only place I know in this country where both the roads and schools suck. But at least we have grass growing on the top of the library.
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 12:10 p.m. Inappropriate
"REJECT" Referendum 1 and kill the grocery bag tax. See page 22 of the voter's pamphlet and SMC 21.36.922 Civil Infractions Section B "violation of or failure to comply with any of the sections shall be a civil infraction......to a maximum monetary penalty and default amount of...$250.00 not including statutory assessments." Wake up; grocery stores, clerks, employees, etc. will be subject to governmental 'stings' and audits. Giving away a free paper or plastic bag and/or not collecting the tax will be subject to civil and monetary penalty!! So, pencils, pens, lottery stuff, napkins, plastic silverware, matches, food and beverage samples, restroom tokens, coupons, handi-wipes, literature, weekly magazines, and other promotional items will remain free. However, if the 20 cent tax is not collected on a paper or plastic bag; BAM!! $250. Reject this evil tax.
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 12:41 p.m. Inappropriate
There is already a bag tax: the city mandates recycling, including plastic bags. This double tax is cosmetic: it ignores product packaging which accounts for the bulk of plastic flowing into the waste stream. Why not tax milk jugs, produce and meat bags, yogurt containers, etc? In fact, it amounts to a fetish: projecting the ills of industrial society onto an inanimate object.
Nor is this measure "well thought out" and "overdue." It's counter productive and dishonest. If addressing the ills of a "throwaway" culture--ritual sacrifice to the god Progress--was an actual concern, the focus would be on the products, not the stupid bags they came in.
Unfortunately, the author could not bother to consider the scheming politicians pushing this measure, and the interests and money bankrolling the referendum. Crosscut dropped a turd, and the scoop law applies. Thankfully, there is an abundance of plastic bags on hand.
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 1:26 p.m. Inappropriate
Sheesh, I haven't heard this much wailing since we passed the indoor smoking ban. Some of the complaints are much the same: dire predictions of increased bureaucracy and "stings" (oh noes, not stings!!), vast conspiracies hidden in the deepest recesses of government between scheming politicians and...um...somebody, and of course don't forget the roads and schools!!! What about the roads and schools?!?!
People, it's a bag fee. If it gets your libertarian, anti-government rocks off to call it a "tax", have at it. It is neither complicated nor is it dishonest. It's a fee to discourage you from getting a disposable bag. If that sounds "complicated" to you, you either have a clinically low tolerance for complexity or you don't know what that word means. It's one step in addressing a problem--noone is promising to fix the world--so it is not "dishonest".
And incidentally Mr. "roads and schools", if that's how you really feel about our state's amenities, you should try getting out more. Like Mississippi for starters.
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 2:27 p.m. Inappropriate
Just one more reason I'm so damned glad I don't live in the Queen City. Here's an idea for a new law: Make the customer pay 20 cents if he wants his receipt. It will save lots of trees! And people should be forced to pay for water in restaurants. Then they'll drink it all and not waste it. Oh yeah, and those little twist ties on bread wrappers? Those oughtta be taxed at least a quarter. Besides, bread should be able to breathe, so anyone who wants a twist tie is just a bread oppressor.
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 3:38 p.m. Inappropriate
I agree with m-t-e. Instead of the bag tax/fee, I don't understand why Seattle, if they truly want to get rid of plastic bags, didn't just ban plastic grovery bags like San Francisco did a couple years ago and Edmonds did last week. Seems so much simpler, and paper recyclable bags will still be available.
My main issue with the bag tax/fee is that it is regressive. Further, when the Seattle Mayor and Council instituted this tax/fee, one of their stated reasons for it was to keep plastic bags out of our landfills. However, not long afterwards, they got rid of the dumpsters in downtown Seattle and now the businesses have to put their garbage into plastic bags which are picked up multiple times a day. This policy increases the amount of plastic bags in the landfills. It seems like they want to have it both ways.
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 3:39 p.m. Inappropriate
I lived in Guatemala City for a year, where most people use reusable bags when they go to the market or grocery store. It was easy. No one complained. (Uh oh, too third-world for our high-tech city? -- maybe I should use another tack....)
Anyways, there's too much toxic, plastic crap accumulating in OUR environment -- the same one we all happen to depend on for life. A bag tax, imperfect as it may be, forces us to recognize the costs of our actions. (Uh oh, I used the word "force.") That's just good old-fashioned economics.
Posted Tue, Aug 4, 11:20 p.m. Inappropriate
I maybe wrong here but aren't paper and plastic recyclable?just another reason I left Seattle years ago and visit rarely.
Posted Thu, Aug 6, 7:26 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm voting for the bag fee. It is a simple way to help solve a complex problem.
Most people in my neighborhood have been using the same shopping sacks for years. They work better than the alternatives. The grocery store already gives you five cents every time you use one.
Chemical companies spending millions to spread lies? That's just another reason to vote for the fee.
If the thing doesn't pass (it is looking pretty grim) - just ban them.
Seattle isn't having much trouble with people wanting to live or visit here. The place seems more peopled than ever.
Posted Thu, Aug 6, 5:21 p.m. Inappropriate
What I don't get is why Nordstrom, Macy's, Home Depot, Target, Best Buy and other big-box stores are exempt. If we're serious about this (though not serious enough to actually ban plastic bags) why stop at the grocery stores?
Posted Sat, Aug 8, 12:44 p.m. Inappropriate
I don’t get the rationale for the distribution of collected fees this referendum proposes. What is the simple explanation for why shopkeepers keep most of the money?
MacDonald makes clear that plastic bags raise havoc for marine life.
Which raises the question, what is Referendum 1 trying to accomplish? If the goal is to create a deterrent to using plastic bags, is twenty cents a bag enough? One or two dollars a bag would seem more effective as a deterrent, because that would put the fee in the cost-range of reusable bags, where common sense might counsel switching to reusable ones.
But the most efficient way to save the environment from plastic bags would be to outlaw plastic bags altogether, which some communities have done. From that standpoint, Referendum 1 doesn’t do enough.
Posted Sun, Aug 9, 5:19 p.m. Inappropriate
If I was a Seattle resident, I'd vote N-O on this tax until they take an intermediate step: make it convenient to recycle plastic bags. If plastic bags are so bad, why not an outright ban on them? Plastic bags, as I recall, were foisted on the public at least several years ago and heralded as the great alternative to paper bags and became the stores' default choice. Yet, compare the recycling options: (1) paper bags- can be conveniently recycled with one's curbside recycling; (2) plastic bags- can be, in a sense, recycled by reusing them for things such as trash cans, gym clothes, etc. until they wear out, then they're thrown in the trash, i.e. not recycled in the strict definition, OR gathered in sufficient quantities, drive to whatever store has a bin, hopefully remember to take them in with you, while everybody seems to observe you as some kind of a bag person, with the receptacle: (a) always overflowing, so you have to cram them in there lest you return them to your car and forget about them for some period while they continue to accumulate at home; and (b) almost always at some obscure place near the manager's office. It's no wonder why plastic bags are floating around the landscape! If they instituted a plastic bag deposit today like they do for bottles, many folks would be millionaires, that's how many plastic bags are handed out!
Posted Mon, Aug 10, 2:56 p.m. Inappropriate
abcs: Is it really that hard to recycle plastic bags? At the two grocery stores I primarily use there are bins directly inside the entrance.
Let's stick to serious reservations about this tax, not exaggerated excuses.
Posted Wed, Aug 12, 12:15 p.m. Inappropriate
If your in favor of a plastic bag ban, you ought to also support the proposed 20 cent fee as well. I believe the bag fee will have a greater impact then a plastic bag ban because the fee applies to both paper and plastic. The fee will compel folks toward reusable cloth bags, while a ban will switch consumption habits to paper, which according to the A.C.C. are more energy intensive to produce and recycle.
Posted Mon, Sep 14, 3:52 a.m. Inappropriate
I advocate a sense of humor about it all. Check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPDEgTXCQzE
- jsprizm
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.