Seattle's plastic-bag ban ignores reality
There's talk about using Seattle's new ordinance as a model for the state. But it would only compound the mistakes to take something that is just a feel-good measure to a bigger stage.
Seattle City Council
Good public policy is not always popular. It’s not even always intuitive. But it is based on proven facts and reflection upon the consequences.
Those of us at Hilex Poly have expressed our opposition to Seattle’s plastic bag ban because it is none of these. And so, even with the new ban on the books, I wanted to take the time to provide the facts that have been omitted from this discussion — because Seattle residents deserve to know the truth.
Plastic bags may be a visible target, but when we consider the facts, the plastic bag ban is a misguided policy for three reasons. First, targeting a single product is highly ineffective; second, a ban has the unintended effect of driving consumers toward less sustainable alternatives; and third, a ban overlooks an effective, forward-thinking solution that is encapsulated in the oft-cited phrase "reduce, reuse, recycle."
We all agree that plastic litter — in the Puget Sound or anywhere else — is unacceptable. But if we are serious about litter, we need to look at the problem in its entirety.
Singling out one product isn’t the solution, especially when multiple litter studies have shown plastic grocery bags are less than 1 percent of all litter. Junk food wrappers, cigarette butts, paper, all make up bigger portions of litter. Ultimately, eliminating one product will have a minimal impact on overall litter. Meanwhile, plastic bags are sanitary, 100 percent recyclable and reused by 9 out of 10 consumers.
What’s worse is that in the rush to ban plastic bags, unintended consequences were overlooked; in particular, the fact that a bag ban drives consumers to less sustainable alternatives. Despite a 5-cent fee on paper bags, increased paper bag usage will be one of several unintended consequences of this ordinance. Paper bags leave a much greater environmental footprint than the plastic equivalent; they require more water and energy to produce and more space and trucks to transport. That’s why we transitioned away from paper bags in the first place.
Even reusable bags, which are frequently championed by advocates of the plastic bag ban, aren’t nearly as consequence-free as they’re made out to be. When you think about it, that’s hardly a surprise. Importing reusable bags from overseas at a rate of 500 million each year takes no small toll on the environment, and many have been found to contain lead.
In the effort to promote behavioral change, municipalities such as Montgomery County, Maryland, have taken to distributing these reusable, non-recyclable bags for free — bundles of unused bags simply become additional waste. Further, reusable bags need to be washed frequently to alleviate food borne pathogens.
Recycling works, plain and simple. That’s why we have consistently advocated for a statewide recycling program in Washington; it would prove much better for the environment than banning one product, in one city. True, recycling is not a one-and-done measure, wherein we can wash our hands of it once the law is on the books. It requires continued buy-in from politicians, retailers and, most of all, ordinary citizens. Taking a few minutes to collect your plastic bags, sacks, and wraps and dropping them off at your market’s recycling bin is a small price to pay for a cleaner environment.
There’s little doubt that Washingtonians are up to the challenge. That’s why the recently passed plastic bag ban is frustrating. Not only will it promote counterproductive habits, but it will discourage plastic recycling. Prevented from providing 100 percent recyclable plastic bags, existing plastic recycling programs at local grocery stores will soon lapse.
Without local drop off points, newspaper bags, dry cleaning bags, and discarded plastic packaging from holiday gifts — an estimated 125,000 tons this holiday season, according to Marketplace radio — will end up in the trash, the exact opposite of what environmentally minded residents desire.
In light of all that’s going on — unemployment, a budget deficit and the need for more high quality jobs — it is perplexing that so much time – two hearings, a press conference, and a dedicated council meeting – has been spent to ban a 100 percent recyclable, U.S.-made product. All the more so when we reflect on the fact that plastic bags make up a fraction of 1 percent of all litter.
With comments circulating about bringing Seattle’s new bag ban to the state-level, residents deserve to know the truth about this plastic bag ban: namely, that it’s a feel-good measure that forces us towards less environmentally friendly alternatives. It’s an instance of public policy informed by emotion rather than facts — the type of policy making that should be avoided, not replicated.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 9:29 a.m. Inappropriate
King County asks, "Did you know there are 200 tons of pet waste deposited in the Puget Sound region every day, and stormwater flushes it into lakes, streams and Puget Sound?" http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/stormwater/videos/pet-waste-stormwater.aspx
Our elected officials, apparently, don't. Or if they do, they choose to ignore it in favor of scoring points with special-interest political supporters.
While the Seattle City council may feel good about addressing the scourge of plastic bags, Seattle public Utilities reports 50,000 pounds of pet waste are dropped in the City every day. http://www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Drainage_&_Sewer/Keep_Water_Safe_&_Clean/RestoreOurWaters/PreventPollution/Petwaste/
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 10:16 a.m. Inappropriate
Ah Pet waste eventually breaks down and becomes dirt. Plastic bags break down into smaller and smaller pieces which are then eaten and become part of the food chain.
Of the two problems, I'd rather eat a crab that ate fish that sucked up plankton that ate pet waste than one that ate that plastic.
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 10:40 a.m. Inappropriate
Seattle Public Utilities says, "Left on streets, curb strips and in yards and parks, pet waste can be carried by rainwater to storm drains and into our creeks, lakes and Puget Sound without treatment. It is one of the leading causes of bacterial contamination in our streams and causes other water quality problems just like livestock manure and fertilizer.
There are bacteria and micro-organisms in pet waste such as Roundworms, E. coli, and Giardia that can make people sick if they’re ingested. Some can last in your yard for as long as four years if not cleaned up. Children who play outside and adults who garden are at greatest risk of infection. If pet waste is washed into the storm drain it ends up in lakes, streams or marine water, people can accidentally swallow bacteria and other disease-causing organisms while swimming or playing in the water. These bacteria also end up in shellfish, and can make the people who eat them very sick."
and, "A single gram of pet waste, the size of a pea, contains 23 million fecal coliform bacteria."
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 11:16 a.m. Inappropriate
We need a 10 cent bottle deposit like in my home state of Michigan. You'll never, ever see a plastic bottle or a can on the side of the road or in the trash if that happens. And you'll increase recycling by huge numbers.
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 11:47 a.m. Inappropriate
"First, targeting a single product is highly ineffective; second, a ban has the unintended effect of driving consumers toward less sustainable alternatives; and third, a ban overlooks an effective, forward-thinking solution that is encapsulated in the oft-cited phrase "reduce, reuse, recycle.""
First, bans on plastic bags have been hugely successful at every place in the world where they have been instituted. True a ban on plastic bags doesn't eliminate pollution from other sources, such as noise pollution from honking car horns. Bans on plastic bags only eliminate pollution from plastic bags.
Second, assuming the claim that paper bags are the only alternative to plastic bags is correct (which it is not), paper bags are made from vegetative material. Growing plants to produce fiber is sustainable. People have been doing this for thousands of years. Plants are a renewable resource. Mining petroleum, a finite resource, is not sustainable.
Third, a ban truly implements the priorities of "reduce, reuse, recycle." It very effectively reduces the use of plastic bags.
I am concerned about the economic impacts of the rapidly growing movement to ban plastic bags. We need to couple the ban with job retraining for the likes of Mark Daniels, so he can finally be gainfully employed doing work that benefits, rather than degrades, the environment.
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 11:57 a.m. Inappropriate
If you heat your shellfish to 140F it kills parasites. If you are eating raw shellfish, well you are definitely taking your chances and not just with round worms.
http://www.marex.uga.edu/seafood/SafeSeafood.htm
Cooking, it's as old as man's discovery of fire.
Unfortunately cooking plastic doesn't remove it.
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 11:59 a.m. Inappropriate
On recycling, yep a $0.10 per bag fee would cause most bags to get recycled. Why only this morning I spotted a guy going through the trash can at a park to remove the cans and bottles for redemption. Add plastic bags to his list, and he'd have separated those out as well.
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 12:18 p.m. Inappropriate
Hilex Poly presently manufactures a product that is not environmentally responsible. This company conspires with the American Chemistry Council to waste endless amounts of money protesting and suing cities that have figured this out, instead of recapitalizing their product base to support smart products for the 21st Century.
The manufacturers of DDT decried the ban on that chemical, citing similar faked statistics and vague fears of economic doom. And look what happened when America finally banned it. The Bald Eagle and a number of other species were saved, and we got through the supposed economic fallout just fine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 12:48 p.m. Inappropriate
Next week on Crosscut:
- A thoughtful and provocative essay from good people at Exxon-Mobile on why investing in bicycle lanes is bad environmental policy.
- Have we ended the Iraq war too soon? Thoughts from a PR executive at General Dynamics.
- A Starbucks vice president puts on his food critic hat and reviews the offerings of Seattle's most popular independent coffee shops.
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 3:57 p.m. Inappropriate
I'm sorry but I don't get what pet waste even remotely has to do with plastic bag fees or plastic recycling.
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 6:13 p.m. Inappropriate
And that disconnect, smacgry, is why our local "environmental" effort is so expensive, corrupt and ineffective (ineffective at helping the "environment, anyway. It's really good at funding government jobs, indian tribes and friendly non-profits).
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 8:40 p.m. Inappropriate
I'll be spending money to buy plastic bags to use in my trash bins and waste baskets and to pick up my dog poop. Currently, I get those bags free, and like the fact that I'm using the bags more than once. Shall I just leave my dog poop on the ground? 'Cause I'm NOT going to pick it up in a paper bag ...
How does forcing shoppers to buy plastic instead of recycling plastic bags and using them 2 or 3 even 3 times make any sense to anyone?
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 9:47 p.m. Inappropriate
Buy two per poo, Common1. Many agencies recommend double-bagging pet waste before throwing in the trash.
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/forms/Env_Health/pet_waste.pdf
Posted Thu, Jan 5, 11:24 p.m. Inappropriate
No, seriously. I don't get what pet waste and plastic bag fees and plastic bag recycling have to do with each other. They seem about as related as pet waste and school board elections.
Posted Fri, Jan 6, 10:52 a.m. Inappropriate
I guess we can't ALL see ALL the connections, smacgry. I, for instance, have a hard time seeing the relationship between public schools and minority business development. Oh well.
Posted Sun, Jan 8, 12:32 p.m. Inappropriate
Why ban plastic bags? They are often made from recycled items that with a ban will no longer be recycled. They are used over and over again in most homes for a variety of reasons. They are even used in arts and crafts projects.
Paper bags are an alternative, but weren't we shamed into using plastic instead because it was better for the environment? Sheesh, make up your minds, you can't have it both ways!
Why don't you go after the disposable diaper industry? I'm tired of walking around dirty diapers dropped in parking lots.
Posted Fri, Jan 13, 11:46 a.m. Inappropriate
BlueLight, I do use two bags per poo. But when I'm paying for the bags, maybe just one will doo.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.