California bans plastic bags

[maxparrish]

Like anyone, I have subjective and personal grievances, but unlike many I don't support bandwagons and causes merely because I am irked, and certainly not to marginalize freedom on the basis of that annoyance. We live in an age where State power is demanded for even the most trivial of reasons, and those demanding it are perplexed if someone objects to it on a moral/political principle - the admonitions of live and let live, or that some things are not the business of others does not cause a nano-second of hesitation before they jump on a banishment (or mandate) bandwagon.

Let us look at some actions in a nation that Rep. Michele Bachmann has described as an exemplary capitalist country: Communist China. China Reports 66-Percent Drop in Plastic Bag Use | Worldwatch Institute

A strict Chinese limit on ultra-thin plastic bags significantly reduced bag-related pollution nationwide during the past year. The country avoided the use of 40 billion bags, according to government estimates...

Bandwagon thinking. A presumed serious problem in China is not evidence of a serious or real problem in the western world, particularly in California or the US. However they manage their garbage disposal and dumping sites, it would seem that the western world of developed countries do a much better job than an emerging market such as China (and its "white pollution").

What an absurd reply. Quoting facts is not bandwagon thinking.
Here is one source f Institute which indicates how this was a problem at the time of the ban. Actually it was a ban on giving bags away free. Customers could still purchase them.

Actually it is absurd to quote facts about China's solution to their presumed problem when the OP is about the posters support of a California solution for California's non-problem. Citing China does not establish that plastic sacks might be a problem in any other country than China (or under-developed economies), which is not the OP of this thread.

In short, the argument for supporting a ban in California (or the US or Canada) because the Chinese have a sea of litter and unregulated dumping is more than absurd, it is dumb (one of the pitfalls of moralistic bandwagons).

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5808 ...have mobilized four powerful government departments in China. The State Council, China's cabinet, issued the bag ban earlier this year, and in May, shortly before its implementation, three other departments stepped in and imposed an auxiliary ruling to enforce the directive. The Ministry of Commerce, National Development and Reform Commission, and State Administration for Industry and Commerce set forth detailed stipulations...

China's central government dealt this heavy blow to plastic bags out of concern for the environment and a desire for greater energy savings. People in China use up to 3 billion plastic bags daily and dispose of more than 3 million tons of them annually. Most of the carriers end up in unofficial dumping sites, landfills, or the environment. Urban dumping centers and open fields alongside railways and expressways are littered with the discarded bags, mostly whitish ultra-thin varieties. Such scenes have generated a special term in China: "the white pollution." ...Plastic bags consume a huge quantity of oil, ...

So? That most Chinese bags end up in their "unofficial" dumping sites and become uncontrolled litter is irrelevant to whether or not the western countries or anglicized North America suffer the same, or if such a solution is mandated. One might as well cite the serious problem with cane frogs in Australia and tout Australian solutions as justification for a cane frog bandwagon for Europe and the US as well - after all, its equally absurd and irrelevant.

PS - I have no idea how the Chinese make their "white bag pollution" but US bags for grocery stores are made from natural gas, not oil. And there is a plentiful supply of NG.

http://grist.org/news/chinas-plastic-bag-ban-turns-five-years-old/
In fact this source goes on to suggest that San Francisco would follow this successful model

That SF would adopt a severe solution in search of a unproven problem is not surprising. Such is the nature of the enviro religion's search of sin and its celebration of penance.

 

[lpetrich]

Like anyone, I have subjective and personal grievances, but unlike many I don't support bandwagons and causes merely because I am irked, and certainly not to marginalize freedom on the basis of that annoyance.

Whenever I see right-wingers making a big issue out of "freedom", I often find out that it means the right to be antisocial.

I will concede that banning thin plastic bags outright is not a good idea. I'd prefer the Chinese approach.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Like anyone, I have subjective and personal grievances, but unlike many I don't support bandwagons and causes merely because I am irked, and certainly not to marginalize freedom on the basis of that annoyance. We live in an age where State power is demanded for even the most trivial of reasons, and those demanding it are perplexed if someone objects to it on a moral/political principle - the admonitions of live and let live, or that some things are not the business of others does not cause a nano-second of hesitation before they jump on a banishment (or mandate) bandwagon.

Let us look at some actions in a nation that Rep. Michele Bachmann has described as an exemplary capitalist country: Communist China. China Reports 66-Percent Drop in Plastic Bag Use | Worldwatch Institute

A strict Chinese limit on ultra-thin plastic bags significantly reduced bag-related pollution nationwide during the past year. The country avoided the use of 40 billion bags, according to government estimates...

Bandwagon thinking. A presumed serious problem in China is not evidence of a serious or real problem in the western world, particularly in California or the US. However they manage their garbage disposal and dumping sites, it would seem that the western world of developed countries do a much better job than an emerging market such as China (and its "white pollution").

What an absurd reply. Quoting facts is not bandwagon thinking.
Here is one source f Institute which indicates how this was a problem at the time of the ban. Actually it was a ban on giving bags away free. Customers could still purchase them.

Actually it is absurd to quote facts about China's solution to their presumed problem when the OP is about the posters support of a California solution for California's non-problem. Citing China does not establish that plastic sacks might be a problem in any other country than China (or under-developed economies), which is not the OP of this thread.

In short, the argument for supporting a ban in California (or the US or Canada) because the Chinese have a sea of litter and unregulated dumping is more than absurd, it is dumb (one of the pitfalls of moralistic bandwagons).

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5808 ...have mobilized four powerful government departments in China. The State Council, China's cabinet, issued the bag ban earlier this year, and in May, shortly before its implementation, three other departments stepped in and imposed an auxiliary ruling to enforce the directive. The Ministry of Commerce, National Development and Reform Commission, and State Administration for Industry and Commerce set forth detailed stipulations...

China's central government dealt this heavy blow to plastic bags out of concern for the environment and a desire for greater energy savings. People in China use up to 3 billion plastic bags daily and dispose of more than 3 million tons of them annually. Most of the carriers end up in unofficial dumping sites, landfills, or the environment. Urban dumping centers and open fields alongside railways and expressways are littered with the discarded bags, mostly whitish ultra-thin varieties. Such scenes have generated a special term in China: "the white pollution." ...Plastic bags consume a huge quantity of oil, ...

So? That most Chinese bags end up in their "unofficial" dumping sites and become uncontrolled litter is irrelevant to whether or not the western countries or anglicized North America suffer the same, or if such a solution is mandated. One might as well cite the serious problem with cane frogs in Australia and tout Australian solutions as justification for a cane frog bandwagon for Europe and the US as well - after all, its equally absurd and irrelevant.

PS - I have no idea how the Chinese make their "white bag pollution" but US bags for grocery stores are made from natural gas, not oil. And there is a plentiful supply of NG.

http://grist.org/news/chinas-plastic-bag-ban-turns-five-years-old/
In fact this source goes on to suggest that San Francisco would follow this successful model

That SF would adopt a severe solution in search of a unproven problem is not surprising. Such is the nature of the enviro religion's search of sin and its celebration of penance.

The main issue it reduced its level of wasted plastic bags. This year it seems China may stop or limit imported garbage from the USA.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-18/chinas-green-fence-cleaning-americas-dirty-recycling.

 

[arkirk]

Maxparrish: Then I take it, you support industry's right to pollute the environment on all fronts. This plastic bag issue...I had no idea anybody could be so sensitive to reductions in pollution. Now I know, there are people who actually SUPPORT POLLUTION for its own sake. It seems kind of heartless though.

 

[maxparrish]

Maxparrish: Then I take it, you support industry's right to pollute the environment on all fronts. This plastic bag issue...I had no idea anybody could be so sensitive to reductions in pollution. Now I know, there are people who actually SUPPORT POLLUTION for its own sake. It seems kind of heartless though.

I am not sensitive to redressing the molehills of pollution, but I am observant of the nitwittery of many 'green' crusades, especially those that seek to take from my own well being for little real purpose. This is just another pain in the ass and useless mandate, with mildly noxious tax...to be added to the many circumscriptions by the government on daily life. So now I must either purchase 7 or 8 reusable bags, wash them on occasion (especially if their is blood leakage), AND remember to reload them in a particular car I usually (but not always) use. If I forget or I make an unplanned run by the store I will be taxed for paper bags that I previously got for free.

As to your other question:

No, I don't support anyone's right to pollute the environment on "any front", unless such pollution of the commons is approved by the commons and/or paid for by the polluter. But then, industry and most consumers do not pollute the environment with grocery and department store sacks, most are put either put into the garbage or recycling bin by stores and consumers, and hauled off to the local landfill. The proportionally few bags that make it into litter are from illegal dumping by folks who won't or can't pay landfill fees.

So far no one in this thread has offered a serious reason that plastic bags should be singled out and banned - other than they are personally offended at the sight of plastic bags.

 

[bleubird]

Point by hyperbole.nice.
I have had three cloth bags for many years,and they may need washing sometimes.And,the blood thing is just germaphobia.
People that oppose change,be it environmental or social ,seem to have vested interest.Financial or ideological.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Maxparrish: Then I take it, you support industry's right to pollute the environment on all fronts. This plastic bag issue...I had no idea anybody could be so sensitive to reductions in pollution. Now I know, there are people who actually SUPPORT POLLUTION for its own sake. It seems kind of heartless though.

I am not sensitive to redressing the molehills of pollution, but I am observant of the nitwittery of many 'green' crusades, especially those that seek to take from my own well being for little real purpose. This is just another pain in the ass and useless mandate, with mildly noxious tax...to be added to the many circumscriptions by the government on daily life. So now I must either purchase 7 or 8 reusable bags, wash them on occasion (especially if their is blood leakage), AND remember to reload them in a particular car I usually (but not always) use. If I forget or I make an unplanned run by the store I will be taxed for paper bags that I previously got for free.

As to your other question:

No, I don't support anyone's right to pollute the environment on "any front", unless such pollution of the commons is approved by the commons and/or paid for by the polluter. But then, industry and most consumers do not pollute the environment with grocery and department store sacks, most are put either put into the garbage or recycling bin by stores and consumers, and hauled off to the local landfill. The proportionally few bags that make it into litter are from illegal dumping by folks who won't or can't pay landfill fees.

So far no one in this thread has offered a serious reason that plastic bags should be singled out and banned - other than they are personally offended at the sight of plastic bags.

There are many things that should be done. Plastic bags are simply more noticeable, but it is possible to make an impact. Now you can use bio degradable ones which split open when you put the shopping inside. Incidentally my earlier point was to reduce the use of them with higher charges, not to ban them.

Now in China, putting a mandatory tariff on plastic bags reduced the use as they will even make sure their shopping is cheaper, even if it is one cent. However, when the government put heavy taxes on large cars, sales shot up further. Why is that? My Chinese colleagues tell me that if cars become expensive, some Chinese will buy one just to impress the neighbours that he/she can afford one. No one will be so impressed if he purchases a garage full of bin bags.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I am not sensitive to redressing the molehills of pollution, but I am observant of the nitwittery of many 'green' crusades, especially those that seek to take from my own well being for little real purpose.

I am sorry that the banning of plastic bags will destroy your well-being. You may want to seek professional help. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy has come a long way.

This is just another pain in the ass and useless mandate, with mildly noxious tax...to be added to the many circumscriptions by the government on daily life. So now I must either purchase 7 or 8 reusable bags, wash them on occasion (especially if their is blood leakage), AND remember to reload them in a particular car I usually (but not always) use. If I forget or I make an unplanned run by the store I will be taxed for paper bags that I previously got for free.

You might also want to see out assistance for the 10 cent tax on the bags. There are many governmental and private programs which can help you. There are even programs that will help you to learn a new skill. In the worst case scenario, you might find cancelling cable television may just be ticket to financial freedom.

 

[Rhea]

So far no one in this thread has offered a serious reason that plastic bags should be singled out and banned - other than they are personally offended at the sight of plastic bags.

Yeah they have. Just because you don't agree with the answer does not mean there hasn't been an answer.

They are worth singling out because their detriment is far bigger than their contribution. Financially, environmentally, aesthetically.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Point by hyperbole.nice.
I have had three cloth bags for many years,and they may need washing sometimes.And,the blood thing is just germaphobia.
People that oppose change,be it environmental or social ,seem to have vested interest.Financial or ideological.

People have died from unwashed grocery bags. It's not just germaphobia.

 

[Emily Lake]

More often than not the do-gooder fadists and 'cause celebre's' keep me bemused and curious - curious because I wonder what is in human nature that compels people to thoughtlessly jump onto these cause bandwagons, ever ready to dictate to most other non-bandwagon folks what they wear (hemp but not fur), what speech they may utter (PC language), what foods they may and may not eat (non-GM), what low flow only shower-heads they may purchase, or what kind of sack they are permitted to haul groceries in ?

Certainly most of these bandwagon 'make a law' causes are not rooted in a rational process, such crusading is rarely the result of a person's conscious gathering of serious knowledge and his/her then coming to a rational belief in a social restriction (or mandate). Almost always it sprouts with a subjective belief and a desire to exert power that comes first and then, only when confronted by opposition, it might be followed by a search for serious validation of those 'feelings'.

To understand the modern do-gooder crusader one must appreciate the roots:

First, the do-gooder is usually an individual fully infected with the narcissism ethos of the modern age, i.e.; that a person's extemporaneous and unstudied "feelings" are what instantly defines reality and truth, nothing more. Such "feelings" need not comport with reason or reality because they are self-validatng. "I feel, therefore I must be right". Such feelings are not over a principal that is at least amenable to deduction and error checking through consistency, but over the emotion of the moment; "If I am offended, it must be wrong".

Second, the do-gooder's narcissism ethos also contains an unconstrained assumption, that what a person feels is "good for society (or his/her group)" make it an automatic right to try to impose one's idea of good on others. The principled idea that many things in life are are none of their business is an unfamiliar concept - they just "assume" their gut feelings should be imposed through law.

Finally, the modern do-gooder has usually been (but not always) encultuated into parroting a socially constructed and quasi-religious theology, in this case "environmentalism". It starts in childhood through school lessons and peer regurgitation of mantras, myths, superstition, slogans, and practice of mandated ritual in the enviro religion - "Caring for the planet", "sustainable practices", "save the earth", "recycle", "buy green", "stewardship", "mass transit", "energy conservation" are all pseudo-thought blurbs. Exactly what catechism of muckery means (especially in regard to preferences. prices, and scarcity) is far less important than its role in creating a do-gooder values consciousness, not the least of which is that of "man as environmental sinner" (aka garbage making, resource wasting, energy squandering, and forest logging "evil" man).

So I suppose this more recent fad "as policy" should be expected. One person sees four plastic bags on a street and "presto" he "feels" that plastic bags are a danger...if not sinful! Another reads some hyped and sensationalist propoganda about thousands of dead sea mammals due to grocery bags and "presto" they believe it (as they have been trained to do) and immediately "feel" something has to be done. And yet another may "feel" that others are wasteful, and "presto" they sanctimoniously demand somebody impose controls on that person's consumer choices.

And why? Because they are offended and their feeling is a sacred faith. For those California mystics who practice this religion just a few familiar chants elicit nods of amen, but for the rest of us we wonder why they insist on speaking in tongues and dervish whirling.

Well, that's a whole lot of offensive armchair psychiatry and appeals to emotion, maxparrish.

You've effectively assumed that anyone who opposes the use of polyethylene bags, and encourages others not to use them, including supporting bans on their use... is a complete idiot who hasn't actually considered science or logic to reach their decision. Hmm. Sweeping generalizations and global dismissals based on confirmation bias much?

- - - Updated - - -

Or, they look at evidence and make conclusions that are supported by data. (rather than dollars)

Do they? Reread the first page of this thread. The reaction to the ban is one of support, but based on what, other than a potpourri of subjective and personal grievances? The sum total of "evidence" provided by the plastic bag offended is carping that " plastic bag trash is overwhelming." (whatever that means), or that "these people are bag happy", or that "...I hate F###King plastic bags!" because they don't hold enough and are "hard to open." These vague feelings and petty gripes are the basis of someone supporting the banishment of a preferred consumer choice for tens of millions who do not agree? This is not "evidence" to make a conclusion, it is the arrogance and immaturity of collective narcissism - in other words the elevation of the adolescent mindset to policy making.

I'm quite offended by your posts here, considering that I did post links to actual data. It's also absurdly easy to find the information. Failure to do so is willful ignorance on your part, which allows you to continue supporting the use of plastic bags for your short-sighted and selfish convenience.

 

[Emily Lake]

They also degrade rather quickly from motor oil, I observed (unfortunately) it personally too.

Which is perfectly safe and environmentally friendly, not at all toxic or dangerous...

 

[laughing dog]

I am not sensitive to redressing the molehills of pollution, but I am observant of the nitwittery of many 'green' crusades, especially those that seek to take from my own well being for little real purpose. This is just another pain in the ass and useless mandate, with mildly noxious tax...to be added to the many circumscriptions by the government on daily life. So now I must either purchase 7 or 8 reusable bags, wash them on occasion (especially if their is blood leakage), AND remember to reload them in a particular car I usually (but not always) use. If I forget or I make an unplanned run by the store I will be taxed for paper bags that I previously got for free.

Oh noes, someone's costs of living have increased.

No, I don't support anyone's right to pollute the environment on "any front", unless such pollution of the commons is approved by the commons and/or paid for by the polluter. But then, industry and most consumers do not pollute the environment with grocery and department store sacks, most are put either put into the garbage or recycling bin by stores and consumers, and hauled off to the local landfill. The proportionally few bags that make it into litter are from illegal dumping by folks who won't or can't pay landfill fees.

Congratulations, you do seem to understand that plastic bags can have a detrimental effect on the environment. So, you are against polluters but don't want to see anything done to deal with acknowledged pollution. A simply brilliant position.

 

[Kharakov]

There are allegedly plastophiles now- bacteria, yeast, etc. that break down plastic. There are allegedly people who don't clean their grocery bags and spread disease.

So what are the options?

A) let bacteria that eat plastic evolve by putting more plastic into landfills
​

OR

B) spread bacteria that cause disease which will lead to:
​

1) bleaching the checkout counter after every person​

OR
​

2) relying on bacteria to decide not to harm us....
​

 

[Nice Squirrel]

There are allegedly plastophiles now- bacteria, yeast, etc. that break down plastic. There are allegedly people who don't clean their grocery bags and spread disease.

So what are the options?

A) let bacteria that eat plastic evolve by putting more plastic into landfills
​

OR

B) spread bacteria that cause disease which will lead to:
​

1) bleaching the checkout counter after every person​

OR
​

2) relying on bacteria to decide not to harm us....
​

3) Pay 10c for a paper bag.

 

[maxparrish]

Well, that's a whole lot of offensive armchair psychiatry and appeals to emotion, maxparrish.

You've effectively assumed that anyone who opposes the use of polyethylene bags, and encourages others not to use them, including supporting bans on their use... is a complete idiot who hasn't actually considered science or logic to reach their decision. Hmm. Sweeping generalizations and global dismissals based on confirmation bias much?

Actually I observe, read sociology, and have evaluated the claims of many in the news (and have personally experienced). So far my "confirmation bias" has been unrelentingly confirmed both in the SF Bay area and in the national discourse, and even here:

Do they? Reread the first page of this thread. The reaction to the ban is one of support, but based on what, other than a potpourri of subjective and personal grievances? The sum total of "evidence" provided by the plastic bag offended is carping that " plastic bag trash is overwhelming." (whatever that means), or that "these people are bag happy", or that "...I hate F###King plastic bags!" because they don't hold enough and are "hard to open." These vague feelings and petty gripes are the basis of someone supporting the banishment of a preferred consumer choice for tens of millions who do not agree? This is not "evidence" to make a conclusion, it is the arrogance and immaturity of collective narcissism - in other words the elevation of the adolescent mindset to policy making.

I'm quite offended by your posts here, considering that I did post links to actual data. It's also absurdly easy to find the information. Failure to do so is willful ignorance on your part, which allows you to continue supporting the use of plastic bags for your short-sighted and selfish convenience.

That you are offended is a good thing, at least you care if your opinions have a basis in reality - a concern not shared by most crusaders and mass movements. However, most do-gooder crusades are based on sanctimonious gut feelings, often arrogant and rather immature. Do you honestly think that lurid pictures of a landfill with trash bags, or (for that matter) lurid pictures of aborted dead fetus's is a form of serious evidentiary and reasoned based belief? Or is it evidence of the modern age that embraces hyperbolic feelings as self-validating, and which engenders cries of "offense" when those feelings are challenged?

You think you provided links to evidence, but it seems you actually made unsupported presumptions that resonate with the like-minded, but are without merit as a basis for public policy. Consider:

Yes, you showed that plastic bags are resistant to decay. But so what if they, along with many other items last hundreds of years? Do you know what percentage of landfill (in the US) are composed of bags? What percentage is plastic? Do you know what percentage of land, land fills actually occupy? Does it matter over the next century or two?

Yes, plastic bags end up in the Pacific vortex around Midway island. So? Do you have any idea what percentage of sea water has plastic bags or how it compares to other debris? Do you know that a lot of photos of this vortex are faked? Do you know if 50 percent or .0005 percent of the bags come from US shores?

Yes, most plastic bags end up in US landfills. Any idea what percentage somehow migrates into major rivers and into the ocean?

Yes, plastic bags can kill a bird, fish or sea mammal. Any idea what percentage of fish or sea mammals are actually killed by plastic bags. 30 percent or .0003 percent? Curious if American domestic cats kill 1,000,000 fold more birds than plastic bags? Is any species actually endangered by a grocery bag used by Mrs. Sanchez or Mr. Smith in California?

Do you have any idea how much or how little the ban on single use bags in California (or the west coast) would actually effect ocean ecology or debris?

For those not indoctrinated in the 'green' quasi-religion ethos, invocations of the "Green Goddess" theology of recycling and rationing of resources we need proof. We don't accept the hopeful hand waving that "oh the data is out there proving my unsupported convictions". A conclusion based on subjective feelings accessible only to the tongue speakers just won't do.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

For those not indoctrinated in the 'green' quasi-religion ethos

You appear to have just as much ideological-"religious" fervor as those you criticize.

 

[maxparrish]

There are allegedly plastophiles now- bacteria, yeast, etc. that break down plastic. There are allegedly people who don't clean their grocery bags and spread disease.

So what are the options?

A) let bacteria that eat plastic evolve by putting more plastic into landfills
​

OR

B) spread bacteria that cause disease which will lead to:
​

1) bleaching the checkout counter after every person​

OR
​

2) relying on bacteria to decide not to harm us....
​

3) Pay 10c for a paper bag.

Or allow stores to give away paper bags for free, which the California State has made illegal. Stores MUST charge 10 cents.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

3) Pay 10c for a paper bag.

Or allow stores to give away paper bags for free, which the California State has made illegal. Stores MUST charge 10 cents.

Which according to libertarian theory makes the store charge 10 cents less for groceries.

 

[maxparrish]

For those not indoctrinated in the 'green' quasi-religion ethos

You appear to have just as much ideological-"religious" fervor as those you criticize.

You are correct, it is the religion of deductive and inductive reasoning from theory and empirical evidence.