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.