The nanny-staters are at it again. Westport, Connecticut has become the first community on the east coast of the United States to ban plastic shopping bags. The ban, done in the name of “green”, will levy a $150 fine to any merchant that offers a plastic bag to shoppers. No word yet if there will be a solicitation fine for any customer that asks for a plastic bag.Starting in 2009, Seattle, Washington has instituted a $.20 per bag tax on all plastic bags, again in the name of protecting the environment.
Are plastic shopping bags really the scourge of our pristine environment? Even the liberal machine MSNBC has questions about paper versus plastic. Anne Thompson writes that the debate of paper versus plastic in not so clear-cut:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18538484/
Plastic bags
— Each year, an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide.
— Plastics do NOT biodegrade. Rather, they photodegrade, a process in which sunlight breaks down plastic into smaller and smaller pieces.
— It can take up to 1,000 years for a high-density polyethylene plastic bag to break down in the environment.
— Plastic bags are on the top 10 list of most common trash items along the American coastline (both on land and in the water).
Paper bags
— Paper bags generate 70 percent more air pollutants and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.
— 2,000 plastic bags weigh 30 pounds, 2,000 paper bags weigh 280 pounds. The latter takes up a lot more landfill space.
— It takes 91 percent less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper. It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag.
Sources: reusablebags.com, NRDC and International Coastal Cleanup 2005 Report from the Ocean Conservancy
================================================
Once again, liberal policy falls into the trap of unintended consequences.
I suspect a lot more anecdotal data was used over hardcore scientific research by the banning lawmakers in Seattle and Westport. Politicians have locked onto plastic bags as a cause celebre, using it to perpetuate the image of doing something, rather than actually accomplishing something useful. Image and intentions are everything to liberals.
Who is the city government to tell a merchant what they can and cannot give away to their customers? Who is the city government to burden merchants with keeping track of the number of bags they give out in order to support their tax collection? Talk about an unfunded mandate!
What if you owned a business selling plastic bags to merchants? Who compensates you for the loss of your livelihood? Isn’t the government supposed to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Once again, I guess the Constitution does not apply to liberals.
Banning in general is the juvenile solution to problems. It’s the governmental equivalent of the crying child on the playground taking his ball and going home.
Posts
7 comments:
"Where's the evidence that they are a public hazard?"
Didn't you just post a list of the evidence?
"liberal policy falls into the trap of unintended consequences", "perpetuate the image of doing something, rather than actually accomplishing something useful"
I would say the Republicans are just as good at both of these, e.g. all the security theater after 9/11.
"I guess the Constitution does not apply to liberals"
Nor George Bush and the rest of the administration that spied illegally on Americans, imprisoned people in Guantanamo, is in an undeclared war, etc.
"Banning in general is the juvenile solution to problems."
What is your solution?
Look, the real solution is for everyone to voluntarily use resuable cloth bags for everything. We do. I think we are in the vanishingly small minority. I agree that these bounds overstep the bounds, but your rhetoric does nothing to help your claims.
What I should have said was "Where's the evidence that plastic bags are any more of an environmental burden than paper or any other bags?".
Look, we could all go through a litany of negative things from each party. I have my complaints about both parties. I'm going to stick to this one issue rather than respond to each of your varied points.
You asked what my solution to the problem would be. The problem is intrusive government, NOT plastic bags!
Sorry if you did not appreciate my "rhetoric", but liberalism and big government is a threat to the United States as a country, and to our way of life. I get fired up sometimes.
You are right - we should discuss the government's role. But doing so with a clear-cut, straightforward argument will get you farther. I'll respond in two ways.
First, it seems a lot of (social) conservatives don't want an intrusive government when it comes to things like their vehicles or plastic bags, but have no problems when it comes to something like gay marriage. I don't like intrusive government, but all too often people see it as intrusive when they don't agree and helpful or just when they do, which is hypocritical. (I don't know your stance, so this isn't directed at you.)
Second, I would argue that one of the main (and only) functions of government is to protect one man's liberty and property from the wrongful transgressions of others (murder, theft, etc.). In fact, we expect the government (at some level) to intrude when the actions of one group negatively affect the life of another, whether we are arresting a thief or fining a polluting factory. Eating fish filled with plastic (it's happening), or running out of oil, or dealing with plastic pollution all are as big a threat to the U.S. and our (wasteful) way of life and safety as this simple ban.
For the record, I agree that a plastic bag ban is at least kneejerk and premature and definitely farther than I would expect a town to go, but I think your argument against it was shaky. I also think there is a looming problem, and presenting non-ban alternatives would be great. (Of course, I have none, other than acting for myself, so I'm just running my mouth there.)
"Bans rarely address the root of the issue, often are triggers of multitudes of unintended consequences, and generally reduce the liberty of the public. We should demand more from our lawmakers."
I guess I was too fired up to read this part clearly the first time. This is well-said.
John -- I appreciate your criticisms and complements. Thanks.
As far as my views, I would not really consider myself a social conservative. You will see one earlier article I posted on my blog that talks about "Democrats get out of my wallet, Republicans get out of my bedroom". That's kind of my view in a nut shell.
Based on your comments, I think we're mostly in agreement here on this banning issue. I guess you did not appreciate my writing style. Admittedly, this was probably one of the most partison articles I have posted. Incidentally, it was also one of the most read and most commented articles I have ever written (according to Skewz.com). I'm sure there's a connection there. Anyway, thanks again for your comments. Hope to hear from you again in the future.
"Democrats get out of my wallet, Republicans get out of my bedroom". That's kind of my view in a nut shell.
I can agree with that.
I guess you did not appreciate my writing style.
I wouldn't say that. I think my point is that the partisan stuff clouds people's ability to see the issue at hand (via rage or dismissal). That probably didn't come across since I was somewhat guilty of the same thing. Congrats on the Skewz ref.
For some great information on the plastic bag issue in Seattle, the plastic bag makers have set up a really informative site called "Plastic Bag Makers for More Plastic Bags". Worth checking out:
http://theplasticman.wordpress.com
Post a Comment