Austin would be ill-advised to ban plastic bags

[JAM]

H. Sterling Burnett, Special Contributor

The Austin City Council is about to make a huge mistake that will cost Austinites for years to come with the upcoming vote to ban the use of plastic bags. It's a clear case of using bad data to make bad policy.

More than two dozen cities nationwide, including a few in Texas, have either banned plastic grocery bags (and in some cases paper bags) entirely, or seek to encourage the use of reusable bags by charging fees for plastic grocery bags. Austin is the largest city in Texas to consider such a ban, with the city council slated to vote on a plan today.

Austin's ban would be one of the broadest in the nation, applying to all so-called single-use bags, paper or plastic, from all retailers. It would allow retailers to offer reusable bags, defined as those made of cloth or durable materials, and thicker paper and plastic bags with some recycled content. The plan under consideration could begin the ban sometime in 2013. The plan would charge a fee for bags used in the interim until the full ban takes effect of either 10 cents per bag used or a flat $1.00 per visit (like Brownsville charges). Some have also suggested including paper bags in the fee and ban plan.

Bag ban proponents give a number or reasons for their support, the most common being that single-use bags are used only once and that they make up a large portion of landfill content and litter on roadways. Austin City Council members seem to have been particularly influenced by a presentation from Bob Gedert, director of Austin Resource Recovery, in which he stated that plastic bags comprise 2.2 percent of the city's litter.

There's just one problem: That figure is dead wrong. In fact, it exaggerates the percentage of litter made of plastic bags by 366 percent. Who says so? The study's author.

Recognizing that his data was being misused, the study's lead author, Steven Stein, asked Gedert to make a correction. What Stein's research actually found was that plastic bag litter comprised only 0.6 percent of litter volume, not the 2.2 percent claimed by Gedert. Even the 0.6 percent figure is high because it includes other types of plastic waste, such as industrial wrapping and dry cleaner and trash bags. Because Gedert overstated the amount of plastic bag litter, he also grossly overstated the dollars saved by banning plastic bags. Indeed, the 2009 Keep America Beautiful study does not include plastic bags in its top 10 sources of litter.

The nationwide frenzy to ban plastic bags comes with hidden costs that virtually no one is reporting.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that bag bans result in lost commerce in the cities where they're enacted, while surrounding cities and neighborhoods benefit as shoppers vote with their feet. Retailers in cities adjoining Austin will likely benefit if the ban goes into effect, while retailers in Austin will see lost sales and the city will lose tax revenue.

This is consumer choice — most people, even in Austin, prefer the plastic bag option for all the obvious reasons.

Also, many plastic bags are, in fact, not just used once. At home, plastic bags are used for collecting trash, animal waste, diapers and more. They are used to carry donations and dry cleaning and for storage. Will we buy more baggies and trash bags to fill these gaps?

In addition, increasingly, plastic bags are being recycled. In Austin, a growing number of retailers are making an organized effort to recycle used plastic bags.

The reusable bags that Austin's government is pushing as an alternative have a significant economic downside. Plastic bags are made in the U.S., and the industry employs thousands of workers. By contrast, China dominates reusable bag manufacturing. This puts Austin and other cities banning plastic bags in the position of putting American workers in the unemployment line while helping China take over one more industry.

Environmental advocates often argue that government should follow the science. In this case, the science shows that plastic bags are not a substantive litter problem. Accordingly, the drawbacks to banning bags far outweigh the benefits of controlling a miniscule percent of litter.

Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D.C.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/aus...c-2208045.html

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by JAM

H. Sterling Burnett, Special Contributor



http://www.statesman.com/opinion/aus...c-2208045.html

And somehow it hasn't hurt Ikea's business, as a matter of fact they are undergoing an expansion.

So the reusable bags aren't made in the U.S.? That just tells me there is opportunity for American companies that they aren't taking advantage of.

And one use bags aren't a substantial litter problem? Okay I dare you to walk around your part of town and tally up all of the resuable bags laying on the ground versus the number of single use bags.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

And somehow it hasn't hurt Ikea's business, as a matter of fact they are undergoing an expansion.

You don't need bags to go to Ikea. You need a giant gas guzzling truck or suv to haul your goods home. In fact, as long has you have a big house with a nice garage and a big car you don't need bags at all. You can just move them from basket to trunk to house.

Its just us poor slobs that walk to the grocery store that need the bags. Another hidden tax put on the poor.

[kingkirbythe....]

Well the ban passed 7-0. I finally agree with Laura Morrision on something.

[East7thStreet]

I'm all for protecting the environment and have literally almost broken up with a girlfriend because of her propensity to throw trash out her car window but....... we should let businesses and people decide if they want to use plastic bags. I reuse them for small trash bags and to pick up after my dog.

If they cared about the litter problem they should enforce anti-littering laws more strictly. Once someone is given a $200 ticket for throwing a plastic wrapper out their window I would think they will tend to stop doing it.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by East7thStreet

I'm all for protecting the environment

Me too, but I feel this is a token measure. So many other things they could target that they don't have the political balls to go after. This is how they pander to environmentalists. Just a political ploy.

Originally Posted by East7thStreet

If they cared about the litter problem they should enforce anti-littering laws more strictly. Once someone is given a $200 ticket for throwing a plastic wrapper out their window I would think they will tend to stop doing it.

Yes, and they could start with cigarette butts.

[shanny]

issues like this need to be voted on by the public

[The ATX]

I will do all my shopping in the suburbs when the ban goes into effect. The idealism of environmental issues such as this appeals to a lot of people. But the practicality and harmful business consequences are too often ignored.

[kingkirbythe....]

There are exceptions for produce bags, dog poop bags, charities with single use bags, takeout bags at restaurants, etc.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by orderlychaos

There are exceptions for produce bags, dog poop bags, charities with single use bags, takeout bags at restaurants, etc.

So essentially, they banned the bags that have reusable capabilities, and kept the single use bags that go straight to the landfill. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Interesting how restaurants can give out a styrofoam container, and put it in a takeout bag and that is considered OK, while other retailers can't provide bags. Seriously, what is the difference? Both provide a product, that you need to transport home. Shouldn't both be held to the same standard?

[verybadgnome]

Enforcement is incredibly hard when it comes to littering since you have to catch people in the act. If only 1/10 of one percent of litters every get ticketed - and that's an optimistic amount - then the deterrent value will be non-existent. And would it be a good use of resources to have officers looking for this with everything else they have to do?

And I'll answer my own question then.....for every reusable bag I see as litter there are 100+ single use bags strewn across roads, lawns, and gutters.

As far as libertarianism is concerned is there a market force that deals with someone else's litter, in light of their being no financial incentive for the litterer to refrain?

[JAM]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Enforcement is incredibly hard when it comes to littering since you have to catch people in the act. If only 1/10 of one percent of litters every get ticketed - and that's an optimistic amount - then the deterrent value will be non-existent. And would it be a good use of resources to have officers looking for this with everything else they have to do?

And I'll answer my own question then.....for every reusable bag I see as litter there are 100+ single use bags strewn across roads, lawns, and gutters.

As far as libertarianism is concerned is there a market force that deals with someone else's litter, in light of their being no financial incentive for the litterer to refrain?

I walk and run Town Lake almost daily. Also look at the water daily. I also see beer cups and beer cans floating in Town Lake daily. Not many plastic bags though.

[paulsjv]

Didn't know this passed. that's really sad the city feels it needs to tell businesses how to run their business. Be it smoking ban or plastic bag ban. All this is going to do is hurt things. Sitting here wondering what are some of the unintended consequences.

I also remember googling about environmental impact of paper vs plastic. I remember something about plastic being a lot less of an impact on the environment because of the small amount of energy it takes to produce a TON of bags vs all the ones they make to for reuse and sell for $1.

Anyway, I would suggest reading up on plastic vs paper vs reusable bags.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by paulsjv

Didn't know this passed. that's really sad the city feels it needs to tell businesses how to run their business. Be it smoking ban or plastic bag ban. All this is going to do is hurt things. Sitting here wondering what are some of the unintended consequences.

And you think the smoking ban is a bad thing for Austin? Tell that to people who don't want to get cancer by breathing the air in a room full of smokers. I think the Smoking ban is needed. People have a right to smoke and thats fine if that is their choice but it is not the choice of others who don't smoke to breathe in their second hand smoke. Smoking does affect your surroundings and to be inside a building and smoke basically causes everybody in that area to breath the same smoke. I don't see that is an attack on the smokers personal freedom because going to a designated smoking area is not a big deal and if its that much of an effort for them to smoke in a designated smoking area or outside then maybe they should consider quitting.

Im sorry but this does get to me and I have a family member who has to deal health problems because of the effects of second hand smoke, people get sick and die from second hand smoke but oh, lets get rid of the ban because it infringes on personal freedoms?

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

People have a right to smoke and thats fine if that is their choice

Are you sure? Why don't people have a right to use plastic bags? They aren't hurting me? Or are they? What about smokers who raise medical costs because of their poor health, same goes for people who don't exercise regularly. What about cyclist and no helmets raising insurance rates. Where does it start and where does it end?

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by JAM

Are you sure? Why don't people have a right to use plastic bags? They aren't hurting me? Or are they? What about smokers who raise medical costs because of their poor health, same goes for people who don't exercise regularly. What about cyclist and no helmets raising insurance rates. Where does it start and where does it end?

The plastic bag ban is a contraversial one and its not quite on the same lvl as a smoking ban. While I can see your points, I dont mind the plastic bag ban.

[KevinFromTexas]

Hey, if someone wants some plastic bags, we have tons. I hate them. I usually bag them up in a big bag and take them back to HEB. I hate having them sit around waiting, though.

As for health issues, they absolutely are a health hazard. They don't biodegrade, and just end up breaking down from sun light into smaller pieces that fish end up eating, the same fish that we eat. And plus, there are some nasty side effects to certain plastics getting into your body. I think if everyone knew what exactly that stuff does to their body, everyone would be banning them personally.

[paulsjv]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

And you think the smoking ban is a bad thing for Austin?

Yes I do think it is.

Tell that to people who don't want to get cancer by breathing the air in a room full of smokers.

Who's holding the gun forcing those people to hang around smokers?

I think the Smoking ban is needed.

That's cool. I would disagree.

People have a right to smoke and thats fine if that is their choice but it is not the choice of others who don't smoke to breathe in their second hand smoke.

And why shouldn't businesses have that same choice?

Smoking does affect your surroundings and to be inside a building and smoke basically causes everybody in that area to breath the same smoke.

Don't you think that's up to the person and the business and not a small group of people passing a ban on all businesses?

I don't see that is an attack on the smokers personal freedom because going to a designated smoking area is not a big deal and if its that much of an effort for them to smoke in a designated smoking area or outside then maybe they should consider quitting.

I see it as more of an attack on small businesses. I know before the ban there were several businesses that had smoking locations where smokers could smoke inside and it wouldn't bother other customers. No a days you see businesses getting around it by having out door areas. That to me is an unintended consequence.

Im sorry but this does get to me and I have a family member who has to deal health problems because of the effects of second hand smoke, people get sick and die from second hand smoke but oh, lets get rid of the ban because it infringes on personal freedoms?

I'm sorry to hear that about your family member. But what's next? A ban in the home to avoid children getting second hand smoke?

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Hey, if someone wants some plastic bags, we have tons. I hate them. I usually bag them up in a big bag and take them back to HEB. I hate having them sit around waiting, though.

As for health issues, they absolutely are a health hazard. They don't biodegrade, and just end up breaking down from sun light into smaller pieces that fish end up eating, the same fish that we eat. And plus, there are some nasty side effects to certain plastics getting into your body. I think if everyone knew what exactly that stuff does to their body, everyone would be banning them personally.

I see this as an opportunity for a business to get started to deal with the bags instead of the government doing something about it. Besides if they were such a huge problem don't you think that the market would have done something about it by now?

[migol24]

Originally Posted by paulsjv

Who's holding the gun forcing those people to hang around smokers?

my honest opinion... i think that's a very silly way of rationalizing because smoke is technically infringing on my liberties when it comes in my way. what if the person keeps following me around smoking that cigarette... i mean, it's a free country and that person could very well do that. right? and admittedly it's a terrible and silly analogy, because who would do that anyways? but this could very well happen when, say, there's a place you really like going to but without the smoking ban, all the smokers in a room could really affect my enjoyment, because as you say, no one is holding a gun to my head to stay so i probably won't go to that place anymore. thus it ruins my enjoyment.... and if all my favorite places turn out to allow smoking..... i mean, really, i could go on. it's not necessary to make it that complicated. smoking isn't necessary and no one should be affected by it period.... especially when there are people who don't enjoy the smoke.

who cares for smoke? why would anyone protect smoke more than someone's lungs? that's just silly. and i think even most smokers would agree with me that the smoking ban is just really not a law that anyone should even dwell on too much. i just don't see any logical reason to defend smoke. at all. period. fin. just as much as the plastic bag ban. who cares for plastic bags? no biggie!


and another thing about local business and the not smoking bit. i could be wrong and i might need to confirm this, but the smoking ban really isn't enforced. if a cop sees you in a place smoking he will not tell you anything, nor will the venue get a citation. i was at lovejoys a few years back and a friend of ours, who is a cop, was there with us. there were a lot of people there smoking. and we asked our friend, the cop, if they could get cited and he said, just what i told you. it's still technically up to the businesses and if the businesses ask the cop to take care of it, they will certainly respond and could kick him out or fine the smoker. but of course, i might have it a bit distorted. i'm just saying this because it really isn't like some "conspiracy" aimed against businesses at all.

[JAM]

They should ban video games - the nations #1 contribution to obesity, right behind fast food and high fructose sugar. In my day, there was one chubby kid in the class and unfortunately he was made fun of. Nowadays, he would be considered normal.