October 4, 2024 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Partial Plastic Bag Ban A Constructive Idea:

Few bills before the state Legislature this summer will draw as firm opposition as one called AB 1998, a partial ban on single-use plastic bags in California which would also include a form of a “bag tax.”

From the sound of the opponents, you’d think this plan was a major health hazard and a huge tax hit, perhaps even akin to the $1.40-per-pack additional levy also lately proposed for cigarettes.

But no, the bag tax discussed here would amount to about a nickel a bag for one-time-use recycled paper bags starting in 2012, and it has specific exemptions for plastic bags like the ones used for fresh produce and meat products that often leave liquid residues on counter tops and elsewhere.

Stores would also be required to offer reusable cloth or plastic bags for sale, as many already do. The idea is to stop the vast expansion of use of one-time-use plastic bags, of which about 19 billion are now are distributed in California every year (about 600 per person). That would cut national dependence on foreign oil at the same time it vastly reduces the proliferation of plastic trash plaguing city streets and rural highways.

A prior version of this plan called for charging 25 cents per single-use bag, probably too high to accomplish the law’s purpose. Certainly voters in usually-green Seattle, Wash., thought that level of fee was too high when they voted overwhelmingly last year to overturn a 20-cent city levy on non-reusable bags.

Why even consider what amounts to a bag tax when California voters less than two years ago nixed an attempt to extend this year’s increases in sales, income and car taxes for another two years.

Three reasons: Oil, crowded landfills and the persistence of plastic.

Plastic comes from oil; each plastic bag not used is a small step toward energy independence. Meanwhile, using fewer paper bags would contribute to reducing greenhouse gases by keeping more trees intact.

Plus, many landfills are near capacity and the more trash piled into them, the greater the pressure to create new ones farther and farther out from where urban residents actually produce their trash. Then there’s the ubiquitous nature of plastic bags: what swimmer hasn’t washed up against one at an ocean beach; who hasn’t seen them blowing in the wind?

But here’s the real reason the so-called bag tax and the partial plastic bag ban are good ideas: This is one tax you don’t have to pay. Reuse existing plastic or paper bags and there’s no charge. Use cloth or rattan bags, backpacks or some other container, and you’ll also avoid any levy.

An ongoing and more extreme movement among some cities to ban plastic bags altogether is part of the impetus for this plan. The idea here is to give consumers a choice of recycling plastic bags, taking their goods in new or reused paper ones or using cloth bags, while still allowing use of plastic where it seems vital for individual and public health.

But there’s strong resistance to all this. The plastics industry has an active lobby in Sacramento. Some people like plastic bags because they’re light, can be crumpled into a tiny mass when they’re no longer useful and they can be used to line trash cans. Which makes the fate of this proposal uncertain, even though Gov. Schwarzenegger has indicated he would sign the bill if it passes, saying it would be “a great victory for our environment.”

Meanwhile, the movement toward bans and a fee doesn’t speak to the question of paper bags and where they come from or end up. Paper bags are neither as pernicious nor as persistent as plastic. They can be used several times if their bottoms stay dry and they decompose in landfills.

Which is why the fee in the plan authored by by Democratic Assemblywoman Julia Brownley of Santa Monica is a good idea.

In a way, it apes the 99.99 Cents Only store chain, which several months ago placed a charge of less than a nickel on plastic bags. Customers who don’t want to pay a few pennies for a new plastic bag can stuff an old one in their pockets or handbags and bring it along, if they don’t have a cloth bag. This system has neither reduced customer traffic nor added significantly to checkout times. It would work with paper if AB 1998 passes the state Senate.

Worried you might forget a cloth bag if you drive to market? Keep one or two in the car.

It adds up to a choice: Recycle plastic bags if you like them best. Pay the fee for a paper bag if you don’t want to bring a reusable one or you don’t want to recycle. Or use cloth and pay nothing. There’s something for almost everyone here.

in Opinion
Related Posts

SM.a.r.t. Column: Public Safety and Traffic Enforcement Can Help Save Lives and Revitalize Santa Monica’s Economy

September 29, 2024

September 29, 2024

We wholeheartedly endorse the candidates below for Santa Monica City Council. Their leading campaign platform is for increased safety in...

SM.a.r.t Column: Crime in Santa Monica: A Growing Concern and the Need for Prioritizing Public Safety

September 22, 2024

September 22, 2024

By Michael Jolly Over the past six months, Santa Monica has experienced a concerning rise in crime, sparking heated discussions...

SM.a.r.t Column: Ten New Commandments

September 15, 2024

September 15, 2024

Starting last week,  the elementary school students of Louisiana will all face mandatory postings of the biblical Ten Commandments in...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica’s Next City Council

September 8, 2024

September 8, 2024

In the next general election, this November 5th, Santa Monica residents will be asked to vote their choices among an...

SM.a.r.t Column: Part II: The Affordability Crisis: Unmasking California’s RHNA Process and Its Role in Gentrification

September 2, 2024

September 2, 2024

Affordability: An Income and Available Asset Gap Issue, Not a Supply Issue (Last week’s article revealed how state mandates became...

SM.a.r.t Column: Part 1: The Affordability Crisis: Unmasking California’s RHNA Process and Its Role in Gentrification

August 26, 2024

August 26, 2024

In the world of economic policy, good intentions often pave the way to unintended consequences. Nowhere is this more evident...

SM.a.r.t Column: They Want to Build a Wall

August 18, 2024

August 18, 2024

Every once in a while, a topic arises that we had previously written about but doesn’t seem to go away....

SM.a.r.t Column: Sharks vs. Batteries – Part 5 of 5

August 11, 2024

August 11, 2024

This is the last SMart article in an expanding  5 part series about our City’s power, water, and food prospects....

SM.a.r.t Column: Your Home’s First Battery Is in Your Car

August 4, 2024

August 4, 2024

This is the fourth in a series of SM.a.r.t articles about food, water, and energy issues in Santa Monica. You...

SM.a.r.t Column: Food Water and Energy Part 3 of 4

July 28, 2024

July 28, 2024

Our previous two S.M.a,r,t, articles talked about the seismic risks to the City from getting its three survival essentials: food,...

Food, Water, and Energy Part 2 of 4

July 21, 2024

July 21, 2024

Last week’s S.M.a,r,t, article (https://smmirror.com/2024/07/sm-a-r-t-column-food-water-and-energy-part-1-of-3/) talked about the seismic risks to the City from getting its three survival essentials, food,...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Food Water and Energy Part 1 of 3

July 14, 2024

July 14, 2024

Civilization, as we know it, requires many things, but the most critical and fundamental is an uninterrupted supply of three...

Letter to the Editor: Criticizing Israeli Policy Is Not Antisemitic

July 10, 2024

July 10, 2024

In the past several months, we’ve seen increasing protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza. We have also seen these protests...

SMA.R.T. WISHES ALL A VERY HAPPY 4TH OF JULY WEEK

July 7, 2024

July 7, 2024

We trust you are enjoying this holiday in celebration of Independence. Independence to be embraced, personally and civically, thru active...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica Under SCAG’s Boot

June 30, 2024

June 30, 2024

Four years ago, our esteemed colleague Mario Fonda-Bonardi wrote the prescient essay below when much of the legislative development juggernaut...