Banning plastic bags: the next worthless eco-fad

Recently, a conservative blog wrote about how the Los Angeles city council is expected to ban single-use plastic bags – such as those used by grocery stores – in the city. According to city officials, as reported in a Los Angeles newspaper, it is “an attempt by the city to reduce litter.” Further, according to this same city official, 43 other cities in the country have adopted such bans, with “between 94 and 98 percent reduction in bag use.”

Environmental success, right? Well, not if the purpose is to reduce litter, as the L.A.city official said. According to the blog post on the proposed L.A.city ban, San Francisco saw no difference in litter from plastics after it passed its plastic-bag ban in 2007. According to surveys done to determine sources of litter in the city, before the ban plastics accounted for 0.6 percent of the city’s litter. After the ban, litter from plastics in the city actually increased to 0.64 percent. Further, plastic bag manufacturers inL.A. are predicting that the ban may force them to lay off hundreds of people as they lose business from the ban. 

The fact that plastics only accounted for only six-tenths of one percent of all litter in San Francisco is a testament to the worthlessness of a plastic-bag ban, if the goal is to do something that actually protects the environment in reality. Further, the fact that Los Angeles is following its northern neighbor in this supposed litter-reduction policy when actual experience suggests it will do nothing to protect the environment from litter, and will likely kill jobs in the process, only reinforces its worthlessness.

Of course, if the real goal is to appear eco-friendly by attacking “unclean” economic activity and lifestyle choices in order to appease the demands of those driven by the misguided and radical environmental thinking of the left, regardless of environmental and economic realities, then the policy is an amazing success.

Related posts:

This entry was posted in Environment and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Banning plastic bags: the next worthless eco-fad

  1. uteman10111 says:

    “…calculations extrapolated from data released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2001 on U.S. plastic bag, sack, and wrap consumption, somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide each year. Of those, millions end up in the litter stream outside of landfills—estimates range from less than one to three percent of the bags.”

    Regardless of the percentage of waste plastic bags represent in a particular city the fact is they get into the environment and wreak havoc.  The oceans are filling up with plastics that are killing sea life. 

    You call it a “worthless eco-fad” because you could care less about our environment and only care about profit and greed.  You’re blinded by your hatred for “the left” and are flippant in your reaction to our children’s future as well as Mother Earth’s.

    • Derek Monson says:

      The reality is that human existence and activity is always going to have impacts on the environment…this has always been the case, and there is no credible reason to think otherwise. Therefore, common sense would suggest that, if protecting the environment truly is our first priority, we should focus first on the things that are creating the most pollution and doing the most environmental harm.  Plastic bags do not rise to that level In either case.

      Who’s the blind one: the one who wants society to focus our limited resources on the environmental issues that reason and the facts suggest will do the most to protect the environment (including human beings), or the one who denounces that person as hateful, greedy, and careless because it threatens the crusade against a relatively small environmental issue, based on the facts?

  2. uteman10111 says:

    “…calculations extrapolated from data released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2001 on U.S. plastic bag, sack, and wrap consumption, somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide each year. Of those, millions end up in the litter stream outside of landfills—estimates range from less than one to three percent of the bags.”

    Regardless of the percentage of waste plastic bags represent in a particular city the fact is they get into the environment and wreak havoc.  The oceans are filling up with plastics that are killing sea life. 

    You call it a “worthless eco-fad” because you could care less about our environment and only care about profit and greed.  You’re blinded by your hatred for “the left” and are flippant in your reaction to our children’s future as well as Mother Earth’s.

    • Derek Monson says:

      The reality is that human existence and activity is always going to have impacts on the environment…this has always been the case, and there is no credible reason to think otherwise. Therefore, common sense would suggest that, if protecting the environment truly is our first priority, we should focus first on the things that are creating the most pollution and doing the most environmental harm.  Plastic bags do not rise to that level In either case.

      Who’s the blind one: the one who wants society to focus our limited resources on the environmental issues that reason and the facts suggest will do the most to protect the environment (including human beings), or the one who denounces that person as hateful, greedy, and careless because it threatens the crusade against a relatively small environmental issue, based on the facts?

  3. uteman10111 says:

    A letter a friend wrote to her local newspaper:

    “The plastic bag ban has my support for both economic and environmental reasons. Plastic bags are difficult and expensive to recycle, they clog machines and sell for less than the labor used to sort and shred them. Plastic bags are made from petroleum, most of which we import from outside of the US. Plastic bags are toxic to marine and terrestrial life, and they kill anything that mistakenly consumes them. The country’s largest manufacturers of plastic bags, the ACC, spent 1.4 million dollars to defeat the bag fee in seattle in 2008. They didn’t do it because they care about your freedom to put your dog’s poop in one of their bags, they did it because when it comes to plastic bags, they reap the profits and taxpayers pay the price. Tell big plastic to go the way of lead paint, DDT, and asbestos: bring your own bag.”

  4. uteman10111 says:

    A letter a friend wrote to her local newspaper:

    “The plastic bag ban has my support for both economic and environmental reasons. Plastic bags are difficult and expensive to recycle, they clog machines and sell for less than the labor used to sort and shred them. Plastic bags are made from petroleum, most of which we import from outside of the US. Plastic bags are toxic to marine and terrestrial life, and they kill anything that mistakenly consumes them. The country’s largest manufacturers of plastic bags, the ACC, spent 1.4 million dollars to defeat the bag fee in seattle in 2008. They didn’t do it because they care about your freedom to put your dog’s poop in one of their bags, they did it because when it comes to plastic bags, they reap the profits and taxpayers pay the price. Tell big plastic to go the way of lead paint, DDT, and asbestos: bring your own bag.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>