Save The Plastic Bag

stak

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

FOR NEWS AND UPDATES

SUBSCRIBE TO RSS FEED

FOR NEWS AND UPDATES

CLICK HERE TO READ OUR COMMENTS AND FINAL LEGAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PLASTIC BAG BAN

CLICK HERE TO READ OUR PRESS RELEASE REGARDING THE PROPOSITION 26 LAWSUIT.
(WE ARE NOT PART OF THE LAWSUIT.)

CLICK HERE TO READ OUR PRESS RELEASE REGARDING THE MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DECISION.

WE ARE DELIGHTED WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE MANHATTAN BEACH CASE.
CLICK HERE TO READ OUR PRESS RELEASE.

"Corporate purposes are not necessarily antithetical to the public interest.... Corporations [may] have particular expertise and thus may have an enhanced understanding of the public interests at stake."
Supreme Court in the Manhattan Beach case explaining why it granted legal standing to the Save The Plastic Bag Coalition to demand EIRs

Please note that we are not and have never been connected with or funded by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), even indirectly. When we formed our coalition, we did not inform the ACC and they had nothing to do with it. We have a different membership. One of our members is a member of Heal the Bay! The ACC is not part of or in any way involved in any of our lawsuits and we have never even had a single discussion with the ACC about the lawsuits. Nothing that we do is discussed or coordinated with the ACC. We are totally independent. In fact, we disagree with the ACC on paper bag fees. We strongly believe that if plastic bags are banned, paper bags should be subject to a fee to prevent an environmentally detrimental switch from plastic to paper.

Anti-plastic bag campaigners are requested to stop misinforming people that we are part of or funded by the ACC.

-----------------------------

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD OUR TWO-PAGE SUMMARY OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY EIR ON BANNING PLASTIC BAGS. THIS CONFIRMS THAT OUR DEMANDS FOR EIRS ARE COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED!

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD OUR LATEST (VERY BRIEF) PAPER ON THE GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH -- WITH PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS THAT WILL PROVE TO YOU THAT THE PATCH DOES NOT EXIST!

(SAVE IT AS A FILE FOR BETTER VIEWING.)

CLICK HERE AND HERE FOR THE LATEST PROOF THAT THE "GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH" DOES NOT EXIST

CLICK HERE TO READ A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE NEW BRITISH REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PLASTIC, PAPER, AND REUSABLE BAGS

THREE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND CERTIFIED

LOS ANGELES COUNTY: In 2009, Los Angeles County issued an Initial Study and determined that banning plastic bags may have a significant negative effect on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must therefore be prepared. On October 28, 2010, the County issued its Final EIR. On November 16, 2010, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance banning plastic bags and imposing a 10-cent fee on paper bags. It also certified its Final EIR.

Click here for a two-page summary of the Los Angeles County EIR.

Los Angeles County determined, based on the EIR, that even with a 10-cent paper bag fee "the cumulative indirect GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions resulting from implementation of the recommended ordinances will have the potential to result in significant unavoidable impacts." The County further "determined that the incorporation of mitigation measures [such as promoting the use of reusable bags] is not expected to reduce the potential indirect impact of the recommended ordinances to GHG emissions below the level of significance." THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!

CITY OF SAN JOSE: San Jose has issued its Final EIR. On December 14, 2010, the San Jose City Council adopted an ordinance banning plastic carryout bags and imposing a fee on paper bags. The initial paper bag fee is 10 cents. The paper bag fee automatically increases to 25 cents in 2014. The City determined in the EIR that a 25 cent paper bag fee is necessary to prevent the ordinance from having a net negative environmental impact, because paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic bags. Simply switching from plastic to paper bags is environmentally harmful. AGAIN, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!

San Jose City Council member Kansen Chu, who spearheaded the ban, said this about the EIR: "We took our time -- a little too long by my measurement -- but we did a solid environmental study and found that paper is not really very environmentally friendly either. So we said, 'Well maybe we should consider a limitation on the paper bag as well.'"

CITY OF SANTA MONICA: Santa Monica issued an Initial Study and determined that banning plastic bags may have a significant effect on the environment. On January 25, 2010, the City adopted an ordinance banning plastic bags and imposing a 10 cent fee on paper bags provided by supermarkets, grocery stores and pharmacies. On the same day, it certified its Final EIR.

Santa Monica determined in the EIR that a 10 cent paper bag fee is necessary to prevent the ordinance from having a net negative environmental impact, because paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic bags. Simply switching from plastic to paper bags is environmentally harmful. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!

We commend the Santa Monica City Council for making important changes to its ordinance based on the findings in its EIR and the Los Angeles County EIR. The changes were (i) acceptance of polyethylene reusable bags, which Los Angeles County determined in its EIR are far better for the environment than cloth or polypropylene reusable bags; and (ii) permitting restaurants to use plastic bags for prepared food to be consumed off the premises, thereby preventing a major environmentally detrimental switch to paper bags. (The city did not plan to impose a fee on restaurant paper bags.) This proves the value of EIRs!

CITY OF PALO ALTO: In 2009, Palo Alto banned plastic bags without imposing a fee on paper bags. Its present ban affects only four stores.) Phil Bobel, the Palo Alto City official spearheading the anti-plastic bag initiative, is now saying that one unforseen side effect of the ban is that many stores are switching to paper bags. Unforseen? We warned him and the City Council repeatedly and in writing before the City adopted the ordinance that people would switch to paper bags if no fee is imposed on paper bags, but they wouldn't listen. The City should have done an EIR before adopting the ordinance. Fortunately, Palo Alto has agreed to prepare an EIR before banning plastic bags at any more stores.

GREEN CITIES: Green Cities California has published a to assist cities and counties in preparing their EIRs.

In her new book "Plastic, A Toxic Love Story" (at page 161), Susan Freinkel writes as follows: "When the [Green Cities] report was completed, in early 2010, it confirmed what Joseph [Save The Plastic Bag Coalition's counsel] had been saying all along: paper bags carry more severe environmental impacts than plastic. That finding was surprising to some plastic-bag-ban advocates, including Carol Misseldine, director of Green Cities California, the group that commissioned the report."

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERVISOR ROSS MIRKARIMI, THE AUTHOR OF THE CITY'S PLASTIC BAG BAN LAW, ADMITS THAT THE CITY MADE AN ENVIRONMENTAL MISTAKE BY BANNING PLASTIC BAGS WITHOUT PLACING A FEE ON PAPER BAGS -- WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF THE CITY HAD PREPARED AN EIR

In 2007, San Francisco banned plastic bags at supermarkets and certain stores. The city did not prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and did not impose a fee on paper bags. The result was predictable. San Francisco became the capital of paper bags!

Paper bags are much worse for the environment than plastic bags.

Now Ross Mirkarimi, the San Francisco Supervisor behind the ordinance, admits that the city got it environmentally wrong. He has introduced a new ordinance that would impose a 10-cent fee on paper bags.

(There has been some confusion about the proposed fee. We confirm that the proposed fee is 10 cents, as the draft ordinance states.)

We strongly recommend that you click here for an excellent article on the real environmental impacts of San Francisco's plastic bag ban. Here is an extract from the article:

"Paper bags have a greater environmental impact than plastic bags, and therefore, you would not create a policy that banned plastic and forced everyone to use paper only," said Dick Lilly, the manager of the waste prevention program for Seattle Public Utilities. After much analysis, that city spurned the San Francisco model in favor of a fee on all bags, meant to spur shoppers to bring their own -- a goal San Francisco officials embrace, but do virtually nothing to promote. Key elements of the S.F. model, in Lilly's estimation, "could be a catastrophic mistake."

If San Francisco had prepared an EIR, it would have known that it was making a major environmental error.

Heal the Bay says that San Francisco made "a huge mistake" by not preparing an EIR. Heal the Bay agrees with us that if plastic bags are banned, a fee must be imposed on paper bags to prevent environmental harm. This is what Heal the Bay says about paper bags:

"As the most ubiquitous alternative to plastic, paper bags are themselves fraught with environmental impacts. The production of paper bags contributes to natural resource depletion, greenhouse gas emissions and additional waterborne wastes from the pulping and paper making process. A paper bag fee is critical in driving the use of the most sustainable option, reusable bags, rather than shifting consumer use from plastic to paper carryout bags."

There is now only one remaining California city or county that is proposing to ban plastic bags while opposing a fee on paper bags: the City of Manhattan Beach, which also refuses to prepare an EIR. Manhattan Beach says that it doesn't need an EIR because it knows best what is good for the environment. That's what San Francisco thought back in 2007.

PALO ALTO ADMITS THAT IT MADE AN ENVIRONMENTAL MISTAKE BY NOT PREPARING AN EIR BEFORE BANNING PLASTIC BAGS

In 2009, the City of Palo Alto banned plastic bags, without preparing an EIR. Now the city admits that it made a mistake.

Phil Bobel, the City of Palo Alto plastic bag ban project manager, says that people have switched to paper bags, which was an "unforeseen side effect."

Unforeseen????? We warned the city that this would happen. We even sued the city over this issue.

This is what we told the city in writing before it adopted its ordinance when we were demanding an EIR:

"There is a significant possibility that the proposed ordinance will result in an increase in the number of paper bags provided to consumers, notwithstanding the promotion and giving away of reusable bags."

MYTHS AND FACTS

An editorial in the London Times states:

"There is a danger that the green herd, in pursuit of a good cause, stumbles into misguided campaigns….

Analysis without facts is guesswork. Sloppy analysis of bad science is worse. Poor interpretation of good science wastes time and impedes the fight against obnoxious behavior. There is no place for bad science, or weak analysis, in the search for credible answers to difficult questions….

Many of those who have demonized plastic bags have enlisted scientific study to their cause. By exaggerating a grain of truth into a larger falsehood, they spread misinformation and abuse the trust of their unwitting audiences."

David Laist, a senior policy analyst with the federal Marine Mammal Commission, has stated:

"In their eagerness to make their case [against plastic bags], some of the environmental groups make up claims that are not really supportable."

The purpose of our campaign is to respond to the environmental myths, exaggerations and misinformation that have been spread about plastic bags. We believe that environmental decisions should be based on the truth.

As a result of misinformation, many people believe that plastic bags kill 100,000 sea mammals and a million seabirds each year. The media is relentlessly spreading this misinformation. The San Jose Mercury News recently stated in an editorial: "Plastic bags kill an estimated 1 million seabirds and 100,000 other animals every year, whether from eating the things or getting tangled in them." NOT TRUE. The London Times has exposed this as a myth based on a typographical error! The report on which the myth is based mentioned discarded fishing tackle including fishing nets, not plastic bags.

David Santillo, a marine biologist at Greenpeace, told The Times: “It’s very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags. The evidence shows just the opposite." (Click here.)

In a report by the US National Ocean Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the authors state (at page 9): "There are very few, if any, published records of small plastics as the direct cause of mortality in sea turtles."

We are told repeatedly by environmentalists that there is an island of plastic trash in the Pacific Ocean that is twice the size of Texas. The media repeats this assertion over and over again. For example, in an editorial on June 24, 2010 the Los Angeles Times stated: "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is an area of the ocean larger than Texas and thick with floating plastic debris: bottles, bottle caps, bits of packaging and uncountable plastic bags." NOT TRUE.

The Chief Scientist of the Scripps 20-day expedition to study marine debris in the Pacific Ocean states: "Misinformation on this issue is rampant." Referring to a statement in the New York Times that there is "…an area of widely dispersed trash that doubles in size every decade and is now believed to be roughly twice the size of Texas," she states: "There is no evidence for this. There certainly is a lot of trash, but there have been no measurements of either the trash’s total area or its growth rate."
An Oregon State University professor who is knowledgable on the subject and who participated in a 2008 expedition to the Pacific states: “The amount of plastic out there isn’t trivial. But using the highest concentrations ever reported by scientists produces a patch that is a small fraction of the state of Texas, not twice the size. Another way to look at it is to compare the amount of plastic found to the amount of water in which it was found. If we were to filter the surface area of the ocean equivalent to a football field in waters having the highest concentration (of plastic) ever recorded, the amount of plastic recovered would not even extend to the 1-inch line." Click here and here to read what the professor says.
The Sea Education Association based in Woods Hole, Massachusetts has surveyed plastic debris in the Atlantic Ocean for the past 22 years. They are now reporting that the concentration of plastic in the Atlantic Ocean has not increased over the past 22 years, despite the increased production of plastics during that period. They were surprised to find that there was no overall change in the amount of plastic snared from 1986 to 2008.
Karen Lavender, an oceanographer at the Sea Education Association said:
"I expected to see the line go right up. It took us a good year to decide no, we have not seen an increase, no matter how you slice it."
Each half-hour trawl in the area where the concentration was the highest typically turned up just 20 tiny pieces, equivalent to about 0.3 grams in all. By comparison, a U.S. nickel weighs 5 grams.

In its EIR, Los Angeles County calls the claims by environmental groups on this issue "misleading." (EIR at 13-38.)

Check the video below to see how much garbage was collected by the Dr. Marcus Erikson of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation from a 24 hour trawl over 50 miles through the "garbage patch." Can you see any garbage in the ocean? Ask yourself if the amount of debris collected over 24 hours and 50 miles of trawling is a sufficient justification to ban plastic bags.
(Note that the sample jar at the end of the video does not only contain debris. It appears to have at least two fish in it.)
Dr. Erikson now admits: "There is no island of plastic trash."

Save The Bay makes the following claim in a press release: "It is estimated that about one million of these [plastic] bags wind up in the Bay each year where they pollute the water, smother wetlands and entangle and kill animals." NOT TRUE. This is just a headline grabbing statistic invented by Save The Bay. It has no basis in fact. We have not seen any plastic bags in the bay and U.S. Coast Guard personnel who cruise the bay every day tell us that they have not seen any either.

Two LA County Supervisors claim: "About $375 million is spent in California on cleanups and other efforts to mitigate the environmental effect of disposable bags, costing each household about $200." NOT TRUE. The Supervisors are apparently unable to do simple arithmetic. The population of California is 36.4 million. $375 million divided by 36.4 million is $10.30 per person. Moreover, $375 million is the entire litter budget for cleaning up all kinds of litter, not just plastic bags. Plastic bags are less than 1% of litter, which means that the annual cost per person is 10 cents! (Click here.)

Los Angeles County is asserting that "as much as 25 percent of the litter stream" is plastic carryout bags. (LA County Initial Study at pages 1-3 and 3.9-5.) NOT TRUE. The assertion is ridiculous. Anyone can see with their own eyes that it is not true. A San Francisco Department of the Environment litter audit conducted before plastic bags were banned in that city showed that plastic bags were only 0.6% of the litter stream. The Florida figure is 0.72%. The Toronto figure is 0.13% (page 35 of Toronto study). (Click here.)

As a result of misinformation, many people believe that plastic bags are not recyclable. NOT TRUE. Special plastic bag recycling bins have been installed in large supermarkets and retail stores throughout California since 2007. Virtually all of the plastic bags deposited in those bins are actually recycled. (Click here.)

As a result of misinformation, many people believe that plastic bags "clog up" landfills. NOT TRUE. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, plastic bags (including retail bags) use up only 0.4% of landfill space. (Click here.)

As a result of misinformation, many people believe that it is a disadvantage that plastic bags "last a thousand years" in landfills. NOT TRUE. In fact it is an advantage! Governments have been searching for ways to sequester and trap CO2 underground so that it doesn't escape into the atmosphere. Plastic does it automatically! Decomposing paper in landfills produces methane which is a greenhouse gas with 23 times the heat trapping power of CO2. (Click here.)

As a result of misinformation, many people believe that plastic bags are made of oil. NOT TRUE. They are made of ethane which is a waste product from domestically produced natural gas. If the ethane is not used to make plastic bags, it will have to be burned off. (Click here.)

As a result of misinformation, many people believe that paper bags are better for the environment than plastic bags. NOT TRUE. Paper bags result in between 2.0 and 3.3 times more greenhouse gases than plastic bags. The life cycle of paper bags results in far more water and air pollution and other negative environmental impacts than the life cycle of plastic bags. Paper is not an environmentally friendly product by any stretch of the imagination. (Click here.)
Anti-plastic bag activists claim that the global warming impact of increasing paper bag usage is not significant. NOT TRUE. Banning plastic carryout bags throughout California would have the same annual impact on greenhouse gas emissions as adding between 92,280 and 212,243 passenger vehicles. (Click here.)

There is no substantial basis for banning plastic bags based on truthful environmental considerations. Why ban something without a good reason? Anti-plastic bag activists idealize about everyone bringing their own reusable bags to stores if plastic bags are banned. However, they are not being realistic. In San Francisco, where plastic bags have been banned in certain stores, papers bags (rather than reusable bags) have replaced them. Paper bags are far worse for the environment than plastic bags. Banning plastic bags will harm the environment.

Anti-plastic bag activists rarely talk about the environmental impacts of paper bags. They create statistics that have no basis in fact (as we show on this website). They use selective photography (as we show on this website). They have spread negative hype and misinformation about plastic bags and misinformed decision-makers and the public.

California city and county staff tailor the facts in their staff reports to fit the conclusion they want to achieve - banning plastic bags. Anything that does not support the goal of banning plastic bags is left out or distorted.

City and county staff reports are not subject to any legal standards or controls. That is why we are adamant that EIRs must be prepared. EIRs must be based on "substantial evidence."

EIRs are required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). CEQA was enacted in 1970. It was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. One of his famous signature phrases was: "Trust, but verify."

THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH

BANNING PLASTIC BAGS WITHOUT IMPOSING A SUBSTANTIAL FEE ON PAPER BAGS (AT LEAST 25 CENTS) WOULD RESULT IN A MAJOR INCREASE IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

What impact would banning plastic bags have on global warming? It would result in a switch to paper bags, which would be worse for the environment! Paper bags result in between 2.0 and 3.3 times more greenhouse gas emissions over their life cycle than plastic bags based on equalized carrying capacity (1 paper bag = 1.5 plastic bags). There are numerous studies confirming that paper bags are significantly worse for the environment than plastic bags, including the Scottish report and the Boustead report. Therefore, if plastic bags are banned, a fee of at least 25 cents should be imposed on paper bags.

The annual CO2 impact of banning plastic bags statewide and replacing them with paper bags would be equivalent to adding the annual CO2 emissions of between 92,280 and 212,243 passenger vehicles. We encourage you to click here to read a short paper on the huge impact of banning plastic bags on greenhouse gases including how the figures are calculated. It is about a two minute read.

A pulp and paper mill

Banning plastic bags in California would have the same CO2 impact
annually as between 92,280 and 212,243 passenger vehicles.

MARIN COUNTY'S TOXIC MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN

The Marin Bring Your Own Bag campaign (BYOB) is a project of Marin County (California) working with the EcoMom Alliance, Green Sangha, iReuse and Teens Turning Green. They have been distributing a leaflet about plastic bags that states:

"Certain chemicals found in plastics (especially BPA, phthalates, PFOA, PFOS, polystyrene, and additives such as antimony, cadmium, and lead) are associated with a who's who of modern disorders, including asthma, cancer, diabetes, obesity, premature puberty, and reproductive failure."

IN FACT, PLASTIC BAGS CONTAIN NO SUCH CHEMICALS. MARIN COUNTY'S SCARE TACTIC IS DISGRACEFUL!

Marin County is planning to ban plastic bags. We will be demanding that the County prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before adopting a ban ordinance, so that this kind of nonsense is not the basis for the Board of Supervisors' decision. An EIR must be based on "substantial evidence." We also want to ensure that the public is not misled. At this time, the County is declining to prepare an EIR or conduct an Initial Study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

If Marin County is so concerned about the toxic content of bags, perhaps it should turn its attention to reusable bags. Until 2008, reusable bags were subject to a strict law regarding toxic materials, the same law that applies to plastic bags. In 2008, reusable bags were exempted from that law by a bill authored by Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) and signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. (The exemption for reusable bags is on page 12 of the bill.) Assembly Member Brownley happens to be the author of AB 1998, the bill to ban plastic bags that failed to pass the California Senate in August 2010.

Why did Assembly Member Brownley exempt reusable bags from the toxic materials law?

Most reusable bags are imported from China. (About 85% of plastic bags used in the USA are made in the USA.) Many reusable bags from China have been found to contain high levels of lead and other heavy metals. U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has called for a federal investigation into toxic materials in reusable bags.

California Assembly Member Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) submitted a letter on November 15, 2010 to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors asking that it delay its vote on banning plastic bags because of the revelations about potentially toxic levels of lead found in some reusable bags. He questioned whether the bags could contaminate the food that consumers transport and whether the lead could be spread in landfills when the bags are discarded. De Leon even admitted that he is a “co-author and long-time advocate of legislative proposals to ban plastic bags from the stream of commerce.” The County ignored his request and adopted an ordinance banning plastic bags on November 16, 2010.

Los Angeles County has been handing out thousands of reusable bags to the public as part of its "Brag About Your Bag" campaign. Click here for a photo of one of the bags. The bags have tested positive for high levels of lead and mercury. Click here and here for the test results. Los Angeles County has failed to advise the public about this fact.

Click here for the alarming CCF report on lead and cadmium in some (not all) reusable bags.

We wonder whether Marin County and the Marin BYOB campaign will alert consumers about toxic content in some reusable bags and retract their untrue statement about chemicals in plastic bags.