Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Assassination Vacation | Michelle Obama's Speech »

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

The Forces of Reaction

posted by on August 26 at 8:14 AM

PI:

And on Monday, the Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax said it turned in petitions with more than 20,000 signatures to the City Clerk in an effort to overturn the 20-cent fee on plastic and paper grocery store bags. The ordinance, which backers say is needed to help protect the environment, is set to go into effect in January…. A spokesman for the anti-bag-tax group said the signatures were collected in 11 days, using paid signature gatherers.

So if the tax is onerous and must be stopped, maybe the city should ban plastic and paper shopping bags altogether.

RSS icon Comments

1

I agree. And shopping bags should become fashionable. If I'm not socially obligated to drop $199.99 on one grocery bag by the end of the year, something is seriously wrong with our society.

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 26, 2008 8:26 AM
2

WHOO HOO!

Posted by TheMisanthrope | August 26, 2008 8:26 AM
3

Because taxing something is usually constitutional. Banning something usually is not.

Posted by Trevor | August 26, 2008 8:45 AM
4

I suspect had the City Council just gone ahead with an outright ban (which I have no problems with), there wouldn't have been this much fuss.

Posted by Dave | August 26, 2008 8:47 AM
5

really they should ban newspapers, since they're waste and don't even help you carry things.

Posted by ha | August 26, 2008 8:49 AM
6

@1: They've already got re-usable bags by fashion designers. Some of them even say, "This is not a plastic bag." Which makes me want to test the bags on their owners to see if alternatives to plastic are equally effective as asphyxiants.

Posted by Ziggity | August 26, 2008 8:54 AM
7

Banning or applying a fee to paper bags is silly.

Posted by Ban city govt | August 26, 2008 8:56 AM
8

A real question


How will it be worded... to overturn the ordinance or remove the ordinance? A yes vote on either puts Seattle back to July 27 status quo, but if the ordinance is overturned, it could still be brought back but as a 10cent or 25 cent or 19 cent price. If it is to be removed, in effect limiting the purview of the Council (?), that would mean bye-bye to charges and the Council would not be able to bring it back in any shape or form?


A no vote, or voter apathy in not voting(not voting in special elections is more common than not) would mean the ordinace would stand?


I hope this is one of those situations where a "no" vote (or not voting) means nea and not something else.

Posted by Phenics | August 26, 2008 9:04 AM
9

@6

Well it isn't trendy yet so I can't partake. Everyone sticks to the ugly green Whole Foods bags, or worse, the tasteless Trader Joe's bags.

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 26, 2008 9:04 AM
10

It seems like everyone is bringing canvas bags to shop already anyways. One of those plastic bags will last for 100 or more, which is really creepy.

Posted by catnextdoor | August 26, 2008 9:05 AM
11

So the petition I signed outside of Northgate's Target was supposedly pro-bag tax, even though I thought that had already been passed. So what the hell did I sign?

Posted by KatieDay | August 26, 2008 9:17 AM
12

Banning something is usually totally constitutional. We ban:
-marrying aniumals or 3 adults
-being free to not have an education at all
-drugs
-driving on left side
-nonstandard weights and measures
-practicing nursing without a license
-unsafe foods
-not hooking up to the sewer system
It's called a democracy, if 50% +1 vote for it you can usually ban it cuz that's your right as a voter to make the rules.

Yes a ban is a great idea but as usual the right wing only gets off their ass and takes action while the left wing sits back and does nothing but moan.

Where's the initiative to ban the bags? Left wing too lazy to do it, that's where.

Again letting the rigtht go on offense. You have a whole city couccil favoring the tax and yet none of them see fit to go on offense and say fuck it we'll now ban the bags as response to this right wing initiative.

Posted by PC | August 26, 2008 9:17 AM
13

Fashionistas... PCC bags are purple, hold more food then any other house brands and PCC is LOCAL.


BTW Madison Market has string bags without logos and they are also LOCAL.

Posted by Phenics | August 26, 2008 9:17 AM
14

PCC? More like PSUCK!!!

Posted by ZING! | August 26, 2008 9:40 AM
15

Bag fee is so annoying and arbitrary. Why should a grocery store be the only place you have to pay for a bag? Why not Macy's and Nordstrom's? Why JUST groceries. So if I go to ACE and buy lightbulbs and paint they can give me a free bag, but if I go downstairs at QFC on Broadway and buy the same stuff, I have to pay for a bag? Makes no sense and is overly controlling.

Posted by steve | August 26, 2008 9:47 AM
16

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

If you don't like marijuana, don't smoke it.

If you don't like guns, don't own one.

If you don't like gay marriage. don't marry a gay person.

If you don't like plastic bags, don't use them.

But -- some people choose to have abortions. Some people choose to smoke marijana. Some people choose to own guns. Some gay people choose to marry each other. And some people choose to use plastic bags.

Some people think all of these behaviors are harmful, or that they lead to harmful consequences. So they try to ban them or penalize them.

But prohibition rarely works. And attempts to enforce it also can have negative consequences.

If people aren't harming you or somebody else directly, it's best not to fuck with them. It's too bad that stupid fucking credulous hacks like Dan Savage and Erica C. Barnett haven't learned this yet.


Posted by ivan | August 26, 2008 9:50 AM
17

I would support the ban if it included a ban on something that is actually killing the planet: like SUV's or single occupancy vehicles etc.

This ban is like putting a band aid on a tumor and saying you're cured.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | August 26, 2008 9:56 AM
18

Yvan, Ivan, Ivan...

Here in VA, I'm affected by very little you do. (And couldn't care less.)

But when it comes to the health of the planet - I'm a co-owner with you. When what you do affects *my* planet, I should have a say in it.

There's a vast difference between 'using plastic bags' and the other activities on your list.

Guess what I don't understand about Dan is that he's pro-environment in the plastic-bag-debate - yet willing to eradicate wild geese.

Posted by Ayden/VA | August 26, 2008 10:02 AM
19

I want to see each and every councilmember who promoted the bag tax to feature it prominently in their re-election campaign materials.

Then we'll know if the rats have truly left the ship or not.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | August 26, 2008 10:02 AM
20

I agree with @2.

Come up with a refundable bag tax and you might not get voted down by the overwhelming majority of voters.

P.S.: stop leaving your dog poo on my front yard. I don't care if it takes a plastic bag - use it!

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 26, 2008 10:03 AM
21

@11 are you serious? well, you got suckered. be careful when you sign a petition: that is how they marketed it, that you get to vote on the tax. since it has already passed, a vote is only useful to overturn the tax. keep informed or don't sign petitions from strangers.

@17 no one is saying the tumor is cured. but if the tumor is bleeding, you might want a band-aid in addition to your chemo.

@16 ivan! that was the best logic ever! if someone does it, it should be legal! that's great! let's see how that works...

if you don't like murder, don't kill people...
if you don't like pollution, don't pollute...

so, according to you, we don't need laws for anything! because all activity is the same regardless of how it affects others (or the environment), and no laws are needed as long as people just don't do what they don't like, and let others do what they want. great! this system will work!

Posted by infrequent | August 26, 2008 10:51 AM
22

The bag tax is going to reduce the number of bags used in Seattle by a percent or two, and will have ZERO net impact on plastics in the ocean, which is what has everybody so agitated. So much for the health of the planet.

Posted by Fnarf | August 26, 2008 11:04 AM
23

@16,

Last I heard abortions, pot, and guns weren't free. And, while I've never been married, I have heard that you have to pay a fee to obtain a marriage license.

Posted by keshmeshi | August 26, 2008 11:06 AM
24

@22 while small, there will be an actual, physical affect (in seattle if not in the oceans). larger than that is that this gets people thinking and acting in a new way.

more importantly, though, is this: most of the people against this are against the government mandating that personal behavior change for the benefit of the environment (or at least pay the actual cost). this is because most of these people against the tax don't believe the serious state of the pollution problem, or don't want to inconvenienced over it.

i know why you are against it, fnarf, but you are not helping. you didn't like this idea, but does it really hurt? and if we can't get people to come around to this idea, will they come around to a more difficult, more costly measure that makes a greater impact?

i don't believe this solves the problem. it is the first step. since there is no other first step being seriously considered as law at present, let's take the step we can.

Posted by infrequent | August 26, 2008 11:18 AM
25

Here's how the ballot should look:

Should Seattle tax bags at 20 cents a pop? y/n

Should Seattle ban all plastic bags? y/n

The the Stranger should then campaign for a yes/yes vote, so that when either option does not get 50% of the yes vote, we can say that what the voters really meant was that we want to tear down the viaduct, and not replace it with anything.

Posted by tpn | August 26, 2008 11:23 AM
26

I'm sure that I, like everyone else, will start to collect more plastic bags from every other store in the city that uses them -- i.e., all of them.

Also, I'm pretty sure it would pass muster if the groceries put the bags over by the produce, where those other, clear, bags are found, and let people take them there. Since it's not at checkout, it's probably not taxable under the law.

Posted by Fnarf | August 26, 2008 11:31 AM
27

Non-disposable grocery bags are becoming cool. I've seen more and more people walking around with the net-looking ones like this:

http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?ref=sr_list_9&listing_id=9453209

Much nicer than the white plastic "THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU" in red letters.

Posted by tabletop_joe | August 26, 2008 11:42 AM
28

It is easy to stop this entirely unnecessary river of plastic and paper waste by simply having the presence of mind to bring your own friggin' bag. The megamillions of corporations like Exxon/Mobil, Dow and DuPont (the money behind the Seattle petition drive) that buy the laws that allow them to pollute with impunity, along with stupidity of individuals fighting having to simply REMEMBER to bring their own bags, is what keeps the U.S. light years behind the rest of the western world in environmental clean up. We have to start somewhere with unsustainable consumption. This is a small, small thing. Europeans ask: Why haven't you done this yet? Bags fees have worked like a charm there. Wake up, Americans!

Posted by New World | August 26, 2008 11:44 AM
29

@ 23:

Bags aren't free either. Stores could give customers a nickel off for bringing their own bags. Many stores, recognizing this, do so already. What's your point? Do you have one for a change?

@ 24:

I don't like people telling me how to think. Do you?

Posted by ivan | August 26, 2008 11:48 AM
30

I reaaaaally want to see people use more Angry Little Girls shopping bags. I fully support anything that makes this happen. Maybe an initiative mandating that everyone shops with ALG bags?

http://www.algshop.com/c-3-bags.aspx

If you're a poor one, Uwajimaya has the best and coolest $0.99 reusable bags.

Posted by jrrrl | August 26, 2008 11:52 AM
31

@29,

But most don't. And many that technically do don't actually honor it. Safeway supposedly gives a rebate, but the cashiers rarely do it unless asked. So I get to subsidize your plastic bags. It's time for you, and you alone, to pay for them. That is my point. Are you going to stop acting like a big baby for once?

Posted by keshmeshi | August 26, 2008 12:22 PM
32

31:

You're not subsidizing *my* plastic bags, weenie. I quit using them years ago and always carry doubled up paper bags or a cardboard carton in my car for groceries. I have probably been "greener" than you for longer than you have been alive.

Unless cities or better yet, states, have the stones to ban *all* plastic packaging from *all* stores -- that means that odious blister pack at electronics stores and auto parts dealers, too -- packaging decisions at point of sale should be between the store and the customer, period.

But the city of Seattle doesn't have the stones to do that, so it picks on grocery stores and grocery store shoppers, thinking they can get away with it.

April Fool, motherfuckers.

Posted by ivan | August 26, 2008 1:37 PM
33

@29

I don't like people telling me how to think. Do you?

again! with the brilliant logic! there should be no laws because every law is just the government telling you how to think!

thank you, ivan, for telling me how to think! who is the government to say that murder is wrong?! who is the government to force me to pay sales tax for roads?! or schools?! i don't even have any kids!

Posted by infrequent | August 26, 2008 1:49 PM
34

Change is hard for corporate America. They have to have it forced on them. Ban all bags, paper and plastic.

Posted by Vince | August 26, 2008 2:24 PM
35

33:

Wrong, moron. Just because something is "not A" that does not automatically make it "Z."

Who said "all" laws? Who said "no" laws? I sure didn't. I gave specific examples. Just because I don't like *certain* laws hardly means I don't like *all* laws.

Try your logical fallacies and your lame rhetoric on somebody else.

Posted by ivan | August 26, 2008 2:37 PM
36

at 35, you said, "I don't like people telling me how to think. Do you?"

what is your "not a" for that? not telling how to think? and your example was forcing you to pay a tax for a plastic bag. you do not like the government to tell you what to think, ie, force you to pay a tax.

even if my rhetoric was lame -- though it is not -- i think you of all people could appreciate it.

Posted by infrequent | August 26, 2008 3:31 PM
37

They were harrassing people outside QFC at U Village. One of the sig-gatherers, a rather scuzzy individual, literally said to people, "HEY YOU GET OVER HERE."

Let's just ban canvassing.

Posted by Gomez | August 26, 2008 3:33 PM
38

Hey, Ivan, before you go mouthing off like such an expert, do your homework. You can stop portraying yourself as so environmentally responsible for using paper instead of plastic. Wrong. The production of paper bags creates even more air, water and land pollution than plastic bag manufacturing because of all the chemicals required to make paper, they require a huge amount of water to process, per bag they create more carbon output than plastic bags as they are much larger and heavier per bag than plastic to transport to stores, they take up more space in landfill because they are larger, and in anerobic landfills will not biodegrade, they require all of the above to recycle and were net needed in the first place, and they cause deforestation. Shoppers think places like Metropolitan Market, Whole Foods and PCC are green because they only use paper bags. This is a broadly believed myth that needs to be dispelled.

And as for plastic, it costs to the city (your income tax dollars, Mr. Selfish) for clean-up, recycling which is expensive and yields a pittance in financial return, their production process adds to air, water and land pollution, global warming, etc. Marine mammals that eat them are gravely sickened or die, and when the plastic breaks down, it is eaten by smaller fish, and then moves up the food chain onto your plate.

And as for being told what to do, the environment we and generations to come have to live in cannot afford your right to pollute because you are too lazy to bother to acquire a 79-cent reuseable bags and remember to bring them with you when you shop.

Posted by new world | August 27, 2008 10:07 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.