Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, August 20, 2009
Enviro Metro-Natural!
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Good work, Seattle!
Scientists have identified a new source of chemical pollution released by the huge amounts of plastic rubbish found floating in the oceans of the world. A study has found that as plastics break down in the sea they release potentially toxic substances not found in nature and which could affect the growth and development of marine organisms.Until now it was thought that plastic rubbish is relatively stable chemically and, apart from being unsightly, its principle threat to living creatures came from its ability to choke or strangle any animals that either got caught in it or ingested it thinking it was food.
But the latest research suggests that plastic is also a source of dissolved substances that can easily become widely dispersed in the marine environment. Many of these chemicals are believed to toxic to humans and animals.... The scientists found that when plastics decompose in the ocean they release a range of chemicals, such as bisphenol A and substances known as polystyrene-based (PS) oligomers, which are not found naturally. Bisphenol A has been implicated in disrupting the hormonal system of animals.
2
Ban them already.
The fatheads in the city that shriek, "DO NOT TAX THEM, IT DOES NO GOOD, WE CAN RECYCLE ON OUR OWN" are BSing everyone because they won't reuse/recycle bags to any great extent. Not even Will in Tacoma recycles or reuses bags beyond maybe picking up after his pets/children. That's ignoring, of course, that if a fee produces this much of a negative response, folks will sure as hell stop using them.
So just ban the damn things already.
The fatheads in the city that shriek, "DO NOT TAX THEM, IT DOES NO GOOD, WE CAN RECYCLE ON OUR OWN" are BSing everyone because they won't reuse/recycle bags to any great extent. Not even Will in Tacoma recycles or reuses bags beyond maybe picking up after his pets/children. That's ignoring, of course, that if a fee produces this much of a negative response, folks will sure as hell stop using them.
So just ban the damn things already.
3
Who cares about other living things. I want convenience, damn it! It's all about me. Me, me, me. Now, go away with your pesky facts.
5
Singling out bags is nothing like an environmental policy. The plastics that made up most of the debris in the study were solid plastics: toothbrushes, bottle caps, plasticware, bits of toys, etc. Simply banning plastic bags is a feel-good bit of environmental hypocrisy as long as we continue to use and dispose of all the other plastic crap at the same pace. If plastic waste is an issue that we want to address, then it needs to be done in an even-handed way with the goal of actually mitigating these effects. A bag tax doesn't even come close to starting to scratch the surface. Tax plastic, and tax it to the extent that people modify their behavior (i.e. stop buying so much soda and bottled water, fewer crap plastic toys, etc.). That's what any good economist would recommend. The problem is that we really don't have the will in this country for that sort of thing. So instead we come up with these silly ineffective gestures that simply burden small sectors of the economy unfairly while not really doing anything to accomplish the goals we've claimed to be pursuing.
6
Well yeah, given we know that water bottles leak chemicals into their contents when reused, I figured everyone already knew plastics leak chemicals in open water. Whoops.
7
@5: Willing to bet that most of the things you use everyday are plastic, and that you throw away lots and lots of it every year.
Your dissatisfaction with the pace of governance is no reason to use an unrealistic and unmeasured and myopic across-the-board approach. That's not how it has ever worked, and an actual economist would probably tell you off.
Your dissatisfaction with the pace of governance is no reason to use an unrealistic and unmeasured and myopic across-the-board approach. That's not how it has ever worked, and an actual economist would probably tell you off.
8
Bags have fuck-all to do with the plastics released in the ocean. Seriously, it's not even pennies on the dollar, or a hundred dollars. Maybe if your efforts were serious rather than purely symbolic they'd have better success.
How many thick plastic blister packs have you cut open in the past year?
How many thick plastic blister packs have you cut open in the past year?
9
kinaidos, I'm confused... You complain that "we really don't have the will in this country" to tax plastics, and at the very same time you oppose a bag tax? The very first step toward what you advocate? That kind of all-or-nothing thinking sounds like rationalization for exactly the kind of ambivalence you point out as "the problem".
A bag tax, or better yet a ban, goes a long way to getting this topic on the table and getting people used to the idea that plastic use must be reduced. It does most certainly scratch the surface. I don't get how you can argue otherwise.
And what's this "burden small sectors of the economy unfairly" business? Who gives a crap? Waiting until absolutely everyone is on board is not the way change gets made. Whatever money gets lost can be made up in other ways -- it's called "innovation". Enough of this whiny victim-talk.
A bag tax, or better yet a ban, goes a long way to getting this topic on the table and getting people used to the idea that plastic use must be reduced. It does most certainly scratch the surface. I don't get how you can argue otherwise.
And what's this "burden small sectors of the economy unfairly" business? Who gives a crap? Waiting until absolutely everyone is on board is not the way change gets made. Whatever money gets lost can be made up in other ways -- it's called "innovation". Enough of this whiny victim-talk.
10
The bags are just an obvious straw man. If we're serious about plastic there are a host of things we could do. Ban bags outright. Push for better packaging. Put a deposit on plastic bottles to ensure they all get recycled.
The defeat of the bag tax was not because Seattleites don't care about the environment -- the plan failed because it was poorly written, regressive, and introduced administrative overhead without tackling the larger problem. It didn't go far enough for some and went too far for others.
The defeat of the bag tax was not because Seattleites don't care about the environment -- the plan failed because it was poorly written, regressive, and introduced administrative overhead without tackling the larger problem. It didn't go far enough for some and went too far for others.
11
I don't think most people have any appreciation of just how much plastic we use every year. Your computer? Mostly plastic. Cell phones? The same. Your car? Lots of plastic. And how about circuit boards, plastic bottles bor shampoo, cosmetics, plastic packaging for food, toys, glasses, washers, bearings, gaskets, and the list goes on. If you include nylon, the list gets even bigger yet.
Plastic bags are such an infinitessimal part of the problm that calling them a "pimple on a rat's ass" would be a gross overstatement.
Plastic bags are such an infinitessimal part of the problm that calling them a "pimple on a rat's ass" would be a gross overstatement.
12
Again, Fnarf, how can you not see this as an important first step? If you are correct, and switching to reusable bags is mostly "symbolic" -- you KNOW that has an effect on people's thinking, right? And people's thinking has to change.
I can get why people would rage that change isn't happening fast enough, but I can't get why they rage about the changes that ARE happening. Sounds like sabotage, conscious or not. You're not upset about the plastic. You're upset about the inconvenience, or the illusion of convenience, or the idea that anyone would tell you what to do. At the risk of going too far, I'm going to say this: that libertarian streak that runs through America is going to fuck it over in the end. You've got to start coming to some kind of consensus on this.
Go ahead and tear into me, Fnarf. I hope I'm wrong.
I can get why people would rage that change isn't happening fast enough, but I can't get why they rage about the changes that ARE happening. Sounds like sabotage, conscious or not. You're not upset about the plastic. You're upset about the inconvenience, or the illusion of convenience, or the idea that anyone would tell you what to do. At the risk of going too far, I'm going to say this: that libertarian streak that runs through America is going to fuck it over in the end. You've got to start coming to some kind of consensus on this.
Go ahead and tear into me, Fnarf. I hope I'm wrong.
13
@8: You're wrong.
According the UNEP, they're often the second most common waste seen on beaches in international clean-up efforts when locally discarded (meaning discarded within 100 yards) fishing gear was ignored. The leader of UNEP, Achim Steiner, says they need to be banned completely.
Actually, if you want facts: in the Baltic, they account for between 19 and 27% of litter, in the Mediterranean, 9%, and in the SE Pacific, 46.7% of waste was plastic bags. (per http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_Marine_Litt…)
According the UNEP, they're often the second most common waste seen on beaches in international clean-up efforts when locally discarded (meaning discarded within 100 yards) fishing gear was ignored. The leader of UNEP, Achim Steiner, says they need to be banned completely.
Actually, if you want facts: in the Baltic, they account for between 19 and 27% of litter, in the Mediterranean, 9%, and in the SE Pacific, 46.7% of waste was plastic bags. (per http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_Marine_Litt…)
14
when i went to nicaragua 5 years ago, there were plastic bags everywhere. everywhere. apparently they were new to the people there, commonly used to dispense drinks, and the concept of garbage cans hadn't penetrated their minds yet.
15
Doing away with plastic bags may not solve the plastic problem, but it couldn't hurt. It would also save millions of barrels of oil.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl…
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?i…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl…
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?i…
16
@6 That is not entirely true.
Most bottled water is packaged in type 1 "PET" which does not contain bisphenol A. You want to avoid type 7 "PC" and type 3 "PVC" for drinking, which does leach bisphenol A. Remember that PVC piping should only be used for drains not water supply lines. Avoid drinking out of hoses which can leach bisphenol A, lead (when they get hot), and cause cancer and it is no coincidence that cancer is the #1 killer of dogs. Despite being un-PC my dogs drink bottled water or you can fill directly from the faucet if you have city supplied water. I am still not 100% confident about well water which can contain all sorts of Puget Sound chemicals such as creosote used to preserve telephone poles and dock pilings, which cause cancer. Always check your bottles to make sure they are PET and never refill them with fruit juice and other acidic beverages.
This is all my opinion. I am not a doctor nor a scientist.
Most bottled water is packaged in type 1 "PET" which does not contain bisphenol A. You want to avoid type 7 "PC" and type 3 "PVC" for drinking, which does leach bisphenol A. Remember that PVC piping should only be used for drains not water supply lines. Avoid drinking out of hoses which can leach bisphenol A, lead (when they get hot), and cause cancer and it is no coincidence that cancer is the #1 killer of dogs. Despite being un-PC my dogs drink bottled water or you can fill directly from the faucet if you have city supplied water. I am still not 100% confident about well water which can contain all sorts of Puget Sound chemicals such as creosote used to preserve telephone poles and dock pilings, which cause cancer. Always check your bottles to make sure they are PET and never refill them with fruit juice and other acidic beverages.
This is all my opinion. I am not a doctor nor a scientist.
17
@12: It just feels so knee-jerk and symbolic. The administrative setup is strange and the startup fees for the program are estimated at 1.5 million of the 3 million dollars taken in the first year. Assuming the program works and people stop using bags the "profits" will go down each year but some amount of costs will remain, at which point we'll have to increase the bag fee or use other taxes to fund it.
OR we could just ban bags and save ourselves the trouble. If we ban plastic, we should also ban paper. Although all of this begs the question -- what do we do about plastic bags already being sold -- garbage, sandwich, etc. ?
I don't have the answers, but I do know that creating more bureaucracy without a clear plan forward is never a good idea.
OR we could just ban bags and save ourselves the trouble. If we ban plastic, we should also ban paper. Although all of this begs the question -- what do we do about plastic bags already being sold -- garbage, sandwich, etc. ?
I don't have the answers, but I do know that creating more bureaucracy without a clear plan forward is never a good idea.
18
So is the Stranger calling on McGinn to add a second issue to his single issue platform?
1.) Ban the Tunnel!
2.) Ban grocery bags!
Please say yes... (please, please, please...)
1.) Ban the Tunnel!
2.) Ban grocery bags!
Please say yes... (please, please, please...)
19
The failure of the tax this week reminds me of the defeat of light rail when it was coupled with the road package. Many people who supported the rail voted it down, patiently waiting for a better deal (which promptly came the following election).
Don't be surprised if we see a total ban on the ballot next year. Then everyone will be happy.
20
Dan: There is a phenomenal essay by Susan Casey called "Our Oceans are Turning into plastic...are we?" that was published a few years ago and I originally read in a collection of the Best American essays of that year. After reading that, this study doesn't surprise me at all. Scary as it is, I highly recommend you read it. If climate change doesn't eliminate humankind, the ubiquity of plastic surely will.
21
@17: Yeah, I'm in favour of a ban, myself. My local Thrifty's recently stopped using plastic bags, and will be phasing out paper in six months or so. I'll have to buy garbage bags to replace the grocery bags, but I'll be buying way fewer of them.
But I think using that question -- "But what about all the OTHER plastic we use?" -- as an argument against reducing use of one particular product is self-defeating. Clearly there needs to be a stigma put on the unnecessary use of plastic. Grocery bags are the easiest and most obvious, bottled drinks should be next, buying shampoo in bulk is a no-brainer. Sandwich bags can be replaced by containers.
What kills me is smart people wasting all their energy coming up with reasons why nothing can change. I'm dismayed by the lack of innovative thinking in the general population. You know what our grandparents would do? They'd figure something the fuck out, because they grew up in a time when you had to. The ability to invent and innovate was a mark of pride, not something best left to the experts. It's time to start thinking that way again
We need to replace that habitual whining about taxes and "my rights" and “what about me-me-me” with a can-do, “we'll get by together” attitude. Not only does it give people a sense of personal pride, but when they have it, they expect it from their leaders.
But I think using that question -- "But what about all the OTHER plastic we use?" -- as an argument against reducing use of one particular product is self-defeating. Clearly there needs to be a stigma put on the unnecessary use of plastic. Grocery bags are the easiest and most obvious, bottled drinks should be next, buying shampoo in bulk is a no-brainer. Sandwich bags can be replaced by containers.
What kills me is smart people wasting all their energy coming up with reasons why nothing can change. I'm dismayed by the lack of innovative thinking in the general population. You know what our grandparents would do? They'd figure something the fuck out, because they grew up in a time when you had to. The ability to invent and innovate was a mark of pride, not something best left to the experts. It's time to start thinking that way again
We need to replace that habitual whining about taxes and "my rights" and “what about me-me-me” with a can-do, “we'll get by together” attitude. Not only does it give people a sense of personal pride, but when they have it, they expect it from their leaders.
22
@2 - actually, I used to keep my greens in a washable green breathable bag, and live more like a European, so you're wrong on that one - even reuse the plastic bread bags for picnics and small paper bags for lunches.
Ban plastic bags and stop whining.
Ban plastic bags and stop whining.
23
13: Not only that, but people need to remember that when it comes to pollution, the relative amount of the pollutant is only the half of it. As I mentioned in the other plastic bag threads, bags have all the effects of other plastic products (leaking toxins, etc), as well as some effects of their own. Namely, they resemble jellyfish, and are therefore more likely to be swallowed by organisms that eat jellyfish (sea turtles, sunfish, etc).
I agree with everyone that banning plastic bags would not be enough, and I'll be extremely pissed if we just stop there. The amount of plastic that we waste on drinks, toys, water bottles, etc is sickening, and is a huge source of ocean pollution. That being said, though, I'm not going to pretend that plastic bags are an insignificant drop in the bucket. People fail to realize that there's a difference between being the absolute largest source of pollution, and being a highly significant source of pollution. PCBs, for example, are found in fairly trace amounts relative to other pollutants, but they're damn scary nonetheless. Plastic bags are a significant ocean pollutant even if they aren't the most common by weight or the very, very, very most significant. That's why arguments like Fnarf's hold no water. It's like someone who's cleaning their kitchen arguing that they shouldn't wipe the counters because the stove is even dirtier. It makes no sense.
I'm also not going to pretend that a ban on plastic bags is somehow counter to going FURTHER with plastic reduction. It wouldn't do much good to ban plastic bags and do absolutely nothing else, sure. But banning plastic bags is significant if it's part of a large effort to regulate plastic usage, especially if it's used as a first step to get people used to the idea (since the bags are essentially worthless and are therefore a great place to start when learning how to give up plastic). Lots of environmental laws work similarly; take the Endangered Species Act, for instance. One might argue that it wouldn't do much good to save the Spotted Owl; I mean, it's just one lousy species of bird, right? What they don't get is that the point is to save thousands of endangered species, the measly little spotted owl just being one of them. Same thing with banning/regulating pollutants.
So This is another thing I've said in the other plastic bag threads, and which tends to go in one ear and out the other with the nay-sayers: ban plastic bags AND other forms of plastic waste. Not OR. AND.
More...
I agree with everyone that banning plastic bags would not be enough, and I'll be extremely pissed if we just stop there. The amount of plastic that we waste on drinks, toys, water bottles, etc is sickening, and is a huge source of ocean pollution. That being said, though, I'm not going to pretend that plastic bags are an insignificant drop in the bucket. People fail to realize that there's a difference between being the absolute largest source of pollution, and being a highly significant source of pollution. PCBs, for example, are found in fairly trace amounts relative to other pollutants, but they're damn scary nonetheless. Plastic bags are a significant ocean pollutant even if they aren't the most common by weight or the very, very, very most significant. That's why arguments like Fnarf's hold no water. It's like someone who's cleaning their kitchen arguing that they shouldn't wipe the counters because the stove is even dirtier. It makes no sense.
I'm also not going to pretend that a ban on plastic bags is somehow counter to going FURTHER with plastic reduction. It wouldn't do much good to ban plastic bags and do absolutely nothing else, sure. But banning plastic bags is significant if it's part of a large effort to regulate plastic usage, especially if it's used as a first step to get people used to the idea (since the bags are essentially worthless and are therefore a great place to start when learning how to give up plastic). Lots of environmental laws work similarly; take the Endangered Species Act, for instance. One might argue that it wouldn't do much good to save the Spotted Owl; I mean, it's just one lousy species of bird, right? What they don't get is that the point is to save thousands of endangered species, the measly little spotted owl just being one of them. Same thing with banning/regulating pollutants.
So This is another thing I've said in the other plastic bag threads, and which tends to go in one ear and out the other with the nay-sayers: ban plastic bags AND other forms of plastic waste. Not OR. AND.
24
A great book to read if you're interested in finding out more about how our planet is affected by plastics and other wastes is "What we Leave Behind" by Derrick Jensen.
It's completely absurd that large companies aren't doing what they can to just ban plastic all together.
It's completely absurd that large companies aren't doing what they can to just ban plastic all together.
25
Well, the good thing is one day the sun will supernova, and that will take care of all the plastics.
26
@13, I've DONE beach cleanup here in Washington, and grocery bags were simply not in evidence. Motor oil bottles, water bottles, shampoo bottles, sunglass frames, car door handles, sandwich wrappers, broken toys, pieces of surfboard, office supplies, cell phone covers, cassette tapes, coffee cans, tool handles, backpack clasps, yogurt tubs, Skoal and Tic-Tac boxes, pens, radio knobs, car seats, tampon applicators, and the biggest category of all, "dunno". 49% in the Pacific? That's absurd; the famous garbage gyre in the middle of the Pacific is almost entirely "unidentified".
27
Make industrial hemp legal and we can carry our groceries in hemp bags.
Rob - our sun will not supernova - it will become a red giant and then a white dwarf - with the same effect in terms of plastics.
Rob - our sun will not supernova - it will become a red giant and then a white dwarf - with the same effect in terms of plastics.
29
@26 - actually, the largest constituent part is the nerdles, the raw plastic beads used to make your plastic flip flops and sunglasses and other "fun" things.
Stop buying plastic things. Ban them.
Stop buying plastic things. Ban them.
30
The environmentalist in me voted for the bag fee, but to be honest, it was so flawed that I wasn't all that sad to see it fail.
Most problematic: it created a false equivalency between the flimsy, re-useless American Chemistry Council plastic crap churned out by the Safeways and convenience stores of the world -- emblematic of a disposable culture -- and the sturdy, strong-handled 100%-recycled-paper bags that are predominant at places like PCC and always find reuse, at the very least, for collecting recyclables. As long as Safeway is too cheap to use recycled materials or put handles on their paper bags (thus forcing consumption of plastic), ban or tax the hell out of the plastic. But don't pretend that the two methods of conveyance are one and the same.
Also, don't pretend that we all have access to canvas grocery bags at all times... It was infuriating to hear bag-fee-proponents' "helpful reminders" to just leave reusable canvas bags in the backs of our cars at all times. Um, I don't own a car. Neither, according to one statistic, do 16% of Seattleites. Thanks for suggesting that YOU can take spontaneous grocery-shopping trips in your SUV on your way home, or whenever the urge strikes you, while I have to return all the way home on our oh-so-frequent, oh-so-reliable bus system to get my canvas bags.
Actually, you weren't suggesting that, because the Seattle City Council only ever addresses the needs of the city's non-car-users in the abstract and under the presumption that we all have spare automobiles in a garage somewhere for non-downtown-commuting, so you probably didn't think about me at all in your car-centric bag-fee advocacy.
Most problematic: it created a false equivalency between the flimsy, re-useless American Chemistry Council plastic crap churned out by the Safeways and convenience stores of the world -- emblematic of a disposable culture -- and the sturdy, strong-handled 100%-recycled-paper bags that are predominant at places like PCC and always find reuse, at the very least, for collecting recyclables. As long as Safeway is too cheap to use recycled materials or put handles on their paper bags (thus forcing consumption of plastic), ban or tax the hell out of the plastic. But don't pretend that the two methods of conveyance are one and the same.
Also, don't pretend that we all have access to canvas grocery bags at all times... It was infuriating to hear bag-fee-proponents' "helpful reminders" to just leave reusable canvas bags in the backs of our cars at all times. Um, I don't own a car. Neither, according to one statistic, do 16% of Seattleites. Thanks for suggesting that YOU can take spontaneous grocery-shopping trips in your SUV on your way home, or whenever the urge strikes you, while I have to return all the way home on our oh-so-frequent, oh-so-reliable bus system to get my canvas bags.
Actually, you weren't suggesting that, because the Seattle City Council only ever addresses the needs of the city's non-car-users in the abstract and under the presumption that we all have spare automobiles in a garage somewhere for non-downtown-commuting, so you probably didn't think about me at all in your car-centric bag-fee advocacy.
31
30: They make reusable bags that can crinkle up enough to fit into your pocket, or take up next to no space in your backpack or purse; not all reusable bags are made to subbornly imitate the shape of paper bags. So no, you don't need a car to use reusable bags.
Besides, people need to stop pitting minor convenience against ecological health as if the two are equivalent.
Besides, people need to stop pitting minor convenience against ecological health as if the two are equivalent.
32
Also, nerdles are a giant problem; they're used to make almost everything plastic (including bags and bottles). So it's sort of a "double-pollutant" when these things are spilled overboard during their shipment over to the US, then the rest of that shipment is made into some final product or other, which is then tossed into the ocean. And nobody's bothered to re-visit how carelessly these things are stored during shipment; huge amounts of them are spilled overboard. I'm with Will on this one; plastic needs to be reserved for things for which there is no substitute, like medical supplies. Especially when you take our limited amounts of fossil fuels into consideration.
33
@31: That's perfectly fine if I am PLANNING to stop at the grocery store. But imagine around a crinkled-up bag in your pocket all day, every day, in case you spontaneously decide to grab some things on the way home? That's no "minor" inconvenience.
Similarly, the public transit here is a major inconvenience, and when Seattle stops treating it as merely a "minor" inconvenience, maybe we'll improve it enough to get people out of their cars, which would be much more impactful than the bag fee.
(Please don't remind me that Metro Transit is a county issue -- Seattle politicians love to pay lip-service to its improvement, but they're unwilling to play hardball with the county for even the most practical or inexpensive improvements in urban operations. Meanwhile, every time the Seattle DOT futzes with traffic-signal-timing in the name of streamlining arterial movement, they favor cars and shaft buses -- see the corner of Eliot & Mercer, with its BRAND-NEW 5-minute delay for inbound buses from Ballard between 2PM and 8PM so that outbound cars have an uninterrupted green.)
Similarly, the public transit here is a major inconvenience, and when Seattle stops treating it as merely a "minor" inconvenience, maybe we'll improve it enough to get people out of their cars, which would be much more impactful than the bag fee.
(Please don't remind me that Metro Transit is a county issue -- Seattle politicians love to pay lip-service to its improvement, but they're unwilling to play hardball with the county for even the most practical or inexpensive improvements in urban operations. Meanwhile, every time the Seattle DOT futzes with traffic-signal-timing in the name of streamlining arterial movement, they favor cars and shaft buses -- see the corner of Eliot & Mercer, with its BRAND-NEW 5-minute delay for inbound buses from Ballard between 2PM and 8PM so that outbound cars have an uninterrupted green.)
34
@31: That's perfectly fine if I am PLANNING to stop at the grocery store. But imagine carrying around a crinkled-up bag in your pocket all day, every day, in case you spontaneously decide to grab some things on the way home? That's no "minor" inconvenience.
Similarly, the public transit here is a major inconvenience, and when Seattle stops treating it as merely a "minor" inconvenience, maybe we'll improve it enough to get people out of their cars, which would be much more impactful than the bag fee.
(Please don't remind me that Metro Transit is a county issue -- Seattle politicians love to pay lip-service to its improvement, but they're unwilling to play hardball with the county for even the most practical or inexpensive improvements in urban operations. Meanwhile, every time the Seattle DOT futzes with traffic-signal-timing in the name of streamlining arterial movement, they favor cars and shaft buses -- see the corner of Eliot & Mercer, with its BRAND-NEW 5-minute delay for inbound buses from Ballard between 2PM and 8PM so that outbound cars have an uninterrupted green.)
Similarly, the public transit here is a major inconvenience, and when Seattle stops treating it as merely a "minor" inconvenience, maybe we'll improve it enough to get people out of their cars, which would be much more impactful than the bag fee.
(Please don't remind me that Metro Transit is a county issue -- Seattle politicians love to pay lip-service to its improvement, but they're unwilling to play hardball with the county for even the most practical or inexpensive improvements in urban operations. Meanwhile, every time the Seattle DOT futzes with traffic-signal-timing in the name of streamlining arterial movement, they favor cars and shaft buses -- see the corner of Eliot & Mercer, with its BRAND-NEW 5-minute delay for inbound buses from Ballard between 2PM and 8PM so that outbound cars have an uninterrupted green.)
35
@31
"...people need to stop pitting minor convenience against ecological health as if the two are equivalent."
Right you are. The people have spoken. Minor convenience is paramount to ecological health by about 15 points.
"...people need to stop pitting minor convenience against ecological health as if the two are equivalent."
Right you are. The people have spoken. Minor convenience is paramount to ecological health by about 15 points.
36
@33... I don't see how not using a car would've been a problem as far as the bag fee goes. If you had to make an unplanned shopping trip and didn't have a backpack/big purse/bike basket/whatever handy, you would have just had to pay a very small fee for a plastic bag. (Not that it matters, after these election results).
37
"Carrying a crumpled bag in your pocket is no minor inconvenience"
Everyone and their grandmother carries either a purse or a backpack. Either get one, or just go ahead and be the rare "outlier" that would actually be minorly (yes, MINORLY) inconvenienced by this. Sorry.
Everyone and their grandmother carries either a purse or a backpack. Either get one, or just go ahead and be the rare "outlier" that would actually be minorly (yes, MINORLY) inconvenienced by this. Sorry.
39
@33: Agree. And love. There's a suburban car mindset here that doesn't recognize its own privilege. But this plan let them feel really good about their environmental imprint.
I would still support a ban, but this does unfairly impact the poor and the non-drivers much more than the vehicled gentry.
I would still support a ban, but this does unfairly impact the poor and the non-drivers much more than the vehicled gentry.
40
I keep a spare bag in my bike basket, and if I think I might need to stop into the store on my way (walking/busing) home from work, I tuck a few extra bags into the bag I normally carry. It's really not that burdensome to keep re-usable bags around if not driving. This would hardly have been some massive, unfair burden on non-drivers (and why do people assume that the poor don't re-use bags?)
Privileged suburban drivers are perfectly capable of forgetting to keep enough spare re-usable bags in their trunks to fit all the massive grocery purchases their SUVs allow them to carry, and would have had to pay up as well.
This fee would have been an almost imperceptably small step in vaguely the right direction.
Privileged suburban drivers are perfectly capable of forgetting to keep enough spare re-usable bags in their trunks to fit all the massive grocery purchases their SUVs allow them to carry, and would have had to pay up as well.
This fee would have been an almost imperceptably small step in vaguely the right direction.
41
This San Franciscan, dependent on public transportation, has gotten in the habit of lugging a bag or two (the $1 bags made from used plastic bottles) just in case a grocery run is in order. The inconvenience is getting into the habit.
But that's okay. Everything will be just fine as we're going.
But that's okay. Everything will be just fine as we're going.
42
hey, uh... take a look at your cheapo reusable shopping bags. Do they look kinda like these? http://www.bagsontherun.com/faq.php They're made in china. out of plastic. not as green as they are trying to make them out to be, to say the least.
43
razorclammer @42, The ones from Safeway say something to the effect of Made from post-consumer recycled materials on the bottom. The ones from Trader Joes say This bag used to be a plastic bottle.
They are woven (contrary to the Chinese ones), but otherwise look like those to which you linked. Of course both stores might be lying. I think they're legally allowed to do so.
They are woven (contrary to the Chinese ones), but otherwise look like those to which you linked. Of course both stores might be lying. I think they're legally allowed to do so.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (43) RSS