SASKATCHEWAN ELOCUTION AND DEBATE ASSOCIATION
ASSOCIATION D’ELOCUTION ET DES DEBATS DE LA SASKATCHEWAN
Plastic Bags
BIRT banning plastic bags is a good idea.
Research prepared by Janessa Weir
Fall 2008
www.saskdebate.com
This is a policy resolution.
SEDA receives funding from
SEDA
SEDA PATRONS
The Saskatchewan Elocution and Debate
Association (SEDA) is a non-profit organization
that promotes speech and debate activities in
English and French. The Association is active
throughout the province from grade 5 through
grade 12, and at the University of Regina and the
University of Saskatchewan. The Association coordinates an annual program of speech and debate
tournaments and other special activities, including a
model legislature.
Honorary Patron - Hon. Dr. Gordon L. Barnhart,
Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan Lotteries Trust Fund for
Sport, Culture, and Recreation
Saskatchewan Law Foundation
Celebrate Canada Committee for Saskatchewan
Luther College High School
Official Minority Language Office,
Department of Education
Mrs. Morris Shumiatcher
John Archer Family
Olivia Shumski
SEDA’s staff, along with printed and audio-visual
materials, are available to assist any individual or
group interested in elocution and debate.
Affiliations
SEDA is a registered charitable organization.
Charitable No. 11914 0077 RR0001.
Canadian Student Debating Federation
SaskCulture Inc.
For further information:
Saskatchewan Elocution
and Debate Association
1860 Lorne Street
Regina, Saskatchewan
S4P 2L7
Telephone: (306) 780-9243
Fax: (306) 781-6021
E-Mail: info@saskdebate.com
Web: www.saskdebate.com
SEDA receives funding from
3
Please note: an updated version with complete citations will be posted next week.
Does banning plastic bags help or
hurt?
May 06, 2007 04:30 AM
They blow around streets and parks like
synthetic tumbleweeds – especially in
the Third World – and can choke sea
mammals and turtles. A movement is
gaining momentum globally to ban the
use of non-biodegradable plastic bags,
which are rarely recycled.
At least 500 billion bags are used
worldwide every year, according to
advocacy website reusablebags.com.
Torontonians use up to 800 million
annually.
On April 2, Leaf Rapids, Man., became
the first Canadian community to ban
plastic bags, after San Francisco began
phasing them out at supermarkets and
pharmacies. Portland, Ore., is
considering it. Rossland, B.C., was
heading that way, but last month its
council decided simply to "discourage"
their use.
These places join a growing number of
countries worldwide that have issued
bans: Bangladesh, because they block
drains during floods; Zanzibar, Rwanda
and South Africa, due to severe litter. In
Ireland, a levy (set to increase) has cut
usage by more than 90 per cent.
Toronto, where plastic bag recycling
won't be available until 2008, is also
looking at a levy of 25 cents a bag.
Some companies aren't waiting. Swedish
furniture giant Ikea, for instance, began
charging for plastic bags in the United
Kingdom last year and reduced
consumption by 95 per cent. The
program has just been adopted by its
U.S. stores, while a spokesperson says
Ikea Canada is still "researching" the
issue.
Many retailers, especially in Europe,
have begun switching to compostable
bags made from corn or other starches,
which degrade in a matter of weeks
rather than the estimated 1,000 years for
traditional polyethylene bags.
The British grocery chain Sainsbury's is
rolling out compostable packaging on
store-brand products. In Canada,
Mountain Equipment Co-op has been
using the starch-based bags, which have
the texture of rolled-out cotton candy,
since last year.
The Canadian Plastics Industry
Association is running to keep up with
the onslaught. It has launched defensive
websites – like myplasticbags.ca, which
makes statements like, "It is hard to
think of a world without them." And
after San Francisco's ban, Cathy Cirko,
the association's vice-president of
environment and health, wrote letters to
newspapers saying the move was a snub
of recycling efforts in California.
In an interview, Cirko says that since
bags were only banned in large
supermarkets and pharmacies, they
could get mixed with traditional plastic
bags and contaminate the recycling
stream. "They killed recycling of bags in
their city," she says.
3
4
Bans, taxes or using a reusable bags for
shopping won't reduce the consumption
of plastic bags, she insists, "because they
play a very essential role.
"What people don't realize is that people
use plastic bags because they find them
terribly convenient," Cirko argues.
"We've done polling to show nine out of
10 people reuse their bags, for kitchen
catchers, to clean up after their pets and
so on. People forget what bags provide.
They're very hygienic."
So the industry supports recycling, but
what's not mentioned is that San
Franciscans were recycling only 1 per
cent of their plastic bags, according to
that city. Bag recycling is available in
half of Ontario, Cirko points out. But
even in Peterborough, the first city in
Canada to adopt a program, the bagrecycling rate is just 22 per cent.
Toronto councillor Glenn De
Baeremaeker, chair of the public works
committee, says most people have many
more plastic bags than ever get reused or
recycled. "I have literally hundreds of
extra plastic bags that seem to grow and
multiply in my closet!" he says.
The plastic industry has said bag
reduction experiments have failed.
Ireland may have reduced plastic
shopping bag consumption by 90 per
cent, but plastic going into landfills has
actually increased because people are
now buying kitchen garbage bags made
of heavier plastic rather than re-using
their lighter grocery bags for garbage, as
they once did.
Cirko also claims that Taiwan has lifted
its sweeping plastic bag ban after finding
it didn't work. However, it cancelled
only the 5-year-old ban for small
restaurants, where the rule didn't deter
bag use. It remains and, according to
published reports, is working for all
other stores, malls and supermarkets.
De Baeremaeker responds to Cirko's
arguments by saying, "Go tell fairy tales
to someone else." Any visitor to Ireland
will find that consumers there "aren't
using plastic bags."
China bans plastic shopping bags
REUTERS
RON BULL/TORONTO STAR FILE
PHOTO
BEIJING – China launched a surprise
crackdown on plastic bags on Tuesday,
banning production of ultra-thin bags
and forbidding its supermarkets and
shops from handing out free carriers
from June 1.
China uses too many of the bags and
fails to dispose of them properly,
wasting valuable oil and littering the
country, China's cabinet, the State
Council, said in a notice.
No plastic bag ban for Ontario
Ontario won’t follow China’s move to
reduce pollution by banning plastic
shopping bags, Premier Dalton
McGuinty said today.
Jan 08, 2008 07:58 AM
Guo Shipeng
Emma Graham-Harrison
4
5
"Our country consumes huge amounts of
plastic bags every year. While providing
convenience to consumers, they have
also caused serious pollution, and waste
of energy and resources, because of
excessive use and inadequate recycling,"
it said.
Worries about pollution are growing
among ordinary citizens, as years of
breakneck growth take their toll on the
country's air and water, but the new ban
may not be universally welcomed.
Late last year the southern boom town of
Shenzhen sparked a public controversy
by unveiling draft regulations to ban free
plastic bags in its shops.
Shopkeepers fretted that customers
might be turned away and some people
accused the government of making
residents shoulder the costs of
environmental protection.
Part of the new rules seem similar to the
Shenzhen plan, stating that from June
shops, supermarkets and sales outlets
would be forbidden to offer free plastic
bags and all carriers must be clearly
marked with their prices.
"We should encourage people to return
to carrying cloth bags, using baskets for
their vegetables," the notice said.
In addition the manufacture, sale and use
of bags under 0.025 mm thick is banned
EDITORIAL
TheStar.com | Opinion | Bag it again,
Sam!Bag it again, Sam!
May 11, 2007 04:30 AM
How many times have you lugged
groceries home in plastic shopping bags
because you have forgotten to bring
reusable ones? Or not bothered to stop a
cashier from putting a single package of
gum in a yawning plastic sack?
from the same date, with fines and
confiscation of goods and profits for
firms that flout the rules.
The cabinet also said finance authorities
should consider adjusting taxes to
discourage the production and sale of
plastic bags and encourage the recycling
industry.
Rubbish collectors were urged to
separate plastic for reprocessing and cut
the amount burnt or buried.
The move brings China in line with a
growing international trend to cut back
use of plastic bags. From Ireland to
Uganda and South Africa governments
have experimented with heavy taxes,
outright bans or eliminating the thinnest
bags.
In some countries where the central
government has not acted communities
ranging from San Francisco to a small
British town have taken unilateral action
to outlaw the carriers.
Chinese people use up to 3 billion plastic
bags a day and the country has to refine
5 million tonnes (37 million barrels) of
crude oil every year to make plastics
used for packaging, according to a report
on the Web site of China Trade News
(www.chinatradenews.com.cn).
If you're like most Ontarians, you
probably commit such environmental
faux pas on an embarrassingly regular
basis, even though most of us know the
plastic bags we use only once or twice
can take as long as 1,000 years to
decompose. But such twinges of ecoguilt often aren't enough to jog our
memories or prompt us to call off
plastic-happy checkout clerks, despite
our best intentions.
5
6
So it is welcome news the Ontario
government is joining forces with
recycling groups, grocers and retailers to
cut the consumption of plastic bags in
half within five years. With a little
prodding, most consumers will do the
right thing and reduce unnecessary use.
Anything that cuts down on the 7 million
plastic bags we take home every day is a
step in the right direction.
The program unveiled by Environment
Minister Laurel Broten this week should
do just that. It aims to encourage the use
of reusable bags and bins through
incentives such as reward points and
cash inducements. As well, it will
promote recycling, discourage plastic
bag use through education campaigns
and offer modest support for research
projects into packaging issues.
Its theme might be "Bag it again, Sam!"
– with apologies to Casablanca the film.
But unlike cities such as San Francisco,
which has banned plastic bags in grocery
stores and large pharmacies outright,
Ontario's program will be voluntary, and
rightly so.
After all, sometimes a plastic bag is
more than a convenience. Like when you
buy a book on a rainy day. Or when you
don't want your chicken to leak on your
tomatoes on the way home from the
store.
Consumers and retailers are far more
likely to change their attitudes and
behaviour in response to carrots rather
than sticks. Why impose heavy-handed
legislation when points and other
goodies may do the job just as well?
With many municipalities struggling to
manage their waste, Queen's Park says it
may still resort to compulsory measures
such as mandatory charges for plastic
bags or even an outright ban if it doesn't
see the results it wants.
Hopefully, it won't come to that. Many
major grocery stores already sell
reusable bags at modest prices. Others
levy a small fee for plastic bags. That's a
good start.
Now, retailers should focus on training
staff to avoid unnecessary doublebagging, and pack reusable bags in an
efficient and sanitary way. And more
stores should stock biodegradable plastic
bags for green bins and dog walkers.
Change won't come overnight. But with
growing awareness, some incentives and
convenient alternatives, more consumers
are likely to say no to plastic.
Advantages
Compared to paper bags
•
Plastic bags are durable, strong,
low cost, and water and
chemicals resistant.
•
They can be welded and have
lesser energy and heavy
chemicals requirements in
manufacture.
•
The light weight of plastic bags
results in fewer atmosphere
emissions compared to paper
bags.
•
Many studies comparing plastic
versus paper for shopping bags
show that plastic bags have less
6
7
of ethylene is produced from
naphtha, a byproduct of
petroleum. As oil prices rise due
to higher demand for
gasoline[citation needed], we are
likely to produce more plastic
bags from natural gas sources of
ethylene.
net environmental effect than
paper bags, requiring less energy
to produce, transport and recycle;
however these studies also note
that recycling rates for plastic are
significantly lower than for
paper.[3]
•
•
Plastic bags can be incinerated in
appropriate facilities for wasteto-energy.
Plastic bags are stable and benign
in sanitary landfills.[4]
•
Plastic carrier bags can be reused
as trash bags or bin bags.
•
Plastic bags are complimentary
in many locations (but are
charged or "taxed" in others).
•
Plastic bags are flimsy and often
do not stand up as well as paper
or cloth for certain tasks.
•
When disposed of improperly,
they are unsightly and represent a
hazard to wildlife. See
environmental impacts section
below.
•
Plastic bags, conventional or
"biodegradable", do not readily
biodegrade in a sanitary landfill,
though neither does paper due to
lack of oxygen.[citation needed]
•
Plastic bags (particularly thin dry
cleaning bags) can cause
unsupervised infants to
suffocate.[6]
Disadvantages
•
Plastic bags are made from
ethylene, a byproduct of natural
gas. Chemists string together
long chains of ethylene to form
polyethylene. [5] Less than 30%
Series of blunders turned the
plastic bag into global villain
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/to
l/news/environment/article3508
263.ece
Scientists and environmentalists
have attacked a global campaign
to ban plastic bags which they
say is based on flawed science
and exaggerated claims.
The widely stated accusation
that the bags kill 100,000
animals and a million seabirds
every year are false, experts
have told The Times. They pose
only a minimal threat to most
marine species, including seals,
whales, dolphins and seabirds.
Gordon Brown announced last
month that he would force
supermarkets to charge for the
bags, saying that they were “one
of the most visible symbols of
environmental waste”. Retailers
and some pressure groups,
including the Campaign to
7
8
Protect Rural England, threw
their support behind him.
But scientists, politicians and
marine experts attacked the
Government for joining a
“bandwagon” based on poor
science.
Lord Taverne, the chairman of
Sense about Science, said: “The
Government is irresponsible to
jump on a bandwagon that has
no base in scientific evidence.
This is one of many examples
where you get bad science
leading to bad decisions which
are counter-productive.
Attacking plastic bags makes
people feel good but it doesn’t
achieve anything.”
Campaigners say that plastic
bags pollute coastlines and
waterways, killing or injuring
birds and livestock on land and,
in the oceans, destroying vast
numbers of seabirds, seals,
turtles and whales. However,
The Times has established that
there is no scientific evidence to
show that the bags pose any
direct threat to marine
mammals.
They “don’t figure” in the
majority of cases where animals
die from marine debris, said
David Laist, the author of a
seminal 1997 study on the
subject. Most deaths were
caused when creatures became
caught up in waste produce.
“Plastic bags don’t figure in
entanglement,” he said. “The
main culprits are fishing gear,
ropes, lines and strapping bands.
Most mammals are too big to
get caught up in a plastic bag.”
He added: “The impact of bags
on whales, dolphins, porpoises
and seals ranges from nil for
most species to very minor for
perhaps a few species.For birds,
plastic bags are not a problem
either.”
The central claim of
campaigners is that the bags kill
more than 100,000 marine
mammals and one million
seabirds every year. However,
this figure is based on a
misinterpretation of a 1987
Canadian study in
Newfoundland, which found
that, between 1981 and 1984,
more than 100,000 marine
mammals, including birds, were
killed by discarded nets. The
Canadian study did not mention
plastic bags.
Fifteen years later in 2002,
when the Australian
Government commissioned a
report into the effects of plastic
bags, its authors misquoted the
Newfoundland study,
mistakenly attributing the
deaths to “plastic bags”.
The figure was latched on to by
conservationists as proof that
the bags were killers. For four
years the “typo” remained
uncorrected. It was only in 2006
that the authors altered the
report, replacing “plastic bags”
with “plastic debris”. But they
admitted: “The actual numbers
8
9
of animals killed annually by
plastic bag litter is nearly
impossible to determine.”
In a postscript to the correction
they admitted that the original
Canadian study had referred to
fishing tackle, not plastic debris,
as the threat to the marine
environment.
Regardless, the erroneous claim
has become the keystone of a
widening campaign to demonise
plastic bags.
David Santillo, a marine
biologist at Greenpeace, told
The Times that bad science was
undermining the Government’s
case for banning the bags. “It’s
very unlikely that many animals
are killed by plastic bags,” he
said. “The evidence shows just
the opposite. We are not going
to solve the problem of waste by
focusing on plastic bags.
“It doesn’t do the Government’s
case any favours if you’ve got
statements being made that
aren’t supported by the
scientific literature that’s out
there. With larger mammals it’s
fishing gear that’s the big
problem. On a global basis
plastic bags aren’t an issue. It
would be great if statements like
these weren’t made.”
Geoffrey Cox, a Tory member
of the Commons Environment
Select Committee, said: “I don't
like plastic bags and I certainly
support restricting their use, but
plainly it’s extremely important
that before we take any steps we
should rely on accurate
information. It is bizarre that
any campaign should be
endorsed on the basis of a
mistranslation. Gordon Brown
should get his facts right.”
A 1968 study of albatross
carcasses found that 90 per cent
contained some form of plastic
but only two birds had ingested
part of a plastic bag.
Professor Geoff Boxshall, a
marine biologist at the Natural
History Museum, said: “I’ve
never seen a bird killed by a
plastic bag. Other forms of
plastic in the ocean are much
more damaging. Only a very
small proportion is caused by
bags.”
Plastic particles known as
nurdles, dumped in the sea by
industrial companies, form a
much greater threat as they can
be easily consumed by birds and
animals. Many British groups
are now questioning whether a
ban on bags would cost
consumers more than the
environmental benefits.
Charlie Mayfield, chairman of
retailer John Lewis, said that
tackling packaging waste and
reducing carbon emissions were
far more important goals. “We
don’t see reducing the use of
plastic bags as our biggest
priority,” he said. “Of all the
waste that goes to landfill, 20
per cent is household waste and
0.3 per cent is plastic bags.”
9
10
John Lewis added that a scheme
in Ireland had reduced plastic
bag usage, but sales of bin liners
had increased 400 per cent.
THE AUSTRALIAN
How much do we need plastic bags,
let me count the ways
•
March 04, 2008
Melanie Reid, in British newspaper
The Times, in praise of standing up to
self-righteous green bullies at the
checkout
THE reason people are not going to give
up plastic bags? It's because they are so
useful: so very, very useful, in fact, that
it's hard to think of a single other
household item that has more
applications across every facet of our
lives. Plastic bags, one might say, if it is
not in too bad taste, are embedded in
society to a much greater extent than
they are inside a porpoise's gullet. And
that is the flaw at the heart of the antibag campaign. You might as well try to
ban glass, or fridges, bicycles or
handkerchiefs; for plastic bags are just as
irreplaceable. One can genuinely ask,
what did we do before they were
invented?
in the office fridge or making a
parachute for his Action Man.
And no woman, either. Among myriad
uses, plastic bags are irreplaceable for
packing shoes, storing paintbrushes in,
shredding for craft projects, fancy dress,
keeping clothes dry in rucksacks,
wrapping round plastered limbs in
showers, putting wet umbrellas in,
holding rubbish in cars.
We use them to protect the precious and
dispose of the dirty: lifting dog waste,
wrapping soiled nappies.
We line dustbins and lift cat litter; we
separate our recycling with them.
Besides, this is a human rights issue.
What of the tramps? How can a bag man
survive if there are no bags, and aren't
his needs as great as the dolphin's?
Instead of banning plastic bags, we
should be writing eulogies to them: the
item that has changed history. Imagine
how different it would have been on the
Somme, for a start.
Of course we should use fewer bags.
Plastic bags are symbolic of thrifty,
sensible Middle England. People take for
granted their phenomenal flexibility for
carrying, containing, keeping water out
or dampness in. Shopping is just the start
of it. No man born of woman does not
avail himself of a plastic bag at some
point in every day, be it for carrying
papers, storing smelly gym kit or wet
swimming costume, protecting his lunch
But a ban would do nothing but punish
the frugal, who already deserve eco
medals, not persecution. And the even
more stark truth is that there is no viable
alternative. Nylon string or cotton bags
aren't waterproof, baskets are too bulky
and paper bags are non-reusable and no
better for the environment.
10
11
So what is a bag lady to do? I think we
should be told.
Janet Daley, in London's The Daily
Telegraph, on why forcing shops to
charge for plastic bags is a punitive
tax on consumers:
THE Prime Minister made a fearless
statement on a national issue last week.
"I want to make it clear," he pronounced,
"that if government compulsion is
needed to make the change, we will take
the necessary steps." What was the grave
crisis to which his warning alluded? Was
it the scourge of anti-social behaviour,
which turns our urban badlands into nogo areas at night? No, I'm afraid not.
Was it the standards in our state schools,
which are leaving large swaths of
children illiterate? Nope, not that either.
Was it the shaming state of hygiene in
our NHS hospitals? Sorry.
The problem to which Gordon Brown
was committing the full force of his
ministers' powers was plastic bags.
Now let me make this clear: I can see the
sense in which a profusion of plastic
bags may be problematic aesthetically
and environmentally, although there is a
solution to the latter.
I would say that, in my personal league
table of the country's difficulties, it
comes in at around 107.
But even taking Brown's statement on its
own terms, it seems odd that he
embraced the principle of charging
customers who take the things, rather
Pressure Builds to Ban Plastic Bags in
Stores
than threatening to fine retailers who do
not adopt biodegradable plastic for their
carriers.
What he has done is license shops to
charge consumers a punitive tax, instead
of forcing the retail sector (using
"government compulsion to make the
change") to do what would be far more
effective.
Apart from the fact that private citizens
are easier to bully than large retail
chains, what is this really about?
Andrew Rawnsley, in Britain's The
Observer, on the parable of the plastic
bag:
THESE bags are a horrible plague, as is
our absurd over-consumption of bottled
water, the other recent cause celebre.
Curbing both would be a small step in
the right direction, but they represent
only a tiny part of the threat to the
Earth's environment. This is the politics
of making ourselves feel a bit better, the
politics of gesturism and tokenism.
Rebecca English, in London's The
Daily Mail, on Prince Charles, the eco
royal:
THE Prince of Wales is to launch his
own campaign to persuade shoppers to
turn away from plastic carrier bags. A
Clarence House spokesman yesterday
added: "It is such an obviously sensible
move."
By IAN URBINA
Published: July 24, 2007
11
12
ANNAPOLIS, Md., July 23 — Paper or
plastic? It is a question that has long
dogged grocery shoppers. But the debate
may soon be settled for this maritime
city, where a bill aimed at protecting
marine life would ban plastic bags from
all retail stores.
San Francisco enacted a ban in April, but
it applies just to larger groceries and
drugstores. Similar measures are being
considered in Boston; Baltimore;
Oakland, Calif.; Portland, Ore.; Santa
Monica, Calif.; and Steamboat Springs,
Colo.
Alexandra Cousteau, granddaughter of
Jacques Cousteau and director of
EarthEcho, an environmental education
group in Washington, said, “Banning
plastic makes sense for the simple reason
that it takes more than 1,000 years to
biodegrade, which means that every
single piece of plastic we’ve ever
manufactured is still around, and much
of it ends up in the oceans killing
animals.”
Ms. Cousteau attended a public meeting
here on Monday to support the measure.
More than 70 people attended the
meeting.
The bill aims to help protect Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries, whose fish and
birds often die after ingesting discarded
plastic bags. Stores would be required to
offer paper bags made from recycled
material under the bill, which goes to a
final City Council vote in October.
Critics say the ban would be expensive
and counterproductive.
“It sounds good until you consider the
cost,” said Barry F. Scher, a spokesman
for Giant Food, the grocery chain based
in Landover, Md.
Instead of taking away plastic bags,
which cost 2 cents each compared with 5
cents for paper bags, Annapolis should
enforce its litter laws, Mr. Scher said.
He added that Giant already offered a 3cent credit for every plastic bag that
customers return to the store and that
2,200 tons of bags a year were recycled
and turned into backyard decks and park
benches.
Paper bags are bulkier to transport than
plastic bags, Mr. Scher added, and more
trucks, fuel and pollution are involved in
delivering them to stores.
“That may be true,” said Alderman Sam
Shropshire, the sponsor of the bill here.
“But what they don’t tell you is that to
make 100 billion plastic checkout bags
per year, which is how many we use in
the U.S. each year, it takes 12 million
12
13
barrels of oil. No oil is used to produce
recycled paper checkout bags.”
Jeffrie Zellmer, legislative director of the
Maryland Retailers Association, said it
took far less energy to recycle plastic
than to recycle paper. Mr. Zellmer added
that 90 percent of retailers used plastic
bags and that costs could increase
threefold or sixfold, eventually reaching
consumers.
For now, Mayor Ellen O. Moyer of
Annapolis, a Democrat, remains
undecided on the measure.
A spokesman for Ms. Moyer, Ray
Weaver, said the city planned to
distribute reusable bags to residents by
the fall. To accomplish that, Mr. Weaver
said, the city is considering teaming with
sail makers to use excess material that
teenagers in a jobs program may sew
into sacks.
The commercial recycling coordinator
for the City and County of San
Francisco, Jack Macy, said that
nationally 1 percent of all plastic
checkout bags were recycled. “That
means the rest end up in landfill,” Mr.
Macy said. “And so the argument about
plastic recycling being energy efficient
isn’t a strong one.”
“Look,” Mr. Shropshire said, “in the
end, the best option is for people to bring
their own reusable bags. But if they fail
to do that, then they can use paper bags
that biodegrade faster than plastic and
yet do not require any trees to be cut
down.”
At the hearing, a lobbyist for Safeway
called the bill un-American, saying it
would take choices away from
consumers.
“I think it’s a smart move,” said Jim
Martin, owner of the Free State Press, a
small printing and copy store several
blocks from the State Capitol, as he
ordered business cards for a City
Council member to be delivered in a
plastic bag.
Mr. Martin said he was more than
willing to phase out the plastic bags
because he was tired of the litter in the
streets, trees and bay.
Brian Cahalan, owner of 49 West, a
coffeehouse about two blocks from the
Capitol, said that regardless of whether
the measure passed, the debate had
compelled him to act.
Though his store uses plastic bags, Mr.
Cahalan said, he plans to encourage
customers to use their own bags or none
by adding a fee of 25 cents for each store
bag used.
13
14
“That way,” he said, “we won’t have to
litter is worse.”
figure out which of these two types of
The Times’ Pro-Plastic Bag Crusade Continues
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/the_times_proplastic_bag_crusade_continu
posted by ERICA C. BARNETT on April 9 at 10:40 AM
Continuing the Seattle Times’ ongoing crusade against a 20-cent fee for disposable bags
(shorter version: What is this, Soviet Russia? But what will I put my cat shit in? And
what about the poor single moms whose minimum wage we opposed increasing?),
columnist Danny Westneat weighs in today, writing that since plastic bags make up just
a fragment of all the crap that’s in our oceans, they’re not really worth worrying about.
Maybe you’ve heard of Curt Ebbesmeyer. He’s considered one of the
world’s leading oceanic garbologists (though, as he jokes, how many can
there be?).From his basement in Ravenna, he uses beachcomber reports
to track the comings and goings of floating sea trash. Like dozens of ratpoison canisters that washed onto Washington shores this spring. Or
computer monitors, which “always float screen up, eyes peering out of
the waves.”
An oceanographer, he also named the Earth’s most shameful man-made
feature, the “great Eastern garbage patch.” That’s a Texas-sized soup of
plastic junk, swirling in floating clouds across the Pacific between us and
Hawaii.[…]
So when I asked him what he thought of Seattle’s plan to crack down on
disposable grocery bags, I was surprised when he sort of shrugged.
“It’s OK, but plastic bags are not the real problem,” he said. “It’s one
little battle out of a million. Go look at what the ocean carries in on a
given day. You’ll see what I mean.”
14
15
Last month, Ebbesmeyer held a “Dash for Trash” in Ocean Shores. In
two hours, 50 people collected an astonishing 2,000 pounds of junk from
the beach. Almost all of it was plastic — from fishing floats to shotgun
shells to dolls from Japan. Yet very little of it was the plastic bags
targeted by Seattle.
See? Anecdotal evidence from a single source = irrefutable fact. Banning plastic bags—
whoops, sorry, charging a nominal fee for people who refuse to bring their own canvas,
cloth, paper, or plastic sacks—is totally pointless. Although there’s evidence that
plastic bags do make up more than just a tiny fraction of the oceanic trash gyres (in fact,
they’re the 12th most common form of debris washed up on shore), the thing that drives
me nuts about arguments like this is that they’re selectively defeatest. Trading
incandescent light bulbs is just “a drop in the ocean,” too. So is turning down the
thermostat, driving less (hell, even giving up your car doesn’t do that much for the big
picture), inflating your tires, or moving to a denser, more walkable community. Every
individual step is a drop in the bucket. The reason the city is proposing a fee for
plastic bags is that it may make some people decide it’s worth it to bring canvas bags
instead. That won’t, on its own, fix global warming or un-pollute the oceans. That
doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.
And while we’re on the subject of plastic bags and pollution, I should point out that
Westneat ignores some much more significant problems with plastic bags: They do
make up a huge portion of the trash in landfills, and even recycling them is riddled with
problems, the first of which is that the recycling process itself pollutes the atmosphere.
What’s more, the production of plastic bags for American consumption alone requires
an estimated 12 million barrels of oil a year. According to the Worldwatch Institute,
Americans throw away 100 billion plastic bags a year—that’s throw away, not recycle.
Most of those bags end up in landfills, where they take an estimated 1,000 years to
dissolve. The rest end up in the air as lightweight, long-traveling litter that threatens
wildlife (particularly sea life) and creates an eyesore; in South Africa, they bags are
known as the “national flower.” ‘
So should we focus on other problems, as Westneat suggests—the ubiquitous plastic
water bottles, perhaps? Absolutely. So will the Times, which cries “nanny state” every
time the city proposes penalties behavior that’s bad for the environment, support a ban
(or fee) on plastic bottles? I’m not holding my breath.
15
16
Don’t ban plastic bags
http://www.pe.com/columns/bobpratte/st
ories/PE_News_Local_E_ebob26.4367c
84.html
10:00 PM PDT on Monday, August
25, 2008
BOB PRATTE
Palm Springs is exercising its ecofriendly ways by considering a ban of
plastic shopping bags.
In the name of reusable resources, I say
plastic, not paper.
City Manager David Ready said a ban of
the use of plastic bags is being analyzed
by the resort town's Resource
Conservation Commission. The
commission is interested in banning
plastic bags in the name of good
environmental manners. Ready said the
pros and cons of a plastic-bag ban will
be studied before the commission makes
a recommendation.
The litter of plastic bags blowing all
over town is one reason for the interest
in a ban. Mayor Steve Pougnet has
pointed out that 19 billion plastic bags
used annually in California contribute to
filling landfills.
I think plastic bags have been badly
maligned. True, they take precious
petroleum to produce, foul waterways
and snag wild creatures, but their paper
cousins have faults too. Heavy
equipment used to log trees burns fuel.
Paper plants create stinky pollution.
reuse after a trip home from the grocery
store.
I carry my lunches in plastic bags. I load
them up with gym clothes and workout
shoes. I use them to line waste-paper
baskets, saving me from committing the
ecological sin of buying larger garbage
bags that waste even more plastic. When
I go to the mailbox, I carry one bag for
needed bills and magazines and another
to stuff with junk mailings.
Most importantly, plastic bags play a
vital role on Mango Mango, our Coronabuilt sailboat that I bought from
someone who won her on the "Price is
Right." The bags on board make handy
receptacles for empty plastic water
bottles and soft-drink and beer cans (but
never glass bottles on a boat). I stow
dozens of bags in a handy, long cloth
tube with its openings at both ends
cinched with elastic.
Before I cast off the dock lines, I hang a
bag inside the cabin. When I return to
the dock, I carry the bag up to a
recycling container and dump in the cans
and empty water bottles. If they're not
too mucky, I reuse the bags again.
Plastic bags help me recycle. They can
be reused, unlike fragile paper bags.
Instead of banning plastic bags, the city
of Palm Springs should encourage their
use -- over and over and over.
Plastic Helps Needy
I'm not alone. The city of Indian Wells,
while decrying their faults, smartly
accepts bags.
I hate how paper bags rip when I try to
use them. Plastic bags are preferable for
16
17
Plastic bags are dropped off in a
collection container near the front door
of city hall. They are reused to bag
groceries at food banks for the needy.
Florida Avenue, uses about 6,000 plastic
bags monthly. Food is double-bagged
before it is given to 30 or more families
daily.
In Hemet, Sandy Jernegan, who directs
the Community Pantry food bank for the
poor, worries about the possibility of a
state-wide ban of plastic bags.
She said someone can walk home with
four plastic doubled bags filled with
groceries or hang them from bicycle
handlebars.
"It would be horrible," she said.
"Our first choice is to have the plastic,"
she said. "We always can use more."
The Community Pantry, located in
Hemet on San Jacinto Street just north of
17
18
Oh Noes! Plastic Bags are Greener than
paper.
Hank Green
Friday January 25, 2008
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/13
15/
And while we might worry that all that
plastic is coming from foreign oil, the
amazing thing is that even with all the
billions of plastic bags we use every
year, they constitute about 0.03% of our
oil use in the U.S.. Obviously not the
most pressing problem we've got.
Whole Foods, which, for those of you
who don't have one, is the world's largest
eco-healthy food store, has just promised
to completely stop using plastic bags.
And while I like that they're, y'know,
considering these things, it turns out that
their logic may be faulty.
There is one way in which paper bags
win out: They don't harm wildlife as
much. But if you think you can keep a
handle on your bags, and not leave them
to get blown into the ocean, then you're
better with plastic than with paper.
So I decided to do a little research, and it
turns out, the greenest thing about paper
bags is the way people perceive them.
Because they seem more natural, people
think they're better for the environment.
Well, it's a damn shame, but they're
wrong.
I'm not sure what Whole Foods is
thinking...maybe they're really
concerned about wildlife. Maybe they
think people are more likely to re-use
plastic bags. Maybe this is just the first
step in getting people to switch over
completely to reusable bags.
Whole Foods' moving over to 100%
recycled paper is actually going to be
worse for the environment.
In any case, a greener measure would be
to start charging people for the energy
(and carbon) needed to produce
disposable bags. That would give people
a real incentive to (finally) stop using
disposable bags.
Creating recycled paper, it turns out, is a
much more energy-intensive process
than creating plastic bags. That's why
grocery stores prefer you take the
plastic. Plastic is also much easier to
ship, as it takes up way less space in
packing, and they weigh far less per item
of shopping you take home with you.
Banning plastic bags not so easy:
Jackson
-PROPOSED NEW REGULATIONS
Sandor Gyarmati, Surrey Now
Published: Friday, August 29, 2008
My sources for this article:
TreeHugger - MSNBC - Institute for
Life Cycle Environmental Assessment LifeTips
Banning plastic shopping bags
completely or forcing retailers to make
customers buy them could be riddled
with problems, says Mayor Lois
Jackson.
At last week's council meeting Jackson,
who also chairs the Metro Vancouver
board, said she has concerns and
questions about the possibility of the
18
19
regional district imposing tough new
regulations on plastic bags.
"I think everybody is on the same stream
in that they would like to somehow get
rid of plastic bags. But I think why we
are all hesitating is that we are not sure
what the alternative will be," said
Jackson.
Council was discussing the pros and
cons of a plastic bag ban as regional
district staff are currently preparing a
report recommending a ban on the
distribution of free disposable shopping
bags. Jackson noted staff has obtained a
legal opinion suggesting that the
province and some individual
municipalities, which have the power
under their charters, have the ability to
ban free bags, but the same isn't true for
regional districts.
A letter by Jackson also notes, "The
report will recommend that Metro
Vancouver work with interested
municipalities to take a co-ordinated
approach to implement their bans on free
disposable shopping bags, and also that
the province be requested to consider
enacting a provincewide-ban."
However, at the Delta council table
Jackson expressed concerns about the
implications.
"Let's say you walk into a store and buy
a hat but there's no bags. What do you
do? How are we going to carry goods
around? How will we shop efficiently
and effectively without some way of
transporting the merchandise?" she
asked.
Jackson suggested one municipality take
it on as a pilot before a wider-sweeping
ban is enacted.
Councillor Robert Campbell wondered
about the seriousness of the issue of
plastic bags ending up in the landfill and
whether environmental groups are
behind making it into something bigger.
Last year, San Francisco became the first
big city in North America to pass
legislation banning plastic bags. Large
markets and pharmacies have the option
of using compostable bags made of
cornstarch or bags made of recyclable
paper. The city joined several countries,
including Ireland, that already have
outlawed plastic bags or have levied a
tax on them.
Delta Chamber of Commerce executive
director Peter Roaf said the chamber
hasn't formulated a position yet on the
banning of plastic bags.
Mark Startup, president and CEO of
Retail B.C., said his association is
concerned that forcing businesses to
eliminate or charge for plastic bags
would be another attack on retailers by
politicians wanting positive publicity.
"We have very carefully watched the
evolution in Europe and in North
America and here in British Columbia,
the politically-driven idea to have a
shopping bag tax or levy. What concerns
us is there is so much plastic that's
ending up in landfill, but shopping bags
as a component of that waste is almost
infinitesimal," he said.
"Governments shouldn't place the
enforcement side of things, charging
customers at the point-of-sale or
19
20
absorbing the cost of their business,
because it's politically expedient to pick
on the retailer or consumer at the point
of sale," he said.
Noting many progressive retailers are
already taking a leadership role in
reducing the amount of plastic bags
handed out to customers, Startup said
better biodegradable plastic-type bags
are available but also represent a
significant cost.
"If the spirit of the retailer, or the vision
of the retailer, is to contribute to
reducing the amount of material in the
landfill, or send to the landfill plastic
material that will de-construct far more
quickly than plastic bags, the risk they
take is the consumer will not pay that
extra amount.
"They might also not afford to pay for
those bags because profit margins are
too thin," added Startup.
While there's debate over banning plastic
bags at the retail level, meantime, the
Corporation of Delta has moved toward
banning them on another level. Earlier
this summer council agreed that
residents wanting to dispose of yard
trimmings will no longer be able to put
them in plastic bags for curbside
collection.
Beginning January 1, 2009, yard
trimmings will only be collected in
reusable rigid containers, biodegradable
Kraft paper bags or tied bundles.
20
21
Our view on the environment: Plastic-bag ban full of holes
San Francisco’s scheme sounds good,
until you hear the costs.
The ubiquitous filmy plastic bags we
use to carry our groceries are
convenient, free and — no surprise
— popular. But unless they're
properly recycled, they'll exist on
earth for 1,000 years before
decomposing. And they will not go
quietly.
(Photo -- In San Francisco: Large
grocery stores will no longer be able
to use conventional plastic bags. / By
David Paul Morris, Getty Images)
The bags' petroleum-based plastic
eventually breaks into tiny particles
that contaminate soil and waterways
and enter the food chain when
animals accidentally ingest them.
Thousands of marine animals already
die each year from eating bags
mistaken for food. Municipalities
spend millions of dollars cleaning
bags from streets, recycling systems
and trees. In South Africa, windblown bags are jokingly called the
national flower because they sprout
everywhere. In the USA, we use 100
billion bags a year.
Now, the city of San Francisco has
come up with an answer. The city's
Board of Supervisors voted last week
to outlaw plastic checkout bags at
large supermarkets and chain
pharmacies. The stores are
encouraged to use bags made of
recyclable paper, which can
biodegrade in about a month, or
compostable bags made of corn or
potato starch, which have not yet
been widely studied. It is a unique
response well suited to a city that
prizes its special nature — one that
already has curbside pickup for
recycling foodstuffs in compostable
bags. But as other cities weigh San
Francisco's choice, they might want
to consider some of the
consequences.
Plastic bags cost about a penny each,
paper costs about a nickel and
compostable bags can run as high as
10 cents each. The California Grocers
Association, which lobbied against
the ban, doubts this new industry can
produce enough of the compostable
bags quickly. The bags also must be
segregated from regular plastic,
making recycling efforts more
difficult.
Paper bags, meanwhile, generate 70%
more air pollutants and 50 times more
water pollutants than plastic bags,
according to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This is because
four times as much energy is required
to produce paper bags and 85 times as
much energy is needed to recycle
them. Paper takes up nine times as
much space in landfills and doesn't
break down there at a substantially
faster rate than plastic does.
So what's the answer? The real culprit
is the slob who litters or refuses to
recycle either one — or communities
that don't provide the means for him
21
22
to do so. Our throwaway society is to
blame as well.
The best answer to the paper or
plastic question is neither. Each
individual can do more to help the
environment by reusing whatever
bags groceries distribute or buying a
canvas sack to carry goods.
Comments by Mike Adams, the
Health Ranger
In late March, 2007, San Francisco
became the first U.S. city to ban the use
of plastic bags by grocery stores. For the
record, I'm in favor of the San Francisco
bag ban. It's the right decision. Given
that plastic bags take 1000 years to
decompose in landfill, we need to take
action right now to stop adding more
plastic bags to the planet.
And yet, as I'm pointing out in this
article, isn't it interesting how easy it is
to ban plastic bags that are dangerous for
the environment but how difficult it is to
ban chemical food ingredients that are
dangerous to human health? The reason
behind this, of course, is that plastic bag
companies have a terrible lobby, but
big food giants practically run Congress
and government regulators like the
USDA and FDA.
Public education campaigns about
littering and recycling can help more
than ineffective bans on products that
are used every day by billions of
people worldwide. It needn't take
1,000 years to alter anti-social
behavior.
foods. Think about what's legal:
aspartame, sodium nitrate, sucralose,
fluoride, MSG, yeast extract, petroleumderived food colors, toxic preservatives,
acrylamides, bisphenol-A and trace
amounts of solvents, heavy metals,
PCBs, pesticides (and much worse). You
name a popular food product found in
every grocery store in America, and I
can tell you which cancer-causing
chemicals it contains.
It's all perfectly legal. But the bag you
carry all those poisons in has been
banned.
I guess the priorities of the regulators in
this country are pretty clear: Save the
environment, but not the people who
live in it. (Again, no blame to the S.F.
city leaders, since they are doing the
right thing here. But wouldn't it be nice
if they could take the next step and
outlaw the chemical contamination of
foods sold in San Francisco?)
Banning cancer-causing chemicals from
foods has been attempted many times
(even by a former top official at the
USDA many decades ago), but has never
been successful. (I've documented some
of this history in my book Grocery
Warning at
www.truthpublishing.com/GroceryWarn
ing.html )
I had a guy come up to me the other day
at a health food store who said all this
use of chemicals in the food supply was
part of a super secret global population
control campaign. I thought that was a
little too complex of an explanation,
actually. If they want to stop population
growth, all they have to do is ban beer.
They've got complete control over all the
toxic, cancer-causing chemicals in the
Of course, all these food chemicals do
have the side effect of causing
22
23
widespread infertility, and that definitely
impacts population growth (or just
makes infertility clinics wealthy). So
maybe the guy has a point.
But my whole point here is that if we're
really serious about planetary health,
shouldn't we ban all the poisons IN
the bag instead of just the bag? Why
not outlaw all the food and beverage
additives that cause cancer, diabetes,
heart disease, osteoporosis, depression
and migraine headaches? I say let's
protect the planet and the consumer at
the same time. Hand 'em a hemp cloth
shopping bag filled with fresh, organic
produce. That's how you save the planet
AND prevent disease in consumers.
Again, I agree with banning the bags,
and I applaud the leadership of San
Francisco in being the first U.S. city to
stand up and make this important
decision. But let's not stop there. Let's
ban the very real hazards INSIDE the
bag, too.
Plastic bag ban plan bagged
By Kathryn Koch
Sat Oct 11, 2008, 08:00 AM EDT
PLYMOUTH A proposed ban on plastic bags at all
retail and food service establishments in
Plymouth will not go forward at Town
Meeting Oct. 27.
Instead, a six-member committee will be
formed to support efforts to discourage
the use of plastic bags and encourage the
use of reusable bags.
awareness of the dangers plastic bags
pose to the environment, and public
awareness was the goal from the start.
“We can work cooperatively to bring
about change,” he said.
Sweeney said there needs to be a
paradigm shift so that people will change
their behavior and be more considerate
of the environment. He said that’s the
aim of Sustainable Plymouth.
“At the same time, we don’t want to be a
force that puts down regulations and is
an enforcement agency,” he said.
During a public hearing on the proposed
ban Wednesday morning, representatives
from Wal-Mart, Stop & Stop and Shaw’s
supermarkets outlined the efforts they
are making to encourage the use of
reusable, cloth bags and less reliance on
plastic bags. The Massachusetts Food
Association also opposes the ban.
Board of Health Chairman Paul Santos
said all parties seem to be on the same
page, and he supports the formation of a
committee. He said he was not in favor
of a ban, convinced the cost of the new
bags would be passed on to the
customer.
Sustainable Plymouth’s Jim Sweeney,
the leading proponent of the ban, said
discussion of the ban has helped spread
“I think everybody can have their cake
and eat it, too, if we all work together,”
he said.
23
24
The Plymouth health department, led by
Susan Merrifield, was going to be the
enforcement agency for the plastic bag
plan, giving out warnings and then
handing out fines.
Laurie Curtis, a business owner and
member of the Plymouth Area Chamber
of Commerce’s governmental affairs
committee, said the chamber opposes the
ban because of the cost to businesses.
“We all agree recycling is a good thing,
but we just are wary of adding extra cost
to businesses,” she said.
Brian Houghton, vice president of the
Massachusetts Food Association, said
that while well intended, a ban would be
counterproductive to ongoing efforts by
companies to promote the use of
recyclable cloth bags. He said there
needs to a paradigm shift among
consumers, and his association wants to
be part of the effort to change behaviors.
“We certainly believe in the education
process for folks,” he said. “I hope that’s
the role we can play with Plymouth and
other cities and towns.”
The new committee will be comprised of
one member of the Board of Health, a
citizen-at-large, a retail association
member, a local store owner, a Plymouth
Area Chamber of Commerce member
and a representative from the state
Department of Environmental
Protection. Board of Health member
Tracy Deneault and Sweeney, who will
be the citizen-at-large, were appointed to
the new committee Wednesday morning.
Board of Health member Mary Rondeau
stressed the importance of education.
She said her grandchildren get upset
with her when she throws something
away that can be recycled, so she
believes the younger generation has
caught on but adults need to be educated.
Resident Fred Barhof said the key to
protecting the environment is
encouraging recycling, not pushing
owners into turning to using paper bags,
which use more energy to produce.
“We should be focusing on recycling,
not banning plastic bags,” he said.
Resident Paul Withington said he has
lived through the Great Depression and
World War II, and it’s troubling when he
sees plastic bags hanging in the woods.
He said people should think creatively
about ways to recycle. He used as an
example the story of a man who doesn’t
throw out Styrofoam but uses it as
insulation.
24
25
Paper vs. Plastic - The Shopping Bag Debate
You step up to the register, the cashier
asks if you've found everything ok and
then the inevitable question is asked:
"Will it be paper or plastic?"
What decision did you make? Was it an
informed choice? Was it the best
ecological choice? Well, to answer that,
we need to start at the beginning and
review each option and its impact on the
environment.
The Origin of Paper Bags:
Paper comes from trees - and lots of
them. The logging industry is huge and
the process to get that paper bag to the
grocery store is long and
environmentally taxing. First, the trees
are found, marked and felled. Machinery
is then used to remove the logs from the
forest floor- whether it by logging trucks
or, in more remote areas, helicopters.
Machinery requires fossil fuel and roads
(which destroys habitat) thereby creating
stress on the forests' inhabitants (Even
logging a small area has a large impact
on the entire ecological chain in
surrounding areas).
Trees must dry at least three years before
they can be used. Machinery is used to
strip the bark, which is then chipped into
one-inch squares and cooked under
tremendous heat and pressure. This
wood stew is then "digested" with a
limestone and sulphurous acid for eight
hours. The steam and moisture is vented
to the outside atmosphere, and the
original wood becomes pulp. It takes
approximately three tons of wood chips
to make one ton of pulp.
The pulp is then washed and bleached,
both stages requiring thousands of
gallons of clean water. Coloring is added
to more water, and is then combined in a
ratio of 1 part pulp to 400 parts water to
make paper. The pulp/water mixture is
dumped into a web of bronze wires, the
water showers through, leaving the pulp,
which, in turn, is rolled into paper.
Whew! And that's just to make the
paper. We must include all of the
chemicals, electricity, and fossil fuels
used in the shipment of this raw material
and in the production and shipment of a
finished paper bag.
Where does a paper bag end its useful
life?
Paper, when thrown away, can either be
recycled or end up in the landfill. If it
ends up in the landfill, over time (and
usually many,many years) it will break
down. If it ends up in the recycling
center, the following process occurs:
First the paper must be returned to pulp.
This is done by the use of several
different chemicals including sodium
hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide, and
sodium silicate. These chemicals bleach
and spread out the pulp fibers. These
fibers are then run through cleaning and
screening sequences that remove any
contaminants. The pulp must then be
washed with clean water to remove ink
particles that were removed from the
paper by the chemical process.
Flotation is a common method to remove
ink. The pulp is submerged in clean
water and heated. The ink attaches to air
bubbles, which must then be removed
25
26
before they break and let the ink float
back to the pulp.
Most recycling centers treat the water
they use to remove contaminants.
Screens and mechanical cleaners are the
typical methods used. Another, more
environmentally friendly method is
called 'sludge handling'. Sludge is
composed of water, inks, pigments and
small particles of waste. The materials
are separated and cleaned. By including
this process, it reduces any waste that
may have to be taken to the landfill.
These waste materials can be used in
bricks, fertilizers and other useful
products.
Other uses for paper bags:
If well packed a single grocery size
paper bag can hold the same volume of
up to 4 plastic bags. Reuse them as trash
can liners and for craft projects. They
also make great weed barriers and
eventually break down and naturally
compost.
It is also important to note that paper
bags can be composted (provided they
don't have a lot of printing on them).
You can throw them straight into the
compost pile, or fill with yard waste.
Simply pitch the whole bag, green waste
and all, into the compost pile.
Where does that plastic bag come
from?
Plastic is a petroleum product - it comes
from oil. As we all know, the oil
industry is no small potatoes and is the
cause of worldwide financial and
political turmoil.
Traps of oil are located around the
planet. Once a trap is located, a hole is
drilled and a pipe is rammed into the oil
deposit. The oil is forced to the top of
the surface due to both the pressure
inside the chamber and the weight of the
earth above. Once a pump is in place, the
whole operation is fairly simple and little
oil is lost. The pumped oil is either piped
or trucked to a refining facility where
plastic is made.
Plastic is a by-product of oil refining and
accounts for 4% of the worlds total oil
production. It is a 'biogeochemical'
manipulation of certain properties of oil,
into polymers. Plastic polymers are
manufactured into five main types;
plastic bags are made from polyethylene.
Polyethylene, as a raw material, can be
manipulated into any shape, size, form
or color. It is watertight and can be made
UV resistant. Anything can be printed on
it and it can be reused.
For the most part, the whole process of
making plastic bags requires only
electricity (minus the large, fuel burning
heavy machinery required to acquire the
oil). The electricity used in the actual
production and manufacturing of plastic
bags comes from coal fire power plants,
which, it is interesting to note, 50% of
that electricity is generated from the
burning of old tires (made from rubber
which is essentially, plastic).
Where does plastic go when thrown
away?
Like paper, plastic bags can end up in
two places: the landfill or the recycling
center. If a plastic bag ends up in a
landfill, it will stay intact for thousands
of years. Plastic does not compost. With
plastic products in the mix, garbage does
26
27
not have a chance to break down over
time. Landfills are considered airtight,
which explains why after 20 years you
can find a hot dog that is still fully intact
and a newspaper with articles clearly
legible.
dioxins when burned as well as emit
heavy metals. The ash itself is toxic and
needs to be disposed of in toxic waste
dumps. And then, does this use justify
the continued use of limited natural
resources?
Plastic is fabulous in that it is recyclable.
All you have to do is basically re-melt
and re-form. The re-melting process also
sterilizes the plastic thus allowing any
recycled plastic to be made into hospital
grade products. Plastic can be recycled
many times before it becomes brittle then it can be made into something as
functional as a mousepad or a doormat.
Please note that not all plastic bags can
be recycled and many stores that collect
them, simply send them to the landfill
for lack of another alternative.
Plastic also impacts the environment
through landfills. Plastic does not break
down - your yogurt container will
always be there. And biodegradable
plastic is really non-existent. What
happens here is that wood fibers are
mixed with plastic fibers. When the bag
is disposed of, the wood fibers break
down leaving millions of tiny plastic
pieces to mix in the earth.
Plastic's Impact:
Plastic impacts the environment two
ways. The first is through the use of
electricity during manufacturing. More
than half of the electricity needed to
make plastic bags is generated by
nuclear fission. Nuclear energy has its
arguments (that's a whole other issue)
that it doesn't directly harm the
environment. The main drawback is the
disposal of radioactive waste. So far this
has been done in deep underground
caves or in deep sea trenches where the
nuclear waste is sub-ducted into the
earths mantle and incinerated.
An argument can be made that plastic
decreases landfill mass. Plastics as a
whole make up 18% of waste by volume
and 7% by weight (plastic bags
themselves are light and take up very
little space). If plastic were to be
replaced by other materials, trash weight
would increase by 150%, packaging
would weigh 300% more and energy
consumed by the industry would
increase by 100%.
Plastic has other benefits. Reduction in
aircraft weight saves an average of
10,000 gallons of fuel per plane, per
annum, the world over. Since 1970,
plastic has been responsible for doubling
automobile fuel economy.
Conclusion:
Plastic not being recycled can be burned
yielding from 10,000 to 20,000 btu per
pound (60% of which can be recovered)
creating electricity. This can reduce the
overall sulphur emissions from coal.
The burning of plastics has its cons. Inks
and additives found in plastic can create
Both paper and plastic bags consume
large amounts of natural resources and
the majority will eventually end up in
the landfill. Both bags can be recycled to
some extent and can be utilized around
the house. We've read several studies
comparing the two choices and none of
27
28
them agree. Some feel plastic is the
better overall choice, others paper. It's
really tough to say. Paper may consume
more resources to produce, however, it is
also more recyclable than plastic if you
include the fact that paper can be
composted and plastic bags cannot.
once a week. We have, just this week,
heard rumblings that in some countries,
supermarkets are beginning to charge
customers for every bag at checkout. If
this practice makes its way to the U.S.,
then string bags are an even smarter
financial choice.
In our opinion, neither one is the winner.
The best choice overall, is a reusable
bag. They're made from renewable
resources, take minimal energy, are
light, durable (each holds up to 40 lbs)
and last for years. Some can be machinewashed and are great to keep in the trunk
of the car. Use them at the beach,
farmers market and, of course,
supermarket. Plus, many supermarkets
will give you up to 5 cents per bag
credit. Typically, a bag will pay for itself
in a year and a half if you buy groceries
Taking all the above information into
consideration, feel confident that you are
making an informed decision the next
time you're at the supermarket. The most
important thing to remember is to utilize
every possible use for both the plastic
and paper bags to lengthen their life and
minimize the impact on both the
environment and our natural resources.
To find out whether paper or plastic is friendlier to the planet you'll need to
know the impact of each on the environment in its production and
"afterlife".
The birth of the paper bag
Okay, this is probably not news to you, but paper comes from trees... lots of
them. What you may not have known is that the logging industry is huge
and the process to get that crisp brown paper bag to the grocery store is long
and environmentally taxing.
After suitable trees are found, marked and felled, machinery is used to remove the
logs from the forest floor - either by logging trucks, or helicopters. This machinery
requires fossil fuel and roads (which further destroy habitat). These few initial
steps toward the creation of paper bags have an enormous impact on the entire
ecological chain in the deforested and surrounding areas.
Logs must dry for at least three years before they can be further processed for use
in the manufacture of paper products. Machinery is used to strip the bark, which is
then chipped and stewed under tremendous heat and pressure. This wood
ti i th b k d
ith id l ti
f
i ht h
Th t
d
28
29
moisture is vented to the outside atmosphere, and the original wood becomes pulp.
It takes approximately three tons of wood chips to make one ton of pulp.
The pulp is then washed and bleached, both stages requiring thousands of gallons
of clean water. Coloring is added to more water, and is then combined in a ratio of
1 part pulp to 400 parts water to make paper. The pulp-water mixture is poured
onto a massive matrix of bronze wires, sieving the water and leaving the pulp,
which, in turn, is rolled into paper.
When strategically packed, a single grocery size paper bag can hold the
same volume of up to 4 plastic bags.
All of the chemicals, electricity, fossil fuels, trees and water that go into making a
paper bag have an impact on the ecological cost of the paper bag. Maybe you'll
think twice next time you crumple up a perfectly good piece of paper!
The afterlife of the paper bag
Paper, when thrown away, can either be recycled, end up in the landfill, or be
composted and decompose. If we're all good Earth citizens and it ends up in the
recycling center, the following process occurs:
First the paper is returned to pulp using numerous chemicals to bleach and
distribute the pulp fibers. These fibers are then run through cleaning and screening
sequences that remove any contaminants. The pulp must then be rinsed with clean
water to remove ink particles that were separated from the paper by the chemical
process.
The clean water used to recycle paper becomes "sludge" (a combination of water,
inks, pigments and small particles of waste) in the process, and itself must be either
removed as waste to a landfill or cleaned, treated, and recycled.
Reincarnation of the paper bag
Did you know that when strategically packed, a single grocery size paper bag can
hold the same volume of up to 4 plastic bags? Reuse them as trash can and compost
bin liners. It's also important to remember that paper bags can be composted;
simply pitch the entire bag into the compost pile to return its materials to nature.
Plastic is a by-product of oil refining and accounts for 4 percent of the
29
30
planet's total oil production.
The birth of the plastic bag
Plastic is a petroleum product, which means it comes from oil - another touchy
industry. As we all know, the oil industry is rather volatile and the cause of
worldwide financial and political turmoil. Having said that, let's go into how this
very expensive oil becomes a virtually worthless disposable grocery bag.
Once an oil trap is located, a hole is drilled and a pipe is thrust into the oil deposit.
Pressure inside the chamber and the weight of the earth above forces the oil to the
surface, where it is either piped or trucked to a refining facility where plastic is
made.
Plastic is a 'biogeochemical' manipulation of certain properties of oil, into
polymers. Plastic bags are made from polyethylene, which as a raw material can be
manipulated into any shape, size, form or color. It is watertight and can be made
UV resistant. Anything can be printed on it and it can be reused.
The process of making plastic bags requires electricity plus energy required to
operate the gigantic, fuel burning heavy machinery required to extract the oil from
the earth.
More than half of the electricity needed to make plastic bags is generated by
nuclear fission, a process whose main drawback is the disposal of radioactive
waste. So far, this highly hazardous material has been dumped in deep underground
caves or in deep sea trenches where the nuclear waste is sub-ducted into the earth's
mantle and incinerated.
Non-recycled plastic can be burned as a source of fuel, yielding from 10,000 to
20,000 btu per pound (60% of which can be recovered) creating electricity, thus
reducing the overall sulphur emissions from coal combustion. However (you
guessed it) the burning of plastics has its cons. Inks and additives found in plastic
can create dioxins when burned as well as emit dangerous heavy metals. The ash
itself is biohazardous and needs to be disposed of in toxic waste dumps.
The eternal life of the plastic bag
Like paper, plastic bags can end up in two places: the landfill or the recycling
center. Unlike paper, plastic does not compost.
30
31
With plastic products in the mix, garbage does not have a chance to break down
over time. Your yogurt container will outlive you, and most likely your
grandchildren's grandchildren; actually, it is likely that it will outlive the human
race. That's right: If a plastic bag ends up in a landfill, it will "outlive" all of us;
staying intact for thousands of years. Plastic bags don't biodegrade, they
photodegrade -breaking down into smaller and smaller toxic bits contaminating soil
and waterways and entering the food web when animals accidentally ingest.
If you ever feel the need to preserve something for posterity, put it in a landfill.
Landfills are considered airtight, which explains why after 20 years you can find a
newspaper with articles clearly legible.
On the upside, plastic is fully recyclable, and many stores collect plastic bags for
this purpose. All manufacturers have to do is basically re-melt (a process which
totally sterilizes the product) and re-form. Plastic can be recycled many times
before it becomes brittle and unsuitable for use in pliable materials - then it can be
made into something as functional as a mouse pad or a doormat.
The verdict
Both paper and plastic bags consume large amounts of natural resources, they both
require or create harmful chemicals as part of their production, and the majority
will eventually end up in the landfill.
Both bags can be recycled to some extent and can be reused by consumers.
The jury is still out on which is more harmful to the environment. Paper may
consume more resources to produce, however, it is also more recyclable than
plastic if you include the fact that paper can be composted and plastic bags cannot.
While experts may debate which is better, most agree that the best choice overall is
a cloth bag. Fabric sacs are made from renewable resources, are lightweight and
durable, and last for years. Plus, in some countries, supermarkets are beginning to
charge customers for every bag at checkout - making cloth bags both
environmentally and financially practical.
31
32
THE TIME HAS COME TO KILL
PLASTIC BAGS
JENNIFER CLAPP
Globe and Mail Update
February 11, 2008 at 3:50 AM EDT
China is banning the distribution of free
plastic shopping bags, effective this
June. Australia says it will phase out
plastic shopping bags by the end of
2008. These moves are just the latest in a
string of official actions to restrict the
use of plastic shopping bags.
Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, major cities
in India and Bangladesh and a growing
number of towns in the United Kingdom
have banned them. Ireland and South
Africa have imposed steep taxes on
them. And in North America, bans have
been put in place in a number of cities,
from San Francisco to Leaf Rapids,
Man.
What explains this global movement
against plastic shopping bags?
Environmental concerns, of course.
Many assume that such rapid and
widespread shifts in environmental
policies around the world can only be
the product of an international treaty or,
at the very least, the outcome of a highly
organized international campaign by
leading environmental organizations.
But, in the case of plastic bags, the
movement appears to be largely local
and largely ad hoc.
There is some debate over the
environmental impact of plastic bags,
particularly with respect to the amount
of energy they embody when compared
with other options. But the specific
rationales for regulations against plastic
bags often have been driven by very
local concerns.
Most of the local reasons given for
reducing bag use have to do with their
sheer volume and long-term persistence.
The Washington-based Worldwatch
Institute estimates that 500 billion plastic
shopping bags are distributed and
discarded every year, each of which can
take up to 1,000 years to break down.
In India, discarded plastic bags on
roadsides were being ingested by freeranging cows, resulting in many deaths
of the animals. In Dhaka, plastic bags
were found to be the culprits in serious
flooding by clogging sewer drains.
In Australia and Ireland, both countries
that rely on the beauty of their coasts to
attract tourists, there was a desire to
present a clean image, as plastic bags
were making up a significant amount of
coastal litter. People there were also
concerned about the dangers posed to
marine life that can ingest, or get tangled
in, plastic bags.
In a number of African countries, there
are worries that plastic bags can act as
breeding grounds for malaria-carrying
mosquitoes. Plastic bags in China are
known as "white pollution" because they
are carelessly discarded in the streets.
San Francisco, in passing its ban, cited
concern not just over litter and danger to
sea mammals but also greenhouse-gas
emissions associated with plastic bags,
which are petroleum-based products.
Leaf Rapids was worried about litter as
well as the fact that household waste in
32
33
thin plastic bags appeared to be
attracting bears to its dump.
The global trend away from plastic bags
has been bolstered by the fact that some
retailers have been supportive. Some
British retailers have backed voluntary
bans, and several large chains in Canada
and the United States have said they will
stop handing out free plastic shopping
bags altogether.
In many countries, the plastics industry
prefers voluntary measures to control
plastic bags through reuse and recycling,
and opposes taxes and outright bans.
Last year, Ontario and retail and industry
groups voluntarily agreed to cut bag use
by half over the next five years. The
Ontario government noted that, if the
voluntary measures are not successful, it
will consider more stringent regulatory
action.
The global shift in regulations vis-à-vis
plastic bags demonstrates that rapid
changes in governance practices around
the world on environmental issues can
take many forms, and can occur at many
levels.
Internationally negotiated, top-down
approaches may attract a lot of attention
but don't always yield tangible results.
Environmental initiatives that spring
from the ground up and emerge from
local concerns can collectively result in a
powerful global impact, even without an
internationally organized treaty or
campaign.
Jennifer Clapp is CIGI Chair in
International Governance at the
University of Waterloo and co-editor of
Global Environmental Politics.
33