Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
If You're Gooiiiing To San Francisco...Be Sure To Wear Some Flowers in Your Hair
Just make sure they're not plastic.
San Francisco, West Coast home to the Beats, epicenter of the hippie menace, hometown to Dirty Harry Callahan and the Full House commune, and long the self-styled Ground Zero of ribald, alternative lifestyles in America, has banned conventional plastic bags in grocery stores. The AP reports:
The law, passed by a 10-1 vote, requires large markets and drug stores to give customers only a choice among bags made of paper that can be recycled, plastic that breaks down easily enough to be made into compost, or reusable cloth.
San Francisco supervisors and supporters said that by banning the petroleum-based sacks, blamed for littering streets and choking marine life, the measure would go a long way toward helping the city earn its green stripes....
The 50 grocery stores that would be most affected by the law argued that the ban was not reasonable because plastic bags made of corn byproducts are a relatively new, expensive and untested product. Some said they might offer only paper bags at checkout.
...Craig Noble, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it would be disappointing if grocers rejected the biodegradable plastic bag option, since more trees would have to be cut down if paper bag use increases....
Got that? A green ordiance may increase the use of paper bags!
But can you imagine? A plastic bag ban in a major city! What's next? Smoking? Trans fat? Listening to music while crossing the street? And just how long will it be until we realize that corn kills?
Reason readers might have thought that San Franciscans--named after one of the great empathizers in all of Catholic history--would have been too busy petitioning zoning boards to keep legal medical marijuana dispensaries out of their neighborhoods to have time with this inane restriction.
Update: One word: Dematerialization, which means that today's products--especially today's plastic products, routinely use much less material, resources, etc to produce than they did in the past. Between 1976 and 1990, for instance, the thickness of plastic "carrier bags" was reduced by one-third with no loss in strength (I assume progress has marched on since then, though I've got no current numbers). Something similar happened to plastic milk jugs. And to aluminum cans, etc.
At the same time, mandates to employ ostensibly "green-friendly" dictates can freeze such innovation in its tracks (surely one reason hybrid cars took so long to get started was California's mandate for zero-emission vehicles, which acted as a tax on carmakers and forced them to focus on undeveloped battery technology rather alternative methods of decreasing automobile emissions). Former president of Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes Reason Online and Reason magazine) Lynn Scarlett, now deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior, wrote about dematerialization and its discontents here.
|3.28.07 @ 8:26AM|#
Something tells me St Francis would not have been down with hippies. While his modern image is that of a flower child, in reality he was extremely strict both in his personal beliefs and in his dealings with his monks.
Kenneth|3.28.07 @ 8:43AM|#
Ireland introduced a plastic bag levy of 15 cent (euro cent) at the consumer end some three years ago, plastic bag litter on the streets disappeared almost over night. And with regards to killing more trees for the creation of the paper bag option - aren't there more trees in the US then in 1920, doesn't the need for paper bags actually increase the amount of trees?
|3.28.07 @ 8:55AM|#
On the one hand this seems stupid. On the other, if the plastic bags are dumped everywhere and gumming up the sewers, etc, it would actually be addressing a real problem unlike the smoking ban, trans fat ban, etc. A plastic bag deposit might work, but that'd probably be expensive to administer. (My grocery stores have self checkout, so you don't have a bagger or cashier involved anywhere.)
Dave W.|3.28.07 @ 9:26AM|#
Will be interesting to see whether this leads to improvements in
plastic bag design. I think it might.
I lived in the Bay Area when the styrofoam ban was the latest
outrage. And, in hindsight now, you know what . . .
|3.28.07 @ 9:26AM|#
I wonder when we'll see the breaking point on this kind of legislation- when trying to keep up with the piecemeal bans on the environmental scourge of the month becomes too expensive a proposition and stores give up and move out of state.
|3.28.07 @ 9:28AM|#
As much as I hate plastic bags, a ban?
At most stores in NE Ohio, you have to specifically ask for paper
and deal with the indignant sighs of the clerk bagging your
groceries. That's if they have any paper around at all.
Tom Accuosti|3.28.07 @ 9:37AM|#
The secondary problem is that despite the biodegradability of
paper, it takes a hell of a lot more energy to process the wood
pulp to make the paper, and the chemicals used aren't exactly
environmentally friendly.
Maybe they should encourage shoppers to bring backpacks,
instead.
Dave W.|3.28.07 @ 9:43AM|#
becomes too expensive a proposition and stores give up and
move out of state.
If that doesn't happen, then what conclusion will you draw?
|3.28.07 @ 9:57AM|#
Our German houseguest, used to shopping at Alde, made the
mistake one time of taking her mesh bag to the local Publix store.
The on duty police person stopped her (inside the store, prior to
checkout) to question her about what she was doing.
I'm in favor of the "bring your own bag" concept, but there may be
a short period of adjustment required. The financial incentive
(paper bag 10 cents, plastic bag 15 cents) is probably the best
solution.
CB
|3.28.07 @ 10:03AM|#
I'm in favor of leaving people the fuck alone, not fining people
who disagree with me on something as trivial as what kind of bag to
put their groceries in.
But that's just me.
|3.28.07 @ 10:07AM|#
If littering was punished by a mandatory death sentence, it would slow way way down. And bullshit bans wouldnt be necessary.
Dave W.|3.28.07 @ 10:11AM|#
I'm in favor of leaving people the fuck alone, not fining
people who disagree with me on something as trivial as what kind of
bag to put their groceries in.
In Dallas the problem is liquor sales zoning, not bags or
styrofoam, silly rablit!
That is the unsung beauty of local bans -- we get to choose the
particular brand of nannystatism that personally appeals to each of
us most.
Some go Madison to Dallas. Others Dallas to Berkeley. In the end,
everybody is happy!
dave W.|3.28.07 @ 10:18AM|#
Update: One word: Dematerialization [blah, blah,
blah]
Another word: decentralization. when a variety of different
regulatory schemes are in place in different locales, the
decentralized process of trial and error lead us, as a larger
society and over time, most quickly to environmentally optimal
solutions. Better than a complete lack of regulation. Better than
no (genuine externality compensating) regulation at all.
VM|3.28.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Between dematerialization and disintermediation, it's a wonder
that there's anything to do. Oh yeah - become a bureaucrat!
*jabs self in eye with pencil (real lead one to piss off the
enviros).
|3.28.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Dave W,
"If that doesn't happen, then what conclusion will you draw?"
Oh, I know, that the law must be fair because people tolerate it!
Did I get it right?
Christopher Monnier|3.28.07 @ 10:23AM|#
While dematerialization might reduce the amount of material
going into plastic bags, the bags still are [apparently] a
pollution and/or environmental problem. The least
liberty-infringing way to handle the problem of littering would be
to simply fine people that litter. I'm guessing they already do
that in San Francisco and they still have a problem.
So, instead of hiring more police officers or installing security
cameras to fight the War on Litter, they're choosing to eliminate
(through legal channels, at least) the source of the problem. In
that sense, it's somewhat pragmatic and not all that bad. I'd
rather have plastic bags be banned then have cops constantly on the
lookout for litterbugs.
On a different note, New York and Chicago were scooped on this! How
long before they up the ante and ban all
shopping bags, instead requiring customers to bring their own cloth
bags or boxes?
|3.28.07 @ 10:34AM|#
In my observations at the grocery store, the bag boys / girls use way too many bags. They place 3 or 4 small items in a bag and move on to the next bag...a complete waste of resources.
I.Self.Divine.|3.28.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Jimmy: Ever been carrying 7 or 8 grocery bags and had one of them break? There are few things more frustrating. I'm guessing that the grcery boys/girls you're referring to have probably had a run-in or at least witnessed a run-in with an angry customer whose shoes are covered in Yoplait.
|3.28.07 @ 10:40AM|#
JimmyDaGeek,
And they double-bag anything that weighs over a pound or so to make
sure that Mrs. Soccermom can get everything from the Landrover to
the stylish kitchen without anything dropping. You don't want to
piss off Mrs. Soccermom!
|3.28.07 @ 10:57AM|#
>de stijl
Or, more likely, to help Mr. Old-Man-Who-Can't-Bend-Over. Or maybe
just to keep the milk jug from bursting open when it hits the
pavement.
But GREAT rant on "Soccermoms!" All you needed to make it perfect
was a reference to all those "sheeple" in the evil "suburbs."
|3.28.07 @ 11:03AM|#
I have seen/ read/ been told that plastic bags, in the greater
scheme of things, are actually "greener" than paper. Based on total
energy consumption, chemical processes, et c. Also, the corn(!)
based "biodegradable" plastics only break down in direct sunlight,
and are as permanent as real plastic when buried in a
landfill.
I have no citations; these could be urban myths perpetuated by the
duplicitous minions of Big Plastic. Any one have verification?
eb|3.28.07 @ 11:07AM|#
In Ukraine they charge you per bag not because of a levy like in
Ireland mentioned above, but because they don't give anything away
in Ukraine. Most people bring their own bags as a result (most are
plastic bags that they paid for in previous visits.)
I don't know how any of the major markets could do it if the others
didn't also do it but it certainly cuts back on waste.
I. Self. Divine.|3.28.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Tax breaks for stores that encourage customers to reuse bags or bring their own?
Mike Laursen|3.28.07 @ 11:16AM|#
I wonder when we'll see the breaking point on this kind of
legislation
It might break down elsewhere, but San Franciscans have a virtually
unlimited capacity for smugness.
Dave W.|3.28.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Poster one: [If the bag ban] becomes too expensive a
proposition [then] stores [will] give up and move out of state
[sic, city].
Dave W.: If that doesn't happen, then what conclusion will you
draw?
Poster two: Oh, I know, that the law must be fair because people
tolerate it! Did I get it right?
No. Didn't you take regents level math at your local public school,
Coolrabbi? the conditional statement is logically equivalent to its
contrapositive. the rule works like this:
When the statement:
"If X then Y." has a boolean truth value of true, then so will the
statement:
"If not(Y) then not(X)."
Applying that to Poster One's statement, we get the equivalent
as:
If stores do not move out of the city, then the bag ban has
not become too expensive a proposition.
Guy Montag|3.28.07 @ 11:23AM|#
aren't there more trees in the US then in 1920, doesn't the
need for paper bags actually increase the amount of
trees?
Yes, but don't try telling that to a tree hugging hippie.
Now, this corn starch bag thing as been around for well over 10
years, I hesitate to say 20. If anybody has LEXUS/NEXUS they can
find this entire press 'debate' in the ancient archives.
What is the deal with rerunning these silly 'ideas' through
councils and editors every decade or two? I used to think it was
just younger folks not bothering to listen to older folks who
remember the last time something stupid was tried. Now I am
begginning to think it is just stupid old folks convincing naieve
young folks that the stupid ideas were just not tried
"right".
Stay tuned for the turbine engine car! More horsepower to weight
ratio! Tiny engines are more efficient and will solve our biodiesel
shortage! (forget that Chrysler tried it in the 50s and it will not
work)
Guy Montag|3.28.07 @ 11:26AM|#
In Ukraine they charge you per bag not because of a levy
like in Ireland mentioned above, but because they don't give
anything away in Ukraine. Most people bring their own bags as a
result (most are plastic bags that they paid for in previous
visits.)
In Shoppers Food Warehouse stores (near DC anyway) they used to
charge per bag at checkout and you bagged your own groceries.
The finally stopped charging for bags. Forgot if they have baggers
now.
Evan McElravy|3.28.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Eric S.: Exactly. No dog owners in S.F.? We should organize a pool on the month and year an inundation of doo becomes the next Frisco cause celebre demanding IMMEDIATE GOVERNMENT ACTION.
|3.28.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Shocked, shocked I am to see a Reason writer talk out their
nether regions on an environmental issue.
California's ZEV mandate, in its second, PZEV form, was one of the
primary reasons Toyota developed the Prius, which is actually tuned
more for low emissions than for high mileage.
|3.28.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Personally, I hate plastic bags.
The place where I shop (Whole Foods and Trader Joes) has quality
paper bags -- ones with handles on them that allow you to carry
them in the same manner as plastic (multiple bags per free hand) --
oh and at Whole Foods, if I bring my bags back and reuse them, I
get a $.10 refund as incentive.
In contrast, at the local Jewel, the paper bags have no handles so
I get plastic. I made the mistake once of getting paper and I
realized that without handles I can only carry 1-2 at a time.
What would take up about 10 plastic bags can usually fit in two
paper bags. And most the baggers at Jewel are idiots. They bag
things in the least efficient manner possible.
Now I don't like the idea of banning plastic bags, but if they
really are an environmental problem I don't see it as problematic
to require that any plastic bags be compostable.
|3.28.07 @ 11:48AM|#
http://www.ehow.com/how_10885_recycle-plastic-grocery.html
Plastic grocery bags are easy to recyle...maybe SF needs to look
into better integration of recycling into its waste removal so that
these plastic bags are included in the curbside pick-up.
http://www.sfenvironment.com/aboutus/recycling/pickup.htm
Sean Healy|3.28.07 @ 11:56AM|#
What a bunch of crybabies. I live in Ireland. When the levy was introduced I bought four large, durable bags with handles (produced on behalf of my grocery store) for the price of twenty plastic bags each. I've had them for about four years, use them every week and they're showing little wear and tear. This is a policy with a good outcome and no discernible bad side effects, but because a government thought it up and imposed it , it must be bad - right?
|3.28.07 @ 12:02PM|#
"...because a government thought it up and imposed it , it must
be bad - right?"
Yup.
|3.28.07 @ 12:14PM|#
"...because a government thought it up and imposed it , it
must be bad - right?"
To elaborate on P Brooks elegantly pithy response, it's bad because
the gov't, when it comes down to it, is pointing a gun at our heads
to force us to comply.
Read up on the goddam non-aggression principle before I am forced
to visit your beautiful country and stick my boot up your ass.
:)
Guy Montag|3.28.07 @ 12:26PM|#
This can easily be traced back to the nonsense about saving
trees. Plastic bags were imposed to save trees. Now it is about
"big oil" making plastic bags.
This stupid ping-pong game is almost as funny as the saturated
-> polyunsaturated -> hydrogenated vegetable transfat ->
saturated fat circle. Don't forget the whole cholesterol issue and
tropical oils (palm oil being one, which is now a substitute for
transfats).
Yes, I am sure I forgot some stage of silliness there.
|3.28.07 @ 12:54PM|#
"Another word: decentralization. when a variety of different
regulatory schemes are in place in different locales, the
decentralized process of trial and error lead us, as a larger
society and over time, most quickly to environmentally optimal
solutions. Better than a complete lack of regulation. Better than
no (genuine externality compensating) regulation at all."
This becomes less of a feature and more of a menace when larger
regional or national companies are involved.
If a company (Ralph's for example) has stores in SF and in
Bakersfield, suddenly they have to stock two different kinds of
bags, which increases logistical difficulties in terms of inventory
keeping and supply chain management. So they just switch to the
biodegradable kind, even though they may not be the best option in
terms of cost-utility. Surprise Bakersfield! Frisco's callin the
shots now.
Then, Ralph's bag supplier in New Mexico or somewhere suddenly has
to offer these BD bags or lose a huge customer, increasing the
costs of business, possibly just switching to BDs if its less
expensive to just deal in one product. Then the suppliers customers
in the other western states are stuck with the choice of
inferior/more costly bags or trying to integrate a new supplier
into their supply chain. So the whole region (or possibly even
more) is affected by this decision in SF.
San Francisco (among other large cities) is affecting a national
policy with this ordinance. And of course you know who picks up the
costs of these changes.
|3.28.07 @ 1:15PM|#
I solved the problem at my local market by refusing all bags!!! I leave my stuff on the check out counter, walk back and forth, back and forth, carrying only those things I can make in one trip., totally disrupting the check out line. I am green, hear my song.!! The manager hates me but since I wear a shirt and shoes, he can't do much about it. I am green, hear my song !!
|3.28.07 @ 1:35PM|#
San Francisco (among other large cities) is affecting a
national policy with this ordinance. And of course you know who
picks up the costs of these changes.
How is this really different than any other local or state
ordinances for chains that operate in different locales?
That seems to be one of the costs of being a chain. You have to
deal with local ordinances at the the state or at the local level
wherever you want to do business.
Dave W.|3.28.07 @ 1:35PM|#
This becomes less of a feature and more of a menace . . .
Frisco's callin the shots now.
Awww, now you got me playing my violin. Guess the size!
|3.28.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Every day I'm a little closer to installing that famous
filter.
Hey, filterers, have you ever considered naming in honor of a
certain idiot?
|3.28.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Dave W,
Don't you realize that the biodegradable plastic bags just put more
money in the pocket of Big Corn?
In any case, if there's a problem with plastic bags being thrown
into the street, why not just enforce the existing litter laws?
|3.28.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Dave W,
Thanks for the lesson. Your point was merely tautological? I call
bullshit.
Russ 2000|3.28.07 @ 2:18PM|#
A green ordiance may increase the use of paper
bags!
It will also increase driving.
I routinely walk to the grocery store since plastic bags became
common. So much easier to carry becaue of their flexibility that I
can carry about 12 of them home. Put that content into paper bags,
with or without handles, and I'll have to fumble with 4 paper bags
on the way home. If I have to fumble with 4 paper bags, I'm gonna
drive to the store so I'm only fumbling with them from the garage
to the kitchen.
|3.28.07 @ 2:20PM|#
And what will one pick up dogshit with now?
As a dog owner, that also was my first question when I read this.
Of course in SF, from what I understand, the issue is also what you
use to pick up after the homeless guy who shits in your yard. But
that's another issue.
Dave W.|3.28.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Don't you realize that the biodegradable plastic bags just
put more money in the pocket of Big Corn?
I actually had to ease up on Big Corn to a considerable lately,
personally humbling tho that was. My shame:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119126.html#659466
(Now I know how Ray-Ray feels every day of his life!)
In any case, if there's a problem with plastic bags being
thrown into the street, why not just enforce the existing litter
laws?
Like I said, "decentralization." You don't live in S.F. Do
something constructive, like lobbying for such a change in your own
city, if you think that is really the way to go. If you build the
optimal system, they will come.
Side note to "Coolrabs": Thank you for endorsing my conclusion.
Mike Laursen|3.28.07 @ 2:25PM|#
California's ZEV mandate, in its second, PZEV form, was one
of the primary reasons Toyota developed the Prius, which is
actually tuned more for low emissions than for high
mileage.
Yes, nobody would have developed a car that gets better gas mileage
unless we forced them to. Nobody would replace their incandescent
light bulbs with compact fluorescents that save on their monthly
energy bills unless we force them to. If something is good for the
environment and saves money, people will choose alternatives that
cost more money to make sure they are harming the environment.
Russ 2000|3.28.07 @ 2:28PM|#
one of the primary reasons Toyota developed the
Prius,
The gas-electric hybrid isn't new technology, it's from the 19th
century! (Just barely, 1898, but it helps make the point.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-Electric_Hybrid
|3.28.07 @ 3:10PM|#
City mandates that people must use crappy grocery bags that
break or are difficult to carry or more expensive (and the bags
naturally fall into one of these categories, otherwise they would
already be in use)... People respond to driving to the store
instead of walking (or drive to a suburban store without all the
damn regulations, or move to a suburb!!!)
See, it is not important that the government actually determine if
a law actually is effective, or if there are unforseen consequences
to the law. The city of San Fran would never do a pilot program
first, to actually collect some data on what effects the law will
have on real consumers.
A bunch of smug self-loathing bourgeois have determines that
"green" is the new socially acceptable model of conspicuous
consumption... and have determined that that the more expensive and
difficult and option is, the "better" it is for the "planet". Since
the rich have the time and resources to deal with the difficulty
and expense with being "green", and the poor don't, it gives the
rich people a chance to show off their wealth and at the same time
assert their moral superiority over the poor and "backward".
It doesn't matter if this law does EXTRA damage to the enviornment,
because the law is about promoting the social status of the wealthy
(and the middle class aspiring to be seen as wealthy)! The upper
classes have always figured out a way to brand the lifestyle of
greater wealth as being morally superior - The only difference
between now and Victorian times is that the rich are actually
mandating the conspicious consumption through the coersive power of
the state, on people who can't afford it.
megs|3.28.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Sometimes I like living in Ottawa. We had a big push towards
those more expensive/energy efficient bulbs with coupons, not bans.
And grocery chains here offer us cheap reusable bags and are very
bring your own bag friendly, and it turns out a lot of people do
this voluntarily!
Sometimes I can forgive them the health care and gov't liquor
stores when the people here do things without asking the government
to force everyone to do the same, and business realize they can
court shoppers by appearing environmentally friendly. Tossing
plastic bags isn't the greatest thing in the world and less of them
would be great, but hello SF, try ASKING, not commanding, okay? It
works pretty darn well.
Roberto Leibman|3.28.07 @ 3:47PM|#
This is soooo stupid!
Paper bags are much worse for the environment than plastic
bags:
- They take trees.
- They take much more space than plastic bags. Up to 3 times as
much. That's 3 times the number of trucks on the streets, three
times the storage area in supermarkets.
- They are just as biodegradable as plastic bags... when you place
them in a landfill without any air exchange for bugs to compost
them they take very long to biodegrade.
Ecology is (or at least should be) a science: not a political
movement, if you have an environmental problem find a scientific or
technological solution, not a political one.
|3.28.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Christopher:
"The least liberty-infringing way to handle the problem of
littering would be to simply fine people that litter. I'm guessing
they already do that in San Francisco and they
still have a problem."
Not bloody likely, but wouldn't it be nice?
ChrisO:
"Of course in SF, from what I understand, the issue is also what
you use to pick up after the homeless guy who shits in your
yard."
Most people just hose it into the gutter. From there, of course, it
goes into the bay.
Sean Healy|3.29.07 @ 7:52AM|#
Hey, geniuses, paper is not the only alternative to disposable
plastic. Durable plastic bags with handles (like the ones I use in
Ireland) work better than the old shitty plastic ones.
Even from a libertarian perspective, the problem of disposable
plastic bags should be obvious: they're free at the store but
impose costs on everybody. The litter situation in Ireland has
improved immeasurably since the introduction of the levy, which is
essentially a 'polluter pays' policy - why gainsay that in the
service of some abstract principle about who is enforcing the
change? Do I understand that people here would prefer to bear the
cost of plastic bags collectively rather than impose costs
individually?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245