My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 1332.033 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 1332.033 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2008 11:49:18 AM
Creation date
9/24/2008 8:08:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
1332
Point
033
Author
Dixie Kaetsu, Acting Mayor
Communications - Referred To
N/A
Comments
Council: Transmits Bill 326, Draft 2 for recosideration to override Mayor's Veto - 10/08/08
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 2008/10/08 2006-2008
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Council
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Review of Plastic vs. Paper Bag LCA Studies <br />Page 5 <br />results~While some litter reduction migliftake place, it would be outweighed by the <br />disadvantages that would subsequently occur (increased solid waste and greenhouse <br />gas emissions). Ironically, reducing the use of traditional plastic bags would not even <br />reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, as paper and biodegradable plastic bags consume <br />at least as much non-renewable energy during their full lifecycle. <br />Further, an Internet scan of available government and non-profit information for the <br />United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia indicates that chewing gum and <br />cigarette butts account for up to 95% of the litter generated in the English-speaking <br />world." Thus, there would appear to be far better and potentially more effective <br />legislative opportunities available if the objective is to significantly reduce litter. <br />Again, when it comes to reducing the environmental and litter impacts of grocery and <br />merchandise bags, the solution lies in a.) Minimizing the materials used to produce all <br />types of bags, regardless of their composition, and b.) Building public awareness and <br />motivation to reduce, reuse and recycle these bags - in that order. <br />Robert Lilienfeld, Editor <br />Footnotes <br />' Com Plastic to the Rescue, by Elizabeth Royte, Smithsonian, August 2006 <br />(www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2006/aug usUola.oho?Doge=ll. <br />z These figures were provided by a number of experts, but due to the fluctuating dynamics of the composting <br />industry, no firm citation can be given. One article that mentioned the relative unavailability of industrial and <br />food composting was Composting that Plastic by Eliza Barclay, Metropolis Magazine, March 1, 2004 <br />(www. metrooolismag.com/cda/story.oho?artid=153). See also the BioCycle site www.fndacomooster.com. <br />a Life Cycle Inventories forPackagings, Volume 1, SAEFL, 1998, Environmental Series 250/1 and Eco- <br />Profiles ofthe European Plastics Industry, developed by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope, March 2005 <br />(www.olasticseurooe.org/contenUDefault.asp?PageID=404&IsNewWindow=True). <br />" Ibid and Lije Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags -Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, <br />Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper, performed by Boustead Consulting & Associates <br />Ltd. for the Progressive Bag Alliance, 2007. <br />28 March 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.