HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0064.091 2010-2012 V�1 COUNCIL
Lir? LLC i-t'a' i
Yagong, Dominic GILL ' D
From: JherrieRubeyiat [jherrie777 @hawaiiantel.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 10:03 PM
To: bsmart @co.hawaii.hi.us; donishi @co.hawaii.hi.us; fblas @co.hawaii.hi.us;
jyoshimoto @co.hawaii.hi.us; dikeda @co.hawaii.hi.us; dyagong @co.hawaii.hi.us
Cc: apilago @co.hawaii.hi.us; phoffmann @co.hawaii.hi.us; bford @co.hawaii.hi.us_w
Subject: plastic bags...some info to support their use
Dear Council Members:
Please read the facts I have compiled for your edification:
I am testifying against the coming -
County ban on plastic bags due to the following facts from Walter Moe
"Plastic bags that retail stores provide customers at the checkout will become "illegal
under a bill from Kohala Councilman Pete Hoffmann.
Bill 17, which would not take effect for a full year after its approval,
1) Contempt of the people. *
The tyranny of a mere 5 people ( a majority of the council) will decide again how EVERYONE
ELSE should behave, without even the courtesy of asking our permission.
At a minimum, before a handful of officials decide how we all should live the most tiny
details of our lives, they should put such decisions to the vote of all the people in
referendum.
Not doing so reflects their arrogance and the contempt with which they view their
neighbors.
*2) It will increase the cost of living and make life just a little bit harder for
everyone. * In these severe economic times of hardship, shouldn't our government be making
our lives easier and less expensive, not the other way round?
*
3) There is * *NO ** scientific logic to banning plastic bags that will survive an honest
appraisal.*
a) Paper bags cost 10x more than plastic, weigh 6 x more (ie: more expensive to
transport) , take up 10 x the volume (more expensive to store and more space in
landfills), use 50 x more water in their production than plastic, and produce 3 x the
CO2 during their production (Multiple sources). Plastic bags use 40% less energy to
produce and generate 80% less solid waste than paper, according to United States EPA .
b) Plastic bags are 200 times less damaging to the climate than cotton hold -alls (Life
Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags, by Dr Chris Edwards and Jonna Meyhoff,
British Environment Agency, 2007)
c) There is NO scientific basis for claiming plastic bags are a significant ocean
contaminant. The so called "Pacific Garbage Patch" was sampled by transit by Oregon State
marine scientists, and NO plastic bags were either seen or recovered. The total plastic
skimmed barely filled the bottom of a coffee cup, and consisted of fine particulates none
of which were shown to be plastic bag origin. The "Pacific Garbage Patch" is an
exaggerated myth, with no scientific credible and confirmed data. Angelicque "Angel"
White< http: / /www.coas.oregonstate.edu /index.cfm?
fuseaction= content. search &searchtype = people &detail =l &id = 322 >
an assistant professor of oceanography < http : / /www.coas.oregonstate.edu /> at Oregon State
compares the amount of plastic found to the amount of water in which it was found: "If we
were to filter the surface area of the ocean equivalent to a football field in waters
having the highest concentration (of plastic) ever recorded," she said, "the amount of
plastic recovered would not even extend to the 1 -inch line."
d) There is NO credible and confirmed scientific data that plastic bags are a
significant threat to marine wild life.
The widely circulated photo of a turtle with a bag in its mouth is not science, and could
even have been staged. This is not a sufficient basis to cause a change in an entire
society's actions. Severe actions require severe proof to be justified. *A London Times
1 GOMM
Ref. To: Pres.M 4
Ref. Dete JIJN 7 ' J 11
article< http: // www. savetheplasticbag. com/ ReadContent6 #Blog >has
exposed as a myth the claim that large numbers of marine mammals and seabirds are dying
from ingesting plastic bags. * *In a
report<http: // www. savetheplasticbag. com / UploadedFiles /NOAA % %
by
the US National Ocean Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the authors state (at page 9):
"There are very few, if any, published records of small plastics as the direct cause of
mortality in sea turtles" * *David Laist, a senior policy analyst with the federal Marine
Mammal Commission, has stated <http: / /www.npr.org/ templates /story /story.php ?storyId=
127600685>
* "In their eagerness to make their case [against plastic bags], some of the environmental
groups make up claims that are not really supportable. "*
e) plastic bags are NOT the most prominent source of litter on our island. A recent
litter retrieval project of our shoreline was reported to show that the #1 litter was
cigarette butts, followed by paper bags, paper cups, and paper in general. Plastic bags
were well down the list.
- The San Francisco Department of the Environment litter
audit <http: / /www.sfenvironment.org/ downloads / library/ rolitterstudyl
conducted
before plastic bags were banned in that city showed that plastic
retail bags were 0.6% of all litter.
- The Florida
<http: / /www.hinkleycenter.com/ publications /Litter2001.pdf >figure is 0.72 %.
- The
Toronto <http: / /www.cpia.ca/ anti - litter /pdf/ Litter %20Survey final.pdf> figure
is 0.13% (see page 35 of Toronto study).
f) Plastic bags blowing around the land fill is not a sufficient reason
to make the entire island change their preferred behavior, unless the people
vote on such. Litter at the land fill is what is expected at a landfill.
g) Reusable shopping bags unless washed daily and not allowed to touch
the ground will harbor unsafe levels of bacteria and are a heath hazard
compared to clean single use plastic bags. Placing such bags on grocery
checkout counters can transmit the bacteria to the next customer's food
h) plastic bags have many more practical uses than paper, as they are
water tight, lighter, durable, stronger and more likely to be re -used.
*
4) After they are successful in banning plastic bags, they won't stop there.
* A recent local news article describes a push in Seattle to ban paper
coffee cups and require reusable cups. Where does this madness stop ?
1) Contempt of the people. *
The tyranny of a mere 5 people ( a majority of the council) will decide
again how EVERYONE ELSE should behave, without even the courtesy of asking
our permission.
At a minimum, before a handful of officials decide how we all should live
the most tiny details of our lives, they should put such decisions to the
vote of all the people in referendum.
Not doing so reflects their arrogance and the contempt with which they view
their neighbors.
*2) It will increase the cost of living and make life just a little bit
harder for everyone. *
In these severe economic times of hardship, shouldn't our government be
making our lives easier and less expensive, not the other way round?
*
3) There is * *NO ** scientific logic to banning plastic bags that will
survive an honest appraisal.*
2
a) Paper bags cost 10x more than plastic, weigh 6 x more (ie: more
expensive to transport) , take up 10 x the volume (more expensive to store
and more space in landfills),
use 50 x more water in their production than plastic, and produce 3 x the
CO2 during their production (Multiple sources). Plastic bags use 40% less
energy to produce and generate 80% less solid waste than paper, according to
United States EPA .
b) Plastic bags are 200 times less damaging to the climate than cotton
hold -alls (Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags, by Dr Chris
Edwards and Jonna Meyhoff, British Environment Agency, 2007)
c) There is NO scientific basis for claiming plastic bags are a
significant ocean contaminant. The so called "Pacific Garbage Patch" was
sampled by transit by Oregon State marine scientists, and NO plastic bags
were either seen or recovered. The total plastic skimmed barely filled the
bottom of a coffee cup, and consisted of fine particulates none of which
were shown to be plastic bag origin. The "Pacific Garbage Patch" is an
exaggerated myth, with no scientific credible and confirmed data. Angelicque
"Angel"
White< http: // www. coas.oregonstate.edu /index.cfm?
fuseaction= content.search &searchtype= people &detail =l &id = 322 >
an assistant professor of oceanography < http : / /www.coas.oregonstate.edu /> at
Oregon State compares the amount of plastic found to the amount of water in
which it was found: "If we were to filter the surface area of the ocean
equivalent to a football field in waters having the highest concentration
(of plastic) ever recorded," she said, "the amount of plastic recovered
would not even extend to the 1 -inch line."
d) There is NO credible and confirmed scientific data that plastic bags
are a significant threat to marine wild life.
The widely circulated photo of a turtle with a bag in its mouth is not
science, and could even have been staged. This is not a sufficient basis to
cause a change in an entire society's actions. Severe actions require severe
proof to be justified. *A London Times
article< http: // www. savetheplasticbag. com/ ReadContent6 #Blog >has
exposed as a myth the claim that large numbers of marine mammals and
seabirds are dying from ingesting plastic bags. * *In a
report< http: / /www. savetheplasticbag. com/ UploadedFiles /NOAA %20White %
by
the US National Ocean Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the authors state
(at page 9): "There are very few, if any, published records of small
plastics as the direct cause of mortality in sea turtles" *
*David Laist, a senior policy analyst with the federal Marine Mammal
Commission, has
stated <http: / /www.npr.org/ templates/ story /story.php ?storyId= 1 27600685 >
* "In their eagerness to make their case [against plastic bags], some of the
environmental groups make up claims that are not really supportable. "*
e) plastic bags are NOT the most prominent source of litter on our
island. A recent litter retrieval project of our shoreline was reported to
show that the #1 litter was cigarette butts, followed by paper bags, paper
cups, and paper in general. Plastic bags were well down the list.
- The San Francisco Department of the Environment litter
audit <http: / /www.sfenvironment.org/ downloads/ library/ rolitterstudyl
conducted
before plastic bags were banned in that city showed that plastic
retail bags were 0.6% of all litter.
- The Florida
<http: / /www.hinkleycenter.com/ publications /Litter2001.pdf >figure is
0.72 %.
3
' - The
Toronto <http: / /www.cpia.ca/ anti - litter /pdf/ Litter % fi nal. p df >fi
is 0.13% (see page 35 of Toronto study).
f) Plastic bags blowing around the land fill is not a sufficient reason
to make the entire island change their preferred behavior, unless the people
vote on such. Litter at the land fill is what is expected at a landfill.
g) Reusable shopping bags unless washed daily and not allowed to touch
the ground will harbor unsafe levels of bacteria and are a heath hazard
compared to clean single use plastic bags. Placing such bags on grocery
checkout counters can transmit the bacteria to the next customer's food
h) plastic bags have many more practical uses than paper, as they are
water tight, lighter, durable, stronger and more likely to be re -used.
*
4) After they are successful in banning plastic bags, they won't stop there.
* A recent local news article describes a push in Seattle to ban paper
coffee cups and require reusable cups. Where does this madness stop ?"
Jherrie Rubeyiat- 15 -1389 Makuu Drive , Keaau, Hi 96749 808 - 966 -4868
4