HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlastic Bag Reduction Bill Veto Mesage JN1 vfa F pq�
a.
Harry Kim Dixie Kaetsu
Mayor ' + Managing Director
Pr't' �<M°•'''`/ Barbara Kossow
Deputy Managing Director
Countp of 'abaail
891 Ululani Street • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 -(808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553
KONA 75-5706 Kuakini Highway,Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740
(808)329-5226 • Fax(808)326-5663
September 19, 2008
The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson,
and Members
Hawaii County Council
333 Kilauea Avenue
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Veto Message—Bill 326 Draft 2
Plastic Bag Reduction Bill
Dear Chairperson Hoffmann and Council Members:
Pursuant to Section 3-12 of the Hawaii County charter,I am disapproving Bill 326 Draft 2
and returning it to you.
Bill 326 Draft 2 has generated tremendous interest from a large number of people in the
community,as evidenced by the amount of letters, emails,and telephone calls received by this
office,both in support and in opposition. The Council is to be commended for raising
awareness in our community about this important environmental issue.
It is clear that people on both sides of this issue do agree on two things:
• Plastic bags do not belong in our oceans or loose on our lands.
• Plastic bags that are not recycled or otherwise properly disposed of contribute to litter
problems.
However,plastic bags themselves are not inherently evil. They are more practical for some
uses than paper bags, and are often reused several times before their ultimate disposal. The
true problem is not the bags;the problem is we the people. It is our failure to dispose of bags
properly that litters and pollutes our land and oceans.
There are two reasons for this veto. First,there are concerns specific to this bill. They relate
to certain provisions in the bill and how the bill was handled in regards to public involvement.
Second is a more philosophical issue about whether this is the right way to address the
environmental problems caused by plastic bags when they are not disposed of properly.
The specific concerns with Bill 326 Draft 2 that led to this veto action follow:
September 19, 2008
The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson,and Council Members
Page 2
• Non-profit organizations: no opportunity for input—Bill 326 Draft 2 was passed
without the public having a full understanding of what"businesses"would be affected
by this measure. I watched a recording of the Council's discussion at its August 27
meeting where this bill passed second and final reading. It was made clear in the
discussion that non-profit organizations such as churches, schools,community groups
and sports teams will also be prohibited from using plastic bags at their fundraisers.
It was also cleat that until the August 27 meeting, even some Council members were
not aware of this impact on non-profit organizations. Not realizing that this bill would
apply to them,non-profit groups did not provide comments and input before the bill's
passage.
On August 1, 2007, Mayor Kim wrote to the Council in another veto message:
"It has always been the goal and policy of this administration to ensure that
whenever any major policy changes are pursued, a forum of some sort is to be
conducted to allow those who would be affected an opportunity to air their
concerns. "
Since non-profit organizations would be impacted by this bill, and it was not clear to
all that they would be impacted,efforts should have been made to solicit input from
these organizations before adoption.
• Small business impacts—While supermarkets and larger retail chains are not happy
about the impact this bill will have on costs to their customers, they have said they will
accept it and live with it. It is our small businesses that will be most harmed by the
higher cost of paper bags. Our small businesses already have a difficult time
competing in the marketplace and cannot take advantage of the same economies of
scale in purchasing as the larger stores. Small businesses that would be negatively
impacted include vendors at farmers' markets, swap meets, and flea markets. It is
noted that this bill would even make it illegal to place goods purchased at garage sales
into reused plastic bags.
These impacts are an unreasonable burden on small businesses.
• Effective date—Bill 326 Draft 2 provides that the ban on plastic bags at point of sale
becomes effective one year after the bill is approved, that is September 2009. This is
not long enough for retailers, especially small businesses, and consumers to prepare to
implement this ban. One local source of plastic and paper bags for about 650 small
business customers provided an example of how this effective date can impact smaller
companies. One customer recently placed an order for custom printed plastic bags.
To obtain a reasonable unit cost, the customer ordered a quantity that will probably
last at least a year and a half. The bags are still in transit, and if a ban takes effect in
one year, this small business will be out money it can ill spare for bags it cannot
September 19, 2008
The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson, and Council Members
Page 3
legally use after September 2009. Compare this to the larger stores where most if not
all of them will be able to use up their present stock within a year. Smaller stores,to
take advantage of the economies of scale, are more likely to purchase and have on
hand an excess of plastic bags extending beyond a year's supply.
A review of the effective date of measures in other jurisdictions shows that with the
exception of San Francisco, a longer transition time has been generally allowed. (For
your information, San Francisco's ban became effective in six months for
supermarkets and in 12 months for pharmacies. However,the SF ban only applies to
supermarkets with gross annual sales in excess of$2 million, and retail pharmacies
with at least five locations under the same ownership within the city of San Francisco.
No small businesses are subject to the ban.)
• Penalties—It is felt that the fine and community service penalty proposed in Bill 326
Draft 2 is too high. A more reasonable penalty provided in the pioneering San
Francisco law, for example, is a fine not exceeding $100 for the first violation,up to a
$500 fine for the third violation within a single year.
In addition,as discussed at the August 27 Council meeting, the penalty section refers
to"persons"being penalized, not"businesses." According to Corporation Counsel,
this could result in any person employed by a business being cited under this section.
For example, in the case of a supermarket, a clerk bagging the groceries in plastic bags
could be cited and fined rather than the responsible management of the store. While
this may seem an unlikely possibility, it could happen under the bill as written.
A third issue with the penalty section is that it provides for fines collected under the
section to be deposited in the County's Public Access, Open Space and Natural
Resources Fund. Bill 326 Draft 2 provides that upon conviction, a person is sentenced
to pay the fine and/or perform community service. Being"convicted" implies that this
is a matter that will be taken up at District Court. Fines collected by the Court are kept
by the State of Hawaii and are not available to the County.
• Location in the Hawaii County Code—Bill 326 Draft 2 amends Chapter 20 of the
Hawaii County Code, which deals with refuse and solid waste. Since the bill does not
ban plastic from landfills or transfer stations, but rather bans the retail distribution of
plastic bags, there is a question whether this is the appropriate section of the Code for
such a provision. Instead, it might have been better placed in Chapter 14, General
Welfare.
OTHER CONCERNS
The above concerns are specific to Bill 326 Draft 2 as passed by the Council. If a ban on
plastic bags is desired as a statement of policy,these concerns could be addressed in a new
bill.
September 19,2008
The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson,and Council Members
Page 4
However, there is also the larger issue of whether an outright ban on plastic bags is the best
way of getting to where we want to go in our stewardship of the environment. These
additional comments are offered:
There is no universal consensus that a ban on plastic bags is a good thing for the environment.
Attached are two documents from The ULS(Use Less Stuffi Report. One is a study titled
"Review of Life Cycle Data Relating to Disposable, Compostable, Biodegradable,and
Reusable Grocery Bags". This document, which is an examination of a number of third-party
research reports,states in part:
"Legislation designed to reduce environmental impacts and litter by outlawing grocery
bags based on the material from which they are produced will not deliver the intended
results. While some litter reduction might take place, it would be outweighed by the
disadvantages that would subsequently occur(increased solid waste and greenhouse gas
emissions). Ironically, reducing the use of traditional plastic bags would not even reduce
the reliance on fossil fuels,as paper and biodegradable plastic bags consume at least as
much non-renewable energy during their full lifecycle."
The second attachment is an article titled,"It's Time for all of Us to Get Involved"from the
April-May-June 2008 issue of The ULS Report. This article says in part:
"By concentrating `green' efforts on paper vs. plastic bags and expecting government and
business to take appropriate actions,the public is led to believe that environmental
problems are being solved without the need to become significantly involved. Such
complacency is dangerous, as it inadvertently relieves individuals of the responsibility to
reduce their own consumption of materials and energy."
In this same light, we should all be very proud of what the Department of Environmental
Management and the people of our island have done in the past year. The Department's
recycling staff has worked with our local merchants to help educate the public and encourage
the use of reusable bags while making it easier to recycle plastic bags. You will notice that
our supermarkets and large drug stores (and also retailers such as Wal*Mart and 7-Eleven)all
offer inexpensive reusable bags in prominent locations. The supermarkets also offer bins for
customers to deposit their plastic bags for recycling. I have noticed that the number of people
who are buying and using reusable bags is steadily increasing. This is very exciting because it
is happening through education,cooperation and people working together to take
responsibility for their individual choices and actions.
There is much more we can do as government to educate the public and encourage appropriate
disposal of plastic bags. Just this year,the County began accepting plastic bags in the mixed
recycling bins at our transfer stations and recycling centers. This can be much more widely
publicized,and I am confident that Hawai`i's people can and will step up to the plate. The
fact that our County leads the state in HI5 redemption at 90% shows that we can learn and do
what is right.
September 19, 2008
The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson,and Council Members
Page 5
I believe it is better to work to change people's hearts so they change their own behavior
rather than outlawing a commodity(plastic bags)that many people find useful. If we focus on
educating our residents about the benefits of reusable bags along with proper disposal (reuse
and recycling)of plastic bags, we will change attitudes and behaviors. Our people will use
reusable bags because they understand that both paper and plastic bags have negative
environmental impacts. Our people will understand the importance of recycling their plastic
bags and making sure they do not end up as litter in our oceans or on our land. And our
people will transfer this knowledge to other areas of their lives and increase their recycling
and reuse because they understand why it is important. That goal of individual responsibility
is what we should be working to achieve.
I truly feel that this way is the best for our environment, and commit that we will work even
harder to educate the community and retailers about the importance of reducing,recycling and
reusing, and ask the individual Council members to work with us in this effort.
Aloha,
Dixie Kaetsu
Acting Mayor
Attachments
The ULS Report
Li
REVIEW OF LIFE CYCLE DATA RELATING TO DISPOSABLE,
COMPOSTABLE, BIODEGRADABLE, AND REUSABLE GROCERY BAGS
I. BACKGROUND
In March 2007, the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco passed an
ordinance effectively banning the use of plastic grocery bags at supermarkets and
large pharmacies. The Board's objective was to stop environmental degradation and
reduce litter, and its solution was to legislate the replacement of traditional plastic
bags with reusable bags or bags made from paper or compostable plastic.
In an effort to gauge the impact of the Board's decision, both in terms of
environmental impact and litter reduction, the Editors of The ULS Report have
examined a number of credible third-party research reports, and used the findings to
develop their own conclusions and recommendations.
Please note that this review was originally published in June, 2007 and has been
revised as follows:
1. This review includes research performed by Boustead Consulting 8 Associates
that was released after the previous version was published in June 2007.
2. Information from the EPA's web sites cited in the previous summary has been
removed from this version, as it is no longer publicly available.
3. All results mentioned below have been made equivalent to reflect the different
carrying capacity of paper vs. plastic bags. For reference, it is generally
accepted that 1.5 plastic bags equal the capacity of 1 paper bag.
II. METHODOLOGY
An examination was made of four studies that compared the environmental impacts of
various grocery bags, or provided data widely used to do so:
Carrefour Group, an international retail chain that was founded in France and
is second only to Wal-Mart in terms of global retail revenues, commissioned a
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Study by Price-Waterhouse-Coopers/EcoBalance
(Evaluation des impacts environnementaux des sacs de caisse, February 2004,
#300940BE8) that compared the environmental impact of four types of bags:
plastic made from high density polyethylene (HDPE), paper, biodegradable
plastic (50% corn starch and 50% polycaprolactone compostable plastic), and
reusable plastic (flexible PE). The study evaluated environmental impacts from
material production, through bag manufacturing and transport, to end of life
management.
The study was completed according to ISO standards 14040-14043, and peer
reviewed by the French environmental institute, ADEME, the Agency for
28 March 2008
4853 Goodison Place Drive•Rochester.MI•48306
248-726-9729•wv n.use-less-sluff corn
Review of Plastic vs.Paper Bag LCA Studies Page 2
Environment and Energy Management. The first review was by Henri Lecouls,
an independent lifecycle analysis expert assisted by Laura Degallaix,
representative of the Federal Consumers' Union, Que Choisir, and Dominique
Royet, World Wildlife Federation (WWF) representative. A second review was
made by related parties: APME (European Plastics Manufacturers Association;
CEPI (Confederation of European Paper Industries); and Novamont,
manufacturer of the biodegradable plastic assessed in the study.
2. Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings, Environmental Series No. 250/1, Swiss
Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), 1998. The study
was critically reviewed by corporate and association members representing the
paper, plastics, glass, aluminum and steel packaging industries.
3. Eco-Profiles of the European Plastics Industry, performed by I. Boustead for
PlasticsEurope, 2005. This series was developed by LCA pioneer Boustead
Consulting and conforms wherever possible to ISO standards 14040-14043. The
data on polyethylene film are also referenced in the SAEFL study listed above.
4. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags - Recyclable Plastic;
Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper,
performed by Boustead Consulting Et Associates Ltd. for the Progressive Bag
Alliance, 2007. The study compared traditional grocery bags made from
polyethylene, bags made from compostable plastics, and paper bags made
using at least 30% recycled fibers. The life cycle assessment factored in every
step of the manufacturing, distribution, and disposal stages of these bags.
The study was peer reviewed by Dr. Michael Overcash, Professor of Chemical
Engineering, as well as a Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, at
North Carolina State University.
III. STUDY LIMITATIONS
1. Findings, conclusions, and recommendations are based on data that have been
obtained through publicly available channels or through the broad group of
contacts that The ULS Report has developed. There may be other data
available that refute, confirm, or extend the findings herein developed.
2. Results are based upon an analysis of quantitative data, especially in relation
to materials consumption, energy and water usage, pollution, and greenhouse
gas (GHG) production. Because of their qualitative and personal nature, issues
that transcend a scientific approach, such as the social value of renewable vs.
non-renewable resources and composting vs. landfilling, are best considered
independently by the reader.
3. While the 2007 Boustead Consulting study was performed in the United States,
the other studies originated in Europe. Because production processes are
relatively similar globally, the data provide accurate assessments that can be
used to draw valid conclusions in the United States. The similarity in results
between the American and European studies further bears this out.
28 March 2008
Review of Plastic vs.Paper Bag LCA Studies Page 3
IV. FINDINGS
A. Biodgredation/Compostability
While paper and certain plastics may be biodegradable or compostable in specially
designed industrial facilities, evidence indicates that this feature may be of little
value in the effort to reduce waste:
1. Current research shows that in modern landfills, paper does not degrade or
break down at a substantially faster rate than plastic does. Due to the lack of
water, light, oxygen, and other important elements necessary for the
degradation process to occur, nothing completely degrades in modern landfills.
As evidence of this, here is a photo of a
newspaper buried in an Arizona landfillrxek,
and dug up after more than three decades.As can be clearly seen, paper does not degrade rapidly in landfills. (Photo credit:
Dr. William Rothje, Founder of The Garbage Project at The University of Arizona.) u
Compostable plastics, which are produced from plant-based feedstocks, do not
degrade in landfills, either. According to NatureworksO, a producer of a corn-
based plastic known as PLA, containers made from its material will last as long
in landfills as containers made from traditional plastics.'
2. In order to breakdown as intended, compostable plastics must be sent to an
industrial or food composting facility, rather than to backyard piles or
municipal composting centers. Since there are apparently fewer than 100 of
these facilities functioning in the entire United States, the economic and
environmental costs of wide-scale plastics composting are prohibitive,
significantly reducing the value of such an alternative.Z
3. By definition, composting and biodegradation release carbon dioxide (CO2), a
greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, increasing the potential for climate
change. For example, composted paper produces approximately twice the CO2
emissions produced by non-composted paper. (See Paragraph B.1. just below
for specific details.)
B. Waste, Energy Consumption, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The evidence does not support conventional wisdom that paper bags are a more
environmentally sustainable alternative than plastic bays. While this is certainly
counterintuitive for many people, relevant facts include the following:
1. Plastic bags generate 39% less greenhouse gas emissions than uncomposted
paper bags, and 68% less greenhouse gas emissions than composted paper bags.
The plastic bags generate 4,645 tons of CO2 equivalents per 150 million bags;
while uncomposted paper bags generate 7,621 tons, and composted paper bags
generate 14,558 tons, per 100 million bags produced.'
28 March 2008
Review of Plastic vs.Paper Bag LCA Studies Page 4
2. Plastic bags consume less than 6% of the water needed to make paper bags. It
takes 1004 gallons of water to produce 1000 paper bags and 58 gallons of water
to produce 1500 plastic bags.'
3. Plastic grocery bags consume 71% less energy during production than paper
bags.5 Significantly, even though traditional disposable plastic bags are
produced from fossil fuels, the total non-renewable energy consumed during
their lifecycle is up to 36% less than the non-renewable energy consumed
during the lifecycle of paper bags and up to 64% less than that consumed by
biodegradable plastic bag s.6
4. Using paper sacks generates almost five times more solid waste than using
plastic bags.'
5. After four or more uses, reusable plastic bags are superior to all types of
disposable bags --paper, polyethylene and compostable plastic -- across all
significant environmental indicators.'
C. Litter
While the data appear to indicate that paper and compostable plastic bags may
account for less litter, data also indicates that this finding is offset by the increased
environmental impacts these bags produce versus traditional plastic bags:
1. The manufacture of paper bags consumes twice as much water and emits about
60% more greenhouse gases than the production of plastic bags.9
2. Compared to disposable plastic bags, biodegradable plastic bags generate
higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric acidification and
eutrophification (a process whereby bodies of water receive excess nutrients
that stimulate excessive plant growth, such as algae blooms).10
V. CONCLUSIONS/INDICATED ACTIONS
The conclusion to be drawn about how to reduce the environmental impacts and litter
associated with grocery bags is very much in line with both lonQstandinQ EPA
guidelines and the ULS Report philosophy: the issue is not paper or plastic, but rather
finding ways to reduce, reuse, and recycle both of them - in that order. By putting
more items in fewer bags, avoiding double bagging, switching to durable tote bags,
and reusing and recycling disposable bags, significant reductions in material and non-
renewable energy consumption, pollution, solid waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and
litter, will occur.
And, while recycling can help save resources, its real value lies in the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, and the minimization of waste going to landfills. Also,
recycling helps reduce litter, as bags are contained and stored. Containment reduces
the potential for them to be left in open spaces, where they become eyesores.
28 March 2008
Review of Plastic vs.Paper Bag LCA Studies Page 5
VI. SUMMARY
LeQislation designed to reduce environmental impacts and litter by outlawing grocery
bags based on the material from which they are produced will not deliver the intended
results. While some litter reduction might take place, it would be outweighed by the
disadvantages that would subsequently occur (increased solid waste and greenhouse
gas emissions). Ironically, reducing the use of traditional plastic bags would not even
reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, as paper and biodegradable plastic bags consume
at least as much non-renewable energy during their full lifecycle.
Further, an Internet scan of available government and non-profit information for the
United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia indicates that chewing gum and
cigarette butts account for up to 95% of the litter generated in the English-speaking
world." Thus, there would appear to be far better and potentially more effective
legislative opportunities available if the objective is to significantly reduce litter.
Again, when it comes to reducing the environmental and litter impacts of grocery and
merchandise bags, the solution lies in a.) Minimizing the materials used to produce all
types of bags, regardless of their composition, and b.) Building public awareness and
motivation to reduce, reuse and recycle these bags- in that order.
Robert Lilienfeld, Editor
Footnotes
i Com Plastic to the Rescue,by Elizabeth Royte,Smithsonian,August 2006
(www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2006/auQust/pla.r)hp?paqe=l).
2 These figures were provided by a number of experts,but due to the fluctuating dynamics of the composting
industry,no firm citation can be given.One article that mentioned the relative unavailability of industrial and
food composting was Composting that Plastic by Eliza Barclay,Metropolis Magazine,March 1,2004
(www.metropolismag.com)cda/story.php?artid=153).See also the BioCycle site www,findacomposter.com.
3 Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings,Volume 1,SAEFL, 1998, Environmental Series 250/1 and Eco-
Profiles of the European Plastics Industry,developed by I.Boustead for PlasticsEurope,March 2005
(www.plasticseuror)e.org/contenUDefault.asi)?Paae]D=404&IsNewWindow=True).
Ibid and Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags-Recyclable Plastic; Compostobte,
Biodegradable Plastic;and Recycled, Recyclable Paper, performed by Boustead Consulting ft Associates
Ltd. for the Progressive Bag Alliance, 2007_
28 March 2008
Review of Plastic vs.Paper Bag LCA Studies Page 6
'Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags-Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable
Plastic;and Recycled,Recyclable Paper. Op cit.
6 Ibid and(`valuation des impacts environnementaux des sacs de caisse Carrefour(Evaluation of the
Environmental Impact of Carrefour Merchandise Bags), prepared by Price-Waterhouse-Coopers/Ecobilan
(EcoBalance),February 2004,#300940BE8.
(www,ademe.fr/htdocs/actualite/rapport_carrefour_post_revue_critictue_v4.pdf).
7 Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags-Recyclable Plastic;Compostable, Biodegradable
Plastic;and Recycled, Recyclable Paper. . Op cit.
e t=vaivation des impacts environnementaux des sacs de caisse Carrefour. Op cit.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
"See Litter Composition Survey of England,October 2004,produced by ENCAMS for INCPEN
(www.incoen.ora/paciesl userdata/inci)/LitterCompSurvev24Jan20O5.r)d0,Also see Facts About Litterfrom
an Australian governmental site(www.environment.nsw.gov.au/litter/factsaboutlitter.htm),and equivalent
government and non-profit sites in Canada and the United States,such as Keep America Beautiful.
28 March 2008
The ULS Report
It's Time for All of Us to Get Involved
By Robert Lilienfeld,Editor
As concerns over global ecological degradation increase, it inadvertently relieves individuals of the responsibility to
Americans are looking to take action to protect their local reduce their own consumption of materials and energy.
environments.One community,San Francisco,and one
retailer,Whole Foods,have decided to reduce perceived The Local Picture
environmental impacts by banning or eliminating plastic On the local level,however,there is a problem in which
bags in favor of paper ones.Unfortunately,these actions plastic bags play a role: litter.Their widespread use and
will not eliminate the problems they are intended to solve. light weight do cause them to blow around roadways and
Even more concerning is the fact they may actually exacer- waterways,creating unsightly litter and pollution potential.
bate them.
Let me speak directly to the plastic bag industry: You have
The Big Misconceptions developed a program to encourage greater recycling. If,
These decisions suffer from two widespread,but erroneous, as you say,plastic bags are too valuable to waste,get that
beliefs about the environmental effects of grocery bags. message out broadly and make recycling more accessible
to the public!Collaborate with local authorities and busi-
The first misconception has to do with facts.Major issues nesses to ensure-that recycling is effective in areas where
facing the global environment include climate change, it is legislated.Work with retailers and local governments
pollution,and resource depletion.The truth is that when it to share your knowledge of recycling best practices.Help
comes to the causes of these problems--energy consump- them educate consumers about available in-store recy-
tion and greenhouse gas generation,waste creation and cling programs.Motivate the public to participate in these
resource usage--scientific evidence points to plastic bags programs.
as being environmentally preferable to paper ones.*
As you learn,create and share model recycling programs,
This evidence is part of the scientific approach known as awareness campaigns and legislation that can be success-
lifecycle analysis,which determines the full impact of fully implemented nationwide.In so doing,both plastic
different materials or products across every phase of their bag litter and the temptation to pursue plastic bag bans
life cycle.Sometimes the results can be surprising.For will diminish,while the collection and recycling of those
example,plastic bags are often cited as being a source of valuable bags will increase--just as it has for newspapers,
energy depletion because they are made from fossil fuels. metal cans and beverage containers.
Ironically,full impact assessments indicate that plastic bags
consume far less energy than do paper bags during the life- The Bottom Line
cycle of production,transportation,use and disposal. Banning bags of any type will not produce the intended
results and will take our eyes off truly significant envi-
The second misconception has to do with focus.Placing ronmental problems related to resource consumption and
so much emphasis on grocery bags takes public attention depletion.To conserve energy and reduce waste,politi-
away from the real culprits behind our global environmen- cians,producers and retailers must base their environmen-
tal woes: increasing worldwide material and energy con- tal decisions on sound science and lifecycle thinking rather
sumption caused by growing populations and economies. than on ideological arguments.
In fact,research indicates that up to 99%of environmental
burdens created by retail purchases are not caused by shop- Consumers have a major role to play as well,by remember-
ping bags,but rather by the stuff put in those bags and the ing to implement the three R's: reduce by doing more with
energy it takes to create,transport,and store that stuff! less stuff,fewer bags and fewer trips to the store;reuse
bags as many times as possible;and after the useful lives of
Thus,by concentrating"green"efforts on paper vs.plastic your bags have ended,recycle them.
bags and expecting government and business to take appro-
priate actions,the public is led to believe that environmen- It's time for all of us--individuals,institutions and indus-
tal problems are being solved without the need to become try--to take responsibility for making it happen.
significantly involved.Such complacency is dangerous,as -6-C-1-6
"There are at least three peer-reviewed studies that point to the reduced environmental impacts of plastic vs.paper bags.See Review of Research
Comparing the Environmental Impact of Paper vs.Plastic Bags at www.use-less-stuff.com.
(Continued from Page 3.)
4