Published in Care2.com by Judy Molland February 28, 2015
Plastic bags are terrible for
the environment: they choke wildlife, they don’t break down in landfills
(or in oceans), they add to our demand for oil, and they aren’t easy to
recycle, which is the biggest reason why 90 percent of plastic bags in the U.S. aren’t re-purposed.
In spite of this, an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are used worldwide every year, 380 billion of those in the U.S., and governments have been slow-moving to do anything about them.
So it made sense when last year it looked like California was set to be the first state to ban single-use plastic bags. Lawmakers sent Governor Jerry Brown a bill, SB270, which prohibited said single-use plastic bags at grocery stores and large pharmacies as of 2015 and at convenience stores as of 2016, all in an effort to reduce litter on our streets and beaches.
The bill allowed grocers to charge 10 cents each for paper and reusable bags. It also included $2 million in loans to help manufacturers shift to the new model.
In fact, about 100 jurisdictions in California have already adopted similar bans. My own county, San Mateo County, requires residents to pay 25 cents for a paper bag. However, opponents of a statewide ban have already succeeded in stopping the measure from going into effect by securing a spot on the 2016 ballot.
Who knew it was possible to reverse a ban that Governor Brown had previously signed into law?
Stopping The Plastic Bag Ban
Approved by California Governor Jerry Brown last September, the first stage of the ban was originally slated to go into effect on July 1. However, on February 24 state election officials confirmed that the national advocacy group American Progressive Bag Alliance had collected the necessary half million signatures to qualify for a November 2016 referendum on the measure. Now, the referendum’s qualification suspends the law until voters weigh in, a year and a half away.
But that’s not all.
A spokesman for the American Progressive Bag Alliance, which spent more than $3 million on the effort to qualify the referendum, said the group’s goals go beyond just keeping the law off the books for 21 more months. Opponents intend to mount an active campaign to scrap the law entirely, he said.
Great. This is just what happened last year with Proposition 37, which would have required retailers and food companies to label products made with genetically modified ingredients.
Had Prop 37 been approved, foods containing GMOs would have been mandated to make the fact clear on the product’s label. The law would have meant most processed foods would need to include notes on their labels that the products were “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering.” In addition, the words “genetically engineered” would have been required on relevant product packaging.
Huge amounts of money, mostly from outside of California, were poured into campaigns weighing heavily in favor of Prop 37′s opponents.
The Missouri-based Monsanto Company, in particular, dumped millions of dollars into a campaign that opposed the ballot measure, a maneuver that many people believed was singlehandedly responsible for swinging the vote.
A total of $44 million was raised for “No on Prop 37,” while proponents were only able to raise $7.3 million.
Big Money And Plastic Bags
So now Big Money is going after plastic bags.
However, conservationists believe that Californians will uphold the ban on plastic bags. Such bags litter streets and oceans, often killing the marine animals that ingest them, and one impact report states plastic bags could take as long as 1,000 years to biodegrade.
And the good news is that cities and counties across California, and across the nation, already prohibit or charge for the bags, and that number is expected to grow over the coming months.
A spokesman for the mayor of Sacramento, California’s state capital, said this week that there will be a renewed push to make sure Sacramento moves forward with its own plastic bag prohibition.
Plastic bags are ugly, dangerous, and unnecessary. We must keep fighting to ban their use.
In spite of this, an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are used worldwide every year, 380 billion of those in the U.S., and governments have been slow-moving to do anything about them.
So it made sense when last year it looked like California was set to be the first state to ban single-use plastic bags. Lawmakers sent Governor Jerry Brown a bill, SB270, which prohibited said single-use plastic bags at grocery stores and large pharmacies as of 2015 and at convenience stores as of 2016, all in an effort to reduce litter on our streets and beaches.
The bill allowed grocers to charge 10 cents each for paper and reusable bags. It also included $2 million in loans to help manufacturers shift to the new model.
In fact, about 100 jurisdictions in California have already adopted similar bans. My own county, San Mateo County, requires residents to pay 25 cents for a paper bag. However, opponents of a statewide ban have already succeeded in stopping the measure from going into effect by securing a spot on the 2016 ballot.
Who knew it was possible to reverse a ban that Governor Brown had previously signed into law?
Stopping The Plastic Bag Ban
Approved by California Governor Jerry Brown last September, the first stage of the ban was originally slated to go into effect on July 1. However, on February 24 state election officials confirmed that the national advocacy group American Progressive Bag Alliance had collected the necessary half million signatures to qualify for a November 2016 referendum on the measure. Now, the referendum’s qualification suspends the law until voters weigh in, a year and a half away.
But that’s not all.
A spokesman for the American Progressive Bag Alliance, which spent more than $3 million on the effort to qualify the referendum, said the group’s goals go beyond just keeping the law off the books for 21 more months. Opponents intend to mount an active campaign to scrap the law entirely, he said.
Great. This is just what happened last year with Proposition 37, which would have required retailers and food companies to label products made with genetically modified ingredients.
Had Prop 37 been approved, foods containing GMOs would have been mandated to make the fact clear on the product’s label. The law would have meant most processed foods would need to include notes on their labels that the products were “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering.” In addition, the words “genetically engineered” would have been required on relevant product packaging.
Huge amounts of money, mostly from outside of California, were poured into campaigns weighing heavily in favor of Prop 37′s opponents.
The Missouri-based Monsanto Company, in particular, dumped millions of dollars into a campaign that opposed the ballot measure, a maneuver that many people believed was singlehandedly responsible for swinging the vote.
A total of $44 million was raised for “No on Prop 37,” while proponents were only able to raise $7.3 million.
Big Money And Plastic Bags
So now Big Money is going after plastic bags.
However, conservationists believe that Californians will uphold the ban on plastic bags. Such bags litter streets and oceans, often killing the marine animals that ingest them, and one impact report states plastic bags could take as long as 1,000 years to biodegrade.
And the good news is that cities and counties across California, and across the nation, already prohibit or charge for the bags, and that number is expected to grow over the coming months.
A spokesman for the mayor of Sacramento, California’s state capital, said this week that there will be a renewed push to make sure Sacramento moves forward with its own plastic bag prohibition.
Plastic bags are ugly, dangerous, and unnecessary. We must keep fighting to ban their use.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/big-money-suspends-california-plastic-bag-ban.html#ixzz3TB85amRV
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.