Message:

[

Previous   Next

]

By Topic:

[

Previous   Next

]

Subject:

Re: imp't environmental legislation

From:

Steve Long

Reply-To:

Steve Long

Date:

Mon, 7 Feb 2011 10:33:16 -0500

Before everybody jumps on this particular band-wagon, let's think about this more clearly for a minute.

First, I have been using reuseable cloth bags and recycling plastic bags for over a decade, so none of MINE are in any waterways.

But, I still use plastic bags for things that have potential bacterial contamination, so that I don't get things that I eat raw, like fresh vegetables, contaminated with chicken "juice" and make myself sick.  Plastic still has a VERY important role in public health.

I seriously question whether there is hard evidence that the tax is the REASON that "there are less  plastic bags in the waterways since DC enacted its bag tax."  Since there has been a MAJOR effort recently to clean-up the Anacostia, including removal of a LOT of bags that have been there for some time, it is not unlikely that there ARE less bags in that river, now.  However, that really doesn't prove that less bags are now being discarded.  The kind of people who throw trash are not the kind of people who make good decisions, so I doubt that the litterers are much deterred by a 5ยข tax on each bag.  And, even bag usage, which is down, may only reflect the effect on people who DO make good decisions, and were already recycling their bags instead of littering with them.

On the other hand, governments at all levels are rushing to levy new "fees" to gain more revenue without APPEARING to "raise taxes."  And, this appears to be just one more of those political manuevers, just like putting taxes on "bad" foods that "make us fat."

And, why include PAPER bags, which biodegrade much more rapidly than plastic?  That appears to be driven more by the the desire for revenue than any need to protect the enviroment.

So, let's not be stampeeded into paying the government even more money to "protect the environment" while the same government is raiding the supposedly "dedicated" environmental funds that are SUPPOSED to be used only to protect open space, clean-up sewage plant releases, etc.

With NO additional taxes, the same ENVIRONMENTAL benefits could be had with a law that simply BANNED the use of plastic bags except for isolating uncooked meats, fruits and vegetables in grocery bags.  That would eliminate MOST of the plastic bag uses that most probably result in littering, because those "people who make bad decisions" are not the ones buying most of he excepted commodities.  But, the politicians are likely to propose that, because they REALLY want the revenue.