I will not visit a store that doesn't have plastic bags. I re-use them as trash bags and other things. And they make it a lot more convient to carry a few loads of groceries up steps.

I'm with "j". For the same reasons as j, I will keep shopping in MV and Los Altos as long as they continue to allow the bags. Palo Alto, that's a laugh! (sounds like a good name for a play...)

Only a very small number of plastic bags are recycled. The rest end up in landfill or in the bay or in the ocean. And what is the source of the new plastic that these bags are made from? We are dependent on oil and what a shame that we continue to use oil to make single-use plastic bags. Think about single-use vs many-use items / landfill vs sustainablilty. The environmental impact from plastic bags is HUGE.

J and jfw every year over 1 million marine mammals, reptiles, and birds die because of plastic bags. Animals become entangled which can result in the loss of limb or death. Many sea turtles (which are threatened or endangered) eat jellyfish. Plastic bags look like jellyfish when floating in the ocean. Sea turtles when they eat a plastic bag suffer a slow painful death when the plastic bag becomes lodged in their digestive tract. A study found that plastic bags were the number one killer of leatherback turtles. And piastic bags can take up to one thousand years to decompose. Birds also get tangled in these bags and die as well. Using a paper bag or taking a cloth bag to the store will save these animals with very little effort on your part.

A lot of propaganda by J and M. A lot of grocery bags are recycled in MV. Go see them at any Safeway or Nob Hill. Does any of the propaganda claim MV is responsible for all of the alleged ocean damage. Of course not. The thin grocery bags do breakdown. Put one in your yard and retrieve it after a year. The environmental impact of these bags is incredibly small as noted by the City of SF which selectively banned plastic bags at a few stores. More damage is caused by heavier plastic, paper and cloth bags.
If PA does an environmental report they will be forced to accept all of the hard scientific evidence provided by the chemical industry. When judged impartially, as in Manhatten Beach, the evidence showed that other types of bags were more harmful to the environment.

Jane and Marti, if you believe all the statistics you read, i know of a fine bridge for sale, the name starts with GG.

It looks like Jack and SG have fallen for the plastic industry's propaganda. Yes, any plastic will break down if it is exposed to sunlight long enough (as will you and I...) However, in a landfill, they last for a very, very long time. Also, the plastic bag recycling is particularly ineffective - according to the plastics industry itself, which doesn't accept grocery bags as raw material. If you do the research, much of what is "recycled" actually ends up in landfills, but it does so in a way that makes people think they're doing something for the environment. The ultimate argument is that plastic bags are a waste of oil - just like gas guzzling cars and uninsulated homes, etc. And using a re-usable bag solves the whole problem.

Still more propaganda and little useful information. At least the industry provides data and not useless hyperbole. There is not one piece of evidence in this blog to suggest that MV has a problem of litter or pollution from SUPB's.

Who decides using oil or other resources is a waste. You sound like a self-righteous fundamentalist trying to use government force to push your values on others. Should we let the government decide what is wasteful or would you be willing to allow individuals to decide for themselves what is wasteful.

We put a lot of "other things" in landfills that dont break down very fast. Why single out SUPB's.

To Smart Growther
I agree that many people turn in their plastic bags for recycling. However, go to the Safeway store on Shoreline and ask them where the bags go for recycling. When I was on the sustainability task force for the City of MV the grocery stores were not able to answer where those bags actually go... if you could find out where the recycling takes place and who picks up the bags and the amount of bags that are actually recycled that would be great - we were not able to get those figures. I have no proof or data that "a lot" of bags are actually recycled. They might be turned into the stores, but again, "a lot" is not really data.

I have seen plastic bags buried for more than a year and they have not decomposed - our landfill is anarobic, so there is little decompostition - visit the Smart Station in Sunnyvale for a tour and you would be surprised.

Plastic bags just in Palo Alto and Mountain View are not the entire problem. It is their use world wide. Check out: www.alternet.org/water/76056 to read the entire report.

A "plastic soup" of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said.

" Plastic bags just in Palo Alto and Mountain View are not the entire problem. It is their use world wide.

A "plastic soup" of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said.

Assuming any of this is true, how is it relevant to MV. Where is the evidence that MV is responsible for any of this "soup"? If MV is not the problem, why should we use government coercion to solve something that isnt a problem in MV. Will this make you feel better? I think efforts would be better spent going after people who actually pollute or litter.

Disposal land is privately or publicly owned and fees are charges for disposal. The owners of the land receive fees in return for allowing people to dump stuff on their land. What's the issue here.

The really parochial mindset of people on this forum is astounding. The overwhelming amount of junk being tossed in landfills, ending up in the ocean, etc. is everyone in the developed world's fault. Not just Mountain View's -- but I see no reason why cities shouldn't take action. Changes start small and locally and grow.

I always carry some of the inexpensive, readily-available nylon shopping bags you can buy. They either roll up and fit in a pouch or have a strap with velcro so they make a very small package. They are lightweight and strong, and hold a lot more items than a plastic bag. When I stop at the store on the way home, I always have one or two with me. When I'm doing a larger order, I take my supply of canvas totes. Sometimes I forget, and then I get paper or plastic. No one's perfect! But now that I've developed the habit (and purchased the convenient, compact nylon bags), I am using far fewer single-use bags of any type.

When I do get plastic bags from the store, I keep them and use them for disposing of cat litter, etc. If they are no longer available in stores I will probably buy small paper bags or some other alternative for the cat litter. But to say that, since I don't toss my bags in the trash, it's not a problem so they shouldn't be banned is dumb. I live near a park, where people come to play sports, go to the playground, picnic, etc. They often bring food in safeway bags, naturally. I find lots of safeway bags in my yard -- it gets breezy, an empty bag blows away, not one notices or bothers to chase it down. Or people toss them in the trash, and when the trash is emptied they blow out of the can. It probably happens hundreds of times a day just in Mountain View. Multiply that by all the municipalities in the country, and that's a lot of bags making their way into the creeks and the ocean.

More self-righteous hyperbole. We have to do something. How about raising the bar to limit doing something to things that make sense.

Are you suggesting govt should force others to live like you do because you know whats right for everyone else.

"Are you suggesting govt should force others to live like you do because you know whats right for everyone else."

That's what the killer asked me before he slipped the knife in.

WHAT'S YOUR POINT. ARE YOU SUGGESTING ITS OK TO VIOLATE A PERSONS RIGHT TO LIVE? IS IT OK THEN TO USE FORCE TO STOP SOMEONE FROM USING A PLASTIC BAG?

I AM SUGGESTING RESPECT FOR OTHER PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS. THE RIGHT TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION AND THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. HARD TO ARGUE THAT SOMEONE USING A PLASTIC BAG IS ACTUALLY HARMING SOMEONE. NO ONE ON THIS BLOG HAS MADE A RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN USING A PLASTIC BAG AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET. MURDER IS CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE, SIMILAR TO FORCING SOMEONE TO MAKE THE SAME CHOICES YOU DO.

Smart Growther,

Easy on the ALL CAPS. You're hurting my eyes. Also, you're in danger of self-righteous hyperbole.

You seem to get the distinction between making a personal choice and having one made for you. This is exactly the crux of it: Many people believe that environmental degradation is to a point that the choice is being made for us all -- by people like you.

Apparently you're a "smart growther," which means ... you don't drive a car to work? (In your case, maybe it doesn't mean anything.) Well, just like the emissions from your morning commute drive, the use of plastic bags by a person or a city is a mere teeny tiny sliver of the big huge pie. But it's telling that if someone asks you to give up that tiny sliver you become indignant, combative -- and I mean ALL CAPS angry! Out come the denials, the predictable invocations of your god-given right (or, as you call it, your HUMAN RIGHTS) to carry your Pepsi home in a plastic bag if that's how you like to do it. This "right" is, in your eyes, more worth fighting for than whatever environmental benefit would come from cutting back on single-use bags. And that's very telling.

Like I said, the problem is that some people think the world (or at least our place in it) is in real danger because of attitudes like yours. For them, this isn't some abstract or aesthetic debate. And some people aren't going to wait around for you to get it. They'll work on passing whatever laws they can, or have to, to reverse the downward trend. How you feel about that quickly becomes irrelevant.

My Bad. Not angry at all. Didn't realize being lazy about removing the cap lock was such a social faux pas. Unfortunately your reply is still more self-righteous rhetoric. Unlike you I dont mind people having a different subjective preference. I just dont understand why you want to impose it on others. There are a lot of people that think the world is doing fine. They have a different world view and don't believe all of the propaganda espoused by the doom and gloom groups.(As an aside, these groups have a lousy track record).

I respect your right to be different. Try respecting mine by not using government coercion. I am at least willing to try and persuade you with reason and not the use of force.

Sure, you can be as different as you please. Think or say whatever you like -- no one's stopping you.

But if the peaceful and constitutional passing of laws -- such as those banning or charging a fee for single-use bags for any reason, let alone for sound scientific ones -- counts in your mind as "the use of force," then you may be out of luck.

Most people are able to regard the law of the land as something other than "government coercion." I would have guessed a "smart growther" would be among them!

I recycle my plastic bags, ones with holes, in the plastic recycle bins near the trash cans. What happens after that, i haven't a clue. There should be no concerns over landfills, because they produce methan gas that can be re-used.

Oh my, a few bags get lost in the wind, or some sailors lose them. I say we make a law for the cops to arrest these vagraintes. Or better yet, lets have the Closet Reader go after them.

What they want to do is ruin it for everyone and use unproven statistics as there truths to sway the gullible.

Good point Jack. Hard to reason with some people. To close reader its ok for the majority to impose it's will on the minority without any principle. The government is peaceful in imposing its will. Hard to imagine why all of those no on prop 8 people are so upset.

Yeah, good point Jack. Now I'll change the subject. Bla bla.

Switching gears from gay marriage back to the issue at hand, here is an article on today's Mercury News which addresses the sort of thing that makes people think we should cut down on single-use plastic:

Web Link

This garbage patch isn't the product of "sailors," as Jack imagines. It's any and all plastic, some of which actually floats into the Pacific from way, way inland. The stuff doesn't just disappear, it *goes somewhere* -- even if you can't see it anymore.

Or, for the paranoid/stubborn, this is all a giant conspiracy hatched by the liberal media and scientific communities.

CR,
You really like to mis-state things. There is plastic in the ocean. No one is denying that. What the article also stated was that no one knows exactly where all of this stuff came from and what to do about it. The article also stated that most of it breaks down into microscopic particles which may make it impossible to remove. Whats missing is what should we do? What you also naively missed was the call for more research to support endless research. The way this game works is that scientists study and then will suggest disaster unless the government continues to fund their research. You have yet to provide any specific data that provides a direct connection between SUPB's in MV and the mess in the ocean.

So it's some kind of a logical stretch for you that increased use and circulation of plastic items -- bags, whatever -- in the marketplace might possibly lead to more plastic in the ocean?

You want proof? More data? Like what? (And this from the guy who wants less scientific research.) How about: every plastic bag has a satellite beacon on it so we can track its progress.

Or let me just ask: beyond plain common sense, specifically what data would satisfy you?

"Whats missing is what should we do?" Well, I was thinking of regulating the INSANE production and dissemination of plastic materials in our marketplace. What do you think?

Don't get me wrong, plastic is good stuff -- too good in fact. Its low cost, malleability and water-repellent qualities (useful for health care and other necessary functions) have made it ubiquitous in places and ways that it's not needed at all. For example: bags you get at the grocery store.

But make the most modest of suggestions, such as limiting single-use bags at the grocery store or charging a tiny 15$ fee for them -- a drop in the bucket, as I acknowledged above -- and people will flip out and claim that their rights are being trampled by the state or something. It's nuts.

OK CR , so its clear you have no proof but you want local govt to do something that has no connection to the global issue. Data? How about asking cities ( and their trash company) if they are dumping plastic into the ocean. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim.

I agree banning/taxing SUPB's will be a small inconvenience for most people. People object because they know this is just one small part of a larger political agenda by the doom and gloom groups. Limiting SUPB's is silly when compared to all of the other plastic bags for purchase. Even the proponents admit they want to start small and eventually pass more regulations. I am against regulating what you call an insane amount of plastic production. Who decides this is an insane amount. How about the people that choose to buy plastic? Are they insane because they prefer plastic? Why cant you convince them to not buy plastic rather than regulating it? Whats your guiding principle to call for regulation? What else do you want regulated based on a personal preference? I have a world view that has a lot more respect for personal freedom and choice and respect for others to choose differently. Show a little more respect for the diversity of of free voluntary exchange between people.

My response:

"OK CR, so its clear you have no proof..." -- I already addressed this, but will elaborate: the claim that increased plastics in our marketplace and in our daily lives directly results in more plastics in our natural environment, including the ocean, is a purely commonsense one. However, you require "proof." Well, there is ample footage of Safeway bags, Crystal Geyser bottles and Bic lighters found floating in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, or washed up on remote beaches, or in the stomachs of various sea creatures (Web Link (Web Link and increasing documentary evidence of it as well (Web Link I guess now you'll require proof that the specific Safeway bags in those videos came specifically from Mountain View? To which I ask: Before taking the train, did you also require proof that the specific CO2 molecules found to contribute to global warming were coming specifically from your exhaust pipe?

"...but you want local govt to do something..." -- I want everyone to do something, from governments to individuals. But with so many foot-draggers like you around, I'm not holding my breath.

"...that has no connection to the global issue." -- It has every connection. When you drive your car, Smart Growther, do your car emissions have no connection to the global issue of climate change? (As an aside, I've been very curious to know why you consider yourself a "smart growther.")

"Data? How about asking cities (and their trash company) if they are dumping plastic into the ocean." -- Of course they're not doing that. Is that how you think the plastic is getting out there?

It's natural and unavoidable that some amount of whatever it was we use day to day, plastic or otherwise, winds up as errant trash. Every year people all over the country go and pick up trash along our waterways, including, for example, Stevens Creek, and wind up with millions of pounds of trash to take to landfills. Since plastic floats, it has no problem finding its ways from lakes to rivers to beaches to oceans.

"The burden of proof is on the people making the claim." -- Funny, this is the exact argument used repeatedly by the climate change "skeptics." Scientists and environmentalists are constantly challenged to "prove" that climate change exists and that it is man-made, and barring this undefined proof (mere incontrovertible evidence is never good enough), the skeptics will remain unconvinced and fight all efforts, however modest, to curb the global trend.

"I agree banning/taxing SUPB's will be a small inconvenience for most people. People object because they know this is just one small part of a larger political agenda by the doom and gloom groups." -- True. The "doom and gloom groups" (i.e. biologists, climatologists, physicists, environmentalists, etc.) would like to see many improvements on the way we as a species treat our environment, including a reduction in the gratuitous use of plastics. Bunch of doomers!

"Limiting SUPB's is silly when compared to all of the other plastic bags for purchase." -- Again I'll go with the climate change metaphor: is it silly to take the train instead of driving your car to work? After all, you're just a tiny drop in the bucket -- so small you may as well not bother. This is the logic you're using here. Consider this: a lot of little drops make up the whole bucket.

"I am against regulating what you call an insane amount of plastic production. Who decides this is an insane amount. How about the people that choose to buy plastic? Are they insane because they prefer plastic?" -- We're going in circles now, but as I said in an earlier post, "personal choice" quickly becomes an abstraction in the face of real global hazard. If our air, water, soil, fisheries and so on reach dangerous levels of depredation (and I, and many others more qualified, believe they have, and that the worst is yet to come unless we do something about it) then your "personal choice" suddenly isn't a personal choice at all anymore. It affects everyone else and everything else. Sort of like my original analogy about the killer with the knife.

And to answer your question, yes, people who continue to wantonly make choices leading to environmental depredation, after they have seen the truth up close, are insane. We as a society, I believe, are insane.

"Why cant you convince them to not buy plastic rather than regulating it?" -- I don't know. Why can't I convince you?

"I have a world view that has a lot more respect for personal freedom and choice and respect for others to choose differently. Show a little more respect for the diversity of free voluntary exchange between people." -- You don't know me. I think we should have lower taxes. I think people should be allowed to smoke in bars. I think the cell phone law while driving is stupid. I think marijuana should be legalized. And yet I think, as you do, that murder should remain illegal.

And I think that collectively, we Americans are devolving into something like the killer with the knife.

Sorry for the extra-long post here, Smart Growther. I'm going to let this stand as my last word on the matter, at least this time.

CR,

Also my last (and short) post on this topic.

I actually appreciate the extra-long post. It allows all of us readers to see very clearly your world view and how you feel about other human beings.

Thanks.

Thus is the futility of online conversations laid bare.

SG,

You have way too much patience with these elites. You just knew that wouldn't be his last word. You exposed him as an elite self-righteous know it all who wants to impose his views on the rest of the world. They are right and everyone else is wrong. Amazing how he couldnt even handle a little critique or follow a logical connection.

It's too bad politicians pander to this crowd who see only the negative and cant stand the fact that other people with different opinions are having a lot of fun.

What do you think you mean by "elite," buddy? Just a word, really, isn't it? Here's another: hypocrite.

Hard to imagine any remark more self-righteous than "You have way too much patience with these elites."

As for patience: I carefully responded to everything "smart growther" wrote (and pretty much took his argument apart), and figured it deserved something resembling a thoughtful response on his part. We'd each speak our piece on the matter and be done with it.

Instead, I got a quasi-insult, a cop-out nothing:

"I actually appreciate the extra-long post. It allows all of us readers to see very clearly your world view and how you feel about other human beings."

Who's surprised that some guy in Waverly Park actually applauds this. He thinks smart growther has "exposed" something! In fact, everything about this remark, including the veiled sarcasm, is half-assed. A total waste of time. But that's what I get for taking him and his arguments seriously. Lesson learned.

In fact, from now on, whenever I see you people -- so-called "smart growther," JFW, Jack -- spouting your ignorant twaddle on this web site, I'm going to leave it alone, ok? No more attempts to bring a different view here. You're always right. You win.

All the self-deluded chatterboxes win.

And if the people with sense continue to sit by quietly, as they have here, then someday, sooner than you'd like, we will all lose.

Wait, I recant my remark about the people with sense sitting quietly by. Rereading this thread, I see that plenty of people originally tried to get the facts straight here, but every time they posted they got insults like "fundamentalist" and "self-righteous" and "elite" hurled at them by the likes of Smart Growther.

Can't blame Jane, Marti, etc. for giving up -- it does get old after a while.

Few such insults were returned in kind, I might add. Why is it that you Fox News types are happiest in the role of playground bully?

CR,

I also reread the the blog and SG destroyed you with simple logic and reason. I'll admit he did try to goad you and you were foolish enough to take the bait. On the one hand you argue that you like freedom and liberty but dont have a problem restricting it for others. You failed to understand the distinction in freedom of exchange between between smoking drugs and murder.

Bottom line, you come of as narrow minded and intolerant of others that have a clear viable alternative viewpoint.

As editor of this site, I am able to see the IP addresses of posters. It turns out that trw didn't "also" read these comments and happens to agree with Smart Growther. He is Smart Growther.

JFW, also, shares the same IP address. These are all the same person posting under multiple names, which is a violation of our terms of use (Web Link

This comment thread is now closed.