Yet another plastic bag ban to save the world
posted at 10:31 am on May 12, 2012 by Jazz Shaw
It’s all the rage today, sweeping the nation from coast to coast. As we reported back in March, municipalities across the country are saving the world, one shopping trip at a time, by banning the use of plastic grocery bags. And now, despite some spectacular failures by others who paved the way, Los Angeles is poised to leap into the fray. But the industry is fighting back this time.
With Los Angeles on the verge of becoming the nation’s largest city to ban single-use bags at supermarkets and convenience stores, the plastics industry is beginning to fight back.
With a series of radio and television commercials along with a website (www.bagtheban.com) the American Progressive Bag Alliance also is lobbying city lawmakers to try to head off the plans to outlaw use of the bags.
“We are engaging in the process of dialogue on lots of different fronts,” said Donna Dempsey, spokeswoman for the alliance. “Each city is different, each municipality is unique and we are trying to design our message for Los Angeles.”
They tried it in DC and wound up losing more than 100 jobs and realized a net drop in disposable income. They passed the same ban in San Francisco in 2007 to cut down on their plastic waste. The net result was that the city’s percentage of plastic waste went from .6 percent to .64 percent.
Los Angeles doesn’t just use plastic bags. They also make them and recycle them. The workers in that industry come forward in the following video to talk about what the ban will mean to them and their families. Give it a look.
But hey… they’re saving the world, right?
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
More Agenda 21. Grabbing up as much land as possible.
katy on May 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM
Washington, DC aside, why does the federal government own any land..?
affenhauer on May 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Ya know, I think the GOP has stumbled upon a brilliant way to force some budget cuts. First we had it at the FAA, now at Interior:
1) Cut everything by XX%
2) People start screeching
3) You point out that “well, here’s where you could have saved that money”
4) Pass legislation reallocating the would-have-been-wasted funds to actual good stuff
5) Obama signs it.
If Step 2 doesn’t happen, we’ve won. If step 4 doesn’t happen, point out that “the democrats wouldn’t let us reopen the parks!”. If step 5 doesn’t happen, scream and shout that “Obama wouldn’t let us reopen the parks!”
Mohonri on May 1, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Le bravo, Erika!
Yup. Filthy sob’s.
petefrt on May 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM
So they can hire people to manage it.
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:41 PM
And the really sad thing (and if you’re a liberal you would be intellectually dishonest to admit it) the properties would have been LESS developed and LESS crowded and BETTER managed if the gubmint had just kept their grubby paws off….
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:45 PM
deny it…sorry
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Katy got it on comment number one.
tom daschle concerned on May 1, 2013 at 5:47 PM
I suggest either:
1. The US Government sells all its lands back to the states in which the land is located, or
2. The US Government turns over operations to private, competitively bid contractors. Present US park employees would have first dibs on jobs, now private, assuming they are qualified. A small staff of government employees would remain to handle oversight of private companies.
#2 would shift the burden of federal employees from the government to the private secor. This would increase tax revenue because now the government would not have to pay these employees and the private contractor would pay taxes on profits. I expect that the private sector would be more efficient, being profit oriented, than the employees that have now no or little accountability.
If #1 goes ahead, I suggest the sale be contingent on the states adopting #2 making park operations private.
I’d like to see this across the board with as many agencies as possible.
billrowe on May 1, 2013 at 5:52 PM
That would be giving up power. Not gonna happen. They can’t even get rid of empty buildings that we are paying for, or empty bank accounts with monthly fees. How could this clown troupe ever actually get rid of LAND?
iurockhead on May 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM
And you wonder why “tin hats” believe government is buying up ammunition in order to drive prices sky high.
GarandFan on May 1, 2013 at 5:55 PM
They own most of the West. Why don’t we give it back to the Native Americans? At least they are savvy businessmen and would let energy companies lease it back!
PattyJ on May 1, 2013 at 6:04 PM
Since I cancelled satellite I’m getting reaquinted with OTA TV. Been watching PBS distort history and embellish socialism via a retelling of Ken Burns’ old dust bowl documentary. They are pulling out all the stops to make it as current to events and policy initiatives as possible. Fascinating in a “we need to defund this crap” kind of way.
Having read “The Roosevelt Myth” and seeing how dems are operating right now it confirms what we know about them. Fcae it, they are communists that won’t let us define them as such. Progressive, European socialists, whatever. They want to control people by any means necessary.
DanMan on May 1, 2013 at 6:12 PM
LOVELY picture of the Tetons :)
Jackalope on May 1, 2013 at 6:25 PM
National Park lands sure do make GREAT COLLATERAL for our debt!
Wouldn’t the Chinese love to get hold of some of the natural resources under the ground?
PappyD61 on May 1, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Why can’t I post links on here????
katy on May 1, 2013 at 6:39 PM
the Federal government should sell at least 90% of the land it holds. States hold too much land as well.
forest on May 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM
If you are trying to post CNN or CNBC links, HA has judged those sources unreliable and the whole post will be blocked.
slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM
New Mexico …..dopes are going for a land grab in Taos Co. . Believe me
they can’t manage any of the land they now ” own ” . But call it a National
Monument and the morons cheer . The locals don’t care ( they foul their
turf with trash galore ) not realizing that there are no tax $s for the county
in this grab . These are the good folks that write about how they can hear
their lettuce scream when cut it in their gardens .
Susanna Martinez R Gov. has injected a good bit of sanity in an otherwise
nuts state .
If only they could get the idea that cocktail hour doesn’t start at 11am !
Lucano on May 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM
That’s an interesting photo shot on the home page.
Cleombrotus on May 1, 2013 at 9:25 PM
I live just over the hill to the left of that cover photo. Just love it in the summer. Especially if summer comes on a weekend!
IdahoAl on May 1, 2013 at 10:35 PM
Thanks. It was a cbnc link
katy on May 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM
cnbc duh
katy on May 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM
FIFY, Erika.
There are *some* legitimate reasons, including military bases and ranges. And, I don’t mind a few national parks. One third of the land area of the US, though? Wow.
BINGO!
GWB on May 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM
The whole idea of these land grabs really frosts me !
Great piece Erika , wish it got more attention .
Lucano on May 2, 2013 at 10:53 AM