This is an incomplete thought. The more complete thought is: "The evidence shows that people don't value reusable bags as highly as I think they ought to due to my own personal preferences."
to not throw them out without a second thought.
> due to my own personal preferences
I'm going ignore the snarky tone and address the underlying idea: it's not just my own personal preferences. Clogged drainage systems (see Mumbai, India), visual pollution, injury to wildlife, increased taxpayer costs for trash and recyling; all are due to plastic bags. These are things that affect more than just me: they affect you too, they affect everyone. Plastic bags; their use and disposal aren't things that happen in isolation. Plastic is (effectively) forever. It will remain here long after you or I and our descendants are gone, choking the life out of some lake or pond.
> These are things that affect more than just me
You're moving the goal post. I don't disagree that the existence of plastic bags doesn't affect me or others. I'm contesting that their valuation level is some known fact that your prose suggests you're privy to.
> to not throw them out without a second thought.
Everyone I know (including myself) saves their plastic bags for reuse. I've been using the same plastic bag to bring my lunch to work since last November!
I guess I assumed when people throw something out, they don't value it sufficiently highly. That's obviously why you see all those gold watches and diamond rings in the trash every day. </sarcasm> (I'm obviously not suggesting reusable bags are worth the same as a gold watch)
Perhaps I should have phrased it as "The evidence suggests" instead of "shows". Maybe the definitiveness of my statement is what has rubbed you the wrong way. I don't know. There could be other reasons why people throw out reusable bags too: lack of storage space, lack of knowledge that they're reusable, not enough time to think about it/need to clean up in a hurry.
> Everyone I know (including myself) saves their plastic bags for reuse. I've been using the same plastic bag to bring my lunch to work since last November!
I personally think that's very admirable and applaud you for it (totally serious here). I wish more people did the same as you. Not everyone does it and in some circles, storing plastic bags from the store in a drawer marks you out as some sort of frugal weirdo.
When people throw something out, they are valuing the thing as disposable trash more than the thing staying around. This isn't to say that this valuation is "right" or "wrong," which is context that your comment is adding. Specifically, the context is, "the valuation is wrong because it doesn't achieve some other goal that I care about." The labeling of the valuation as wrong and implying it is generally known is what I'm objecting to.
> Not everyone does it and in some circles, storing plastic bags from the store in a drawer marks you out as some sort of frugal weirdo.
Weird. It's totally normal where I come from (Massachusetts), to the point of you can walk into someone's house and ask, "Where do you keep your plastic bags?"
I don't think it's particularly admirable IMO. It's just convenient. :-)
I was saying that the valuation is not high enough to keep people from throwing out reusable bags (ie what you said: "disposable trash"). I didn't use the word "wrong" in any of my comments and I don't think I implied it either. What I (thought I) was implying is that the low perceived value of reusable bags was hurting the city's goal (note: not "my goal", which I also never said, though yeah I support it) of reducing the use of plastic.
Clearly you're taking issue with what you assumed was the subtext of my comment. I can't help that. The most I can do is clarify.
If you want to change other peoples behavior I have trouble supporting something that unfairly penalizes the poor.
Yes there certainly can. I won't make it though; I like looking at a plastic-free environment myself.
> If you want to change other peoples behavior I have trouble supporting something that unfairly penalizes the poor.
How exactly does a plastic bag ban unfairly penalize the poor?
I could make the argument that by reducing city trash and recycling costs, street sweeping costs and the store's costs in providing the bags, the poor actually benefit overall. Not to mention it's poor neighborhoods, which typically have more littering, that potentially stand to benefit more from less waste. Rich neighborhoods can afford to pay for street cleaning out of pocket if the city doesn't come through; poor ones can't.
EDIT: When you get to the bottom of it, plastic bags impose a negative externality on taxpayers (in the form of higher city trash costs), businesses (more littering makes the city less visually appealing) and animals (which get trapped in plastic bags). People are free to use plastic bags, but there should be a cost associated with all the negative consequences of this behavior to everyone else.
Even most grocery stores sell reusable bags for $1-2 apiece; so in the overwhelming majority of scenarios people would be paying more than 10 cents but less than the punitive $5. And by consciously buying a bag (instead of just saying "Yeah, I'll pay 10 cents for a bag" at the counter), people might be less likely to throw it out.
When that happens to me and you whack me for $5, I grimace a little, but basically don't care and my kids don't go hungry. If you whack someone for $5 who is poor and buying groceries with an EBT card, they're putting a gallon of milk back on the shelf to afford the bag. Or, they could ride the bus home, get their bags, ride the bus back, buy their stuff, and avoid the $4 fine ($1 for the bag and $4 for the convenience fine) at the cost of maybe an hour of their limited free time.
That's how it hurts the poor. That you or I could buy 10 bags for $12 and keep them in the trunk of our car so we always have them doesn't help the carless.
You asked how exactly it hurt the poor and I answered that question. I didn't come here spoiling for a fight over the issue.
The alternatives are not free. In SF, at least, your alternatives are to buy a heavy-duty reusable bag, or spend 10c per paper bag when checking out. 10c is a trivial thing to pay for most people, but when you're poor, it can matter.
Maybe not. It just needs to be high enough to discourage most bag throwing. Maybe that number is $2 instead of $5. Maybe instead of just offering you a bag at the counter and tacking it on to your bill, they make you go to the bag aisle and bring back a bag that you have to consciously buy (it has a barcode and they scan it); so it's a cost in annoyance rather than money.
> taxes and fees for street cleaning and parks aren't anywhere in that ballpark
It's not just street cleaning and parks. You're discounting trash collection, recycling and landfill costs. The costs of the city being less attractive (I don't know if it can be measured, but there certainly is a cost). The cost to wildlife and the oceans. Do all these add up to $5 a bag? I don't know. Would a $<punitive_number>/bag fee eliminate most of these costs? Probably. Could someone more creative than myself come up with even better ideas? Definitely.
I've always wondered if you could avoid the perverse incentive created by such fines by having the levied amount removed from the economy (i.e. literally destroy the money). There's the fine would still discourage the undesirable behavior, but not incentivize the corruptive behavior.
Perhaps; but it'd be more convincing if you actually made it.
No it won't. Just throwing a tax on something doesn't magically make it go away, see also "tobacco".
Funny you should mention tobacco because raising taxes on it has been shown to reduce tobacco usage.
Australia has near-punitive levels of tax on cigarettes, and smoking levels have dropped considerable over the past few decades. About 50% of the price of a pack of cigarettes is tax here, which marries up with your quote. Taxes aren't the only thing making smoking rates drop here, but among the smokers I know, most of them have reduced their rates simply due to the expense.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/a-doll...
... yes.
And I believe the "smoking tax" punishes the poor.
You haven't shown that it doesn't; I haven't shown that it does. What we've established is that taxing smoking doesn't stop smokers--Until it's too high a cost to pay. For the poor.
If you think reducing from two packs a day to one and a half packs is a meaningful reduction, enjoy the sensation. That's all you're getting. Savor it.
s/my number/your number/ and the same people are getting sick and dying. They're just paying more for the privilege.
If the desirable outcome is to reduce overall usage of plastic bags then banning them is absolutely the right decision.
The evidence shows that people don't value reusable bags highly enough. Which is understandable because stores only charge 10 cents for them (at least in the Bay Area). The solution isn't to repeal the ban: it's to raise the mandated price of reusable bags to something like $5. Tax undesirable behavior and it will go down.