Posted by me em at 7/8/08 5:23 p.m.

Am I imagining things? I could have sworn it was supposed to be 10 cents a bag.

100% inflation...unreal!

Posted by bendervish at 7/8/08 5:43 p.m.

The ocean is downstream from everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

The great majority of marine debris is land based, working toward preventing waste is a good thing. We've survived thousands of years without plastic packaging, for the most part it is unneeded and toxic - the risk is not worth the return.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/8/08 5:45 p.m.

The eco-friendly bags are catching on here out east, albeit slowwwly.
Thing that gets me out here though is that checkers at the stores are in this strange habit of double bagging everything. I am constantly telling them that one bag is fine. Their response is, "It'll break." And I tell them I haven't had a single bag break on me yet. This is of course when I end up at a store without a eco-friendly bag.

Posted by jinjimbob at 7/8/08 5:57 p.m.

Do what they really do in Europe, make the bags out of none plastic, such as starch based products. Its biodegradable.

But Seattle wants to tax anything and everything. Maybe tax mayors who are vastly overweight? ;)

Posted by unregistered user at 7/8/08 6:15 p.m.

i read, some citys have recycle thieves that dig in peoples recycling bins and make big money selling stolen cans and paper. Is this why the city is so into recycling... is the city of Seattle is secretly reselling our cans and paper and keeping the profit while charging to collect it? Talk about double taxing. Mayor McThief!

Posted by Bluehair at 7/8/08 6:21 p.m.

First, WHERE is the money gonna go? Straight into Nickels' pocket? Or the next best thing, the city's general fund? Pah! Buncha crooks!

Second, let's try POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT, not NEGATIVE. Encourage people to bring reusable bags, not punish them for failing to do so.

I agree we need to reduce our dependency on plastic, but this is not the way. Besides, some of recycle the bags when we scoop the kitty litter droppings into them. Gee, should I promote some other bag maker to manufacturer more bags just for that purpose? Puh-lease.

When's our next mayoral election? I can't wait!

Posted by Panzo at 7/8/08 6:32 p.m.

My bags are made from baby harp seal fur. Is that ok?

Posted by Roosevelt at 7/8/08 6:47 p.m.

Yes, please ban styrofoam. I take a large tupperware to my takeout, and have them just put my teriyake, burger or whatever in there. No one has seemed to mind, those styrofoam containers cost them money as well.

Posted by Socially Inept at 7/8/08 7:04 p.m.

I can't believe that more people don't see this for the money grab it is. Mayor Nickels has been shameless in his willingness to take advantage of Seattleites' well-intentioned but misguided belief that they can "save the planet".

Folks, you do realize how large the planet is, right? Using a canvas bag isn't going to change a dang thing.

Posted by IncredibleScott at 7/8/08 7:20 p.m.

Socially Inept, doing nothing won't change a damn thing either, any tiny bit helps.

And really, how much of a hassle is it to use a canvas bag? Hmm...probably is, I remember my ancestors were struggling in the 1800's without the technological advances of the plastic bag.

We've grown accustomed to a wasteful lifestyle and while we don't see much on our end, hence ignorantly assuming we have a large planet where waste is infinity small (out of sight, out of mind!). This is one small step to solving a bigger problem.

Now if this is a political ploy by Mayor Nichols? Probably is...but it's still a step in the right direction.

Posted by Mr. Mystery at 7/8/08 8:05 p.m.

But is that why we elect these people, to micro manager our lives? People are already carrying bags into the store. The change is happening. When the City of Seattle was low on water in '91, they simply asked for voluntary change and water consumption fell 20% more than they hoped for (and the per-capita consumption level never returned.)

This is the kind of grandstanding we have come to expect from the mayor and the city council.

Posted by Grnlake at 7/8/08 8:16 p.m.

It seems that all of these envioro things coming out of the mayor's office are targeted at middle class libs. I feel if they really wanted to accomplish something, they'd target the POOR instead. The middle class can always afford to pollute if they feel like it, but if the habits of the poor are molded to do something different, it'll stick because they haven't any other options.

Take these bags. If I go out and buy myself 5 nice canvas bags in anticipation of this tax, I'm out say 25.00. This is money I'm not going to see until five months one week have gone by of the new tax, and that's if I had been consistently averaging two trips per week of three bags each time.

Poor people aren't going to necessarily have 25.00 that can be tied up for 5 months lying around, and if they do, it should be servicing a debt or being saved for an emergency.

I think that the average poor person is going to look at the numbers and stick with the 20 cent tax on the plastic bags, because that is the logical move. Or, even worse, they will buy their own plastic bags, which cost an average of 2 cents/bag.

The average middle class or rich person will buy the canvas bags, because for them it is a safe investment. Even if they don't use them consistently, it is not too much of their income being risked.

However, if this scheme were designed to actually make sense financially for a poor person, it would be actually successful.

As the other poster suggested, having people make money on bringing in their own bags would be a terrific way to do this. Someone who had bought the bags could then generate 25.00 every five months for their good behavior, once the first five months had passed that paid for the bags themselves.

Posted by mmbb at 7/8/08 9:52 p.m.

FTA: The grocery bag fees would generate about $10 million a year, according to Seattle Public Utilities. The money would be used to administer and enforce the rules, to buy and promote reusable bags, and to expand recycling, environmental education and waste prevention programs.

Also, while you're bagging on Mayor Nickels, be sure to take it out on Conlin, too.

Hmm, money doesn't go into the mayor's pocket.
Reusable bags will be subsidized for those who can't afford them.
Tons of plastic removed environment and landfills.
The 20˘ charge is not a tax, it is a fee to help offset the environmental costs of plastic bags.
The original proposal called for an outright ban on plastic bags, so just be happy that you still get to choose plastic.

Posted by dpk at 7/8/08 9:54 p.m.

"If I go out and buy myself 5 nice canvas bags in anticipation of this tax, I'm out say 25.00."
FWIW, Fred Meyer has some excellent, large bags with flat bases for a dollar a piece. Granted, that's still more than $0, but I suspect the "poor" can easily afford them.

Posted by Bluehair at 7/8/08 10:58 p.m.

(quote) The grocery bag fees would generate about $10 million a year, according to Seattle Public Utilities. The money would be used to administer and enforce the rules, to buy and promote reusable bags, and to expand recycling, environmental education and waste prevention programs.(endquote)

1o MILLION DOLLARS to buy reusable bags for the populace? In our little city? I don't think so! I'm with Grnlake in thinking the poorest among us will either pay the punishment tax per bag, cuz it's less money in the short term, or start bringing ratty ole department store bags, used again and again and again and again and again, to avoid paying this senseless tax. This is just another case of the mayor on his soapbox, imposing his ideals on the rest of us.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/8/08 10:59 p.m.

i think it's time we banned all new useless legislation by this council and mayor. if they want to impose more fees on the public, let them take a salary cut each time. it'll be like a bag tax and will save the environment!

Posted by unregistered user at 7/9/08 12:12 a.m.

I can't wait till he becomes EX-Mayor of Seattle!
1 more year of this lunacy!

Posted by Atomic Punk at 7/9/08 9:30 a.m.

Monica,

The problem for me is how miniscule of a problem this is. Or, I should say, how miniscule the environmental benefit will be.

First, Oil and CO2 Impacts Will Be Negligible. Barrels of Oil and Greenhouse Gases. It takes one barrel of oil to produce approximately 8,300 plastic bags. The City estimates that Seattleites use 360,000,000 of these bags annually, thus requiring 43,000 barrels of oil.

On the other hand Seattle residents use the equivalent of about 354,000 pint bottles of water each day. As the Times reported on May 7, 2008, that equals about 41,000 barrels of oil.

In other words, even if you assume this ordinance will reduce plastic bag usage by 95% (the Ireland assumption), it will just barely equal the amount of oil used to create ONE DAY'S worth of plastic water bottles.

Second, There is No Evidence Fish and Marine Habitat Will Benefit. The second argument cited by advocates is the supposed benefit to marine life. The widely quoted statistic is that plastic bags murder sea life. There is no support for that contention. As the Times of London reported last year:

"The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets.

The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags."

In short this is an expensive proposal with minimal benefit. The sixteen million dollars of taxation collected by this program could be used in infinitely better ways.

Seattle's Bag Proposal is Irrational

Posted by unregistered user at 7/9/08 10:08 a.m.

What will happen next??? will my plastic milk bottles be banned, my bottled soda, or detergent, or plastic cups, or all the other products that come in plastic container?

Why can't the plastic bags be recycled???? My understanding is that the folks in Seattle do not evey recycle food products yet.... When is that going to start? It seems to me if we recycle these items we eliminate the problem. Get people on the recycle program and make sure they are actually doing it.!!!

I personally disagree with this whole idea and guess I will just buy more of my groceries, drugs, etc. from Costco where I don't use a bag at all.

Posted by Justin RR at 7/10/08 12:21 a.m.

Atomic punk,

Thanks for your number crunching, but you forget one thing:

The bag fee applies to BOTH plastic and PAPER bags. Paper bags have a much higher embodied energy and hence greenhouse gas emissions profile than plastic.

Bottom line, the city estimates the bag fee will reduce climate change emissions equivalent to taking 665 cars off the road. It won't save us from roasting, but that's not a bad start for something as humble as the littl old grocery bag.

Posted by brinybay at 7/18/08 12:26 a.m.

Wait a minute, I thought that plastic bags are already being recycled? They're listed as RECYCLABLE in the green part of the recycle chart that they give out. They just have to be bagged. I've been doing just that, I save them all and stuff them into a larger plastic bag, just like it says to do. So are they saying that recycling doesn't work?