Why not a ban? Details on the anti-plastic bag hearing

Many environmentalists thought enviro-org Heal the Bay was pushing for a ban on plastic bags. Well, this may be true in an abstract sense, but in reality, Heal the Bay agreed to much, MUCH less with the L.A. County Board of Supervisors.

Yes, Heal the Bay pushed environmentalists not only to attend today's hearing, but to show up an hour early to rally on the steps of the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration wearing "Ban the Bag" buttons. But what, exactly, were the stakes?

What Heal the Bay wanted at the hearing: A VOLUNTARY 35% reduction of plastic bag use by 2010, followed by a VOLUNTARY 70% reduction by 2013. This was in the original legislation put in front of the Board of Supervisors.

What big biz wanted at the hearing: The same VOLUNTARY goals, except 5% lower targets -- 30% by 2010, and 65% by 2013. This was in a proposed amendment  -- put forth by supervisors Don Knabe and Michael D. Antonovich -- to the aforementioned legislation.

Both sides agreed that if the percentage goals weren't reached, a plastic bag ban would kick in.

In essence, the entire reason Heal the Bay called environmentalists to rally was over a 5% difference in VOLUNTARY reduction goals.

Surprised? You're not alone. At the hearing, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky kicked off the post-public-comment discussion on this issue by saying that he was surprised that Heal the Bay agreed to a package that was less than a ban. "If it was up to me, there would be a ban on plastic bags," Yaroslavsky said. (below: The crowd at the hearing. Anti-bag peeps are in red)

Of course, Heal the Bay's agreement to a 35%/70% dealio didn't stop biz groups from pushing for further concessions. The California Grocers Assn., L.A. Chamber of Commerce, Valley Industry & Commerce Assn., and other less-than-green businesses and orgs said they supported the plastic bag legislation -- WITH the Knabe-Antonovich amendment. Some went so far as to push for even more watering down of the rules, saying they supported "attainable goals."

Many environmentalists and enviro groups spoke out too, citing economic, environmental and quality-of-life reasons for banning the bag. Santa Monica Baykeeper, Green Ambassadors, Earth Resource Foundation, Friends of Ballona Wetlands, Ballona Creek Renaissance, Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, and even individual bird lovers ("Put a face, or if you will, a beak, on that issue") put in their two cents. Some leaders in the Jewish religious community also spoke up about what they called this "moral and religious" issue. And green business people -- from Chico Bags to Greenopia -- made a business case for getting rid of plastic bags (you may think plastic bags are free, but you pay tax dollars through the nose to clean up the mess that stuff makes).

However, most of these people argued for an outright plastic bag ban, which wasn't even on the agenda. Heal the Bay was one of the few enviro groups that stayed on-agenda, arguing for the legislation WITHOUT the Knabe-Antonovich amendment.

Was this 5% really worth getting all worked up over? I mean, Heal the Bay made a helluva lot of concessions behind closed doors -- and didn't make a stink about it! Then suddenly, the enviro-nonprofit got into a tizzy when 35% and 70% got whittled down by a mere 5% each.

Of course, I would've liked to see the higher percentages go through. Yaroslavsky questioned the California Grocers rep as to why her org felt 65% was so much more achievable than 70% (the rep, after calling the 70% arbitrary, had no reason as to why 65% wasn't just as arbitrary; she simply said a lower number would be easier to "get consensus" on), noted sarcastically that "if you set the bar low enough, we can all meet the goals," and concluded that he'd "prefer to set the bar higher."

And of course, I can see why Heal the Bay wasn't happy with the turn of events. Mark Gold, president of Heal the Bay, said at the hearing that his org agreed to the original legislation only grudgingly, while holding its nose. Most of his commentary, in fact, seemed to support a ban more than the legislation. "No one has successfully used recycling to solve this problem," he said, noting that only 5% of plastic bags get recycled.

Apparently, this amendment with its 5% extra in concessions was the last straw -- never mind that this detail seems negligible compared to the previous concessions Heal the Bay made. Supervisor Gloria Molina said she didn't understand "this lousy 5% that this big debate's about." And in some ways, I agree.

As to how this 5% rift occurred between Heal the Bay and biz interests? Details remained unclear. While the amendment was put on the agenda last minute, the California Grocers Assn. said it had been pushing for 65% since November; L.A. County Dept. of Public Works concurred, but with the caveat that at the time, other options -- i.e. the possibility of a ban -- were the main points of discussion.

And apparently, Supervisor Yvonne Burke called a meeting about the amendment with all sides last week. Her take from that meeting was that all parties, including Heal the Bay, agreed to the Knabe-Antonovich amendment. Gold disagreed, saying Heal the Bay never agreed to this concession, and that the org sent strongly-worded e-mails just an hour and a half after the meeting reiterating their opposition. However, Gold wasn't at the meeting -- and Burke said that Heal the Bay peeps who DID attend DID agree to the amendment. What actually went down at that meeting, only the actual attendees can tell.

So that's how the sides got drawn. Burke said she felt burned by what she saw as Heal the Bay's about-face regarding the amendment. And of course, Knabe and Antonovich, having authored the amendment, supported it.

And that's how it went down. Burke, Knabe and Antonovich voted to include the amendment (Molina and Yaroslavsky voted against). And then the amended legislation was passed (Molina's vote was inaudible; the other four supervisors said yea).

It was all a bit disappointing. On the way home, after getting off the Big Blue Bus rapid 10, I stopped to buy some wine. After all, I had my reusable bag with me -- and it felt sadly empty. Beelining my way to the wine section, I overheard this convo at the cash register:

"Would you like a bag?"
"Um -- sure!"

Then I got home to a press release from Heal the Bay, with this headline: "L.A. Sets Bad Precedent With Plastic Bag Law." The press release says the decision marks a "significant blow to the Southland environment and economy," and alleges that "the board voted to protect the interests of the polluters." The whole thing's strange, considering the fact that Heal the Bay would've been saying exactly the opposite if the board had voted against the little amendment. Does a mere 5% more in VOLUNTARY reductions make the difference between a good precedent and a bad one?

[Previously: Today's plastic bag hearing: No, it wasn't about a ban or a tax and The Skinny on L.A. County's new anti-plastic bag legislation]

Photo by Siel

Comments

[Jeff Stephens]

The ban on plastic bags in Oakland was passed in July 2007 and scheduled to take effect on Jan 18, 2008. A lawsuit saying biodegradable plastic bags will 'contaminate' the plastic bag recycling stream is slowing down full implementation. A hearing is scheduled for Jan 29. Hopefully we'll move ahead with the ban. In the meantime, concerned Oaklanders will continue using their cloth bags. Next agenda item? Newspaper bags?

[m]

.... so i don't know if i am in the minority here and this isn't to say that plastic bags are good, but am I the only person that reuses grocery store plastic bags to haul around recycling? Is there a good "green" alternative for this? I'd use paper bags, but the recycling I take from work usually has so much soda residue that it leaks out of the cans and with paper bags and carrying the bags on the train for over an hour, they just disintegrate. The paper bags are also prone to tipping over and spilling the contents (and I have been yelled at on the train for throwing garbage all over the place when this happened...) I have to carry the recycling to a center since we don't have recycling services at my work or at my apartment right now, so just tossing it into the "blue bins" isn't the work around. I reuse the bags I can, but sometimes the resulting sticky, moldy residue in the bags is difficult to get out and the plastic bags end up ripping. I would feel stupid and wasteful buying new plastic bags just to carry around recycling. Should I just make myself a 2 week supple of huge hemp bags or try to obtain water proof bulk grain bags or something?

[Mark Gold]

Enviro girl (Siel) had a lot of good points about yesterday's hearing. The end result of negotiated outcomes can be a mess. Negotiating with the County is a three step process that involves Public Works staff first, then the County CEO's office and then all five of the Supervisors (who don't agree on anything!). Mix in the California Grocers Association and the plastic industry. Then add the very diverse environmental community as a coaliton of groups, and the end result can be a complex recommendation that doesn't meet the mark.

How did we get there? Heal the Bay and the coalition drew a line in the sand on two issue: add convenience stores and beef up the accountability language. The exclusion of convenient stores was likened to a Kyoto protocol without the US and China signing on. Our strategy was based on the fact that we didn't see any chance for retailers to meet the 70 % reduction target. End result = ban in 2013. Not early enough for everyone, but it barely passed the smell test of the environmental coalition. When the County agreed to adding convenient stores and more accountability, we were on the hook.

The County then reneged on the deal with the 5% reduction. Five percent doesn't sound like much, but it is 300 million bags a year!!!! That was the last straw.

Maybe we should have stuck with the original proposal. Ban bags by 2010. Maybe even give waivers to those retailers that charge 10 cents a more per bag. However, that position was a non-starter for County staff, the CEO and the Board of Supervisors. The statements that Supervisor Burke made last year shortly after the San Francisco ban were purely rhetoric. We took a shot to get LA County to move forward on a critical environmental issue. Bottom line, (no surprise here), a majority of the Board chose to back the plastics manufacturers and the Grocers Association over environmental protection.

Bottom line - we lost yesterday, but with events like "Day Without a Bag" and bans in China, Australia and now Whole Foods, the momentum is on the side of the environment. Yesterday, we succeeded in making our voices heard and letting everyone know that the County proposal was certainly not worthy of being a model for any of the 88 cities in the county, let alone statewide. We'll move forward on trying to get bag bans in place. See you February 12th in Santa Monica. Hopefully, the outcome will be better for our rivers, beaches and bays.

Mark Gold
President
Heal the Bay

[brooke]

to m:

you should really rinse out of your recycling elements. if it's sticky or icky, the city cannot recycle it so putting in dirty soda cans does very little for the environment. once the cans are clean and dry, you can put them in a reusable bag and toss just the cans in the blue bin,

at home, i have a plastic bin that I fill up and then lug to the recycling center. the container is reusable - i just dump out the items that need to be recycled.

[m]

Brooke, I collect all of the recycling for about 50 people that I work with in addition to my own -- getting people to put items in the bins is a task in itself. I think most people would just skip the whole recycling step if I asked them to rinse out things. From what I have read it is preferable to rinse out the containers so they don't attract insects/stink, but not necessary in Los Angeles - maybe Siel or someone has the correct answer on this though. I think rinsing out the cans and bottles from 50 other individuals would be incredibly time consuming, makes everything even more wet, which kinda adds to the whole issue of mold (or my recycling program will be put to an end immediately if I leave wet cans and bottles all over the counters and floor of the work-kitchen) and is a waste of water if it is not necessary. Also, as I mentioned, this stuff isn't going to a blue bin because I don't have one in my apartment building or at my work building. It goes into my car trunk and sits there for 2 weeks until the trunk is full and I can take it away to be recycled (I don't have a garage, porch, yard, balcony, etc). I don't drive to work though, so there is a step inbetween where I carry the recycling from work to home on the train. At home I use paper bags or newspaper bags to carry my recycling to the center since most of my stuff is small and dry or can easily be left out to dry on my kitchen counter.

[Beth Terry]

Wow. I had no idea the L.A. Bag Ban wasn't a bag ban at all. I have been receiving press releases about it too, and assumed it was an actual ban. This legislation just seems lame. Well, at least the county won't be getting sued over it like we are here in Oakland.

Beth

[Siel]

Good luck, Beth and Jeff! The Cali Grocers Assn. tried to use similar arguments re: biodegradable bags at the board meeting -- nevermind that no one was actually touting biodegradable bags as an alternative. In LA, we don't have our own facility to handle biodegradable bags, so of course CGA pointed that out. Molina then actually asked the CGA rep if CGA would support the ban if LA DID have a facility for this; the rep replied with a sheepish no.

Thanks for stopping by, Mark -- I highlighted some of your comments here on this post.

Lastly: m -- I answered your question in detail here. Hope it helps --