Opinion: Editorial
Paper or…?
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- The Invisible Man Award: Wyndham Manning (May 7, 2009)
- The People's Choice Award: Jacqueline Hitchon et. al (May 7, 2009)
- The Lifetime Achievement Award: ASM (May 7, 2009)
- Honest representation (May 5, 2009)
- Junger for ASM Chair (May 5, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Last week, Madison’s Commission on the Environment mulled over a proposal to reduce the number of plastic containers and bags in the city. While the idea is still in its earliest phase, discussion has ranged from prohibiting sale of plastic bottles at public events to banning plastic grocery bags.
While the city’s environmentalists cite several countries and American cities that have already taken similar initiatives, the committee should be cautious about proposing any sort of initiative without seriously considering the effectiveness of any plastic ban.
A consumer’s loss of choice between “paper or plastic” may seem rather negligible, but some could reasonably argue that the benefits of a plastic ban could have a similarly negligible effect on the environment.
When asked what detrimental effects plastics have, commission chair Jon Standridge told us that negative effects include recycling machinery malfunctions, estrogen release, use of oil in production and an increased carbon footprint.
While these effects are important enough to be addressed, we’re unsure a ban of plastic grocery bags in this city would provide any noticeable change. After all, plastic bags are not the only non-recyclable items accidentally mixed in with recyclable materials. And while a plastic bag ban in China resulted in saving 5 million tons of oil, taking the bags out of a city of 225,000 people won’t even make a dent in petroleum production.
So how wide does the scope have to be before it makes a difference?
Much wider than it is now. Comparing the world’s largest country to a Midwestern city, as commission member Bruce Dickie did, is disingenuous because it neglects the impact of a wide-scale initiative. The cost of taking away such a trivial consumer choice would clearly be outweighed by the benefits all of us would reap from a significantly healthier environment. However, municipal initiatives aren’t always worth it unless they lead to something bigger.
When San Francisco decided to ban plastic bags last year, it inspired some West Coast cities, including Los Angeles, to propose parallel measures. If Madison can spark a similar movement, a widespread removal of plastic may be worth the minor inconvenience to shoppers.
In the end, any proposed ban is only worth the effort if the momentum carries on. A state or federal measure would certainly be more appropriate if it had a decent shot at passing. A city ban would only work if it’s done in a way that is sensible enough for consumers and provides a model that the rest of the state will eventually follow.
Environmentalists can argue action is needed now, but rational examination should not give way to impulsive “green” fervor. Until the commission receives specific recommendations from Madison recycling coordinator George Dreckman, Madison should temper any urge to deal fatal blows to plastic — be it bag or bottle.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
You guys usually produce solid editorials. However, this was really crappy. Either way until the report is done or come out directly for/against. Instead, you picked some strange middle ground, rendering your arguments weak and ineffective. What the heck are you even saying? “Beware, but maybe it’ll be OK?”
The easiest way to address this is to take the European approach. Ban businesses from giving away plastic bags for free. Consumers can bring their own reusable bags or they can opt to purchase their bags from the vendor. Businesses save by not having to the bags they give away, and they gain, although it might not be significant, some income from selling the bags. Consumers who don’t want to shell out 10-25 cents a bag will bring their own. This model is used extensively, almost exclusively, throughout Europe, and Madison would be wise to consider this option as they look at what to do about plastic bags.
How about using plastic made from corn instead of oil?
Ironically, plastic bags are the most re-used form of garbage there is. It’s also ironic that we’re cutting down more trees to save the environment (in the case of paper bag alternatives).
For the average, bill-paying citizen, the ban on plastic bags means spending more time, money and energy carrying his/her groceries home… meanwhile, oil consumption will not decrease. Huge SUVs keep rolling out while petroleum companies continue to whimsically raise the price of gas.
Banning the use of plastic bags is an environmental red-herring. Obviously throwing plastic bags on the ground is not good. That’s why there are fines for littering. But, between pouring oil into the atmosphere and throwing plastic bags on the ground, the former seems worse. I wonder, what is the equivalent in plastic bags to an average car’s 25-gallon gas tank?
Besides, if there’s one thing oil is good for, it’s for making plastic. Plastic is cheap, sanitary and easy to recycle.