Margaret Day, For the Express-News : November 22, 2013
Photo By John Davenport / San Antonio Express-News
Plastic bags and other trash are strewn across trees and plants next to Jones Maltsberger Road.
SAN ANTONIO — I am writing to correct assertions in the Express-News Nov. 15 editorial, “Plastic bag ban needs more study.”
Banning thin film plastic carryout bags is not “a complex issue that deserves close study by City Council” but an issue that has been studied exhaustively around the state, indeed the world, and bans are winning the debate.
The editorial claims “at their worst, plastic bags are unsightly pollutants that get trapped in trees and caught on bushes.” No, what is worse is plastic bags kill and cost a lot. Ranchers in our area attest that cows die from ingesting them, as does wildlife. Fort Stockton and Kermit banned plastic bags in part because of cattle deaths. Sunlight eventually breaks down bags from their petroleum derived polymers into microscopic granules. These molecules build up in water and soil, absorb other pollutants, and concentrate in the food chain, eventually contributing to rising rates of cancer and other diseases in humans.
“Cleanup costs” include all these indirect costs, because, despite however much money and labor the city, county, state, and citizen groups like Basura Bash volunteers may fork up — the plastic bag litter remains!
The City Council announced a resolution to ban “single use bags.” What the editorial fails to notice is that this includes plastic and paper bags. Hopefully, an ordinance will be adopted that bans plastic and requires a fee high enough to discourage and end the use of paper bags, which also have a high environmental and cost burden.
The social and environmental benefits of reusable bags are clear, if the bags are durable and made responsibly. The ban can be an important tool for educating citizens on everyday responsibilities in a sustainable society.
The health concerns of reusable bags are a scare tactic. Food carried in reusable bags is protected by its packaging and, if not, washing the bags when needed is environmentally sounder than using hundreds of plastic bags every year. The water used for washing is recycled, thanks to our city's great water treatment system. The editorial claims fecal coliform is a big problem, but Consumer's Union scientists debunked this. These alarmist reports are paid for by the chemical industry, in this case the American Chemical Council.
The editorial claims studies have suggested bag bans hurt businesses. Yet, a 2013 proposed bill to prohibit bag bans in Texas was withdrawn, ostensibly because the Texas Retailers Association was unable to verify any damages from bag bans.
The argument that the poor are most burdened by a bag ban is also baseless. Lower income families will gain from bag bans, especially if the true costs of single-use bags, including health costs, are factored in, and because they have no choice but to pay imbedded plastic and paper bag costs that raise prices.
The editorial recommends council first consider improving plastic bag recycling. The city already did fund such an effort. We paid a quarter of a million dollars in taxpayer money and delayed two years to support their Change is in the Bag plan, which failed. As for bundling bags for curbside recycling, Austin tried and failed.
Recycling plastic bags is not enough. The EPA reports over 380 billion plastic bags, sacks and wraps are consumed in the U.S. each year and barely 1 to 5 percent are recycled. Many bags will continue to fly off landfill sites or be tossed and end up clogging drains, despoiling the landscape, and killing.
It is uneconomical to recycle plastic bags. Repairing recycling machines can cost millions. A Clean Air Council study found that recycling 1 ton of plastic bags costs $4,000, but the recycled product can be sold for only $32.
Margaret Day is chairwoman of the Sierra Club Alamo Chapter.