On Wednesday, Nov. 14, the people of Brookline picked a side in what has become a high-stakes war with fronts around the world. Their allies in the fight: an international movement of activists dedicated to the eradication of a global menace. Their enemy: the plastic bag.
As of December 2013, cashiers at supermarkets and other large retailers in Brookline will no longer be allowed to provide disposable polyethylene bags to their customers at checkout, under threat of a punishing fine. Instead they’ll use bags made from compostable or marine degradable material, including paper, or encourage customers to bring reusable bags from home. The ban puts Brookline at the vanguard of the anti-plastic-bag movement, which has succeeded in getting similar ordinances passed in San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as in China, India, and South Africa. It also represents what is arguably the biggest victory the movement has yet seen on the East Coast.
Comments
I hate those things. they aren't that strong, more than once I've had something heavy break through the bottom and crash to the ground, they dont hold very much and they're just plain ugly. I'd be happy to see them banned everywhere.
I think they're a real convenience. I don't own a car and have to carriy groceries home on the bus. I try to take a tote bag with me, but I don't always remember.
When I remember to take my own bag, I request paper bags in order to keep my non-washable bag clean. That's fine at Stop & Shop. They always have paper.
Try asking for paper at Shaw's and they look at you like you've lost it. Paper bags aren't on their menu.
Brookline is actually at the trailing rather than the leading edge of progress in reducing the use of disposable plastic bags. The genuinely advanced places have instituted mandatory charges for disposable bags. In much of western Europe, they cost the equivalent of 15 to 50 cents each. That has been rapidly changing personal behaviors, a far more effective approach.
This comment has been removed.
The environmental case against plastic bags is largely based on erronious data. I would recommend that anyone interested in the subject read this article from the London Times:
http://www.dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/www.santacruzcountyrecycles/Law/DocList/SC034-London_Times-series_of_blunders_article.pdf
Clearly, environmentalists can sometimes be as devoted to bad science as Republicans - if that bad science supports their preconceived ideas.
I loathe plastic bags. They are a true bane on the environment; used for 10 minutes to carry a toothbrush and aspirin back from CVS, they stay with us for centuries afterwards. They symbolize our selfish, throw-a -way society that doesn't think about the impacts of our choices. How easy is it to just bring your own bag? Don't listen to the "progressive Bag Alliance", they are just an irresponsible mouthpiece for the American Chemistry Council and other trade groups that don't want to take any responsibility for the damage that their products causes to the environment. They are happy to leave all the cleanup costs to the communities and the taxpayers. Donna Dempsey, from the American Progressive Bag Alliance, just flat out lies with this statement; "The bans we’ve seen passed around the world, and now in Brookline, are nothing but “feel-good legislation which has not worked to reduce litter.” Communities who have instituted bans or fees on single use bags have seen dramatic reductions in litter. Most recently the Amy Corps of Engineers reported that in cleaning up the Anacostia River in Washington DC after Hurricane Sandy roared through, they found no plastic bags (now raw sewerage from overwhelmed sewers is another matter). Washington DC instituted a fee on single use plastic bags in January 2010. We are not just teetering on a fiscal cliff, we are teetering on a environmental cliff. If we can't solve the simple problems, how can we deal with the larger environmental problems? We are leaving a legacy of toxic plastic waste. The oceans are now awash with plastic, and the scary part is how fast it has happened. less tna 50 years ago there was no plastic in the ocean. The only way to mitigate future pollution is to push for the use of biodegradable technologies, while emphasizing a shift in consumer practices. Eliminating our use of single use plastic bags is an easy step in that direction. And yes, Brookline should have also instituted a fee on paper bags, as well as the ban on plastic bags to really be effective. But it is a good step in the right direction.
It's just a sop to environmentalists, like closing liquor stores a few hours on Sunday to pacify churches without accomplishing anything.
Most people can learn to get along without plastic bags, even though they're convenient, but getting rid of them does little to improve for the environment. The bags are so thin that they add almost nothing to landfills, which can't be said even for paper.
If we do anything serious to help the environment, it will not be free. That's the problem. Let's all give up plastic bags, but not our cars. Nobody wants to make a serious sacrifice.
I feel that it is important for all of us to support Brookline in their decision to keep the environment safe and clean. For my part I will make sure that I never do business with any merchant or organization operating in the city. If I don't buy any goods there then the issue of paper and plastic becomes moot. I urge all Globe readers to do the same. Let's work together on this. Stay out of Brookline.
It's a matter of getting used to the idea. It's been very effective in Ireland where I grew up and travel to at least twice a year. People just keep reusable bags in the car - it has become habit. If you forget you can still get a plastic bag, you just have to pay for it. It's amazing how quickly you get in the habit of remembering when you have to pay. It's also amazing how many things you'll fit in each bag if you have to pay.
I couldn't help but point out that a trip to the store in a car is most likely worse for the environment than using several plastic bags... and that's probably true even if the car is a Prius or Volt.
In the ideal world, I agree. However, easier said than done when a huge portion of population lives outside of cities and towns and is several miles from a store. I guess you pick your battles and make any step in the right direction. Switching out from plastic bags is achievable by the whole population, moving closer to the store so that you can walk is not.
Dear Leon,
Thank you for this excellent history of the evolution of grocery bags. Although the observation by Robert Malloy that "They’re a problem because people can afford to throw them away” is an interesting perspective, we have found the problem to be more complicated than that. The complexity revolves around two primary issues:
1. 1: Bans that have been implemented by towns such as Brookline without viable alternatives have simply changed, rather than solved, the problem. More progressive communities have recognized a solution that gives their citizens an alternative. When bags are banned without solutions, the consumer is left to take actions that are even worse than plastic bags. They tend to use paper bags, which are worse for the environment, or drive to the next town, which not only harms our environment, but also hurts local businesses.
2. 2: Communities, including Brookline, that want to ban plastic bags are doing so because they are trying to eliminate plastic bag litter. Brookline allows an exception for bio-degradable bags that meet the ASTM 6400 standards. ASTM 6400 is a standard for bio-degradable or compostable bags. This sounds like a viable alternative. However, bags that meet those standards will not degrade in your backyard composter or if they are littered. They require commercial compositing facilities, of which there are none in the Eastern US. This is not a solution to the littering problem.
A better solution to the plastic bag litter and pollution problem is to allow bags that meet ASTM 5272 standards for photo-degradation. They provide a viable solution. The clear advantages are:
1. - These bags look and act like plastic bags, but if they are littered or lost, they photo-degrade to a non-toxic residue within 240 days of exposure to sunlight.
2. - Photo-degradable bags such as the ECOgrade bag from GXT Green, use 15% less energy and produce 34% less greenhouse gases than plastic in production.
3. - They can be recycled with other plastics
4. - They cost about the same as plastic bags
By allowing ASTM 5272 approved photodegradable bags to be used by retailers, legislators can achieve their goals without compromising the environment, convenience of their citizens, or hurting local businesses. Brookline, because they did not understand the significant differences between bio-degradable and photo-degradable bags, did not allow photo-degradable bags in their legislation. I hope they will consider the science behind their decision before the law goes into effect, to truly set an example, and solve the bag issue without inconveniencing their citizens or hurting local businesses. I'm sure that other communities will.
Ain't you folks never had a dog?
Viva plastic bags!
I recently saw the movie "Bag-It" and I was surprised this didn't come up in Mr. Neyfakh's survey article, nor in the comments. Two horrific images from that film: the forever-floating morass of trash, much of it consumer plastic, in ocean gyres around the world; and also pitiful pictures of supposed "recycling" of the bags in China.