12 Councilmembers co-introduce 5-cent fee for disposable bags

Sustainability

12 Councilmembers co-introduce 5-cent fee for disposable bags

by David Alpert • February 17, 2009 3:46 pm

At today's DC Council legislative session, twelve of the thirteen members of the DC Council all co-introduced the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Act. As we discussed last week, this will impose a 5-cent fee on all free carryout bags, paper or plastic, from food and liquor stores. Stores keep 1 cent, or 2 if they offer (as Giant does) a 5-cent rebate to customers who bring their own bags. The rest goes into a fund to clean up the river and provide free bags to elderly and low-income residents. Here's the text of the bill.

Tommy Wells' staff orchestrated an impressive campaign for this bill. They put together a core group of environmental organizations and other strong proponents, reached out to many area businesses including Safeway, Giant and CVS, and met with community organizations, faith groups, business associations, and more. They sat most Councilmembers down to talk about the bill well ahead of time, organized a press kickoff, petition, and phone calls to follow up. And it paid off.

The lone holdout was Councilmember Jim Graham. Graham received such a volume of email, partly thanks to our petition, that he replied to all constituents who wrote in with a statement:

Thanks for giving your views on the bill to require a deposit on plastic bags. I appreciate the sincere leadership of my colleague, CM Tommy Wells, and all the others who have joined him. ...
I have a strong environmental record. I have authored the Green Building Act, the Stormwater Management Act, and the Lead Paint Hazard Act. A year or so ago, when I had oversight of the environment, I looked into this issue. I considered the experience with a somewhat different approach in San Francisco...the only other city to advance this.
It left me with various questions which remain. So, for the time being, I will not be joining on this bill. Council consideration will give me the opportunity I need in order to consider these issues.

We can say there's been a successful legislative rollout when every legislator but one is already on board from the start, and the only legislator who hasn't made up his mind feels pressure to explain why he's the lone holdout, not as an opponent, but simply as the only undecided vote.

The bag industry is going to start lobbying hard to try to pressure Councilmembers to change their votes or water down the bill. Stay tuned for more opportunities to help turn this important legislation into law.

16 comments — Share	— tags: Anacostia, carryout bag fees, DC Council, environment, Jim Graham, Tommy Wells

Anacostia bill passes committee markups (May 14, 2009)
Ahold believes in sustainability in Europe, but not here? (Mar 16, 2009)
Get plastic bags out of the Anacostia (Feb 12, 2009)
Have DC Councilmembers ever tried to park downtown on a Saturday? (Dec 17, 2008)
Where do DC's at-large Councilmembers live? (Jun 3, 2008)

Comments

PAPER bags, too? Sure, paper bags are worse than re-useable bags insofar as they are not re-used, but in every other way imaginable they are environmentally superior to plastic bags.

Without having read the text of the bill, my fear is that this is a step backwards from San Francisco. The San Francisco legislation was designed to encourage the use of new alternatives like "potato" bags made out of starch, which look like plastic but biodegrade and are safe for animals to eat. It seems like the DC legislation, by banning paper bags, would also ban biodegradable bags.

Or, to put it pithily: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

by tom veil on Feb 17, 2009 4:27 pm

I confidently predict that this law, like practically every environmental law on the books, will at best do nothing to help the environment.

Look for stores to do just enough to reclassify themselves into a business that is exempt from the regulations.

by MPC on Feb 17, 2009 4:32 pm

Paper is not, in fact, better than plastic. If you look at the facts you'll see that it takes over 4X more energy (carbon burning fuel) to produce one paper bag than it does for one plastic bag. Also, you might be surprised to learn that paper bags generate 70% more air and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.

Not exactly environmentally superior...

More fun facts are available here. http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php?id=7

by Sean on Feb 17, 2009 4:39 pm

this law...will at best do nothing to help the environment.

Like this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act

by CPM on Feb 17, 2009 4:55 pm

Paper bags are carbon intenstive to manufacture, as I understand it.

"and the only legislator who hasn't made up his mind feels pressure to explain why he's the lone holdout, not as an opponent, but simply as the only undecided vote."

Yes, but Graham is famously responsive just about to anyone who emails him.

by Jazzy on Feb 17, 2009 5:05 pm

Seeing as the "findings" are the problem of plastic bags and the Anacostia river, it seems a bit of a stretch to include paper as well. Yes, they cost more to produce. Yes, the biodegrade in less than the 1 meelyun years it takes plastic bags to do so. But where's the problem with paper around here? If stores are willing to pay 7c/bag, and give them "free" to customers in the form of higher prices, isn't that internalizing those costs?

by ah on Feb 17, 2009 5:16 pm

Why is this just for food stores I see as many Best Buy Macy's, Office Depot and Staples bag's as I do other stores, why are we selective with the stores and dont just cover all stores.

by kk on Feb 17, 2009 5:17 pm

This is classic Graham. I actually think he's one of the best on the Council. No, I don't work for him, just a constituent.

by Ward 1 Guy on Feb 17, 2009 6:00 pm

For information about plastic bags and the environment as well as links to studies on their impact; surveys on plastic bags knowledge; and environmental shopping strategies, please visit…

www.thetruthaboutplasticbags.com

by Clear Perspective on Feb 17, 2009 6:54 pm

Oh look...a paid shill!

by John on Feb 17, 2009 8:12 pm

This is great news. We can expect American Chemistry and other plastic industry folks to fight this viciously. This is a great bill for DC's environment and for the residents of DC. DC should help lead the nation on this important fight for the environment.

As far as what Clear Perspective is saying...we don't need a "Truth about Plastics" website, we can walk along the Anacostia and see the real impact of plastic bags. Take a walk and you'll recognize how much plastic bags hurt the eco-system.

by City Renewed on Feb 17, 2009 10:50 pm

I'm sure the supermarkets will fight like hell against this bill...as they have done everywhere else. And one reason is because they make most of their profits on impulse buys, and if people are limited by the cloth bags they take to the store, they are less likely to buy impulse items that might exceed their pre-planned carrying space. And consider how supermarkets have been disappearing from cities in recent years. DC Council was recently considering (and I believe they passed) legislation giving them certain tax considerations for remaining in the city.

Three inconvenient truths: 1) no one in DC is more than five miles from a suburban supermarket, where bags will be free, 2) many poor and elderly folks who can't afford to spend six bucks for a box of trash bags use the supermarket bags as garbage bags,and 3) the headwaters of the Anacostia River are in Maryland, where the bags are free.

This may be a good idea, but don't underestimate the strength of the opposition, and don't overestimate the actual good the bill will do.

by Mike on Feb 18, 2009 9:29 am

This is not going to do anything. 5 cents is nothing. Not even to poor people.

by Jasper on Feb 18, 2009 10:48 am

"many poor and elderly folks who can't afford to spend six bucks for a box of trash bags use the supermarket bags as garbage bags"

While I can afford to buy trash bags, I reuse nearly all the grocery store bags I get to line wastebaskets, wrap messy kitchen garbage than cannot be composted and kitty litter, to line my insulated lunch bag in case something spills, and to collect yard that cannot be composted if there is a potential for spreading a fungus or weed seeds. Reusing grocery bags rather than purchasing new small plastic garbage bags is simply the responsible thing to do. If this goes into effect, I will probably do more grocery shopping in Maryland, since grocery stores in Maryland are relatively convenient to most neighborhoods that have once a week trash collection. This bill isn't something that I will make an effort to oppose, but I likely will change my shopping habits if it goes into effect, and not in the way that the authors assume.

So I agree with Mike, there is a danger of overestimating the actual good that this bill will do, and to go further, underestimating the impact of this "feel good" legislation.

by JR on Feb 18, 2009 10:52 am

According to the BBC: "A tax on plastic shopping bags in the Republic of Ireland has cut their use by more than 90% and raised millions of euros in revenue".

Ikea initially charged $.05 per bag and reduced plastic bag usage by 92%.

Money is an effective motivator, even if it seems like a miniscule amount. Also, if you still need to line your trashcans, you can pay $.05 to buy a plastic bag rather than a $6 box of trash bags.

by lauraw on Feb 18, 2009 5:40 pm

I can't imagine that anyone here doesn't share the concern for people who are hard pressed due to their economic situation, esp. in the worst economic period since the Great Depression.

Keep in mind, however, that the legislation does contain credit language (see page 4, line 18), and further accommodation (see page 7, lines 9-14).

This concern could furthermore be accommodated via amendment. Options could include relief or exceptions for shoppers on WIC or other forms of assistance.

To undercut this measure based upon economic hardship for the consumer ignores the language of the measure, let alone options via amendment.

by Joel Lawson on Feb 19, 2009 11:34 am