April 22, 2012
“Paper or plastic?” – The End of an Era
Long gone are the days of the infamous question we could always expect at the supermarket: “would you like paper or plastic bags?” In recent years, environmentalists have urged cities and states, both domestically and abroad, to place a ban on the use of plastic bags due to their negative impact on the environment. They contribute significantly to increasing landfills and litter, and can result in harm to wildlife through ingestion or suffocation. Plastic bag bans are relatively easy for consumers to transition to in their daily lives—reusable canvas or sturdy, recycled plastic bags are becoming increasingly popular and extremely affordable, providing an easy solution to no plastic bag policies. San Francisco was the first city in the nation to enact a ban on plastic bags, and many California cities soon followed suit. However, passing such legislation is not as easy as it seems. With plastic companies lobbying against bans and their employees arguing its unfair for them to lose jobs, especially during economic times like this, policy makers must forge through lots of red tape to make the changes happen.
This “red tape,” has contributed to the challenges that Los Angeles has encountered regarding its own plastic bag ban legislation, including numerous lawsuits and opposition briefs. In 2008, Los Angeles County announced that it would begin working on a plastic bag ban, which came to fruition in 2010. According to the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles City Council announced on April 5, 2012 that it would continue to pursue both a plastic and paper bag ban in approximately 7,500 stores county-wide. A 6-month phase out period will commence, resulting in a 10-cent fee for every non-reusable bag purchased at the checkout line. If the Los Angeles ban is successful, it will join San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Carpinteria, Santa Monica, and many other California cities in the banning of plastic grocery bags. Even with the success, however, the end goal for environmentalists is to push on towards a statewide ban altogether.
While the success of the ban on plastic bag seems to be having a bit of a snowball effect, it is not without its challenges. On March 20, 2012, Save the Plastic Bag Coalition (SPBC) filed suit against the city of Carpinteria for including restaurants and other food providing facilities in its plastic bag ban, on the grounds that it violates the California Retail Food Code. Members of the SPBC include Command Packaging, among other companies, responsible for selling, distributing, and recycling of plastic bags. Their vested, personal interest in the future use of plastic bags slows down the process of enacting the bans on a larger scale. SPBC and other concerned parties have filed lawsuits against many other cities and counties, including but not limited to LA County, Marin County, Santa Cruz County, and the City of San Francisco. These parties are hoping to defend their own welfare, and this is the red tape legislators must face and move through to help the state bid farewell to plastic bags. The road to a plastic bag-free world might be long, and opposition will likely continue to be an obstacle, but there’s finally long-awaited progress in the right direction.
Other Sources:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/07/local/la-me-grocery-bags-20110907
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/plastic-bag-ban-san-francisco_n_1317685.html
Sydney MacEwen and Dawnielle Tellez Alanna are undergraduates in the USC Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
October 30, 2011
Responses to Red Tape
n July 2011, Representative Ken Calvert (R-California) introduced the Reducing Environmental Barriers to Unified Infrastructure and Land Development (REBUILD) Act. Currently, construction and land development projects must not only meet state regulations, but also federal standards created by the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under the REBUILD Act, development projects would have to comply with state regulations only, provided that these state regulations uphold NEPA standards or higher. In effect, the REBUILD Act seeks to merge state and federal legislation to expedite the process of bringing development projects to fruition without sacrificing environmental protection.
As it stands, many states, such as California, already feature more stringent regulations than NEPA standards.Calvert himself called the REBUILD Act an attempt to “remove bureaucratic red tape” and “streamline the environmental review processes for critical infrastructure projects without compromising environmental protections.” Estimates place the amount of time saved by the REBUILD Act, should it be passed, around 18 months per project.
While resistance to strict government legislation is nothing new, the current economic climate poses a unique challenge to environmental protection. As this collection of polls from 2007-2011 shows, there is often a dichotomy presented between the environment and the economy; if one prospers, the other suffers. A March 2010 Gallup Poll found that 53% of Americans surveyed said that economic growth takes precedence over environmental protection. The same study concluded that American concern for the environment had hit a 20 year low. Opinions are also especially polarized across party lines. A 2010 CNN poll reported that Republicans, and to a lesser extent, Independents, felt that “economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.” A majority of Democrats, however, felt that the environment should be protected, even at the risk of curbing economic growth.
Yet the issue of too much environmental regulation is not specific to Democrats or Republicans; nor is it limited to even The United States.“TheRedTapeChallenge” as it is known in the United Kingdom is an initiative launched by Parliament in early 2011 to reevaluate government regulation in a variety of sectors, including the environment. The Red Tape Challenge addresses the issue of regulation and red tape by attempting to encourage greater environmental and societal responsibility. The creators of The Red Tape Challenge recognize the importance of regulations but also the danger of having too many and the impact on an economy and business. On their website they sum up their opinions by saying, “This government has set a clear aim: to leave office having reduced the overall burden of regulation. With more than 21,000 regulations active in the UK today, this won’t be an easy task – but we’re determined to cut red tape.”
Essentially the United Kingdom is opening up their Environmental Regulations and Policies to be commented on and edited by the people. However just because a group of businessmen want one regulation cut doesn’t mean that it will be because the Ministers will have a total of 3 months to determine which regulations will be kept and why they will be kept. This is done so that the red tape will be cut, not the vital environmental regulations. In order for the regulations to remain the same cases will be heard on both sides and argued until a decision is made. However there is much concern as to whether or not this policy will be what is necessary to avoid Red Tape or whether it will undermine important regulations, and Britain remains largely divided over the issue.
About the authors: Makena Crowe and Minda Monteagudo are working towards their bachelor degrees in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.