Most people are going to the Capitol Hill Block Party this weekend for the bands. The Seattle Green Bag Campaign will be there this Saturday for your votes.
The brouhaha about the bag fee, a.k.a. Referendum 1, has been going on for awhile now (you can read more about it here and here). Do we pay 20 cents for disposable bags at the grocery store, or not? Things just got more exciting this week when the main anti-bag fee group, the American Chemistry Council, threw another $300K into the kitty, bringing their total anti-bag fee donations to over $1 million.
Whether you agree with the fee or not, the American Chemistry Council‘s upped the ante to the point that the issue is hard to ignore. Why on earth would a group that includes Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil throw in so much money to oppose an issue that’s backed by the tiny Seattle Green Bag Campaign and it’s itty-bitty $65,000 budget? Huh. Might just be worth stopping by the SGBC booth this weekend to find out.
5 million 20 cent bags actually, which is almost 10 bags for every man woman and child in seattle.
these bag/chem companies have to spend money to make money, no matter the impact to the environment and our garbage floating around.
i guess you do whatever to keep that moolah coming in, who cares about consequences.
ranty and true
Remember, again, that this is the city that said no to a transit plan because of the roads package attached to it, but said yes to the higher-priced one because it was more environmentally sound.
All it takes for the anti-bag lobby to win is to run a commercial with dead animals floating amongst plastic bags. Anyone with the anti-bag groups should take note and run with that.
And I am not seeing a lot of positives from actually folks in Seattle regarding the chemistry council’s expenditures on this measure.
someone forwarded this to me and i thought i would pass it along
http://www.komonews.com/opinion/kenschram/51494487.html
I understand the necessity to minimize the impact plastics have on the environment. What I am suspicious of is the manner in which we’re going about providing a ‘solution(?)’.
Currently the tax is imposed on grocery, drug and convenience stores -places most cannot avoid.
What I have not seen is how multi-purpose outlets such as Fred Meyer, Walmart and the likes will be categorized and/or provided loopholes.
More important, how will it play out at checkout?
If I buy a shirt, do I get a bag for free, but have to pay 20 cents for the bag they will place the milk I also purchased into? Or if I opt to place my milk into the bag with the shirt, do I get a free pass?
Here’s the craziest thing. For every bag that won’t be used (at a great savings to the vendors by the way), more will be spent on disposable PLASTIC trash bags, etc. to make up for what was once 2nd & 3rd use bags now labled as the ultimate no-no. So now tell me, who is really benefitting from this reforendum? Not the people.
Reforendum language states that the funds will be used by Public Utilities in the following manner:
Most of the funds collected would go to Seattle Public utilities to pay for an educational campaign and encouraging consumers to use reusable bags, a bag giveaway program for soup kitchens, low income families and those who need assistance, and to offset the costs of solid waste and recycling programs in Seattle.
Are not PSA’s (public service announcements) more cost effective?
If you’re in the position of needing a soup kitchen, you are not shopping for groceries on a regular basis. Therefore handing out reuseable bags in this instance has very low impact.
The cost of solid waste and recycling programs — does not the language of the reforendum proclaim: This fee, modeled after a similar law in Ireland is expected to reduce bag use by up to 90%.
If this is the case, I need justification for increased cost for these programs.
Again I openly admit the need for steps that will assist and support environmental safety. What I am not in agreement with are proposals with glaring loopholes. I am not because I, like many others am tired of bearing the cost of haphazard political agendas that turn into cash cows for a select few, shoved down the throats of those they minimally serve, if it serves at all.