Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jan 28, 2010 20:30:34 GMT -5
How's it working out for everyone? I keep forgetting to bring bags with me, but apparently plastic bag output is already down by half.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Jan 28, 2010 22:11:15 GMT -5
I work in DC, but live in Arlington. I really like it. It makes people at least think twice about using plastic bags, which if thrown away, is really bad for the environment.
However, I do most of my grocery shopping in Arlington, where there is no tax. Still, I try to remember to bring a reusable bag in my backpack when I think I may buy some groceries.
The only thing I don't like about it is having to pay an extra 5 cents at lunch places like Subway, where they give you your sandwich in a plastic bag and don't really give you a choice. (EDIT: Although today I made it a point to request no plastic bag, and I saved the environment as well as five cents ;D)
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jan 29, 2010 13:23:55 GMT -5
I find it annoying. (especially at lunch places, as CA pointed out). I already re use bags as trash bags to paying 5 cents is not something i am going to do. I dont like being penalized when i am already re using the bags. I think it would have been more effective to impose the tax on the businesses not the customers (although i dont agree with it in principle or the principle behind the tax i.e. the environmental aspects)
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 1, 2010 10:09:59 GMT -5
I find it annoying. (especially at lunch places, as CA pointed out). I already re use bags as trash bags to paying 5 cents is not something i am going to do. I dont like being penalized when i am already re using the bags. I think it would have been more effective to impose the tax on the businesses not the customers (although i dont agree with it in principle or the principle behind the tax i.e. the environmental aspects) C'mon jgalt--you're better than that. How, exactly, would they impose the tax on the businesses and not the customers? Pretty simple economics--if a business gets taxed, they'll pass the cost onto the customers, so it doesn't matter whether the tax is on the business or the customers.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 1, 2010 10:59:30 GMT -5
I find it annoying. (especially at lunch places, as CA pointed out). I already re use bags as trash bags to paying 5 cents is not something i am going to do. I dont like being penalized when i am already re using the bags. I think it would have been more effective to impose the tax on the businesses not the customers (although i dont agree with it in principle or the principle behind the tax i.e. the environmental aspects) C'mon jgalt--you're better than that. How, exactly, would they impose the tax on the businesses and not the customers? Pretty simple economics--if a business gets taxed, they'll pass the cost onto the customers, so it doesn't matter whether the tax is on the business or the customers. As you say, the cost would be exactly the same. However, taxing the businesses directly instead of having the businesses tax every customer would probably be more convenient. It always annoys me that tax isn't included in prices here. As somebody who isn't too bright and can't calculate the tax in my head, I never know exactly how much I'll have to pay for something. In certain other countries (New Zealand is one I know) businesses have to include tax in the displayed price, and there's no tipping. So what you see is what you pay. If the menu says a sandwich is $6.75, you pay exactly $6.75. I prefer it that way, but it makes too much sense to implement here.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Feb 1, 2010 12:04:09 GMT -5
As you say, the cost would be exactly the same. However, taxing the businesses directly instead of having the businesses tax every customer would probably be more convenient. More convenient but less effective. If I don't directly see the benefit or the price of my bag/no-bag decision, why is it going to alter my behavior? Most grocery stores here in MA have implemented a rebate system where you get back five cents for every reusable bag you use (displacing the plastic ones). Most people just end up donating it back to a charity, but I think the tax system is better. The consumer exhibiting the model behavior doesn't have to subsidize the behavior of the wasteful consumer.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 1, 2010 12:18:12 GMT -5
As you say, the cost would be exactly the same. However, taxing the businesses directly instead of having the businesses tax every customer would probably be more convenient. More convenient but less effective. If I don't directly see the benefit or the price of my bag/no-bag decision, why is it going to alter my behavior? Most grocery stores here in MA have implemented a rebate system where you get back five cents for every reusable bag you use (displacing the plastic ones). Most people just end up donating it back to a charity, but I think the tax system is better. The consumer exhibiting the model behavior doesn't have to subsidize the behavior of the wasteful consumer. There's a tax (or maybe a ban?) in SF -- been a while since I've been to a San Francisco grocery store -- but basically every area store gives you a discount for bringing your own bag, even if it isn't in SF. The interesting thing is that from a governmental standpoint, the driving force was less environmental concerns and more litter concerns. Shopping bags make up a huge portion of city litter and eventually it costs money to clean up. The lesson, as always, no one lives in a vacuum.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 1, 2010 12:30:43 GMT -5
As you say, the cost would be exactly the same. However, taxing the businesses directly instead of having the businesses tax every customer would probably be more convenient. More convenient but less effective. If I don't directly see the benefit or the price of my bag/no-bag decision, why is it going to alter my behavior? Most grocery stores here in MA have implemented a rebate system where you get back five cents for every reusable bag you use (displacing the plastic ones). Most people just end up donating it back to a charity, but I think the tax system is better. The consumer exhibiting the model behavior doesn't have to subsidize the behavior of the wasteful consumer. Until they start adding $4 to the price of Hefty trash bags, I'm not a "wasteful consumer". I haven't used a trash bag in over a year - all my trash bags are recycled plastic bags.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Feb 1, 2010 12:57:28 GMT -5
So people using reusables should have to subsidize your trash bag inventory?
It's not like this is a radical environmental concept - China has required a price on plastic bags for two years now I think.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Feb 1, 2010 13:19:00 GMT -5
Didn't realize DC had a bag tax. How high is the rate on a Dee-bag like Feinstein?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 1, 2010 13:44:52 GMT -5
So people using reusables should have to subsidize your trash bag inventory? It's not like this is a radical environmental concept - China has required a price on plastic bags for two years now I think. It's just that, if people were concerned about plastic bags, the prices for trash bags should double. They haven't. In terms of plastic bag use, I have less of a carbon footprint than the person who brings in five canvas bags and yet throws out plastic bags of trash.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Feb 1, 2010 14:13:10 GMT -5
It's just that, if people were concerned about plastic bags, the prices for trash bags should double. They haven't. In terms of plastic bag use, I have less of a carbon footprint than the person who brings in five canvas bags and yet throws out plastic bags of trash. I think the argument against plastic bags (vs. Hefty bags) is that Hefty bags are properly valued and you don't find them in rivers, streams, floating around all over the place - while you do find plastic bags littering up the joint. It's not really a carbon-reduction argument.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 1, 2010 15:17:12 GMT -5
It's just that, if people were concerned about plastic bags, the prices for trash bags should double. They haven't. In terms of plastic bag use, I have less of a carbon footprint than the person who brings in five canvas bags and yet throws out plastic bags of trash. I think the argument against plastic bags (vs. Hefty bags) is that Hefty bags are properly valued and you don't find them in rivers, streams, floating around all over the place - while you do find plastic bags littering up the joint. It's not really a carbon-reduction argument. That's right, this has nothing to do with carbon reduction or global warming. Something like 50% of the trash in the Anacostia River is store-provided plastic bags. The tax is all about changing behavior and river cleanup. 2 cents of the tax goes to the store, and 3 cents is directly earmarked to river cleanup. The authors on the council said they'd be happy if the tax eventually brings in no revenue, as that would mean no one is using plastic bags anymore and the city doesn't have to pay to fish them out of the river.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 1, 2010 15:17:55 GMT -5
I like to burn my plastic grocery bags on the really cold nights.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 1, 2010 23:02:38 GMT -5
I'm a huge fan of the bag tax. People use bags for things they should not be, and use them WAY too frequently---it's hugely wasteful in addition to being a civic garbage and environmental issue. I'm sorry, if you can't hand-carry your deli-bought salad in a closed plastic container back to your office, you need help, not another bag. The environmental impact of bags has much more to do with wildlife than carbon (I love how people think the environmental issue du jour is the only environmental problem going ... wait until you start hearing about ocean acidification), and also has impacts on our infrastructure, like when things get clogged and need cleaned up.
Plastic bags are also made from oil, so ya know, use fewer bags, use less oil.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 1, 2010 23:31:49 GMT -5
There's a tax (or maybe a ban?) in SF -- been a while since I've been to a San Francisco grocery store -- but basically every area store gives you a discount for bringing your own bag, even if it isn't in SF. The interesting thing is that from a governmental standpoint, the driving force was less environmental concerns and more litter concerns. Shopping bags make up a huge portion of city litter and eventually it costs money to clean up. The lesson, as always, no one lives in a vacuum. I'm fairly certain San Francisco has banned plastic bags outright. Austin considered a similar ban, but opted for education initiatives regarding plastic bags and a voluntary system designed to reduce plastic bag use/increase plastic bag recycling. It worked. Or, at least, it significantly reduced plastic bag waste, which is what the DC tax intends to do as well. www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022809dntswplasticbags.3da58c0.htmlFor the record, I hate plastic bags. They're a tax-dollar wasting nuisance. In Austin, the ban was mainly considered because city employees were wasting countless hours removing plastic bag clogs from the wastewater system. I'm sure this is probably true in most major cities. Bags that don't end up in city pipes end up in rivers and oceans, which also leads to cleanup costs. Their price (free!) completely ignores environmental and other externalities associated with their manufacture and distribution. So, I think we can all agree changing people's behavior WRT plastic bags is a worthy goal. However, I think there's a legitimate question as to whether carrots or sticks are more efficient in controlling the plastic bag menace.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 2, 2010 13:55:07 GMT -5
Following the logic of some who have posted on this thread, are you in favor of a tax on disposable diapers also?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Feb 2, 2010 14:27:36 GMT -5
Following the logic of some who have posted on this thread, are you in favor of a tax on disposable diapers also? That would not be following the logic of this thread at all. Diapers are a problem because they don't biodegrade easily and they take up a ton of landfill space. Plastic bags are a problem because they pollute waterways and are a general litter nuisance. Generally people don't throw diapers in rivers, they go to the place they are supposed to - landfills, unlike grocery plastic bags. Unlike consumer plastic bag behavior - where you have an easy substitute (ubiquitous reusable bags), diaper consumers probably would respond inelasticly to a tax and it would only serve as a revenue generator rather than as a behavior-changer.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Feb 2, 2010 14:31:14 GMT -5
Following the logic of some who have posted on this thread, are you in favor of a tax on disposable diapers also? That would not be following the logic of this thread at all. Diapers are a problem because they don't biodegrade easily and they take up a ton of landfill space. Plastic bags are a problem because they pollute waterways and are a general litter nuisance. Generally people don't throw diapers in rivers, they generaly go to the place they are supposed to, unlike grocery plastic bags. Unlike consumer plastic bag behavior - where you have an easy substitute (ubiquitous reusable bags), diaper consumers probably would respond inelasticly to a tax and it would only serve as a revenue generator rather than a behavior-changer. Clearly, you have never been to Syracuse
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Feb 2, 2010 16:30:10 GMT -5
Following the logic of some who have posted on this thread, are you in favor of a tax on disposable diapers also? That would not be following the logic of this thread at all. Diapers are a problem because they don't biodegrade easily and they take up a ton of landfill space. Plastic bags are a problem because they pollute waterways and are a general litter nuisance. Generally people don't throw diapers in rivers, they go to the place they are supposed to - landfills, unlike grocery plastic bags. Unlike consumer plastic bag behavior - where you have an easy substitute (ubiquitous reusable bags), diaper consumers probably would respond inelasticly to a tax and it would only serve as a revenue generator rather than as a behavior-changer. I am not sure reusable bags are a ubiquitous easy substitute when you have multiple kids and are buying bulk groceries rather than a single salad for lunch. No way I can take enough reusable bags to buy a week's groceries for my brood. Maybe in Washington with the preponderance of singles and married with no/few kids - but not necessarily in the rest fo the world. And for completeness I do shop at times at Aldies and have learned to use boxes but that would not translate to broad use in every grocery store. Plus then you move boxes from specialized cardboard dumpsters at grocery stores to everyone's trash can. Guess I would just go back to paper bags. But I do totally agree with you on disposable diapers. When we had twins we made the old college try of using cloth diapers and a service. Within 2 weeks we were cancelling due to spills, smells, ungodly amounts of laundry (soiled sheets, clothes, bedspreads, etc. not diapers) and incredibly frayed nerves wondering when the next toxic waste spill was going to happen. Cloth just didn't cut it and pretty much no amount of tax short of double digit percentage of total income would change that. Ended up with 3 in diapers at the same time and one of the happiest days of my life was when they all got off of diapers. Felt like a big time raise.
|
|