HOME
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
PAPER BAGS AND CO2
PAPER BAGS IN LANDFILLS
THE TRUTH ABOUT LITTER
THE FAMOUS TURTLE PICTURE
"SERIES OF BLUNDERS" ARTICLE
IS THERE A "GARBAGE PATCH"?
THE VOYAGE OF THE "JUNK"
THE OIL MYTH
PLASTIC BAG RECYCLING BINS
LITIGATION
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
stak
e
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
FOR NEWS AND UPDATES

SUBSCRIBE TO RSS FEED
FOR NEWS AND UPDATES


We are the only organization that is questioning and challenging the misinformation, myths, exaggerations, and hype spread by anti-plastic bag activists. We believe that environmental policy should be based on facts. Please read the Myths and Facts section below.
Please note: Save The Plastic Bag Coalition is not and has never been connected with or financed by the American Chemistry Council or Progressive Bag Affiliates. We are a totally independent organization.




CLICK HERE TO READ AN INTERESTING LETTER FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO THE UKIAH DAILY JOURNAL.



WE HAVE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO INVALIDATE ITS PLASTIC BAG BAN.
CLICK HERE FOR A COPY OF THE PETITION AND COMPLAINT.

A customer using plastic bags at a restaurant in San Francisco




CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES MAY NOT BAN PLASTIC BAGS AT RESTAURANTS. THE CALIFORNIA RETAIL FOOD CODE PREEMPTS AND PROHIBITS ANY SUCH BANS.
CLICK HERE FOR OUR LEGAL MEMORANDUM.




CLICK HERE TO READ OUR BRIEF PAPER ON WHETHER THE "GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH" REALLY EXISTS AND WHETHER PLASTIC BAGS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF MARINE LIFE.




CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHAT IS REALLY KILLING SEA TURTLES. IT IS NOT PLASTIC BAGS!




CLICK HERE TO READ OUR PRESS RELEASE REGARDING THE PROPOSITION 26 LAWSUIT. 
(WE ARE NOT PART OF THE LAWSUIT.)




CLICK HERE TO READ OUR PRESS RELEASE REGARDING THE MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DECISION.



WE ARE DELIGHTED WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE MANHATTAN BEACH CASE.
CLICK HERE TO READ OUR PRESS RELEASE.


QUOTE FROM SUPREME COURT OPINION IN MANHATTAN BEACH CASE EXPLAINING WHY THE COURT GRANTED US LEGAL STANDING TO DEMAND THAT CITIES AND COUNTIES PREPARE EIRs BEFORE BANNING PLASTIC BAGS
"Corporate purposes are not necessarily antithetical to the public interest....  Corporations [may] have particular expertise and thus may have an enhanced understanding of the public interests at stake."


QUOTE FROM MENDOCINO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
"The intervention of the plastic bag manufacturers has stimulated more thoughtful consideration of the environmental issues associated with single-use carryout bags. In particular, the limitations of earlier ordinances in San Francisco and Oakland have been understood. These ordinances (enacted in San Francisco in 2007, blocked by litigation in Oakland in 2008) merely banned plastic bags without regulating paper bags. The plastic bag manufacturers pointed out that paper bags may require more energy to manufacture and distribute, and, consequently, that the environmental impacts of single-use paper bags must also be considered when proposing a ban on single-use plastic bags."
MYTHS AND FACTS
An editorial in the London Times states:

"There is a danger that the green herd, in pursuit of a good cause, stumbles into misguided campaigns….

Analysis without facts is guesswork. Sloppy analysis of bad science is worse. Poor interpretation of good science wastes time and impedes the fight against obnoxious behavior. There is no place for bad science, or weak analysis, in the search for credible answers to difficult questions….

Many of those who have demonized plastic bags have enlisted scientific study to their cause. By exaggerating a grain of truth into a larger falsehood, they spread misinformation and abuse the trust of their unwitting audiences."

David Laist, a senior policy analyst with the federal Marine Mammal Commission, has stated:

"In their eagerness to make their case [against plastic bags], some of the environmental groups make up claims that are not really supportable."

The purpose of our campaign is to respond to the environmental myths, exaggerations and misinformation that have been spread about plastic bags. We believe that environmental decisions should be based on the truth.
  • As a result of misinformation, many people believe that plastic bags kill 100,000 sea mammals and a million seabirds each year. The media is relentlessly spreading this misinformation. The San Jose Mercury News recently stated in an editorial: "Plastic bags kill an estimated 1 million seabirds and 100,000 other animals every year, whether from eating the things or getting tangled in them." NOT TRUE. The London Times has exposed this as a myth based on a typographical error! The report on which the myth is based mentioned discarded fishing tackle including fishing nets, not plastic bags. Click here to read the London Times article.

    David Santillo, a marine biologist at Greenpeace, told The Times: “It’s very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags. The evidence shows just the opposite." (Click here.)

    In a report by the US National Ocean Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the authors state (at page 9): "There are very few, if any, published records of small plastics as the direct cause of mortality in sea turtles."

    Click here for a report from the Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center to see what is really killing turtles. The answer is NOT plastic bags!
  • We are told repeatedly by environmentalists that there is an island of plastic trash in the Pacific Ocean that is twice the size of Texas. The media repeats this assertion over and over again. For example, in an editorial on June 24, 2010 the Los Angeles Times stated: "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is an area of the ocean larger than Texas and thick with floating plastic debris: bottles, bottle caps, bits of packaging and uncountable plastic bags." NOT TRUE. 
The Chief Scientist of the Scripps 20-day expedition to study marine debris in the Pacific Ocean states: "Misinformation on this issue is rampant." Referring to a statement in the New York Times that there is "…an area of widely dispersed trash that doubles in size every decade and is now believed to be roughly twice the size of Texas," she states: "There is no evidence for this. There certainly is a lot of trash, but there have been no measurements of either the trash’s total area or its growth rate."

An Oregon State University professor who is knowledgable on the subject and who participated in a 2008 expedition to the Pacific states: “The amount of plastic out there isn’t trivial. But using the highest concentrations ever reported by scientists produces a patch that is a small fraction of the state of Texas, not twice the size. Another way to look at it is to compare the amount of plastic found to the amount of water in which it was found. If we were to filter the surface area of the ocean equivalent to a football field in waters having the highest concentration (of plastic) ever recorded, the amount of plastic recovered would not even extend to the 1-inch line." Click here and here to read what the professor says.

The Sea Education Association based in Woods Hole, Massachusetts has surveyed plastic debris in the Atlantic Ocean for the past 22 years. They are now reporting that the concentration of plastic in the Atlantic Ocean has not increased over the past 22 years, despite the increased production of plastics during that period. They were surprised to find that there was no overall change in the amount of plastic snared from 1986 to 2008. 
Karen Lavender, an oceanographer at the Sea Education Association said: 
"I expected to see the line go right up. It took us a good year to decide no, we have not seen an increase, no matter how you slice it." 
Each half-hour trawl in the area where the concentration was the highest typically turned up just 20 tiny pieces, equivalent to about 0.3 grams in all. By comparison, a U.S. nickel weighs 5 grams.

In its EIR, Los Angeles County calls the claims by environmental groups on this issue "misleading." (EIR at 13-38.)

Check the video below to see how much garbage was collected by the Dr. Marcus Eriksen of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation from a 24 hour trawl over 50 miles through the "garbage patch." Can you see any garbage in the ocean? Ask yourself if the amount of debris collected over 24 hours and 50 miles of trawling is a sufficient justification to ban plastic bags.
(Note that the sample jar at the end of the video does not only contain debris. It appears to have at least two fish in it.)
Dr. Eriksen now admits: "There is no island of plastic trash." He says: "The idea of a single, Texas-size garbage patch is the myth of media sensationalism."

  • Save The Bay makes the following claim in a press release: "It is estimated that about one million of these [plastic] bags wind up in the Bay each year where they pollute the water, smother wetlands and entangle and kill animals." NOT TRUE. This is just a headline grabbing statistic invented by Save The Bay. It has no basis in fact. We have not seen any plastic bags in the bay and U.S. Coast Guard personnel who cruise the bay every day have told us that they have not seen any either. Now that does not mean that there are no bags in the bay, but the figure of 1 million per year is not substantiated. Plastic bags are about 1% of the total litter, including in the bay (see below). When total litter in the bay is measured, the 1 million figure is a wild exaggeration. (Plastic bags are a higher percentage of litter at storm drains, where they are PREVENTED from entering the bay assuming that catchment screens are in place.)

  • Two LA County Supervisors claim: "About $375 million is spent in California on cleanups and other efforts to mitigate the environmental effect of disposable bags, costing each household about $200." NOT TRUE. The Supervisors are apparently unable to do simple arithmetic. The population of California is 36.4 million. $375 million divided by 36.4 million is $10.30 per person. Moreover, $375 million is the entire litter budget for cleaning up all kinds of litter, not just plastic bags. Plastic bags are less than 1% of litter, which means that the annual cost per person is 10 cents! (Click here.)
  • Los Angeles County is asserting that "as much as 25 percent of the litter stream" is plastic carryout bags. (LA County Initial Study at pages 1-3 and 3.9-5.) NOT TRUE. The assertion is ridiculous. Anyone can see with their own eyes that it is not true. A San Francisco Department of the Environment litter audit conducted before plastic bags were banned in that city showed that plastic bags were only 0.6% of the litter stream. The Florida figure is 0.72%. The Toronto figure is 0.13% (page 35 of Toronto study). (Click here.)
  • As a result of misinformation, many people believe that plastic bags are not recyclable. NOT TRUE. Special plastic bag recycling bins have been installed in large supermarkets and retail stores throughout California since 2007. Virtually all of the plastic bags deposited in those bins are actually recycled. (Click here.)
  • As a result of misinformation, many people believe that plastic bags "clog up" landfills. NOT TRUE.  According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, plastic bags (including retail bags) use up only 0.4% of landfill space. (Click here.)
  • As a result of misinformation, many people believe that it is a disadvantage that plastic bags "last a thousand years" in landfills. NOT TRUE. In fact it is an advantage! Governments have been searching for ways to sequester and trap CO2 underground so that it doesn't escape into the atmosphere. Plastic does it automatically! Decomposing paper in landfills produces methane which is a greenhouse gas with 23 times the heat trapping power of CO2. (Click here.)
  • As a result of misinformation, many people believe that plastic bags are made of oil. NOT TRUE. They are made of ethane which is a waste product from domestically produced natural gas. If the ethane is not used to make plastic bags, it will have to be burned off. (Click here.)
  • As a result of misinformation, many people believe that paper bags are better for the environment than plastic bags. NOT TRUE. Paper bags result in between 2.0 and 3.3 times more greenhouse gases than plastic bags. The life cycle of paper bags results in far more water and air pollution and other negative environmental impacts than the life cycle of plastic bags. Paper is not an environmentally friendly product by any stretch of the imagination. (Click here.)
     
  • Anti-plastic bag activists claim that the global warming impact of increasing paper bag usage is not significant. NOT TRUE. Banning plastic carryout bags throughout California would have the same annual impact on greenhouse gas emissions as adding between 92,280 and 212,243 passenger vehicles. (Click here.)
Environmental decisions should be based on facts, not misinformation  exaggeration, and selective photography.


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
EIRs on plastic bag bans have been prepared and certified in various counties and cities, including the following:
LOS ANGELES COUNTY: In 2009, Los Angeles County issued an Initial Study and determined that banning plastic bags may have a significant negative effect on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must therefore be prepared. On October 28, 2010, the County issued its Final EIR. On November 16, 2010, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance banning plastic bags and imposing a 10-cent fee on paper bags. It also certified its Final EIR.
Click here for a two-page summary of the Los Angeles County EIR.
Los Angeles County determined, based on the EIR, that even with a 10-cent paper bag fee "the cumulative indirect GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions resulting from implementation of the recommended ordinances will have the potential to result in significant unavoidable impacts." The County further "determined that the incorporation of mitigation measures [such as promoting the use of reusable bags] is not expected to reduce the potential indirect impact of the recommended ordinances to GHG emissions below the level of significance." THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!
CITY OF SAN JOSE: San Jose issued its Final EIR. On December 14, 2010, the San Jose City Council adopted an ordinance banning plastic carryout bags and imposing a fee on paper bags. The initial paper bag fee is 10 cents. The paper bag fee automatically increases to 25 cents in 2014. The City determined in the EIR that a 25 cent paper bag fee is necessary to prevent the ordinance from having a net negative environmental impact, because paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic bags. Simply switching from plastic to paper bags is environmentally harmful. AGAIN, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!
San Jose City Council member Kansen Chu, who spearheaded the ban,said this about the EIR: "We took our time -- a little too long by my measurement -- but we did a solid environmental study and found that paper is not really very environmentally friendly either. So we said, 'Well maybe we should consider a limitation on the paper bag as well.'"
CITY OF SANTA MONICA: Santa Monica issued an Initial Study and determined that banning plastic bags may have a significant effect on the environment. On January 25, 2010, the City adopted an ordinancebanning plastic bags and imposing a 10 cent fee on paper bags provided by supermarkets, grocery stores and pharmacies. On the same day, it certified its Final EIR. 
Santa Monica determined in its EIR that a 10 cent paper bag fee is necessary to prevent the ordinance from having a net negative environmental impact, because paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic bags. Simply switching from plastic to paper bags is environmentally harmful. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!
We commend the Santa Monica City Council for making important changes to its ordinance based on the findings in its EIR and the Los Angeles County EIR. The changes were (i) acceptance of polyethylene reusable bags, which Los Angeles County determined in its EIR are far better for the environment than cloth or polypropylene reusable bags; and (ii) permitting restaurants to use plastic bags for prepared food to be consumed off the premises, thereby preventing a major environmentally detrimental switch to paper bags. (The city did not plan to impose a fee on restaurant paper bags.) This proves the value of EIRs!
CITY OF PALO ALTO: In 2009, Palo Alto banned plastic bags without imposing a fee on paper bags. Its present ban affects only four stores.) Phil Bobel, the Palo Alto City official spearheading the anti-plastic bag initiative, is now saying that one unforseen side effect of the ban is that many stores are switching to paper bags. Unforseen? We warned him and the City Council repeatedly and in writing before the City adopted the ordinance that people would switch to paper bags if no fee is imposed on paper bags, but they wouldn't listen. The City should have done an EIR before adopting the ordinance. Fortunately, Palo Alto has agreed to prepare an EIR before banning plastic bags at any more stores.
GREEN CITIES: Green Cities California has published a "Master Environmental Assessment"  to assist cities and counties in preparing their EIRs. This is not the same as an EIR.
In her book "Plastic, A Toxic Love Story" (at page 161), Susan Freinkel writes as follows: "When the [Green Cities] report was completed, in early 2010, it confirmed what Joseph [Save The Plastic Bag Coalition's counsel] had been saying all along: paper bags carry more severe environmental impacts than plastic. That finding was surprising to some plastic-bag-ban advocates, including Carol Misseldine, director of Green Cities California, the group that commissioned the report."
  Back to top
Site By Spirit