Polystyrene Ban Spreads, Pacifica Dawdles

Sacramento – The California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) today proposed banning polystyrene take-out containers and plastic bag use fees as part of a strategy to reduce ocean litter. Following the OPC's historic resolution last year to eliminate marine debris, the strategy includes public comments gathered during the last three months and calls for plastic manufacturers to recover and dispose of their products and for product user fees to be assessed. "The council is confident that this strategy will have far reaching benefit for ocean health and brings about needed action to tackle the marine debris problems plaguing our oceans," said OPC Chair and Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman. "Our decision today moves California closer to a real solution to reduce the threats to our ocean and coast."

The proposed implementation strategy, that will require legislative action in order to be enacted, identifies three primary approaches that California should take to eliminate marine debris. California should: (1) establish a "take-back" program that would require manufacturers to take back used packaging and dispose of it properly; (2) institute a statewide fee on single-use plastic grocery bags and a prohibition on polystyrene food containers; and (3) impose user fees on other commonly littered packaging items. The council noted that economic impacts should be considered as a ban on polystyrene containers is developed and language to this effect was added to the adopted plan. Today's adopted strategy reflects public comments that were taken on an OPC staff draft plan to reduce ocean litter.  Perhaps the most notable change, the plan no longer proposes a statewide ban on plastic bags, but instead suggests a phased approach that would imposed a fee on plastic bag use. The strategy suggests that if the fee is not successful in substantially reducing the use of plastic bags then a prohibition should be implemented.

 Full and partial polystyrene food container prohibitions have been implemented in many California cities including: Alameda, Aliso Viejo, Berkeley, Calabasas, Capitola, Carmel, Emeryville, Fairfax, Hercules, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, Los Angeles, Malibu, Millbrae, Oakland, Pacific Grove, Pittsburg, San Clemente, San Francisco, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, Scotts Valley and West Hollywood. California communities are not alone in recognizing plastic bags as a significant threat to the marine environment. Several states, including Alaska, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington are considering plastic bag prohibitions. China, Australia, South Africa, Bangladesh, Tanzania, and several other countries recently banned plastic grocery bags. In 2002, Ireland imposed a tax on the distribution of plastic grocery bags that resulted in a 95 percent drop in plastic bag use since the tax was implemented. Whole Foods Market recently stopped offering plastic bags in its nearly 300 stores. The counties of Ventura, San Mateo and Sonoma have also imposed some kind of prohibition as have the cities of Rahway, N.J., Portland, Ore., and Freeport, Maine and Suffolk County, N.Y.

According to the Long Beach-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation, 60 to 80 percent of the world's ocean litter is made up of plastic. In some areas, 90 to 95 percent of the marine debris is plastic. State and local governments spend millions of dollars every year on ocean litter cleanup. In fiscal year 2006, Caltrans spent $55 million to remove litter and debris from roadsides and highways. Uncollected, most of this will ultimately drain into the ocean. Marine debris also negatively impacts California's $46 billion tourism-based ocean-dependent economy. Despite an ongoing effort for decades to reduce ocean litter, the proliferation of plastic debris has increased exponentially. On Feb. 8, 2007, the OPC passed a marine debris resolution (linked below) that identified 13 recommendations for reducing and preventing ocean litter. The council noted that this litter, commonly known as marine debris, harms hundreds of marine species, from birds that eat small pieces of debris and feed it to their young, to marine mammals that get entangled in larger pieces. To view the OPC's Feb. 8, 2007 marine debris resolution visit OPC RESOLUTION

Comments

[Dan Underhill]

"New sales tax.
Styrofoam ban.
Inevitable attempt to ban plastic bags."

It is becoming more and more important that we, as a culture, become able to walk and chew gum at the same time. There is not necessarily any natural conflict between trying to include environmental science and sound business practices in our decision making process. We, as individuals, often have many more considerations to deal with than that and we all seem to muddle along pretty well.

[Steve Sinai]

New sales tax.

Styrofoam ban.

Inevitable attempt to ban plastic bags. (I remember when plastic bags were touted as environmentally-friendly, because then fewer trees would be cut down for paper bags.)

I know that to be a good environmentalist, you have to be anti-business, just as to be a good conservative, you have to hate liberals; to be a good liberal, you have to hate conservatives; to be a patriotic American, you have to look down your nose at other countries, and so on. But this is getting ridiculous. Is the objective here to drive all business out of Pacifica by harassing them to death?

The rumor I had heard was that council didn't push forward with the polystyrene ban beause too many businesses complained. If so, that's one of the few times that council has ever been responsive to the needs of business in town. On the list of important problems we face, polystyrene just doesn't rate.

[Karen Rosenstein]

Bill,

Thank you for your civil response. So, how do you want to proceed on this matter? To get it on the council agenda, I believe you need a council person to place it there for you. Or you could just do it thru Oral Communications with many people asking about what the holdup is.

But be wary of criticizing staff. Despite what some people say, I believe it is Staff who are the real power in this town. And Council hates to publicly criticize staff because they depend on them too much. Just look at how often they disagree with staff's recommendation on something.
And staff doesn't make it easy for them to disagree either. I have always thought it was interesting the way the staff report is done in Pacifica.

Staff submits a report of information on an item with their recommendation and the report is written to back up that specific recommendation. If PC or CC should disagree with that recommendation, Staff has to go back and rewrite the report to support the "new" position and then it goes in front of the PC/CC for the final decision. This adds unnecessary time and cost to our processes. I also wonder how come the City hasn't been sued because of this process of writing a report that states recommendation in one way and then turns around and writes a report that is totally opposite of the first report.

Why aren't the PC/CC whose job it is to MAKE A DECISION based on ALL of the facts receiving a Staff report that lists the pros and cons of an item with information for both a yea and nay vote included in the Report? I know of one item last fall that had to be "continued" because there was no "no motion" included as an option and the PC in this case couldn't just vote NO because of that.

By changing to a process where the PC/CC receives staff reports with information presented in this manner would address several complaints that have been expressed by us: less work for staff and PC/CC, less paper being wasted, less time waiting for decisions to be made are just a few...

[Summer Rhodes]

"Remember how our city council voted 5-0 last Fall to direct staff to prepare an ordinance banning Polystyrene containers?"

Yes-- I was there at the vote. And was impressed with how City Council is coming through on its membership to the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, which Pacifica joined with Mayor Vreeland leading the way.

It's time to ask Council what's going on!

[Bill Collins]

Well, Karen - it's been almost a half a year, and this isn't exactly a complex issue. South San Francisco went from notice to vote in 3 months, as I recall.

I've spoken with staff and the mayor, and nobody could say when or whether this might be accomplished. I feel that they wasted the time of those of us who took the time to come to
Council and speak.

There's no mention of the bag ordinance that was part of the unanimous motion, and I'm not even asking about that.

I think we have some well-intentioned council members who seem thwarted by staff who seem to have a different agenda.

[Karen Rosenstein]

Bill,
How exactly do you know they decided to do nothing vs it is on the city's to do list but just haven't gotten to it yet?

[Bill Collins]

Remember how our city council voted 5-0 last Fall to direct staff to prepare an ordinance banning Polystyrene containers?
If you haven't heard anything since, it's because our city staff decided on their own to do nothing, notwithstanding the Council's vote.

How naive of me to think that the people we elect run the town.

Bill Collins

[Summer Rhodes]

That is a nice choice Ian. I usually go one step further and don't purchase the item if it's packaged in nonrecyclable material -- but that's great for those awful times when you want that item anyway!

[Ian Butler]

I went to the Styrofoam meeting at Ash's yesterday, and the guy from Gorilla was the unexpected hero. He said that they have been offering the customers the option of paying an extra quarter to go Styrofoam free, and 2/3 have chosen to pay it! And half of them made a point of saying how great it is that they have that option.

This might be the perfect transitional model to base our policy on - to mandate that businesses give their customers the choice.

[todd bray]

Gorilla BBQ is offering customers the chance to have biodegradable paper containers for their menu items. It costs an extra quarter to the customer but I'm happy to pay to support their efforts to be proactive and involved in issues other than their own. Gorilla BBQ did this voluntarily in anticipation of community support.

Changing to paper or corn containers is making businesses money not costing them money.

[Summer Rhodes]

One good way we may all help is by not purchasing products packaged in non-recyclable packaging materials. And requesting of manufacturers/sellers that products be packaged sustainably.

This is the least we can do for the world that is coming-- the world we are leaving to our children.

[Scotty]

Ian, I apologize for the confusion. I was not referring to your list of people, most of whom I have never heard. As I said, I was talking about opponents of in-fill development, some of whom commented right here on this very post. Again, I was curious how they could reconcile their apparent love for the environment with an approach to development that is very hostile towards it. Thanks for your coaching, and I'll try and be much more diligent about my comment placement in the future.

[Ian Butler]

Scotty,

I reread your original post and cannot for the life of me see how it isn't referring to the Styrofoam ban proponents. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be in this thread in the first place.

Nor can I see how my response constituted "childish antagonism." I didn't call anyone names, I didn't even make fun of anyone (which is never easy for me). I simply defended the hard work of some dedicated activists.

[Matthew Levie]

And just a reminder that if you do support the ban, please sign Lynn's online petition. If we can show that a large number of Pacificans support an outright ban, it will help get it enacted sooner rather than later:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/styrofoam-ban-in-pacifica

[Scotty]

Ian, I applaud your efforts, and I do my part as well. I was referring to those who argue against in-fill development, so there's no need to be defensive unless that's your position as well. If it is, how do you reconcile that position with your obvious love of the environment?

Actually, there's no need for anyone to be defensive at all. As I've said several times, I'm just trying to discuss these things as civil adults without resorting to the childish antagonism into which these discussions frequently and rapidly spiral. I don't always agree with Jeffrey Simons, but I do agree that there's too much of that attitude in Pacifica and that we could learn something by the way Obama is apparently striving for consensus.

[Ian Butler]

"It's pretty hypocritical for people to ask businesses to change the way they do things to help the environment when they aren't willing to make sacrifices themselves."

I would like to point out that the people who are advocating a Styrofoam ban in Pacifica have made plenty of sacrifices. For example:

Jim and Anna Garcia and Paul Hurley have led the Linda Mar beach cleanup every month for the last 13 years.

Lynn Adams has organized the Coastal Cleanup Day and Earth Day cleanups, in which thousands of volunteers have participated.

Clark Natwick has been restoring the dunes at Linda Mar Beach for well over a decade.

Jeri Flynn, despite serious health issues, has worked tirelessly to educate and organize the public.

I have personally hauled over a ton of plastic debris up dangerous cliffs in the past year (including 170 pounds just last week).

In the most recent Coastal Cleanup Day, Pacifica had 1/3 of the county's total number of volunteers (well over 1,000). This city has a large and committed group of people who are willing to work hard to keep this dangerous pollution out of the ocean.

Many of us have already stopped using plastic bags and Styrofoam, and think twice before patronizing a restaurant that uses Styrofoam foodware.

So please, don't accuse us of demanding sacrifice of others that we aren't willing to make ourselves. Most of us have worked tirelessly to make a difference.

It is just that after we pick enough pollution of the beaches, eventually we start looking for ways to prevent it from getting there in the first place.

[Scotty]

It's also reminiscent of the way people on one hand talk about being friendly to the environment, but on the other hand want to pave it over because "'density' can really, really suck." It's pretty hypocritical for people to ask businesses to change the way they do things to help the environment when they aren't willing to make sacrifices themselves.

[Dan Underhill]

At the Green Fest last weekend there were a wide variety of recycleable containers and utensils which worked very well with the many different foods on offer there. There were foods and drinks of many different temperatures and of pretty much every consistancy. I say this because last time the subject came up on this site someone was writing in that the recyclable alternative containers would absorb sauces and be problematic. Whoever that was had simply chosen the wrong product for their purpose. If what you are selling can actually be ingested there are appropriate serving containers and utensils already available on the market.

The argument is reminiscent of the American auto industry which has, for many years, claimed that suggested emissions standards were unfair and couldn't be done even while Europe and Japan were complying with much stricter standards than were being suggested for the USA.