SEN. LOWENTHAL COAXES STYROFOAM BAN THROUGH STATE SENATE
By LBReport.com
State Senator Alan Lowenthal’s bill to ban styrofoam food containers in California—except in areas where at least 60 percent of them are recycled—has been approved by the state Senate and sent to the Assembly.
Lowenthal’s legislation, SB 568, was stalled two votes short of passage Thursday morning after a pair of 19-14 roll call votes. He put the bill “on call,” giving him time to cajole a couple more legislators. He lifted the call shortly before 1 p.m., and this time state Senator Rod Wright (D., LB-Inglewood)—who had been silent on previous roll call votes—put the measure over the top by voting yes.
Two Republican senators voted for the bill, both of them from coastal areas—Tom Harman of Huntington Beach and Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo.
COMPLETE COVERAGE, INCLUDING EFFECTS ON LONG BEACH CITY COUNCIL POLITICS, AT LBREPORT.COM
25 Comments
And in such a manner do we cede our personal freedoms and individual liberties to hyper-active legislators…step by incremental step…
That statement is simply ridiculous.
Only to those unable or unwilling to see the truth of it, Ms. LB.
How ironic.Perhaps it is you who is unable to see the truth.
This is not about individual rights.
The truth of the matter is that our country needs to not only stop filling our landfills with stuff like plastic and styrofoam because it will be here for generations, but we also need to stop relying on foreign oil.
What is styrofoam? Again it is a petroleum product. And so its production is literally a waste of energy that is in short supply.
Besides there are green alternatives:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/biodegradable-styrofoam-milk-clay.html
These products remain lawful to produce, to possess, and to use. So long as that is the case, a free people in a civil society should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to use them.
If you believe these products should be removed from existence in their entirety, then work to make *that* happen. I doubt you will find a true majority of people in this town, state, nation, or world who will agree with you. But until you do, leave others alone to live their lives as they choose. So long as they are doing so in a lawful manner, feel free to educate and encourage them all you like…but leave them be to live their own lives, just as you no doubt want to be left to be able to live yours.
Like it or not, we will be using petroleum on this planet until it is gone, which will be a long, long time off yet. Since that is true, the only way to become less dependent upon foreign oil is to access more of our own. Which modern day political philosophy in the US consistently seeks to prevent us from exploring, producing, and using more of our domestic petroleum supplies? Liberals. More specifically, Democrats. Still more specifically, Pres. Obama.
You want to become less dependent upon foreign oil? Talk to Pres. Obama and all of his willing dupes in Congress.
First myth: Oil prices are high. Second myth: Because we can, we should.
I’m all for using petroleum, as much and as fast as we can, because nothing will change until it’s $20/gallon and then we’ll be wishing all the newspapers hadn’t gone out of existence, so we could wrap up our leftover chimichanga in it.
The oil industry does not need more drilling permits.
The petroleum drilling industry is actually extracting much more oil from far fewer available lands now than ever before (their own data), so while the free market jacks up prices due to speculation (not supply and demand), let’s find a way to tie Obama to the ban on styrofoam.
Eliminating styrofoam doesn’t rob you of your freedom. That’s ridiculous. Now if you try and take away my right to circumcise my kid…
Duh…everything is legal until it is illegal.
@ Andy: I agree…oil remains the least expensive and most efficient fuel source available for producing energy at the level our society uses it. All of these green technology initiatives are fine and may one day develop to the point where they can surpass oil in these areas. But I think that day is a long way off yet. Until it comes, we need to access and produce far more of our own domestic sources of oil than we currently do.
You sort of glossed over a pertinent point…available lands. More and more of our lands (and seabeds) are being restricted from the exploration and production of oil. How are these restrictions being imposed? Liberal-minded elected legislators and chief executives.
Market speculation does not occur in a bubble. Where speculation increases price, it is because global supply factors have influenced that speculation. But speculation is also responsible for decreasing prices as well. Strangely, no one complains when speculation occurs in *those* instances. Interesting.
I don’t think I have ever said that eliminating styrofoam robs me of my freedom. I think I said that banning such products -so long as they remain entirely legal to produce, possess, and use- deprives me of my freedom to *choose* whether or not to use them. Styrofoam presents no substantial or emergent or even urgent risk to public health or safety. Since this is so, a free people’s right to self determination should remain the priority.
If some knuckleheads in our society want to abuse their freedom to use plastic bags or styrofoam, then we should deal with that abuse… directly…. and not toss the baby out with the bathwater by depriving everyone else of their right to choose whether or not to use these lawful products in a lawful manner.
Interesting that you seem to draw the line of acceptable levels of government intrusion at circumcision. Perhaps you hadn’t heard about the latest attempt to ban *that* legal choice in California’s own mecca of liberalism, San Francisco:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/san-francisco-circumcision-ban_n_863945.html
In 2006, San Francisco banned the use of plastic foam to-go containers by city restaurants:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-11-15/bay-area/17319225_1_marijuana-ordinance-police-officials
In 2007, San Francisco became the first city in the nation to ban plastic grocery bags:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-03-28/news/17235798_1_compostable-bags-plastic-bags-california-grocers-association
And, this Novermber, San Franciscans will be voting on whether or not people can choose to have their own male children circumcized within that jurisdiction.
This is *precisely* what I mean when I say things like “(a)nd in such a manner do we cede our personal freedoms and individual liberties to hyper-active legislators…step by incremental step…”
These days both Sacramento and Long Beach seem to be taking their legislative leads from places like San Francisco…where modern-day liberalism seems to know no bounds whatsoever, and where an entire population can be consistently deprived of its ability to make its *own* decisions about whether or not to use products that remain legal to produce, possess, and use.
And yes, Ms. LB, everything is legal until it is not. Suppose tomorrow, the Council voted to ban all commercial filming in Long Beach because those activities often prove so very disruptive to residents and businesses in the areas where filming occurs? Would you be ok with such a ban? I mean, the Council enacted it so the ban must be “legal,” right?
The question, of course, is not whether the Council or the State legislature or the Congress *can* take this or that legislative action, but whether or not they *should.*
I do not think the Council or the State legislature should ban plastic bags or styrofoam. I think our society loses far more than it gains by doing so.
Hey, so isn’t your current job somehow related to the Homeland Security Department? That doesn’t seem like any department concerned with peoples’ freedoms. In fact, if I have to get groped (i.e. I am presumed guilty, must get groped to prove innocence) to board a plane.
Just wondering how the Patriot Act jibes with your “freedom of choice” and “loss of personal freedom stance.” Also, my guess is your are prolife…how does that jive with “personal freedom.” Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
Ms. LB, the specifics of my current duties are not for public consumption. But rest assured they do not involve groping people at airports.
I am decidedly pro-choice. I always hope that women who have such a terrible choice to make might choose to carry their pregnancy to term but I firmly believe it is their choice to make.
Any more assumptions you would care to make?
Probably quite a few people who, after reading the greet’s nonsense, feel as if they were verbally groped by the clown. Figures he’d go from stuffing his porcine self at one public trough to another. That should be illegal.
@ wrong: Why do you persist in offerring baseless and unnecessary insults this way? Do you believe it serves any productive or constructive purpose to do so?
If we look at recent history of environmental regulations the underlying result has always been the development of new technologies, new jobs, and a cleaner enviroment. Remember all the smog alerts back in the 70′s they don’t exist anymore. The oil and chemical industries don’t create nearly as much hazardous waste as they did in the 80′s. They figured out how to process products more efficiently due to these regulations and in turn put more money in their pockets at the same time. So without the pressure the Government puts on the industries, the new technologies and jobs would not be created. Styrofoam will be replaced with something else if it is banned, So don’t worry John, there will be something better to replace it with.
2 things about the more drilling mentality–it is often presented as a win-win, which it is not. Drilling does have significant environmental and heath risks, a has been proven in the Gulf and Alaska. That potential cost, along with the fact that we don’t NEED to drill in more areas, leads to a rational conclusion that exploring other alternatives is the right path. (I didn’t say STOP drilling–there’s still plenty of available lands to drill on).
Every energy source will have a cost (eagles vs. windmills, coal vs. everything, contained nuclear vs. released nuclear, etc.), and there is a feasibility component.
But if you are a free marketer, you’ll agree that you have choices. If prices at the pump are too high, you can get a more fuel efficient vehicle. I have a V-8, but I’ve been riding the motorcycle more and the 4-cylinder car. Reducing demand reduces prices for other industries that currently don’t have alternatives.
I should have been specific when I mentioned speculation–I am referring to collusion to drive up prices (which I believe there is, when the price rises so radically differ from supply/demand situation), which I don’t think there’s been evidence to do in reducing prices.
In the meantime, keep exploring other options.
There is clearly is public cost to styrofoam. And the cost of styrofoam in our landfills, beaches, and oceans cannot be understated for an item that is largely just convenience. We should start looking at plastic as well. Why? Take a look at the giant island of trash floating in the Pacific. As a society, deciding that the costs are too great is not restricting freedom of choice. And if LB council decided not to allow filming? OK, it’s their call. The voters will decide come next election.
As for taking away your freedom, let’s talk about things like the Patriot Act and serious threats before minimizing the discussion by equating beer coolers to illegal detention.
@ Andy McAfey: I am not worried in the slightest, and I personally hope that styrofoam can be replaced altogether one day, but banning it on a limited scale is not the answer to the global-scale challenge so many proponents “claim” to want to address.
@ Andy: Choices and trade offs…absolutely, and thank you for confirming that in the grand scheme of things there is a rightful and necessary place for both. There may well come a day when the adverse environmental trade offs of continuing to exercise our choice to use styrofoam will prove no longer worth the convenience and the utility of using them. But I do not think that day has yet come. And I think it could prove a lot farther off if we would just focus our efforts and energies where they can do the most good.
While I appreciate your concern about collusive behavior to drive oil prices up, but every single time that accusation is lodged we conduct thorough independent investigations and every time we find not proof that collusion has occurred. So where do we go with that?
The giant island of trash is not caused by the trash…it is caused by the people who improperly or negligently discarded it. So why arent we doing more to punish the minority who are actually causing the problem, rather than restricting the lawful choices of the vast majority who are not?
I question the very legality of two critical aspects of this nonsensical plastic bag ban. I seriously doubt it is lawful for our council to require one private or corporate entity to charge another private entity a “fee” of this sort. Likewise I question the council-imposed prohibition from stores offering refunds or rebates for those fees. At least one Councilmember to whom I have voiced these concerns has agreed with me. And now the city is going to be required to defend this ill-advised ban in court. What is that going to cost us in terms of general fund dollars that will now not be available to pay for critical city programs and services?
Choices and trade offs, indeed!
It is not a “ban” anyway, it is a user fee…ten cents. You are whining about ten cents.
It is my hope that someday the entire world would actually outright ban both plastic bags and styrofoam. Long Beach and California should be proud to be on the forefront of this world wide movement to ban these items. It is the only way to some day eliminate the garbage patch.
It is not just the littering, but the waste of resources and the poisonous effect of manufacture on humans and nature that is the problem with these items.
Like Andy said, industry will have to change with the times. Business that adapt will survive, the others will fall by the wayside.
Every industry undergoes change with new technologies and laws…it’s time to bag the bag.
Ms. LB said: “It is not a “ban” anyway, it is a user fee…ten cents.”
This is false. LBMC 8.62.020, as adopted, prohibits (bans) stores from providing plastic carryout bags to customers (produce and product bags exempted), and prohibits (bans) the distribution of plastic carryout *AND* paper bags at Long Beach Farmers Markets (produce and product bags exempted.)
This begs the obvious question, if recyclable paper bags are deemed acceptable at grocery stores (for a government-mandated fee, of course), why have the very same sorts of bags been banned from Farmer’s Markets? This, to me, seems blatantly prejudicial against Farmer’s Markets and those who choose to patronize them.
Those who are “whining about ten cents” may have very good reasons for doing so. Unlike some here, I am not prepared to make judgments *for others* about whether or not a 10-cent bag fee is excessive. How easily some here seem willing and able to spend other people’s money.
I think there may be several government mandates in this ordinance that would *not* survive judicial scrutiny. The 10-cent bag fee mandate (8.62.040[A]), the prohibition against rebating or refunding that fee (8.62.040[B]), and the requirement that all stores must provide reusable bags to customers, either for sale or at no charge (8.62.050[A]) all seem to be improper and unlawful government intrusions into the marketplace.
It’s time to bag the ban.
Here’s a great piece from Bob Dunning at the Davis Enterprise in response to renewed efforts in that city to ban plastic grocery bags:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/dunning/water-distracts-us-from-the-real-issue/
And here’s a link to the “Planet Green” article Dunning refers to which discussed 99 practical reuse ideas for so-called “single use” plastic bags:
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/home-garden/reuses-plastic-bags.html
These are some really great reuse ideas offered from the “green subsidiary” of the Discovery Channel, and not a single one of these ideas involves a government-mandated prohibition, a government-mandated fee, a government prohibition against refunds/rebates, or a government mandate that grocers offer reusable bags to their customers.
However did they manage THAT, I wonder?
Regulating on a limited scale is the answer to future global change. Most environmental changes were started on a local scale. Local businesses realized that through technological advances it was possible to meet the regulations without hurting their bottom line. Once this happens the regulations are then developed on a larger scale. Most of the time these changes have become a marketing advantage for those who embraced the change first. LEED Building is one example. Building codes force developers to build in a more environmentally friendly way. Now the smart developers have marketed that to their advantage. The same will be true with the plastic bag. marketing departments of these stores will capitalize on this somehow. Eventually all stores will follow suit because most people will want the alternative.
I too do not like the government meddling in some aspects of my life, but banning the plastic bag and Styrofoam is about as insignificant as it gets. I do not prescribe to ideology.
Allowing obscene development that is grossly out of conformance to the local zoning is another story.
@ Andy: The City should have conducted it’s own EIR on this and it did not do so. This may well prove a violation of CEQA and this is part of the basis for the lawsuit against this unwise and ill-advised ban that has already been filed in LA Superior Court.
I think one of two things is now going to happen:
1. The Council will rescind this unwise and ill-advised ban just as it did it’s previous attempt to ban Big Box stores.
-or-
2. The City will likely spend millions of general fund dollars defending this lawsuit, *whether or not* it is able to do so succesfully.
Way to go City Council! Sometimes some of the things you do make a whole lot of sense to me. Unfortunately this is not one of those times.
http://altadena.patch.com/blog_posts/are-bans-good-for-business
http://abcnews.go.com/US/styrofoam-chemical-styrene-added-possible-carcinogens-list/story?id=13815600
Interesting story and definitely something to consider.
Here’s part of how the NY Times chose to report the same information:
“The primary risk to the general public from styrene exposure, however, comes from breathing indoor air, since its use is widespread in building materials and the exposure that comes from coffee cups and food containers is small. Still, styrene in food and water are risk factors, according to government scientists. Tobacco smokers are also exposed to styrene.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/health/11carcinogen.html
Perhaps our State legislature should consider banning the breathing of indoor air too!
Even in the land of Romneycare (Obamacare-lite) no local government mandates concerning plastic bags are required or desired.
http://melrose.patch.com/articles/horace-mann-wins-plastic-bag-recycling-contest
Interesting…a non government-centric solution to a local plastic bag challenge. A solution that: 1. Engages the entire community, 2. Educates and involves young people, and 3. Benefits all concerned.
And not a knee-jerk, local legislative action in sight.
Imagine that!
[...] a recent bill authored by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) that would ban the use of styrofoam food packaging in the state. The bill targets restaurants and food vendors who use styrofoam for takeout and [...]