YourCT.com header image 2

Westport Wants To Ban Plastic Bags


by turfgrrl


May 16th, 2008 · 11 Comments

Well this will certainly cause consternation amongst the dog owning set of Westport. The RTM, in their overeagerness to jump on the bandwagon to ban plastic bags is looking to introduce an ordinance. From the Advocate:

The newly crafted ordinance calls for a committee appointed by the first selectman to enforce the ban and encourages stores to provide reusable cloth and recyclable paper bags.

“We’re very excited about it,” said Gene Seidman, an RTM member representing District 4 who is sponsoring the ordinance with three other district representatives. “It’s forward-thinking. We’re thinking globally and acting locally.”

The ban, which would be effective six months after it passed, would allow stores to dispose of existing inventory of plastic shopping bags. The enforcement committee would issue written notices to stores found to have violated the ban. A third notice would result in a hearing with the committee.

No fines would be issued; an original draft of the ordinance included a financial penalty.Seidman points to San Francisco, which successfully enacted a ban last year, and countries, including Ireland, that have cut the public’s use of plastic bags by placing a tax on them.

But such laws have faced challenges. A bill that would have banned plastic bags statewide, fining retailers up to $200 for a first offense and up to $1,000 for subsequent violations, died in the Judiciary Committee during the recent legislative session.State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the bill had a number of logistical problems. It was unclear how the law would be enforced, and some committee members thought proposed penalties were too high.

Another problem included what McDonald referred to as an “unresolved debate” within the conservation movement about whether plastic bags, made with petroleum, truly are worse environmentally than paper bags.

“This was an idea that was floated without enough work to support its conclusions,” McDonald said. “Many on the committee including myself, thought that we needed to do a better job educating retailers and consumers.”

 

Some big cities, including New York City, have ended up forgoing a ban and instead are requiring large stores to set up plastic bag recycling programs. These initiatives have largely been supported by retailers and plastic-bag manufacturers.

Recycling plastic bags is the better effort here, because its not just dog owners that reuse the bags. Small plastic bags are good for cat litter removal, perfect to wrap shoes in that you plan to stick in your suitcase, and when quilted together can serve as a plastic sail to get you off the desert island. There was one point in my life when I never bought garbage bag because my apartment building had a trash chute and the little grocery store bags fulfilled the garbage bag purpose much better. Maybe I’m getting too old these days, but I seem to remember, to State Senator McDonald’s point, that trees were the thing we were saving when the 1970’s movement to ban paper products was introducing things like styrofoam cups, since banned. This issue is much like the compact fluorescent light-bulb fad that causes people to run out and by new light-bulbs to replace incandescent energy wasters that are perfectly good just so they can claim to be energy conservers or something. I say, what about just turning off the lights? Hybrid cars? Drive less, walk more. Which reminds me, yesterday I filled my gas tank for $50. The price of gas has seemingly gone up 25 cents in less than two weeks. I saw the first $5/gallon price sign for diesel in upstate New York. The weak dollar certainly isn’t helping things.  source: Advocate, Is being green in the bag? Westport considers ban, By Lisa Chamoff, 05/16/2008

Tags: Westport

11 Responses so far “Westport Wants To Ban Plastic Bags”



  • 1 Anonymous // May 17, 2008 at 8:38 am

    What happens to the bags that blow over the town line from (shudder) say, Norwalk? Will they be tarred and feathered? Run out of town on a rail? Humiliated as the bags from the wrong side of the tracks. We demand answers.

  • 2 Norwalker // May 17, 2008 at 9:40 am

    It’s a noble thought. However, to ban them now might not work. It would be like seeing the gas prices going down to a buck and a quarter. It’ll never happen. Once somtehing is instituted, it’s pretty hard to get it to change.I do see people bringing their cloth bags which is great, too, or those netted bags. I know that in Italy, people do bring the netted bags to the markets. They look like stretchy fish nets. What do you do with really big bulk items though?

    Good luck, Westport!

  • 3 Anonymous // May 17, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Pretty hard to change minds about global warming, too, but the tide has turned. Outdated thinking like yours is going the way of the dinosaur, along with the loudmouths who have Swift-Boated anyone who is a proponent of global warming science for the past eight, long, wasted years since the Current Occupant put his stain on the Oval Office chair by his presence.

    Conservatives and their kind are becoming increasingly irrelevant and the upcoming elections look to be the nail in their coffin. Just witness this past week’s special Congressional election in Mississippi, where the GOP lost a seat that it had held since 1994 to a centrist Democrat. The Rethuglicans had tried to taint their opponent with the Obama brush, but it backfired. Repugnicants in Congress are now panicking since they see this development as the canary in the coal mine. I say good riddance.

  • 4 Happy Norwalker // May 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Maybe Westport should hold off on the banning bags. Their kids might want to use them to cover their heads after reading the following article in the Advocate: “Westport students shared nude photos, schools chief says”

    Link: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_9290640?source=most_viewed

  • 5 Cranbury Boy // May 20, 2008 at 7:31 pm

    #3 Anonymous, what a thoughtful and articulate commentary on politics and the environment you’ve made. If only sweeping away any contention with denigration and obtuse disregard for opposing positions were the same as being enlightened, your post would be tops. A big gold star for your use of cliches though:

    1. “…going the way of the dinosaur.”
    2. “…the tide has turned.”
    3. “…the canary in the coal mine.”
    4. “…the nail in their [sic] coffin.”

    Maybe next time you could throw in some malapropisms and avoid these hackneyed old chestnuts like the plague

  • 6 Anonymous // May 20, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    You forgot “put his stain on the oval office chair.” Always happy to be a thorn in the side of people like yourself who throw red herrings out for lack of anything else to use as an argument.

    Oh, by the way, “hackneyed old chestnuts?” Those who live in glass houses…

  • 7 Reusing plastic. // Jun 9, 2008 at 3:40 am

    In court, these bans have proved to be senseless and costly to consumers who have to pay for the few politicians trying to make a mark through a popular vote. With the increase in transportation and inflation, we can’t afford higher costs of switching to paper. Buy reusable bags made in China - who are we helping there? These alternatives are not a start to anything environmental - it only serves to put more control into the governments hands. Oakland and many other cities voted on the ban as well, but since these efforts don’t stand a chance in court, they’ve all had to change their positions. So far only San Francisco has actually passed such an ordinance and they too are facing litigation. The courts find that the ban actually causes more harm to the environment as evidence shows consumers turning to paper goods. Paper may be more degradable, but their production causes signifant more pollution than plastic and despite the high recycle rate, paper consumes the biggest portion of the landfill (facts reported by the Environmental Protection Agency. If you get rid of plastic, you increase paper usage and the landfill problem increases exponentially along with the greenhouse gas emmissions which goes against the state mandate to decrease. You say go with reusable bags made in China, India, or some other import country where they allow lead and other toxic chemicals - that doesn’t sound too environmental.

    Plastic bags are one of the few US manufactured goods and people like the “Anonymous” who don’t take into consideration all the facts will continue to degrade our weak economy. Nothing is ever simple and you need to check all your facts.

    By the way, plastic bags are the most reused product than any other packaging in the world.

  • 8 Anonymous // Jun 9, 2008 at 8:36 am

    Talk to our DPW Mr Hal he is spinning all kinds of crap while trying to push a transfer station on woodward ave.We will be able to send even more varieties of plastic to cartage.Does anyone else see through this cloud of smoke he has sent up the councilors asses?

    Don’t know about the rest of the city but those blue bins meant to put out each week collects dust on my street.How about some enforcment

  • 9 Transfer Station on Woodward Ave // Jun 9, 2008 at 9:36 am

    Woodward Avenue sounds like a good location for the transfer station to me - much more accessible than where it is now and less likely to pollute the river.

  • 10 Anonymous // Jun 9, 2008 at 9:49 am

    #9 your so right, Woodward ave would be better polluting village creek where most shellfish and marine life get their start.You also didn’t mention the fact more than one transfer station is opening in Norwalk.Maybe the meeting tuesday night would be a suggestion to attend you may learn something about Norwalk and where the DPW wants to take us.

    Besides the sewage plant already effecting the Norwalk river you certainly didn’t understand the old transfer station is still going to remain open sending all traffic back into the residential area ,there closing the road out to the highway .

    Got hand it to the Advocate and The Hour what they have been fed so far has made it to the public so they simply won’t understand whats going on until its too late.

  • 11 MGeake // Jun 9, 2008 at 10:26 am

    First off, it’s on Meadow Street, not Woodward Avenue.

    Second, more accessible to what? Meadow, Woodward, and South Main — all part of Route 136 — are all ill-suited to truck traffic, more so than the parts of Route 136 through Rowayton that bans trucks. Plus construction on 95-7 impeding access to/from I-95.

Leave a Reply