California is known for the glamorous lifestyles of its famous residents. Open up any gossip magazine and you’ll see pages of images of celebrities frolicking on the beautiful beaches of Malibu, dining at exclusive restaurants in Pacific Palisades, or partying in Hollywood nightclubs. It’s a lifestyle that very few Americans can relate to, but many envy. Conversely, celebrities, like California politicians, can lose touch with the very people they entertain. The perception of liberal bias in Hollywood isn’t inaccurate.

Some celebrities use their fame and influence to lend power to political causes. Such is the case with the California legislature’s attempt to ban plastic bags. Only in a state as celebrity-centric as California could an environmentalist protest in Malibu, featuring actors Julia Louise Dreyfus and Jeremy Irons, lead to a full-scale, statewide ban on plastic grocery bags. While Ms. Dreyfus and Mr. Irons may be accomplished actors, should their latest cause de célèbre become statewide policy?

It may seem cool or hip to follow the latest Hollywood-glamorous environmental fad and ban plastic bags, but legislators are ignoring the real, unglamorous facts about AB 1998.

First, AB 1998 will kill more than 1,000 California jobs—many of them in the state’s poorest regions. With unemployment topping 12%, legislators should be focused more on creating jobs in the state instead of passing laws that will drive business from the state and take away jobs from those most in need of employment. Plastic bag manufacturing plants here in California will be forced to shut down and lay off hundreds of taxpaying-citizens.

Second, AB 1998 will end California’s increasingly successful recycling program. Environmentalists have a history of being flighty—jumping from one cause to another; whatever will serve their ultimate goal of feeling superior to others while “saving” the planet from mankind’s destructive existence. For the past few decades, recycling has been the drumbeat of environmentalists encouraging responsible, sustainable living. Now, that recycling has become integrated into society, they want to disband the programs and completely ban products they deem environmentally unacceptable? From 2005 to 2008, plastic bag recycling increased by 28% and continues to grow. The programs in place are working—without more government intervention and loss of consumer choice.

Third, banning plastic bags would actually be worse for the environment. There’s nothing more hypocritical than passing laws that appear to help the environment (because they make their proponents feel good) while causing more damage to the environment. Environmentalists have latched onto the plastic bag ban because they think it will help prevent global warming and reduce use of oil in production. But in the United States, approximately 80% of plastic bags are made from domestic natural gas, not oil.  It’s paper bag production that uses petroleum-based paper. AB 1998 would still allow paper bags to be used—albeit with at least a 5 cent tax attached.

Fourth, AB 1998 is a tax increase. If AB 1998 becomes law, plastic bags will be completely banned. But grocers will still be allowed to provide customers paper bags—at a cost. To deter consumers from using paper bags provided by stores, there will be a 5 cent tax for every bag used. That equates to a $1 billion tax on groceries every year! With inflation, increased unemployment and average citizens struggling to make ends meet, the last thing families need is another tax on their groceries. Are legislators really willing to place the latest environmental fad above the well-being of California families?

Fifth, AB 1998 is a special interest give away.  Citizens are already wary of the relationship between legislators and special interest groups that influence legislators’ votes—putting their interest ahead of what’s actually good for average citizens. AB 1998 is the worst example of this quid pro quo.  Grocers are willing to do away with proving the convenience of plastic bags to their customers—if they get the proceeds from that state-imposed fee. Essentially, grocers have been bought off by the legislature and the environmental special interests that pushed the plastic bag ban.

Sixth, AB 1998 disregards serious public health problems.  A recent study by the University of Arizona (Tucson) and Loma Linda University found that 97 of those who take reusable bags to the store don’t know they need to wash them often. The hazardous food-borne bacteria found in reusable bags pose an even greater threat to children—who are particularly susceptible to bacteria such as E. coli. The report also found that hot weather in California increases the dangers of bacteria growth in the bags.  In their attempt to save the planet, legislators could actually harm the health of their constituents.

Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, can all agree that those are six solid reasons for legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger to trash AB 1998. Regardless of your political persuasion, the facts don’t lie. But from a purely ideological standpoint, AB 1998 should be rejected simply based on its expansion of government and usurpation of citizens’ freedom.  This legislation is more nanny state government. It will create a new government bureaucracy costing $1.5 million to make sure grocers are in compliance. And, if they follow the advice of health experts, more money will need to be spent to educate shoppers about the health dangers of not washing their reusable bags.

If legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger ignore the facts about AB 1998 and decide to ban plastic bags, or tax them, or both, there is certainly a lot of energy amongst the people to qualify a referendum and take this entire matter to the voters for them to decide. Because unlike the glamorous celebrities trying to ban plastic bags, average Californians understand the rather unglamorous yet true facts about AB 1998.

We can also expect that if the environmental activist community is successful in banning plastic bags, that they will continue to aggressively pursue their extremist agenda.  What will be next?  Certainly they will "go after" all other plastic bags out there.  What else?  How about banning plastic toothbrushes?  Or maybe outlawing tupperware?  The possibilities are limitless.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 26th, 2010 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.