Ban bags, don't just tax them

Many people, my wife and I included, would strongly support banning plastic bags but voted against the ill-conceived measure we were offered in Referendum 1.

A ban would require shoppers to bring or buy reusable bags or otherwise carry purchases in their arms.

Longer checkout times and ugly checkout disputes in our view seemed destined to ultimately doom needed regulation. In any case, this loss should not be interpreted to mean that Seattle voters want to continue using disposable plastic or paper bags or wouldn't adopt a more sensible regulation.

-- Charles and Wendy Ordine, Seattle

Poor marketing may have lost bag campaign

Seattle missed the marketing and terminology boat with pitching a bag "tax."

I just got back from Austria and Germany and found that when you grab a plastic bag there, you have to pay for it. That changes people's habits in a hurry.

It's not a tax, it's the cost of doing business or "cleaning up the bag mess."

Just require all bags to cost 25 cents as a cleanup fee, and you'll be surprised how many folks starting bringing their own.

-- Andrew Nemethy, Adamant, Vt.

Vote against Ref. 1 a vote against liberal agenda

Editor, The Times:

It's the same strategy. Just like the right-wing attack on President Obama isn't really about health care, the vote against a tax on plastic bags was really a vote against the liberal agenda, specifically environmentalism in Seattle.

It's what the Republicans will call a backlash against that liberal agenda.

But really it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's just more dangerous Republican misinformation on how to reduce our waste and pass on the goal of a better place to our kids. The only goal Seattle Republicans have is winning the next election, at any cost.

Republicans seem to believe global warming and other environmental dangers don't exist anyway. There's no real reason to be environmentally conscious in the minds of the Republicans.

-- Doug Morrison, Seattle

Bag tax failed because it wasn't evenly applied

I take offense at Brady Montz's assertion ["City voters don't buy shopping bag charge," News, Aug. 19] that Referendum 1 failed because big business spent more than the Green Bag Campaign 5-to-1.

My friends and I voted against the 20-cent bag tax because it was arbitrary and discriminatory. Some businesses, but not all, had to pay the 20-cent bag tax. Grocery stores, food banks and convenience stores had to pay. Large mega-stores like Target, Sears, Fred Meyer and Macy's were exempt.

The tax would save us from all those non-biodegradable plastic bags but would also tax all those biodegradable paper bags. If the green-bag supporters want a law that will pass then they should outlaw all plastic bags, leaving only paper and reusable bags as alternatives.

Do not write a law, like the one that failed, penalizing only certain businesses and service organizations assisting the poor.

-- Suzanne M. Banchero, Seattle

Despite failed tax, quit plastic bags cold turkey

Many voters felt the plastic bag fee was too nanny-ish. Understandable, but still, the environmental problem remains.

Here's an idea. Judging from the massive sums they spent to defeat this measure, the plastic producers clearly expected plastic-bag sales to take a huge dive if the fee was approved.

Let's all see if we can make that happen anyway by resolutely swearing off plastic bags at the grocery. Cold turkey.

Let's develop a culture in which those who regularly use plastic grocery bags are assumed to be either self-absorbed people like those who talk too loudly on their cellphones or people for whom reusable bags are genuinely beyond their means.

We can roll our eyes at the former and empathize with the latter. But for ourselves, let's do what's right, even without the official prompt. The inconvenience will be minimal.

After all, if you've got a life, plastic bags can't be a very big part of it.

-- William R. Andersen, Seattle

Bag vote hijacked by well-funded opponents

Thank you Seattle for once again proving that big money buys politics. With fliers, ads and phone calls flooding the residents of this "enlightened" city, how can anyone possibly say defeating the bag tax was the public's will?

If the proponents and opposition had been evenly funded, one could claim it was the public's will. But the way it was done proves otherwise. The poor didn't win -- the chemical industry did. Everyone else lost.

What a bunch of suckers we are!

-- Jack M. Pedigo, Seattle

Like in health-care reform, public is the loser in bag-tax defeat

They've done it again. In voting down the bag tax, people have allowed themselves to be duped by disinformation, lies and distortions, becoming stooges for the oil and chemical industries and not realizing they already pay for plastic bags directly and indirectly in many ways.

The same thing has happened with health-care reform, with people allowing themselves to become pawns of the insurance companies out to protect their profits at the expense of us all.

Some undoubtedly just hate the president and will do anything to bring him down. Either way, they're working against themselves.

And in voting for Mr. Anti-Tunnel, Mike McGinn, they're jeopardizing the chance of a lifetime to make Seattle one of the magnificent waterfront cities in the world.

What a shame it all is.

-- Tim Walsh, Seattle

Before a bag fee, provide incentives to recycle instead

Editor, The Times:

I find it interesting that Seattle wants to impose plastic-bag fees, yet there has been absolutely no push for deposits for plastic or glass bottles or for soda and beer cans.

Over the past three years, I have recycled more than 82,000 aluminum cans, of which more than 75,000 I have personally removed from the roadsides here in South King County, primarily in the Renton and Maple Valley areas.

What really bothers me is the fact I have left behind approximately 6,000 glass bottles and well more than 12,000 to 13,000 plastic bottles during this time frame.

Keep in mind that deposits are required for all of these items in Idaho, Oregon, California and other states and as a direct result you have far less litter.

Cash refunds would guarantee much cleaner roadside areas, and at the same time, provide those in need with additional and needed income.

Why are we spending our tax dollars cleaning up our roads? At 5 cents a can and bottle, if I had recycled everything I've mentioned, I would have made around $5,000.

-- Ron Freese, Renton

If bags are so bad, why don't we ban them?

I don't live in Seattle, so I don't get to vote on the proposed bag fee/tax. I do work at a retail store in Seattle, however.

I am quite confused at the idea of charging a fee as a disincentive to use bags. If the bags are so bad, ban them. If they don't warrant a ban, put the community's resources to use elsewhere.

It may technically be a "fee," but it sure feels like a terribly regressive "tax."
On the other hand, I'd gladly fork over a dollar or more per bag if it meant the streets would be properly cleared of snow and ice in the winter.

-- Shaun Anthony, Renton

Complicating grocery transactions an effective plan

Peter Nickerson and Randy Rucker's assessment ["Bag tax would be a lot of hassle with little environmental impact," Opinion, guest column, Aug. 5] of the proposed bag tax misses a few points.

Yes, it's great most Seattleites don't litter, but that does not lead to the conclusion that there is no bag scourge. Any plastic that becomes waste is a scourge. Those who are trying to connect the dots between consumer behavior and increased waste plastic know this.

I agree that "the tax will solve no environmental problem" and will "complicate a million grocery transactions in the city daily." That's the point.

Waste-management problems may be best addressed by means of consumer inconvenience. If consumers can embrace recycling their newspapers, glass bottles and aluminum cans, providing for our own grocery-bagging needs should be an easy next step.

Look around you. See any scarcity of backpacks, canvas bags and other reusable bags? I still agree with their conclusion that if we want to improve the environment via taxation there are better choices.

Another way to get people's attention is to stop offering them bagging service. Make an announcement. Pick a day. Let them squirm a few days, and they'll pick up a bagging habit faster than a cockroach escaping a glaring light bulb.

-- Marcella Van Oel, Seattle

Making change by shifting attitudes

I'm a big fan of the plastic-bag tax. Why? Because it will eliminate a reflexive waste of resources. Currently, the automatic assumption at most stores is that you want your items bagged.

Buy a single pencil? It goes in a bag. Yes, you can decline the bag, and I do.

But I've got to be fast! One second of distraction and I've got another annoying plastic bag. I want to flip the assumption around, and I believe the bag tax will do that.

I'd love the conversation to flip from me saying, "Ack! No bags!" to the cashier saying, "Do you wish to purchase bags today?"

Shifts in attitude do matter. Let's move to a society in which the least wasteful option is the norm, rather than the exception. The bag tax may not be the biggest step or the most meaningful step, but it is the next step.

We have to walk before we can run. Though I suppose we could bike or bus. Whatever transit mode you choose, remember your reusable bags!

Vote yes on Seattle Referendum 1.

-- Karen Crisalli Winter, Seattle

Phony environmentalism

The proposed grocery-bag fee is another example of the feel-good, phony environmentalism for which our beloved Seattle is, alas, famous. The refrigerators we use to keep our food fresh use more energy in a couple of hours than is used to make all the grocery bags we use in a year.

"Just keep a bag in the car" means, for those of us with that quaint thing known as a family, "just keep eight or 10 bags in the car." We can't stuff all our weekly shopping in a couple of canvas bags like all the condo-dwelling singles who live around the block from Whole Foods.

Not to mention the irony of advising people to keep their canvas bags in a petroleum-fueled vehicle.

It's one thing to try to get rid of non-biodegradable plastic bags -- fine by me -- but paper bags?

Since we have that family thing going on at our house, we have a lot to recycle. We fill a (recyclable) paper grocery bag up each day.

I'm not disposed to carry a nondisposable recycling tub up and down a couple of flights of stairs each day, nor am I disposed to pay for recyclable bags when I get them for free now.

More stuff will probably go in the trash. Who knows, I may burn more energy and go grocery shopping in Shoreline.

It's called a "perverse effect" and it's a common result of poorly thought-out legislation.

-- Steven Wangsness, Seattle

Punishment for folks without cars

Bag tax, bag fee, bag heist: Whatever they call it, my take on it is it's one more way of punishing me -- and others like me -- for not owning an automobile.

I'm sure it's an unintentional punishment so perhaps some explanation is in order.

If you have to take your groceries home long distances either on foot or by bus -- in my case it is usually a combination -- those plastic bags are a godsend. I usually get a double bag so it doesn't bust and spill munchies all over the sidewalk, so if the silly law passes I'll probably have to pay twice.

I can hear the chorus from here: "Get a reusable, eco-friendly bag!" Sorry friends, that's just not an option. I'd have to carry the ecobag around all day in my backpack and there's usually way too much stuff in there already.

Am I selfishly putting my own interests before those of Nature? Well maybe, but I figure I'm doing more for the environment by almost never driving than the folks who drive their groceries home every night in their road-clogging, oil-burning, greenhouse-gas emitting cars. And yeah, I find it just a little bit galling that when some of them vote for the bag tax, they'll congratulate themselves on having done their little bit to save Mother Earth.

-- Andre Duval, Seattle