Jonah Goldberg defines Fascism as:
. . . a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the ‘problem’ and therefore defined as the enemy.
- Liberal Fascism, p. 23
Eco-fascism is a variant of Fascism that is also totalitarian in the sense that any action by the state to achieve some ecologically-worthy goal is justified. No aspect of human life is off limits. Examples range from bans on smoking in public and the use of cell phones in cars to recent attempts by Congress and the EPA to impose a tax and/or regulatory regimen on our exhalations and emissions made by the burning of fossil fuels. Now it seems we are going to be taxed for the little plastic grocery bags we use to transport our groceries from the supermarket to our cars.
The rationale for the ban is dubious, at best. The cynic in me views the ban as yet one more statist bureaucratic scheme to separate me from my money.
This past January, the City Council of Brownsville, Texas, unanimously passed a ban on retailer-provided, single-use, sanitary, disposable, plastic grocery bags. The ban is voluntary for now, but becomes mandatory with exceptions for bagging fish, meat, and poultry in 2011. Paper bags were not offered as an alternative. The main reason for the ban was to address a litter problem associated with the little plastic “tumbleweeds” that seem to be everywhere – vacant lots, fences, roads, parking lots. Very unsightly.
We had facts and figures to show that, yeah, Brownsville was sick of litter, and the biggest thing we litter are plastic bags.
- Rose Timmer, Healthy Communities of Brownsville
The Brownsville City Commission also pointed out that sewers and drainage systems are being clogged with the plastic bags, and the community’s waterways are similarly polluted. They further claimed that the plastic bags are difficult to recycle and contaminate materials processed through the city’s composting program. A local newspaper reported:
The ordinance the commission approved notes the city has a duty to protect the natural environment, the economy and the health of the city’s residents.
Let’s take a closer look at these assertions, shall we?
Assertion 1 – A ban on plastic grocery bags will protect the natural environment
Claims that the ban on plastic grocery bags will help protect the natural environment are not supported by the facts. An exhaustive studyby Boustead Consulting & Associates entitled Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper concluded that the environmental impact of single-use plastic bags is far less than either paper or compostable plastic bags. Comparisons were made based on each type of bag’s impact on global warming, acid rain, municipal solid waste, conservation of fossil fuels, local/regional grid electricity use, and water use, and in every case the single-use plastic bag made less of a negative impact than either paper or compostable plastic bags. This study was not designed to assess the issue of litter, but the results show that reducing litter by changing the type of grocery bag can have unintended consequences that are actually much worse for the environment.
Addressing the issue of increasing litter with bans on plastic grocery bags may be counterproductive as this study has not considered many other mitigating circumstances that may lead to even greater differentials between plastic grocery bags and those made from either paper or compostable plastics.
Increased recycling rates for plastic bags, better bagging techniques at retail, and secondary uses of plastic grocery bags such as waste disposal could all further reduce the environmental impacts of plastic grocery bags. In addition, getting consumers to change their behavior so that plastic bags are kept out of the litter stream would appear to be more productive in reducing the overall environmental impact of plastic bags including litter.
Reusable cloth bags were not evaluated in the study, but it was noted that there was no evidence to suggest that customers will reliably bring such bags every time they go shopping. More importantly, there are serious health concerns associated with resuable cloth bags that will be addressed later in this post.
Assertion 2 – A ban on plastic grocecry bags will benefit the local economy
According to the American Chemistry Council, for every seven trucks needed to deliver paper bags, only one truck is needed for the same number of plastic bags, helping to save energy and reduce emissions. Compostable plastic bags and reusable cloth bags are thicker and heavier than the typical disposable plastic grocery bag, so it follows that significantly more energy will be expended on their transport, as well. It also takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it does to recycle a pound of paper. Since plastic grocery bags will be banned, retailers will lose the incentive to offer recycling bins to consumers, thus making recycling of these and other types of plastic bags more difficult and time-consuming.
It is probably true that a ban on plastic bags will benefit the economy, just not the Brownsville economy. Transport companies will initially profit from making innumerable hauls of reusable cloth or plastic bags (remember: paper bags were not considered a viable alternative). Since most freight is moved by large diesel trucks, the eeeee-vil oil companies will benefit from selling the diesel needed to fuel the trucks. More hauls by more diesel trucks does not help save energy or reduce emissions, however. And it’s too bad that the Texas plastic bag manufacturing industry supports 2,600 well-paying local Texas jobs because a ban on disposable plastic grocery bags translates into less demand and fewer workers. But what’s bad news for workers in the disposable plastic bag manufacturing industry is good news for workers who manufacture reusable bags. Unfortunately,many resuable bag manufacturers are based in China where (slave) labor is cheap. Think of all the fuel required to transport those reusable bags across the Pacific Ocean from China. Think of the emissions.
Perhaps the City Commission was referring to the additional revenue earned by retailers who will now be able to sell to consumers what they had originally given to them, for free. Plastic grocery bags are not going to simply disappear overnight. The ban does not extend to bagging fish, meat, and poultry. And old habits die hard. At present, many reusable grocery bags purchased by enviro-conscious consumers go unused, stashed away in closets or car trunks. In 2008, The Wall Street Journal cited a poll by KPIX in San Francisco of 500 of its television viewers and found that nearly 60% said they almost never take reusable cloth shopping bags to the grocery store. The actual number may be significantly lower. Consumer surveys and industry data show that about the same number of people reuse their bags as bring disposable bags back to the grocery store for recycling, which is roughly about 10% of all consumers. Most consumers will continue arriving at grocery stores with nothing but their pocketbooks and wallets. If they want to bag their groceries, they will have to buy bags offered by the retailer.
Does anyone seriously believe that the City Commission will sit idly by and not take advantage of this new and potentially HUGE revenue stream?
Assertion 3 – A ban on plastic grocery bags will protect the health of the city’s residents
Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a ban on free, retailer-provided, sanitary, single-use, disposable plastic grocery bags poses a serious health risk to the entire local population. The very old and very young are, of course, the most at risk. A study conducted by researchers from the University of Arizona (UA) and Loma Linda University in California found that reusable bags result in growth of bacteria by cross contamination of foods, thus causing serious health problems. Contamination occurs when foods like raw meat leak onto the fabric. Supporters of the ban will point out that exceptions have been made for poultry, meat, and fish, but accidents happen. The plastic grocery bag used in most supermarkets is very thin and can get punctured rather easily, leaking the contents into the reusable bag. This must happen rather frequently.
Analysis revealed that almost half of the bags collected from consumers were contaminated with potentially harmful bacteria. Also, 12 percent of bags contained the bacterium E. coli. They also found fecal coliform bacteria and signs of growth of more dangerous pathogens in used bags. Conversely, no bacteria were found in new cloth reusable bags and plastic bags. However, hand or machine washing was known to reduce the bacteria in bags by almost 99.9 percent, noted researchers. This signified that reusable bags, if washed properly, could play a significant role in preventing cross-contamination of foods.
Note the operative phrase, “if washed properly.” The grave risk to public health by a ban on free, retailer-provided, sanitary, single-use, disposable plastic grocery bags can be significantly reduced if consumers wash their reusable bags properly after each use. How likely is it that every single consumer will commit to a regimen of washing each reusable bag with chlorine bleach and detergent in hot water after each use?
Apparently, not very likely. The study cited above revealed that 97 percent of consumers do not wash their bags regularly. Dr. Gerba stated that their findings
. . . suggest a serious threat to public health, especially from coliform bacteria including E. coli, which were detected in half the bags sampled. Furthermore, consumers are alarmingly unaware of these risks and the critical need to sanitize their bags after every use.
Among the recommendations issued by the report entitled “Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags” were the following:
- States should consider requiring printed instructions on reusable bags indicating that they need to cleaned or bleached between uses;
- State and local governments should invest in a public education campaign to alert the public about risk and prevention;
- When using reusable bags, consumers should be careful to separate raw foods from other food products; cross-contamination problems arise when foods that people eat raw, such as apples and lettuce, are placed in a bag that has carried meat;
- Consumers should not use reusable food bags for such other purposes as carrying books or gym clothes;
- Consumers should not store reusable bags in the trunks of their cars because the higher temperature promotes growth of bacteria.
Now consider the fact that accidents will happen, consumers will invariably use their bags for purposes other than carrying groceries, and many will store them in the trunks of their cars in order to avoid forgetting them at home and being forced to purchase new reusable bags. Contamination is not likely; it is a certainty.
Consider this: A Miami ABC news affiliate conducted a test last year, designating three recyclable bags for a particular type of food and a fourth as a control sample, i.e., it was never used. After three shopping trips over a two-week period the bags were dropped off with a researcher who swabbed the bags for bacteria samples. Each bag was tested for coliform, a bacteria found in the feces of warm-blooded animals. The control bag tested negative for bacteria. The bag that was used for canned goods or boxes also showed no bacteria. The bag that was used for meat did not test positive for coliform, but it was found to be covered with bacteria. The bag used to carry produce tested positive for coliform bacteria. And this was only after three shopping trips over a span of two weeks!
Try to imagine the sequence of events that will undoubtedly occur in supermarkets throughout Brownsville once the ban goes into effect in January. Most people will acquire reusable bags. Many of these bags will be made of cloth. Many people will use the bags over and over again, never washing them. The bags will eventually become contaminated with bacteria. As they shop with their contaminated bags, consumers will pick up items and place them in their contaminated bags. Some will change their minds and place the now-contaminated items back on store shelves. Other consumers will pick up the contaminated items and place them in their reusable bags, which will in turn become contamined. Imagine further these same consumers carrying the contaminated items in their contaminated bags out to their cars and placing them in what amounts to an bacteria incubator — the car trunk. This sequence of events is likely to happen dozens, possibly hundreds of times a day, every day.
Brownsville consumers have been arriving at their local supermarkets with nothing but their wallets and pocketbooks for generations. How likely is it that beginning on January 1, 2011, they will march in lockstep to their local supermarkets with an armload of reusable bags under each arm? Retailers will be happy to sell what was previously given away with every purchase. It remains to be seen whether consumers will meekly submit to this new tax in order to indulge the ostensibly well-intentioned whims of what constitute a ruling class, fascistic mentality among the City Commission and Mayor.
The ban on retailer-provided, single-use, sanitary, disposable, plastic grocery bags has been shown to be detrimental to the environment, economy, and health of Brownsville residents. But there is one segment of Brownsville that has a lot to gain from such a ban, and that is the city treasury. The plastic bag ban is, essentially - just another tax.
Never underestimate the ingenuity of a government bureaucrat when it comes to scheming ways to separate you from your income.
First, on the receipts side, the CBO thinks that collections from all sources are going to increase by 22% in fiscal 2011, and by 37% in two years. Given that actual collections have trailed CBO’s projections by over $100 billion in each of the past two years, and that the economic recovery (if it’s even fair to call it that) has been anemic, I don’t what else to say except, “You cannot be serious.”
In Sheffield, Iowa, Sukup Manufacturing Company employs nearly half the workers of the 1,000-resident town. Eugene Sukup, who started the farm equipment company, is 81, and has health problems. The death tax hangs over his family and town like the Grim Reaper's giant scythe, and he's trying to put a blade cover on it.
Meanwhile, the death tax monster is careering toward the rest of us. Here's another example of its destructive power presented to the Finance Committee:
