Santa Barbara County Passes Bag Ban

Transcription

1 Santa Barbara County Passes Bag Ban COUNTY SUPERVISORS DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO CHALLENGE LAWS THROUGH A REFERENDUM! BY ANTHONY VAN LEEUWEN DECEMBER 4, 2015 On Tuesday, August 25 the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors passed an Ordinance on a 3 2 vote to ban Single Use Plastic Bags at Markets and pharmacies in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County. Supervisors Salud Carbajal, Janet Wolf, and Doreen Farr voted for the bag ban and Supervisors Peter Adam and Steve Lavagnino voted against the bag ban. Opponents of the California statewide plastic bag ban successfully challenged the new state law by collecting enough signatures from registered voters to put the measure on the 2016 ballot through the referendum process, a safeguard provided in the California s Constitution. The statewide referendum will finally give ordinary citizens the opportunity to vote on this unpopular measure. Supervisors Lavagnino and Adam stated that they were not comfortable with the idea of getting out in front of the statewide referendum. (McNulty, 2015) Supervisors Carbajal, Wolf, and Farr by voting to implement a bag ban, ahead of the statewide referendum, demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the democratic process and the right of the people to challenge laws through a referendum. In addition, these supervisors show a complete disdain for the 9,180 Santa Barbara County residents who signed referendum petitions by effectively nullifying the voice of their constituents. (California Secretary of State, 2015) Those county residents who signed the referendum petition expected that voters, rather than a select few politicians, would have the final say on the statewide bag ban, a measure that would affect them personally in their own communities. Now the power of their vote has been taken away by a few supervisors who seem to have forgotten that the people are sovereign and that they as elected leaders are servants of the people and not their masters! The arrogance and we know better attitude displayed by these supervisors is shocking! In the article entitled Why California City Councils Must Not Pass Bag Bans with a Statewide Vote Pending the authors explain that when local officials pass a bag ban ahead of the statewide vote the very nature and meaning of their citizens vote has changed. For example, a citizen who lives in a community without a bag ban, votes for or against the statewide bag ban and the outcome will directly affect him or her in their own local community; whereas, the citizen who lives in a community with a bag ban, his vote will only affect residents who live in communities without a bag ban. (Williams & van Leeuwen, Why California City Councils Must Not Pass Bag Bans with a Statewide Vote Pending, 2015) Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 1

2 Joe Armendariz, representing the Santa Barbara County Taxpayer s Association, also opposed the ordinance. (McNulty, 2015) The ordinance becomes effective at the larger supermarkets and pharmacies on March 22, 2016 and for smaller markets, pharmacies, convenience stores, and liquor stores on September 24, (Flores, 2015) Summary of Santa Barbara County Ordinance The ordinance prohibits distribution of single use carryout bags (i.e. lightweight plastic grocery bags and paper bags made without post consumer recycled content) and provided to a customer at the point of sale for the purpose of carrying purchases home. (County of Santa Barbara, 2015) The ordinance permits only recyclable paper carryout bags (paper bags made from paper that includes at least 40% post consumer recycled content) or reusable bags to be provided to a customer. Customers are, of course, free to bring their own bags of any type or to carry away goods without using carryout bags. (County of Santa Barbara, 2015) The ordinance also requires the store to charge customers ten cents for each recyclable paper carryout bag provided to a customer. (County of Santa Barbara, 2015) The ordinance requires the store to provide reusable bags to customers either for sale or at no charge. (County of Santa Barbara, 2015) Stores will be required to provide free of charge reusable bags or recyclable paper carryout bags to customers who are on public assistance (e.g. food stamps). (County of Santa Barbara, 2015) All bag fees collected by the store will be kept by the store to defray the cost of providing recyclable paper carryout bags to customers including the cost of reusable bags or recyclable paper bags provided at no cost to customers on public assistance and other costs associated with the ordinance. In other words, customers paying for paper bags will help to subsidize the cost of bags for customers on public assistance. (County of Santa Barbara, 2015) Santa Barbara County s Environmental Impact Report As part of the process of passing and implementing a bag ban, the County of Santa Barbara prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to document environmental impacts of the plastic bag ban. The EIR is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As required by CEQA, the county provided a draft EIR, a public comment period, and then prepared a Final EIR that incorporates corrections and responses to public comments. The author of this article, as a member of the public, provided extensive comments to the draft EIR that are documented in the County of Santa Barbara Single Use Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance Final Environmental Impact Report. These comments identified numerous technical errors resulting in Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 2

3 corrections to the Final EIR and challenged a number of assumptions some of which resulted in changes; but the more important challenges to the bag ban as crafted were rebuffed. Due to the nature of the arguments presented and the rebuttal of valid counter arguments the EIR is nothing more than a political document, prepared to evaluate environmental impacts of a predefined project (to ban plastic grocery bags and put a fee on paper bags and coerce shoppers to use reusable bags) and not an evaluation of legitimate alternatives required by CEQA so that Supervisors could select the best posible solution to address the plastic bag litter problem on behalf of their citizens. For example, the EIR purposefully omitted evaluating a legitimate alternative to use paper carryout bags instead of the lightweight plastic carryout bags. The evaluation was omitted on the grounds that a paper bag has a greater environmental impact than a lightweight plastic bag and because the objectives were to discourage the use of paper bags and promote the use of reusable bags. While that may sound reasonable at first blush, the rationale is intended to hide the truth from the public. That is, that had the EIR fairly evaluated this solution, the public would know that using paper bags instead of plastic bags has no significant environmental impact! To put it another way, the bag ban is a scam from the very beginning. (Williams & van Leeuwen, The California Plastic Bag Ban Scam, 2015, p. 14) Another potential alternative completely ignored is to simply change the thickness of the plastic film from which plastic carryout bags are made. By using a thicker film, these bags will not as easily become windblown litter or be flushed down storm drains by storm water and ultimately end up in the riverbed and ocean. This solution, along with using paper bags, could have easily been made without imposing bag fees to coerce shoppers into using reusable bags with no significant environmental impacts, a solution that would be acceptable to all shoppers. Santa Barbara County Bag Ordinance Flawed It s obvious the ordinance passed by Santa Barbara County Supervisors is flawed and was crafted in a vacuum by county staff who had never done this before, or only had input from environmental activists pushing bag bans, or was just copied from another locality. The ordinance mandates a fee of ten cents for each recyclable paper bag distributed to a customer at the point of sale, but allows for the distribution of reusable bags for a fee or at no charge. In other words, a grocer has the option to substitute plastic reusable bags (a single use plastic carryout bag made from thicker plastic film and called reusable ) for recyclable paper bags and distribute those bags free of charge to all customers! While most grocers will choose to charge customers the same fee for plastic reusable bags as for paper bags, all it takes is a little competitive pressure for grocers to offer plastic reusable bags at no charge to customers in order to gain market share. What is wrong with this? Let s take a look. In the article entitled Austin s Plastic Bag Ban a Colossal Failure the author identifies the reasons that the Austin City Council repealed their bag ban. City officials concluded that the ordinance was not working and that it actually increased the city s carbon footprint. The ordinance was originally enacted Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 3

4 to eliminate the quantity of single use plastic carryout bags dumped in the landfill. The city found that after the bag ban the amount of plastic headed to the landfill from plastic reusable bags was just as much as the amount of plastic from single use plastic bags before the bag ban. It turns out that shoppers chose to use the store provided plastic reusable carryout bags when they forget their reusable bags or chose to use for their convenience. Furthermore, while the plastic reusable bags are sturdy enough to be reused, shoppers chose not to reuse these bags for shopping and instead treated them just like they did single use plastic bags. (van Leeuwen, Austin s Plastic Bag Ban a Colossal Failure, 2015) The Santa Barbara County EIR does acknowledge that the amount of plastic, paper, and reusable bags dumped in the landfill after the bag ban will be much more than before. Therefore, it should not be a surprise to County Supervisors that in two years the county will be in the same position as the city of Austin with a much larger carbon footprint directly attributable to the bag ban. It seems that Santa Barbara County supervisors and county staff are living in some kind of fantasy land. They seem to think that by just printing the word Reusable on a thick plastic bag or recyclable paper bag that somehow shoppers will reuse the bag for shopping. However, it is common knowledge, as the City of Austin experienced, that shoppers will not reuse store provided paper or plastic reusable bags for shopping despite the fact that these bags are made to be reusable. (van Leeuwen, Austin s Plastic Bag Ban a Colossal Failure, 2015) (Save Our Shores, 2014) In the real world, shoppers who shop at stores covered by a bag ban, will act in their own self interest and determine for themselves how best to bring their purchases home. Some will bring and use their own reusable bags, but most (2 out of 3) will choose to use either store provided paper and plastic reusable bags or no bags at all. Cost, efficiency, and convenience are three factors that will play into that determination. (van Leeuwen, Austin s Plastic Bag Ban a Colossal Failure, 2015) Santa Barbara County Public Works Press Release In a press release, announcing the county bag ban, the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department made the following statements: As part of this action, the County also circulated and certified an environmental impact report on this policy that showed beneficial impacts for: 1. Air quality, by reducing the air pollution associated with the manufacture, transportation and use of plastic bags; 2. Biological resources, by reducing the overall amount of litter entering our creeks and coast habitats; and 3. Water resources, by reducing litter in our storm drains. (Johnston C., 2015) While it is true that the county prepared a draft EIR, circulated that EIR for public comment, and prepared a final EIR, and that the EIR did not show any adverse environmental impacts, the benefits stated in the in the press release were overstated, misleading, and questionable. Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 4

5 While the analysis conducted in the EIR claims a small beneficial impact on air quality as a result of the bag ban, the statement that the ordinance is beneficial to air quality by reducing the air pollution associated with the manufacture, transportation and use of plastic bags is questionable: There are no known plastic bag or paper bag manufacturers in Santa Barbara County! There are no known producers of raw materials used to manufacture paper or plastic bags in Santa Barbara County! Producers of raw materials and manufacturers of paper and plastic bags in other counties or states operate under very strict environmental air pollution regulations to ensure minimal impact on air quality and the environment. Whether or not Santa Barbara County residents use paper or plastic bags produced and manufactured in other counties or states has no direct impact on air quality in Santa Barbara county. It is a fantasy to suggest that reducing the use of single use plastic carryout bags or paper bags in Santa Barbara County would be beneficial to air quality in other counties or states! These manufacturers, to stay in business, will simply sell their product to other customers or convert their machinery to manufacture other products (e.g. the thicker plastic reusable bags). Hence a beneficial impact on air quality is speculative and wishful thinking at its best. Reducing air pollution associated with transportation of plastic bags is another false argument. Paper and reusable bags, including the 2.25 mil plastic carryout bags, while fewer in number have a larger volume and weight and will increase the number of truck trips compared to quantities of single use plastic carryout bags used before the ban hence more air pollution not less. (Johnston C. A., 2015, p. 12) Also never considered is the increased truck traffic through Santa Barbara County carrying single use plastic bags, paper bags, and reusable bags destined for other counties and states! In other words, air quality will more than likely not be improved and may even be worse! Reducing the air pollution associated with use of plastic bags there simply isn t any. While there are many types of plastic that outgas noxious fumes, high density and low density polyethylene plastic bags do not do so. Nevertheless, the EIR tries to tie methane released from landfills with plastic bags although no direct evidence is provided making that connection. It is more likely that methane from landfills is generated from decomposition of organic materials such as discarded food waste and fecal matter from dirty diapers and not from the billions of plastic trash bags, product bags, plastic carryout bags, zip lock bags and the tons of other plastic material in the landfill. After all, environmentalists are fond of claiming that plastic bags will last a thousand years in a landfill. (Johnston C. A., 2015, p. 183) Also, the statement that the ordinance is beneficial to Biological resources, by reducing the overall amount of litter entering our creeks and coast habitats is also misleading if not outright false. Consider the following: Less than 0.6% of roadside litter consists of plastic bags (of all kinds). (Stein, 2012) The San Jose litter surveys show that half of all littered plastic bags are plastic carryout bags; that means the actual litter rate of plastic carryout bags is about 0.3%. This leaves 99.7% of roadside litter Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 5

6 including 50% of littered plastic bags behind after a bag ban. (van Leeuwen, San Jose Litter Surveys Examined Plastic Bag Ban Completely Unjustified, 2015) Litter surveys conducted by the City of San Jose prior to implementing a plastic bag ban show that two thirds of all littered plastic bags were recovered from local creeks. The city did not determine the origin of littered plastic bags in local creeks. There are three potential sources of these bags: homeless encampments upstream from the survey locations, storm drain outfalls, or from recreational use of local creeks and adjacent areas. (van Leeuwen, San Jose s Bag Ban Useless in Solving Litter Problems Should be Rescinded, 2015) In an article entitled San Jose s Bag Ban Useless in Solving Litter Problems Should be Rescinded the city of San Jose discovered that a plastic bag ban did not reduce litter in local creeks. In fact, as a result of threatened lawsuits and an environmental complaint by the Department of Fish and Game they were required to remove homeless encampments in local creek watershed areas and accelerate the installation of trash capture devices in storm drain system. It is widely accepted that 80% of plastic in the ocean comes from land based sources via the storm drain and local rivers. (van Leeuwen, San Jose s Bag Ban Useless in Solving Litter Problems Should be Rescinded, 2015) In an article entitled San Jose Litter Surveys Examined Plastic Bag Ban Completely Unjustified the author shows that 1 out of every 2 littered plastic bags is a plastic carryout bag. In other words, a plastic bag ban will at most only remove 1 out of every two plastic bags from the litter stream. (van Leeuwen, San Jose Litter Surveys Examined Plastic Bag Ban Completely Unjustified, 2015) Also, the statement that the ordinance is beneficial to Beneficial to Water resources, by reducing litter in our storm drains is also a false argument. Consider the following: It is widely accepted that 80% of plastic in the ocean comes from land based sources via the storm drains and local rivers. (Algalita Marine Research Foundation, 2013) The federal Clean Water Act requires municipalities under the Total Maximum Daily Loads program to install trash capture devices in storm drains over a period of 10 years to remove 100% of trash from being conveyed to the river bed by means of a storm drain. These devices will prevent all trash including littered plastic carryout bags from flowing into local creeks and rivers and to the ocean. These trash traps are maintained by the municipality to prevent trash buildup and thereby prevent flooding. When cities and counties remove homeless encampments in the river bottom and adjacent areas, hundreds of tons of accumulated trash are removed. It is highly doubtful, that banning plastic bags alone will result in any significant reduction in litter in the river bed. As long as homeless encampments exist in the riverbed, these homeless encampments will be a major source of litter, litter including plastic bags of all kinds, not to mention plastic debris that makes its way to the ocean where it can harm wildlife. Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 6

7 Cost to Residents Santa Barbara County The Single Use Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance adopted by county supervisors is applicable only to unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County. In bringing the ordinance forward to County Supervisors, county staff neglected to do a cost benefit analysis prior to adopting the preconceived solution. A good cost benefit analysis would have compared costs and benefits of various alternative solutions including indirect and long term effects reflecting the interests of all stakeholders affected by the bag ban. (Kaplan & Mountain, 2014) You read that right, the cost to county residents was never considered and should have been! In a paper entitled Plastic Bag Alternatives Much More Costly to Consumers the authors estimate the cost of different bag options available to consumers before and after a bag ban. The cost of storeprovided plastic bags is about $21 per year for a family of four, paper bags at 10 cents each is estimated to cost $78.00 per year, and the cost of reusable bags is estimated at $ per year. Note: The reusable bag option also includes the value of personal time it takes to handle and wash bags including utility costs. After all, a person s time and effort also has a monetary value! (van Leeuwen & Williams, Plastic Bag Alternatives Much More Costly to Consumers, 2013) In a follow on paper entitled What Will a Plastic Carryout Bag Ban Cost Your Community the author develops a cost model to estimate the annual consumer costs incurred by residents before and after a plastic carryout bag ban is implemented. The cost model uses the bag usage statistics from the cities of Santa Monica and San Jose to estimate costs incurred by residents. (Johnston C. A., 2015, p. 151) (van Leeuwen, What Will A Plastic Carrout Bag Ban Cost Your Community, 2013) In a paper entitled Bag Bans: Wrong Way to Control Litter, the author shows that the cost to residents in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County increases from $2,083, to $5,266, for an annual cost increase of $3,182, In other words, the cost to carry groceries home more than doubles for an increase of 152.7%. The higher cost increases the cost of living for county residents. The cost increase would have been much higher, if the 36% of shoppers who refuse to use reusable bags and refuse to pay a fee for store provided paper bags would use reusable bags or pay for store provided paper bags. In a paper entitled Bag Bans A Waste of Time and Money!, the author shows methodically that a plastic bag ban is a waste of time and money and could cost San Jose residents somewhere between $125 and $500 to eliminate each littered plastic bag via a bag ban. Similarly, in the article entitled Austin s Plastic Bag Ban a Colossal Failure using similar calculations we find that Austin residents were paying an estimated $2, to eliminate each littered plastic carryout bag. It should be obvious that traditional litter cleanup and abatement methods are much less costly. (van Leeuwen, Bag Bans A Waste of Time and Money!, 2015) Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 7

8 Will a Bag Ban Benefit Santa Barbara County Residents? The Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance will sharply reduce the number of lightweight plastic bags used by shoppers and thereby reduce the number of lightweight plastic carryout bags in the litter stream. The real question is what is the scope and magnitude of the lightweight plastic bag litter problem? This is one of those questions that should have been asked before implementing a bag ban ordinance. In an article entitled S.B. County Supervisors Not Well Served the author commented on a slide presentation by county staff to County Supervisors. The slide presentation stated that 531 lightweight plastic bags are used for every man, women, and child in Santa Barbara County for a total of about 228,000,000. Another slide stated that 403 lightweight plastic carryout bags were recovered from 23 beach areas during the Santa Barbara County Coastal Cleanup Day in September What the slide presentation did not do was to put the issue of littered plastic carryout bags into perspective. For example, the 403 plastic carryout bags recovered during the beach cleanups represents only % of 228 million plastic carryout bags used in the county per year. In fact, if a coastal cleanup day was held every day of the year and 403 bags were found each and every day for a total of 147,095 bags per year, it would only represent 0.065% of 228 Million plastic carryout bags used per year! It should be obvious, that this is a relatively small problem. (van Leeuwen, S.B. County Supervisors Not Well Served, 2013) Similarly, litter surveys conducted by the city of San Jose over a period of three years collected 2,913 plastic carryout bags or about 1,000 plastic bags per year. This represents about % of the 500 million plastic carryout bags bag ban proponents claim are used per year in the city of San Jose. Even if you multiply that by a hundredfold that still gets you less than 0.02%. (van Leeuwen, San Jose Litter Surveys Examined Plastic Bag Ban Completely Unjustified, 2015) Similarly, in Austin the litter rate of plastic carryout bags is only % and is based upon a one day city wide cleanup event. Again a very small litter rate. (van Leeuwen, Austin s Plastic Bag Ban a Colossal Failure, 2015) What can be clearly seen, by litter surveys and one day cleanups, is that the litter rate for plastic carryout bags is very small when compared to the total quantity used. Clearly, the number of plastic bags littered per year does not require a drastic solution such as a bag ban and instead could be handled by traditional litter cleanup and abatement methods much more effectively and at less cost. Since plastic carryout bag litter is only 0.3% of roadside litter a plastic bag ban would still leave 99.7% of litter waiting to be cleaned up. In fact, workers hired to clean up the 99.7% of litter remaining could have very easily cleaned up the additional 0.3% of littered plastic bags at a very small additional cost. In fact, no locality that has implemented a bag ban has ever claimed a cost savings due to reduced litter cleanup costs! Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 8

9 Summary Santa Barbara County Supervisor and staff jumped on the bag ban bandwagon and abandoned common sense and reason by implementing a costly and unpopular ordinance that will have a negligible effect on litter and do nothing to prevent harm to marine wildlife by plastic in the environment. In this paper the following facts about the bag ban ordinance were presented: That the number of plastic carryout bags littered as a percent of the total amount used by consumers is very small. That only one out of every two littered plastic bags consists of a plastic carryout bag. That only 0.6% of roadside litter consists of plastic bags of all types. That 0.3% of roadside litter consists of plastic carryout bags. That two thirds of plastic bags litter are typically found in the river bed. That homeless encampments in the riverbed are a major source of litter that washes out to the ocean during wet weather. That a plastic bag ban will not eliminate litter discharged from storm drains. That a plastic bag ban will remove only 0.3% of litter leaving 99.7% including some plastic bags behind and waiting to be cleaned up. The ordinance will more than double the cost of residents to take groceries home. The ordinance results in 36% of shoppers leaving a store without a bag. Two out of Three shoppers reject using reusable bags or paying for paper bags. The ordinance is flawed because there is no mandatory fee to distribute plastic reusable bags. That stores will likely substitute plastic reusable carryout bag for recyclable paper bags. That the ordinance will increase not decrease the amount of plastic, paper, and reusable carryout bags headed to the landfill. That the ordinance will increase the carbon footprint of shoppers and the community. The ordinance will not benefit air quality despite what the EIR claims. The ordinance will not benefit biological resources. The ordinance will not benefit water resources. The ordinance will not prevent harm to wildlife by plastic debris and litter in the environment. From the above summary, it should be obvious that the Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance will have very little beneficial impact on the environment. Instead, it will burden consumers with an annual cost increase of more than $3 million dollars to prevent a few thousand plastic carryout bags from being littered is unconscionable when traditional litter cleanup and abatement methods could have solved this problem at a much smaller cost. What is more unconscionable, is that three county supervisors voted to pass a Single Use Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance ahead of the 2016 referendum. These supervisors ignored the will of 9,180 county residents who signed referendum petitions and requested that this issue be put on the ballot to be decided by the people and not a small cadre of elected politicians. These supervisors seem to have forgotten that in this country the people are sovereign and that those who hold public offices are servants of the people, Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 9

10 and that the people have spoken through the referendum process to put this issue on the ballot. At the very least these supervisors had an obligation to respect the will of the people and postponed action on this issue until after the 2016 election so that then they will know how their constituents voted. These supervisors by voting for the ban, abused their power, violated the public trust, wasted time and resources, and became the willing pawns of bag ban pushers and big grocers who stand to make millions from bag fees. We urge Santa Barbara County Supervisors to repeal the Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance and abide by the decision that the people will render on the referendum in the November 2016 elections. About The Author Anthony van Leeuwen is the founder of the Fight The Plastic Bag Ban website and writes extensively on the subject. He holds a bachelors and master's degree in Electronics Engineering and has over 40 years of experience working for the federal government. Bibliography Algalita Marine Research Foundation. (2013, August 10). Land based discharges of human made debris comprise the largest source of marine debris. Retrieved from Plastic Debris Rivers To Sea: California Secretary of State. (2015, February 24) Referendum to Overturn Ban on Single Use Plastic Bags. Retrieved from California Secretary of State Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures: pdf County of Santa Barbara. (2015, August 25). CHAPTER 16B SINGLE USE PLASTIC BAG BAN. Retrieved from County of Santa Barbara Code of Ordinances: Flores, O. (2015, August 25). Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Pass Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance. Retrieved from KEYT KCOY KKFX Webstie: barbara county board of supervisors pass plastic bag banordinance/ Johnston, C. (2015, August 25). County Board of Supervisors Passes Ordinance Banning Single Use Plastic Bags at Markets & Pharmacies in the Unincorporated Area. Retrieved from Public Works Department: mmkhcpaawa&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lessismore.org%2fsystem%2ffiles%2f247%2foriginal%2fsupbb_press_r elease_august_2015.doc&usg=afqjcnh7ugmna5f4lknmep724t2usy_itw& Johnston, C. A. (2015, April). County of Santa Barbara Single Use Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance Final Environmental Impact Report. Retrieved from Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division Website: Kaplan, J., & Mountain, A. (2014, June). Cost Benefit Analysis. Retrieved from Better Evaluation: options/costbenefitanalysis McNulty, S. (2015, July 22). Santa Barbara County bans plastic bags. Retrieved from Sun Central Coast Connections: barbara county bans plastic bags/ Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 10

11 Save Our Shores. (2014, September 8). Help Ban Plastic Bags! Retrieved from Save Our Shores: plastic bags/ Stein, S. R. (2012). ER Planning Report Brief: Plastic Retail Bags in Litter. Retrieved from Environmental Resources Planning, LLC: van Leeuwen, A. (2013, December 5). S.B. County Supervisors Not Well Served. Retrieved from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: county supervisors not well served.pdf van Leeuwen, A. (2013, July 15). What Will A Plastic Carrout Bag Ban Cost Your Community. Retrieved from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: will a plastic carryout bag ban cost yourcommunity2.pdf van Leeuwen, A. (2014, December 1). San Jose Painfully Learns Litter Problems Were Not Solved By Plastic Bag Ban! Retrieved from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: jose painfully learns litterproblems were not solved by plastic bag ban/ van Leeuwen, A. (2015, October 12). Austin s Plastic Bag Ban a Colossal Failure. Retrieved from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: van Leeuwen, A. (2015, Jyly 23). Bag Bans A Waste of Time and Money! Retrieved from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: bans waste of time money.pdf van Leeuwen, A. (2015, February 23). San Jose Litter Surveys Examined Plastic Bag Ban Completely Unjustified. Retrieved from Fight the Plastic Bag Ban: jose litter surveysexamined plastic bag ban completely unjustified1.pdf van Leeuwen, A. (2015, January 19). San Jose s Bag Ban Useless in Solving Litter Problems Should be Rescinded. Retrieved from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: jose discovers bag bandoes not solve litter problems.pdf van Leeuwen, A., & Williams, D. (2013, June 5). Plastic Bag Alternatives Much More Costly to Consumers. Retrieved from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: Williams, D., & van Leeuwen, A. (2014, February 10). Using Reusable Bags: It's Not That Easy. Retrieved February 12, 2014, from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: Williams, D., & van Leeuwen, A. (2014, December 25). Why You Should Oppose Bag Bans. Retrieved from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: you should oppose bag bans.pdf Williams, D., & van Leeuwen, A. (2015, January 9). The California Plastic Bag Ban Scam. Retrieved from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: california plastic bag ban scam.pdf Williams, D., & van Leeuwen, A. (2015, July 4). Why California City Councils Must Not Pass Bag Bans with a Statewide Vote Pending. Retrieved from Fight The Plastic Bag Ban: city councils must not pass bag bans with a statewide vote pending.pdf Fight The Plastic Bag Ban Page 11