Plastic Grocery Bag Bans

Recycling/redemption fees/taxes for aluminum cans and plastic bottles in many states have helped minimize the amount of this stuff found lying around in public areas. I suppose the same approach could be applied to just about anything people view as a litter or environmental problem.  Some options:
Item                Fee                    Redemption Value
Plastic Bags         .01 each                .01 each
Dog Food             .50/lb                  $1.00/lb dudu
Cigarettes            $1.00/pack             .05/butt
Mylar balloons       .10 each                .10 each
(about to be banned in CA)
"Watchtower"or        none                   Poses a problem, but would
"Awake!" pamphlets                           like to figure out a way.

Post 21

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 2:00pm

Steven:

I moved from CT to WA back in 1988. On the East Coast there were deposit requirements for all cans and bottles in every state (just as there were in CA) while in WA and OR there were none. Nevertheless, WA and OR were much cleaner states with considerably less litter, including cans and bottles, than anywhere in the East or in CA. Therefore, there must be some other explanation for why people littered less in the Pacific Northwest. There must be something that caused a difference in culture in these regions that was not attributable to this coercive tax. Over the past 20 years there has been a steady influx into WA of transplants from the East and up from CA and I can see a marked increase in litter coming with them.

There are solutions to these problems, but myopic people usually cannot see, and lazy people are unwilling to expend the energy to seek out these alternatives, instead jumping on what they know best: finding some method to compel others to behave in the manner that they wish. This is not a methodology that promotes individualism, liberty and freedom of thought, nor is it a pathway towards the development of goodwill among men.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 22

Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 8:54am

I don't doubt that a Stop littering. Don't be a Stupid Shit advertising campaign could be very effective. Could have some problems doing radio and tv ads though - with the FCC regulations & all. :-)

jt

Post 23

Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 1:47pm

Jeffrey,
I was being (unsuccessfully) facetious in my post. (Pretending to be a typical California legislator).
I agree with you. I think economic conditions at the time may also be a factor affecting social consciousness and attitudes toward litter and the environment. (As a kid I remember that the commercial with the teary eyed Native American standing in a trash-filled marsh had an impact on me).

Post 24

Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 2:33pm

Stephen:

Thanks for the clarification. It's a sad state of affairs when it gets to the point that I can't see that proposals for deposits on Watchtower pamphlets isn't a joke. You actually had me believing that this might be something in the works, probably in CA!

Like you, I remember just how bad litter was as a kid and I was amazed at what an impact the anti-litter PR campaign had back in the 60s. Apparently, people needs to be continually reminded of what constitutes good behavior and manners.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 25

Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 5:54pm

Of course, littering is a tragedy of the commons. The solution? Privatize the commons.

Post 26

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 12:54pm

Dwyer,

To be fair, that was Claude's idea in Post 2.

It's just so challenging to privatize oceans.

Jordan

Post 27

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 1:35pm

Claude mentioned the oceans in post 2, but post 9 mentions the other commons that are often littered: public lands, streets, etc.

Post 28

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 4:14pm

Fair enough, Steve.

Jordan

Post 29

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 9:47pm

I understand what you're saying here, but there has got to be a better way than a ban. Gov't has a monopoly on violence, thats the point. If you look far enough along the line of any gov't decision or law, you find a guy with a gun for those who don't obey. This doesn't seem like the kind of issue that requires a violent solution. Couldn't this be solved by consumer advocacy if it is so important? I think people could find all kinds of ways to apply pressure to stop this that don't involve the gov't. If they don't, they trash the place and that's how people learn that you can't just dump crap everywhere.

Post 30

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 11:56pm

Ryan, I agree with your sentiment. But as long as we have commons there will be littering. It is unfair to all of us to put up with ugliness of the littering caused by a few - a lazy, piggish few. Without a ban, that problem would increase significantly. Reducing the amount of property in commons is the best approach, but it can't get rid of the entire problem. The real cure is proper parenting - but that shouldn't be legislated. So, fining those who litter is charging them for what they would have cost the rest us to clean up.

You said, "I think people could find all kinds of ways to apply pressure to stop this that don't involve the gov't. If they don't, they trash the place and that's how people learn that you can't just dump crap everywhere." I don't need to learn, I don't trash the place, and I don't want to live where there is crap everywhere.

Post 31

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 5:29pm