I read with great interest the recent letter to the editor of the Reporter, “The Science and Comedy of Kirkland’s Proposed Bag Ban.” The writer attempts to discredit environmentalists in order to persuade the City Council to take no regulatory action. Wishing away the impact of reusable bags is not scientific, he says.
It’s true the plastic bag staff report credits Vimeo as the source of its graphical representation of the Pacific Garbage Patch. But to attempt to characterize the efforts of the authors of the staff report in their consideration of the significance of Pacific Garbage Patch as superficial, implying unscientific, constitutes an effort to mislead the public. The National Geographic Society is just one (reputable) source of the information the Staff considered. It is acknowledged that the exact nature of the patch is undetermined and likely undeterminable. Abuse on account of that circumstance is inevitable. Thus, Angelicque E White, of Oregon State University can’t be faulted for being frustrated with those who picture islands of trash twice the size of Texas. But Professor White does not dismiss the problem, the amount of plastic out there isn’t trivial, she says, as reported in Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN), Sept. 15, 2014. The environmental activists may exaggerate what is known of the patch, while not especially helpful, it’s no damage to Science and noting it is not a good argument to take no action.
Taking actions damaging to Science is not even on the agenda of the Kirkland City Council or that of the authors of the staff report anyway. Their goal is to protect and enhance our natural environment for current residents and future generations. A practical consideration is disruption of Kirkland’s recycling systems by plastic bags. For that reason alone, the potential to eliminate plastic bags must be taken seriously. That is, so long as no new problems eventuate.
Accordingly, it is useful, on the part of the author of “The Science and comedy…” to encourage your readers to consider the ramifications of alternatives to plastic bags. However, misleadingly, he only considers paper and cotton bags. The same C&EN item sited above, also considers reusable nonwoven polypropylene and reusable polyethylene with 40 percent recycled content. The analysis of the impact of these bags compared to a standard polyethylene bag is based on factors of non-renewable energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater consumption in the manufacture of the bags.
The 40 percent recycled content bag, eight uses, outperforms the polyethylene bag, used once, in all categories by factors of nearly two.
To scold individuals who aspire to serve the public as being unscientific, more appears a mechanism of intimidation. Especially since the science in this case is, at least, a lot more complicated than portrayed by the author of The Science and Comedy of Kirkland’s Proposed Bag Ban. Furthermore, upon considering more of the available information, the science seems to contradict the author’s message.
Gregory F Smith, Kirkland
