This is an essay that I had to write as my final paper for my Environmental Policy course at UMD. We had to write a memo as if I were working for a government official. In my case, I opted to be an advisor to Senator John Kerry, one of the biggest environmental advocates in our government. I am writing this memo to Lisa P Jackson (EPA Administrator); Speaker of the House, John Boehner; and Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid proposing a National Bag Tax. This proposal states accurate scientific evidence about plastics, international examples of bag taxes in other countries and effects this tax could have on our society, environment and economy. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE COMMENTS! NOTE: THIS PAPER CAN NOT BE USED BY ANYONE ELSE. IT IS MEANT FOR READING PURPOSES ONLY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To: Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Lisa P. Jackson; Speaker of the House, John Boehner; Senate
Majority Leader, Harry Reid.
From: Vincent J. Clementi, Environmental Lawyer, Aid to
Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
Re: Proposing a Uniform Plastic Bag Tax Across the United
States of America
Date: April 19, 2012
Introduction
Our nation is
being severely polluted and destroyed by an enemy who will never disappear, but
will instead stay in our environment forever – plastic. The United States is the worlds leading
consumer of plastic, specifically plastic bags. According to EnviroSax, a reusable bag producer, the United
States consumes 380 billion plastic bags per year, or about 1,200 per person
per year, out of the 500 billion plastic bags consumed worldwide (EnviroSax
2012). As an aid to Senator Kerry,
an advocate of environmental protection, the Senator believes that it is time
to take a stand against plastic.
The Senator is proposing to implement a nationwide bag tax on all
plastic bags to reduce usage among our citizens. After allowing time to analyze the effectiveness of this
bill, the United States government can choose to take steps toward banning all
plastic bag usage. This will
provide reason for other nations to follow in our footsteps. Being three of the most powerful and
influential people within our government, Senator Kerry suggests that by
forming this committee, we can begin a movement that will forever change this
planet.
Background
Plastic bags are
some of the most harmful pollutants in the environment and they do not
biodegrade. They are made of
polyethylene, a man-made synthetic polymer, which is not recognized by microorganisms
as an edible substance. Scientists
have discovered that plastic bags do, however, photodegrade, meaning that when
exposed to ultraviolet radiation from the sun, the polymer breaks down and
eventually becomes microscopic. It
is impossible to determine how long this process takes, but with current
mathematical analysis, scientists are able to estimate that it could take
anywhere from 500-1000 or more years (Lapidos 2007). That is not an acceptable statistic by any means. Plastic on land is not the only problem
as millions of pounds of plastic and plastic bags have made their way into our
water systems and into our oceans.
Currently, there is a plastic “garbage patch” floating in the middle of
the North Pacific Ocean. This patch
is roughly two times larger than the state of Texas (Coulter 2010). The plastic patch is trapped by the
North Pacific Gyre, which is the middle of all of the currents in the North
Pacific. This mass of plastic will
eventually make its way to our shores and will ultimately put human health and
ecological health in harms way.
Aside from Plastic Island, which it has come to be known, our oceans are
littered with plastic in virtually every corner of the Earth. Marine life is constantly harmed and
humans are also adversely affected as we consume marine life.
The United States
is far behind many other countries in the fight against plastics. As a world leader, we once again can take
the initiative and lead this effort.
Ireland, a nation deeply affected by the EuroZone Crisis, was one of the
first countries to adopt a nationwide plastic bag tax in 2002. Even though this was before the
economic collapse of Europe, the Irish Government implanted a 15-cent tax per
plastic bag used (Doucette 2011).
Soon after, Taiwan implemented a similar tax on bags and in 2005 Japan
adopted a plastic bag tax. In a
matter of three years, Ireland and Taiwan have seen a 90 percent and 69 percent
decrease in plastic bag usage, respectively (“Japan’s… 2005). In our research, we discover that China,
a nation who we compete against to be the world strongest power, banned ALL
plastic bags in 2008 (“China… 2008).
Within the United
States, we have seen major cities take the necessary steps towards the ultimate
goal of this bill. Seattle, San
Francisco and Washington D.C. are three of the many cities that have
implemented a bag tax. Washington
D.C., which under the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Act of 2009
(District 2009), adopted the bag tax and has seen a 75 percent decrease in
plastic bag usage with just a 5-cent bag tax (Grossman 2012). At the end of 2011, Seattle took a more
aggressive stance and implemented a 20-cent on not only plastic bags, but paper
bags as well. This stance proved
to be favorable among citizens in that city who were more than willing to
comply (Yardley 2011). While not
all cities have progressed towards adopting a local bag tax, those who have are
realizing the importance in decreasing the usage of plastic bags.
For years,
scientists have offered plenty of evidence showing the adverse affects of
plastics in our environment. Once
into our waterways, the ecological repercussions can be devastating as plastic
bags kill many different types of organisms. Scientists have lobbied for plastic reduction for years and
at all levels. Federal agencies
such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA have conducted studies that
provide clear data that plastic is detrimental our environment (Seba 2011).
The bag tax itself
is not just a tool to benefit the environment, but it also benefits local and
state economies, and will also benefit our national economy. The bag tax uses a market-based system;
the money raised from the tax does not go to the state, it actually goes right
back to the environment. The area
implementing a tax will set up a fund and organization that will overlook this
tax and profits. By simply putting
forth a bag tax, people will automatically cut down on plastic bag usage. At the same time, there will still be
people who will choose to pay the tax and purchase a bag. The money raised from the tax goes
directly into this fund, which pays for environmental cleanups, protection and
awareness. Instead of using
taxpayer money to pay for cleanup services, which could cost upwards of the
millions of dollars, as seen in Montgomery County, MD where it costs $3 million
per year, this system pays for it itself (Grossman 2012). This same system can be applied at the state
level; if a state decides to implement a statewide tax, the money will go to a
state controlled fund that will use the money across the entire state – same
goes for a national tax. If
applied at the national level, the United States could potentially save
hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars each year on environmental
cleanups and protection.
Aside from
supporting scientific and economic evidence, there are also social benefits of
adopting a nationwide bag tax. As
stated earlier, once a tax is implemented, within a very short time people will
stop using plastic bags and make the change to reusable bags. In doing so, those people will feel as
if they are doing their part in making their community a better place, which
they are. These citizens will
become more active within the community and begin to educate those who have not
yet made the decision to stop using plastic bags. This interaction that will be created will formulate a sense
of unity among citizens whether at the local, state or national level. It will be the beginning of a new
social movement that will put the United States on the map with other highly
environmentally conscious nations such as Germany, Sweden and Denmark. One can argue that if some citizen find
out that China has already had a bag ban for years, there could be pushes to
match and even out do their efforts.
It could be a unification that the United States has needed for many
years.
Description of Options/Arguments
The
United States government currently has two options for this tax. Option one only involves the federal
government. This bill, labeled the
American Plastic Bag Usage Tax, will call for a 5-cent tax to be charged for
each plastic bag used at any pharmacies, groceries stores and any other type of
store. APBUT will be put into
effect on January 1, 2013. All
states would have to adopt this bill and under this bill will have to form an
Environmental Clean Up and Protection Agency. This agency will be the primary caretaker of that states
environmental cleanups of pollution and educational output to the
citizens. The pro’s of this bill
being put into effect are: 1) All states would be following the same legislation
as the others and there will be no arguing between states. 2) This tax will allow for the revenue
to be split between the states’ Environmental Clean Up and Protection Agency
and the federal government. The
seventy-five percent distributed to the ECUPA will fund their operations. The work force will come from current
federal employees that work in environmental departments across the nation. The other twenty-five percent will go
directly to the United States towards green energy technology, research and
production. 3) Allocating funds to
the federal government will go towards green energy will allow for jobs to be
created. 4) It will lower the
United States’ dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil and boost local,
state and national economies. The
con’s of this bill being passed are as followed: 1) Citizen’s may argue that
their personal rights are being interfered with and will call on their
Representatives and Congressmen to vote down on this bill. 2) There may be hesitation from certain
government officials about the way the funds will be distributed.
Option
two involves the state government as well as the federal government. Under this bill, labeled the Joint
State-Federal Plastic Bag Usage Tax, would allow for the federal government to give
the states the power to choose their own price for their bag tax. At first, the states will have to adopt
this bill as they would the APBUT; once adopted, states have the ability to
choose a tax, no lower than 5-cents, but can go as high as they would like (recommended
highest due to statistics and other nations is 15-cents). Under the JFSBUT, states will once
again have to establish an ECUPA to monitor environmental cleanups of pollution
as well as educate local citizens as this bill will also go into effect on
January 1, 2013. The distribution
of the funds raised will be as followed: 50% will go to the ECUPA, 25% will go
to the Federal Government (to be put towards means stated above), and 25% to
the States to be used to fund local research on green energy usage. The pro’s of this bill as opposed to APBUT
are: 1) States have more power in determining the tax the would like to
impose. 2) States are receiving
funds to research and invest in green energy. 3) Jobs will be created and local, state and national
economies will also be boosted.
The con’s of this bill being passed are as followed: 1) There will be an
un-evenness between states and how high or low their tax is. 2) Although some states will have to
comply with this bill, some may or may not be as willing to enforce it if it is
not a federally run bill. 3) The
nation and states will not see as much progression in green technology if funds
are cut to the federal division.
There
will be opposition against this bill by those who will argue that plastics bags
are beneficial to society. While
this may be true to an extent, it is proven that these bags are detrimental to
the environment and we will have to counter their claims with simple scientific
facts.
The
main goal of both of these taxes, whichever is passed in the end, is that they
will both drastically lower plastic bag usage and pollution across the United
States. We expect to see similar
results in the US as we have seen in nations such as Ireland, a 50%-90%
decrease in plastic bag usage over 5 years which would bring us to 38-190 billion
plastic bags used per year, a great starting point.
Recommendations
After
thorough research, it is in our nations best interest to adopt the first
proposed bill, the American Plastic Bag Usage Tax. This will give the United States and its citizens the best
chance to significantly lower our plastic bag usage, clean our communities,
invest in green technology and boost the economy all at the same time. It will be hard to propose this 5-cent
tax without educating the public. Prior
to proposing this bill to members of Congress, there will be a public campaign
called “The United States Against Plastics” which will run off of commercials,
magazine advertisements and social media use. This campaign will do nothing other than educate the public
on the negative effects plastic bags have on our environment and our
health. After two months of
campaigning, the bill will be officially introduced into Congress. By this time, the public will be educated
enough to support this bill and will have let their Representatives know that
they want this bill passed. After
being passed, the United States will begin the process of reducing plastic bag
usage and investing in green energy.
There will be a positive feedback when citizens notice that their
communities are cleaner, the unemployment rate improves, our economy grows and
our fuel prices drop. Within the
five-year testing period, January 2013-December 2018, once usage decreases to
70% of 2012 levels, we can begin the process of fully eliminating all plastic
bag usage in the United States. By
this time, most citizens in the United States will have already invested in
reusable bags and will see no use for plastic bags to be used. It will be a monumental moment in our
nation when we can say that the United States is “plastic bag free”.
Conclusion
It
has been proven that a tax such as this is successful in any country and under
any economic condition. In the
United States, we have recovered from a recession and are now in a growing and
progressive economy. Plastic bags
are literally choking our nation and need to be reduced and eventually
eliminated from the United States.
This bill will allow for this nation to have a clean and healthy
environment. It must be noted
again that this bill will also allow for economic and energy expansion. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jackson and Mr. Reid,
by having three of the most influential people in our government working
together on this bill, other congressmen and congresswomen will understand the
imperativeness in passing this bill.
This will be a bi-partisan effort to better our environment, society and
economy. Senator Kerry urges that
we must work together to pass this tax immediately to create a uniform bag tax
across the United States of America to reduce our environmental impacts on our
nation and on Earth.
Works Consulted
"Bagging
Plastic." State Legislatures May 2011: 10. Ebsco Host. Web.
28 Mar. 2012.
"China
Bans Plastic Bags." China Chemical Reporter 19.3 (2008): 5. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
Coulter,
Jessica. "A SEA CHANGE TO CHANGE THE SEA: STOPPING
THE SPREAD OF THE PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH WITH SMALL-SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL
LEGISLATION." William & Mary Law Review 51.5 (2010): 1959-1995.
Print.
District
of Columbia. "ANACOSTIA RIVER CLEAN UP AND PROTECTION
ACT OF 2009." Department of the Environment of the District of
Columbia 1 (2009): 1-16. Print.
Doucette,
Kitt. "The Plastic Bag Wars." Rolling Stone 1136 (2011): 37-39.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Apr. 2
EnviroSax.
" Dangers of plastic bags ." Envirosax reusable shopping bags . N.p.,
n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.envirosax.com/plastic_bag_facts>.
Grossman,
Drew. "Bag tax legislation for Prince George's County
moves forward." Baltimore Sun 2 Feb. 2012: n. pag. Baltimore
Sun . Web. 12 Apr. 2012.
"Japan's
Tax On Plastic Sacks." New Scientist 186.2504 (2005): 4. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
Lapidos,
Juliet. "Do plastic bags really take 500 years to break down in a
landfill? - Slate Magazine." Slate Magazine - Politics, Business,
Technology, and the Arts - Slate Magazine. N.p., 27 June 2007. Web. 20 Apr.
2012.
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/06/will_my_plastic_bag_still_be_here_in_2507.html>.
Seba B.
Sheavly, et al. "Plastic Particles In Coastal Pelagic Ecosystems Of The
Northeast Pacific Ocean." Marine Environmental Research 71.1
(2011): 41-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
Spivey,
Angela. "Plastic Bags--Prolific Problem." Environmental Health
Perspectives 111.4 (2003): 208. Ebsco
Host. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Yardley,
William. "Seattle Bans Plastic Bags, and Sets a Charge for
Paper." New York
Times 20 Dec. 2011: 23. Ebsco Host. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment