Where is my plastic bag? Probably in landfills or oceans

The Texas Government blog Texas The Lone Star State has an entry titled “Where is my plastic bag?” in which the author, Mildred, opposed the Austin plastic bag ban. Mildred supports her claim with these points, people not from Austin are not used to paying for bags, plastic bags are not a major problem for the environment, the increase of shoplifting, and the use of plastic bags other than for shopping. I disagree with Mildred and here is my counter argument. 

As an individual who has experienced pre and post plastic bag ban, I can relate to those who are experiencing it for the first time. Paying for reusable bags and having to bring them every time I go grocery shopping is troublesome and inconvenient. However, if major environmental benefits is a result, I am willing to endure a minor inconvenience. This issue is completely subjective due to personal environmental standpoints. 

Mildred’s argument, “the bag is not the major big problem for the environment” has no supporting evidence. Plastic bags take hundreds of years to degrade and fill up landfill sites and oceans. Plastic litter can also lead to clogged drains, which result in sanitation, flooding and sewage problems. Plastic bags cause the death of many marine animals every year through ingestion. The incineration of plastic bags pollutes the air and releases toxic substances which contaminate soil and waterways. Plastic bags are also responsible for using up oil, a scarce natural resource.

There is no doubt that plastic bag usage can be environmentally very damaging. These concerns have caused governments around the world to introduce legislation to limit the use of plastic bags. They have used a variety of regulatory instruments for this purpose. However, complete bans have yielded mixed results creating a controversy. Some argue the ineffectiveness due to consumers continuing to use plastic bags in blatant violation of existing rules. Another major argument against plastic bag bans is that a ban shifts production to paper bags and compostable bags, both of which have heavy environmental consequences.

Mildred uses her experiences working in retail to support her claim on an increase in shoplifting due to the plastic bag ban. However, shoplifting is an age-old issue and no evidence of an increase since the plastic bag ban have been discovered. 

As for plastic bags used for situations other than shopping, I believe it is indirectly related to the ban. You can still purchase plastic bags for other usages such as trash bags. The purpose of the plastic bag ban is to reduce plastic bags by eliminating free distribution of them in stores, not to eliminate them all together. In my personal experience, I still use plastic bags which I must now purchase but because I no longer get a near infinite amount every time I go to the grocery store, I have notice a reduction in plastic bag consumption in my house. 

We have grown so accustomed to the convenience of plastic bags, it was difficult to see impact they have to our environment. I support the plastic bag ban because although it is not perfect, I believe it is a major step in solving the problem. Many alternative solutions have been proposed which I believe would be more effective but the plastic bag ban shows that we realize there is problem and are we willing to make an effort in solving it. 

References

How Many Cities Have a Ban on Plastic Bags?

Facts About the Plastic Bag Pandemic

Is a Ban the Best Way to Reduce Plastic Bag Use? A Case Study from Delhi

Do Bag Bans Work?

Should Plastic Bags Be Banned?

Campus Carry Legislation: How to Help Criminals

On April 7, 2012, A gunman at Oikos University told the students to line up against the wall and exclaimed, "I'm going to kill you all!" before shooting 7 students to death and wounded 3 others. Oikos University shooting is one of many shootings which occurred at an university. Northern Illinois University shooting, Virginia Tech massacre, the list goes on. Solutions to preventing future reoccurrences are constantly being debated. I believe most of these debates lack rationality. 

I find it important is completely break down the situations to the core elements. What are the fundamental conditions which must exist for these undesired outcome to proceed. Here is what I’ve come up with. 

1. A person who wishes to cause harm to another person(s) 

2. The use of a weapon/tool, i.e. firearms, for the individual to carry out these wishes most effectively

3. Victims unable to defend themselves from the individual who wishes to cause them harm

All three of these factors must be present in order for the events to occur. By removing one, we can prevent the event altogether. 

Number one is unpreventable. Number two and three is where it gets interesting. Number three is directly correlated to number two, as in number three can only exist when number two is true. In America, and in Texas, guns are present and available. Guns are widely produced and distributed. As much as we try to regulate them, there are still countless possibilities for anyone to obtain one whether it’s purchased legally or stolen. Because of this, the only way to prevent number two is to remove all guns everywhere. Not only stop all future productions but also confiscate and destroy all current firearms. If you have any knowledge of history and don’t live in an utopian fantasy, you would know how unrealistic this hypothetical proposition is. This makes number two unpreventable as well. So our last hope lies within number three. If there is always a possibility of someone threatening my life with a firearm, I must always be able to defend myself with a firearm. In theory, if everyone has a firearm, it removes the threat by spreading out  the power. 

Laws are a system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. Laws are meant to protect our general safety. Punishments are in place for those who break the law. But what happens when the laws become counter productive? What if the law is helping the criminal and harming the law-abiding citizen? It must be recognized and changed. 

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is irrational and has taken way to long to be realized. The current Texas legislation has passed a new bill which allows students with concealed weapons permits to bring their guns on campus as long as the guns remain in cars at all times. It’s good to know that if there is a gunman in my classroom shooting students, I can run to my car (hopefully unnoticed by the gunman), grab my firearm from the trunk while the gunman continues to do as he pleases, run back with my firearm, and hopefully stop him before anyone else gets hurt. Obviously there is a lot of room for improvement but at least some people are beginning to realize how to think logically. 

“We’re not talking about classrooms full of angry gun-toting kids upset about their grades. We are talking about a fundamental, God-given natural right, that should not be abridged based upon some silly belief that rights are somehow contingent upon the location where you choose to exercise them. Signs and policies that mandate so called gun free zones ostensibly for the sake of safety instead create target-rich environments for the twisted criminal mind.  The time to pass Campus Carry is now.  I respectfully request you place it on the call.” (Jerry Patterson)

Additional Readings
TXEXplainer: Campus-Carry Legislation
Guns on Campus: Overview 
Students for Concealed Carry 
The Shootist