Lozano 1

Victor Lozano
Ms. Burnett Period 1 and Ms. Defranco Period 5
ERWC 12 and A.P. U.S. Government
November 28, 2016
Proposition 67: Keep the Ban on Plastic Bags
Did you know that about 267 species of marine life worldwide are affected by
plastic? (Save the Bay). Proposition 67 seeks to keep the ban on plastic bags to stop pollution.
Plastic bags have been known to clog sewer drains, endanger marine life, and cause huge
amounts of money to be used to clean them up. This is a problem because plastic bags arent
recyclable, so switching to something that can be reused is beneficial. This proposition was
started because plastic bag companies thought Senate Bill 270 was unfair and put it back on for a
final decision. Opposers of the ban claim that plastic bags arent really a problem to nature, when
that is untrue. Plastic bags are a huge problem in many ways. They raise prices for taxpayers
because that money goes to the clean up of plastic bags, cities pay a staggering amount of money
to clean them up, and they harm many different animals. Prop 67 will help with this problem by
making plastic bags less available for consumers and replacing them with something that will be
more effective in helping the environment.
Proposition 67 should be passed because it will protect marine life and our oceans, reduce
the costs to clean plastic from our oceans, and help consumers pay less for the goods they buy.
If proposition 67 gets passed, it will protect the wildlife in our oceans and help keep our
oceans clean. Plastics, like the ones used in single use plastic bags, arent biodegradable so
marine life is affected. In the article Choking the Oceans With Plastic, written by Charles J.
Moore, he confirms that We understand that plastics take centuries to biodegrade. Turning into

Lozano 2
tiny pieces killing millions of sea creatures. This plastic has also been known to strangle sea
animals who mistake it for food. This ingestion of toxins causes abnormalities in birds and other
animals stomachs and liver. The plastics that make up plastic bags are harmful to animals and
make them deformed. This is a cruel way to affect our marine life and it's wrong to endanger our
oceans and pollute them. This in turn then affects our health because we consume the animals
that the plastic effects. This how diseases can be gotten from eating seafood because of the
pollution we are causing. In the article Plastic Bags Must Never Be Burned written on the
website Project Green Bags, they clarify that When plastic bags burn, the composition of the
bag mixed with the heat produces a highly toxic chemical called dioxin. Dioxins have been
linked to cancer, can interfere with the endocrine gland system which produces hormones, and
have been known to affect both the immune system and reproduction. This statement helps
further the fact that plastic bags are an endangering factor to not just our oceans but to our own
health as well. The fumes that are produced are said to affect our immune system. Something as
powerful as AIDS, that leaves us unable to fight off diseases is something we shouldnt have in
our world. It also goes to show that plastic bag companies are willing to point out the flaws in
others but not what their own plastic bags do. In the article Myths vs. Facts Regarding Single
Use Bag Bans and Fees written by Save the Bay they help describe that Plastic trash entangles,
suffocates, and poisons at least 267 animal species worldwide. According to the California
Coastal Commission, up to 80 percent of all marine debris is plastic, which never biodegrades.
These two statistics are horrifying because that is many animals that our plastics affect. This is a
wide range of animals from birds to fish and even sea turtles. The plastics in the oceans dont
biodegrade and that means that they are left to drift in our oceans until an animal ingests it or
someone picks it up. It isnt always that someone is out looking for trash to pick up. It should our

Lozano 3
job at first to pick it up and keep the trash out of the ocean before it gets in. On a website created
by an organization called Clean Water Action, they clarify that these include 86% of all sea
turtle species, 44% of all seabird species and 43% of all marine mammal species. These
percentages show the animals affected by pollution caused by plastic, with plastic bags being a
contributor to the animals harmed. This also shows that it is animals not in just one specific area
but in the world. This means that our trash travels around the world and doesnt stop because
again there arent people out there looking for trash to pick up.
Plastic Bags arent recyclable as opposers make them out to be. In the article Choking
the Oceans With Plastic written by the Charles J. Moore they confirm that No scientist,
environmentalist, entrepreneur, national or international government agency has yet been able to
establish a comprehensive way of recycling the plastic trash that covers our land and inevitably
blows and washes down to the sea. This article debunks the argument that people who support
plastic bags make. They say that plastic bags can be recycled, but this shows that they cant be
and that no one has found a way to do it. This also goes to show that our trash doesn't stay in one
place but is sent everywhere. In the article California Today: Should We Ban Plastic Bags? by
the Mike McPhate they claim that Ban supporters say the billions of plastic bags used by
Californians are a menace, clogging sewers and polluting habitats. They are the fourth most
common item collected during the California Coastal Commissions annual cleanup events.
This counterclaim from the opposing side shows how they will take anything and try to use it to
make their claims better. If plastic bags werent an issue, then why are they at the top five of
things found in an annual cleanup? This means that annually they find plastic bags pretty often
on our coasts. Thats just our coasts, what about the plastic bags in our oceans? That combined is
a lot of plastic bags that end up in the environment. This also proves that they are easy to get

Lozano 4
around and pollute the areas we like to call home. In the article No on Prop. 67: Bag ban brings
higher costs, no benefits written by Matthew Harper he confirms that Single use plastic bags
are 100 percent recyclable and about 90 percent of people reuse them. This is a good view from
the other side because many people see these as good numbers, but they are untrue. Plastic bags
have been known to clog recycling machines and people tend to use them only once. They may
reuse them as trash bags, but never to go back grocery shopping. The $0.10 bags that the prop
wants to keep in grocery stores, are better to use because they show more potential in being
reused.
When proposition 67 gets passed, the ban will help with reducing the cost of cleaning up
plastic from our oceans. Large amounts of money go to the cleaning of plastic and trash. In the
article Ocean Plastic Pollution written by David Kirby he confirms that In California,
Oregon, and Washington cleanup costs are estimated at $500 million. This helps show the
amount of money that goes into cleaning up plastic bags. This amount of money could have been
used elsewhere instead of picking up trash. Living in California it makes me scared to know that
so much money goes to cleaning up trash. We should deal with it now so that the costs do not
keep rising and we can save more money by being more proactive. This is also scary to me
because when I grow up I know that my money will be wasted to do something that we should
have already been doing. Which is picking up trash before it gets too far from us. In the article
Myths vs. Facts Regarding Single Use Bag Bans and Fees written by Save the Bay they help
explain that Taxpayers pay $25 million every year to clean up plastic bags. This the money that
taxpayers give yearly and it's going to trash. We should be more conscious with our money
because that amount would have benefited another area of our government. This money could be
used to make our lives and future generations lives better and leave them better equipped to fix

Lozano 5
what we started. I know that when I grow up I don't want my money going to just picking up
trash but to other areas that could be more beneficial for the community. In the article Plastic
and paper bags hide costs as well as groceries written by Noemi de la Puente she explains that
In Mercer County, $104 a ton goes to disposing trash. Having less sources of trash could save
the township lots of money. This is true because less ways to make trash means that less money
is put towards cleaning it up. It is interesting that we pay to clean up trash by the tons. This
means that a lot of trash is found. Plastic bags may not be heavy, but a lot of them add up and
make trouble for us. This also shows that there are many plastic bags that are around and are
endangering our environments as we speak.
The cost of cleaning up plastic bags, when reduced showed that it had impacted people's
decision. In the article Myths vs. Facts Regarding Single Use Bag Bans and Fees written by
Save the Bay they explain that A group called Dont trash California was a campaign set out to
teach people about the litter they create. Even with the group's effort we still see trash like
cigarette buds, plastic bags, and cups. Putting a fee on single use plastic bags may provide an
incentive for consumers to change their behaviour. This article shows how even though we used
money to teach people they didnt really understand the impact they make and they still continue
to do the same thing. There may be other methods that we can implement to show people that
plastic bags are bad for the environment and that they are indeed a problem to our
environments.In the article Plastic and paper bags hide costs as well as groceries written by
Noemi de la Puente she explains that In San Jose 90% of people stopped using single use plastic
bags and the city reported a 89% drop in the amount of bags that litter its storm drains. This
helps show that a ban on plastic bags can really help reduce the pollution and litter we create.
Plastic bags are known to be found practically everywhere. This statistic could help other cities

Lozano 6
that the ban will help make a change in our environment. Other cities could also try to implement
the tactics used by San Jose to make their cities more environmentally friendly. In the article
California bag ban: Voters to weigh industrys fate at the ballot box written by Jessica Calefati,
she says that Padilla succeeded where others had failed because of a breakthrough compromise.
He agreed to make $2 million from the states bottle-and-can recycling fund available to
California businesses that wish to retool their operations and instead manufacture reusable plastic
bags that meet the laws rigorous standards. This shows that grocery stores were willing to
change their ways. They also received help from State Senators because they felt that this issue
was worth attending to. This breakthrough compromise helped for the better and helped grocery
stores make a change to become more environmentally friendly. This also shows that there are
people who have the power to change things that are willing to help because they too see that
plastic bags are indeed an issue for our environments.
Passing prop 67 will help consumers pay less for the goods they buy, and shows that the
money that goes into plastic bags can be returned. In the article Myths vs. Facts Regarding
Single Use Bag Bans and Fees written by Save the Bay they explain how Retailers currently
embed 2 to 5 cents per plastic bag in the price of goods - adding $30 or more per person annually
in hidden costs. In contrast, when consumers use reusable bags, retailers save money and can
lower prices. Many grocers offer a 5-cent rebate for bringing your own bag, which can add up to
about $60 in savings per year for an average family. This shows how stores reward people for
being environmentally friendly. This could be a way to get people to see that plastic bags arent
the way to go. This method may even get more people to switch to more environmentally
friendly options of shopping. It also shows that grocers do try to make our overhead cost more by
putting the money into the goods we buy. In the article Plastic and paper bags hide costs as well

Lozano 7
as groceries written by Noemi de la Puente she examines how Stores pay about $1000 to
$6000 on bags each month. They assume people will stop shopping there if the bags arent free.
Stores are trying to keep plastic bags because of their thoughts of the customers. If they see that
people want a more environmentally friendly option they will go out of their way to provide it. It
also shows that stores waste an unnecessary amount of money on the bags that consumers use.
This is why they increase the cost in our overhead price.
The ways that grocery stores put single-use plastic bag money into their items. In the
article No on Prop. 67: Bag ban brings higher costs, no benefits written by the Matthew Harper
they explain that SB 270 means more money, more bacteria and more money coming from
consumers own pockets to pay bag taxes that help grocers make huge profits. This is untrue
about plastic bags because the food we buy comes in some sort of packaging. This prevents
bacteria from ever getting into the food. I could see how opposers of the ban see that as an issue
because people may indeed reuse the bags and they could be dirty, however this is not an issue
because the single use plastic bags are flimsy and tend to break easily. This leaves them unusable
and then people just end up throwing them away. It also isnt true because grocers will use the
$0.10 from the bags to pay back the cost of the plastic bags they receive. In the article Props 65
and 67: Stop profiteering from polluting the Golden State written by the LA Times they explain
that Theres nothing actually free about these bags. Retailers pay for them, and the cost
becomes part of the overhead factored into the price of goods. This talks about how it's true that
retailers were putting money into our annual cost of groceries. With many sources showing that
an extra cost is added to our overhead price for goods, it is most likely true that it happens. It is
true that we help pay for the single use plastic bags, but it would be better to have a set price like

Lozano 8
the $0.10 bags. It makes it so we know how much we are paying and we are not tricked into
paying more for something we have no control over.
Proposition 67 should be passed because it will protect marine life and our oceans, reduce
the costs to clean plastic from our oceans, and help consumers pay less for the goods they buy. It
will help protect marine life because it will keep plastic bags from going into our oceans. This
means that animals that were affected by plastic bags are not going to be affected anymore. It
will reduce the costs of cleaning up plastics from our oceans by putting less plastic bags in our
oceans. With less plastic in our oceans this will allow for less trash and not so much money
going to clean it up. Consumers will pay less for goods they buy because prop 67 will help with
grocers not putting money into the overhead cost of groceries. People against the ban on plastic
bags argue that plastic bags do not create the issues highlighted by supporters of the ban. They
assume that plastic bags aren't a huge problem even though evidence is found that plastic bags
affect a broad area of our environment. They also say that plastic bags arent a big majority of
problems in our oceans, yet it was shown that they were the fourth highest item found in an
annual cleanup event. When the proposition passed in California it passed by a slim margin. This
showed that others see the problem that plastic bags create not only for us, but for our
environment as well. Proposition 67 will take effect on December 9th 2016 but some stores have
already implemented this new proposition now. Stores such as grocery stores and convenience
stores were seen to implement this new prop early.

Lozano 9

Works Cited
Calefati, Jessica California bag ban: Voters to weigh industrys fate at the ballot box
The Mercury News. 2016. Web. 28 Nov. 2016
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/16/california-bag-ban-voters-to-weigh-industrysfate-at-the-ballot-box/
De la Puente, Noemi Plastic and paper bags hide costs as well as groceries True Jersey.com.
2013 Web. 28 Nov. 2016
http://www.nj.com/south-jerseyvoices/index.ssf/2013/07/opinion_plastic_and_paper_bags.html
Gordon, Miriam Clean Water Action 2014. Web. 28 Nov. 2016

Lozano 10
http://www.cleanwateraction.org/releases/california-bans-single-use-plasticbags
Harper, Matthew No on Prop. 67: Bag ban brings higher costs, no benefits San
Diego Tribune 2016. Web. 28 Nov. 2016
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-oe-prop67-oppose2016102
6-story.html
Kirby, David Ocean Plastic Pollution Takepart.com. 2016. Web. 28 Nov. 2016
http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/01/20/stop-polluting-or-there-will-be-more-plasticfish-ocean-2050
McPhate, Mike California Today: Should We Ban Plastic Bags? The New York
Times. 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/california-today-plastic-bags-voters.html?_r=0

Moore, Charles J. Choking the Oceans With Plastic The New York Times. 2014.
Web 08 Oct. 2016
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/opinion/choking-the-oceans-with-plastic.html
Myths vs. Facts Regarding Single Use Bag Bans and Fees Save the Bay. 2001-2009
Web. 2016
https://www.savesfbay.org/sites/default/files/MythvFact_bags_final.pdf
Project Green Bag Plastic Bags Must Never Be Burned 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2016
http://www.projectgreenbag.com/news/plastic-bags-must-never-be-burned
The Times Editorial Board Props 65 and 67: Stop profiteering from polluting the

Lozano 11
Golden State Los Angeles Times. 2016. Web. 28 Nov. 2016
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-plastic-bag-propositions-20160908snap-story.html