The idea that ridding Seattle (or reducing the use) of "single use" bags will somehow solve our environmental woes is simply wrong. First off, as seen by Ireland's example, bag taxes don't reduce use of bags. Ireland's much touted tax reduced grocery bag use, but sales of packaged bags increased by nearly 400 percnt, resulting in a net gain going into landfills.

A much larger question is whether plastic bags, paper bags, and Styrofoam containers actually pose any real threat to the environment in Seattle. The answer to that, based on any actual evidence you examine, is no.

Oil use, pollution, landfill space, litter... these are the main reasons stated for taxes and bans around the country and world.

The amount of petroleum going into plastic bags and Styro containers is extremely minimal, and even in paper bags (which use far more energy and create far more pollution than plastic), the amount is tiny in comparison to what we consume just driving to work each day.

Litter is a problem solved by encouraging recycling and proper disposal, not taxing things that end up as litter. Seattle is also, by comparison to other US cities, very clean...so where's the problem?

Landfills? Sorry, landfills aren't overflowing with these items, but mostly with construction debris and paper products. Besides, contrary to popular belief, we aren't running out of landfill space - there's plenty to go around.

Pollution, especially water born debris, is indeed harming marine habitats, and while a lot of ocean trash is plastic, bags don't even figure into the equation (as the anti-bag nuts attest). Discarded fishing nets and lines kill marine wildlife, and very little of the ocean debris is bags. Besides, the problem of trash ending up in the ocean is a global one that won't be affected by an already environmentally conscious city trying to reduce one item that makes up less than 1 percent of its litter.

Styro containers also have a very low environmental impact. And forcing businesses to supply only compostable containers is shortsighted at best. Most of these will also end up in a landfill.

The mayor's plan is that all disposable containers will be composted, but many people don't pay for, or don't have access to, yard waste pickup. So off to the landfill with it, and what have we solved? The compostable containers that would replace good old Styrofoam would be made either of paper (which contributes far more greenhouse gasses and uses far more energy to produce or recycle than plastic), or out of food crops that could be better used as, I don't know, food maybe?

Reusable bags are great, sure, I guess (no environmental impact study has been done, but they sure seem nice), but retail and grocery bags are already reusable, and 90 percent of the population does reuse them. Now, if a store wants to charge for those bags to recoup their cost, fine. But a government tax (it's a tax, not a voluntary fee) from the city is just plain wrong.

And in case you didn't know, the organizations pushing hardest for bag bans and taxes across the country are corporations that stand to gain financially by selling reusable bags. This is a deplorable marketing strategy that would cause outrage in other markets (imagine Whole Foods trying to get Trader Joe's outlawed). You've seen the Bag Monster? He's not some random nut-job protester, but a trademarked mascot for a reusable bag company. Look it up.

Ken Holmes

Marketing Director

American Plastic Manufacturing