AFS Cinema
Bag Ban
RECEIVED Mon., April 2, 2018
Dear Editor,
Having followed the story in your newspaper on the Texas Supreme Court pondering bag bans in cities like Laredo, I was surprised that the writing focused largely on the legal issues rather than the facts surrounding plastic bag pollution and climate change ["What Future for Flying Plastic Bags?" News, Jan. 26]. In fact, there was just one fact mentioned concerning the effects of a bag bans. Considering Austin is one of the few bag-ban success stories, we should boast the progress we have seen. Furthermore, a strong argument should be made with this proof and with the consequences of losing the bag ban debate.
I am cognizant of the fact this article was in part a news story, updating on the progress of the Supreme Court debate, but I think it would benefit your readers to know the facts regarding this issue as well because it shouldn’t be framed as a solely legal issue. Instead, it should be framed as a primarily environmental issue, supported by scientific facts, such as how plastic particles outnumber plankton 6-to-1 in the ocean, causing many marine animal deaths and that only 1-3% of plastic bags are recycled (The World Counts). Plastic particles are particularly detrimental in the marine environment as they bioaccumulate in the food chain, causing harm to marine life and to humans.
The bag ban was a difficult change, even for Austin, and that is exactly why I believe we should always be reminded of its many benefits and the consequences if it were revoked. It is always a good idea to communicate scientific facts as often as possible, especially when the effects of climate change are starting to be seen and felt all around us. My hometown of McKinney, Texas, does not have a bag ban and when I go home, I see the consequences: plastic bags blowing in the streets and swaying in the tree branches in my yard. The Austin Chronicle can and should lead the way to a more educated public that is ready to combat climate change.
Having followed the story in your newspaper on the Texas Supreme Court pondering bag bans in cities like Laredo, I was surprised that the writing focused largely on the legal issues rather than the facts surrounding plastic bag pollution and climate change ["What Future for Flying Plastic Bags?" News, Jan. 26]. In fact, there was just one fact mentioned concerning the effects of a bag bans. Considering Austin is one of the few bag-ban success stories, we should boast the progress we have seen. Furthermore, a strong argument should be made with this proof and with the consequences of losing the bag ban debate.
I am cognizant of the fact this article was in part a news story, updating on the progress of the Supreme Court debate, but I think it would benefit your readers to know the facts regarding this issue as well because it shouldn’t be framed as a solely legal issue. Instead, it should be framed as a primarily environmental issue, supported by scientific facts, such as how plastic particles outnumber plankton 6-to-1 in the ocean, causing many marine animal deaths and that only 1-3% of plastic bags are recycled (The World Counts). Plastic particles are particularly detrimental in the marine environment as they bioaccumulate in the food chain, causing harm to marine life and to humans.
The bag ban was a difficult change, even for Austin, and that is exactly why I believe we should always be reminded of its many benefits and the consequences if it were revoked. It is always a good idea to communicate scientific facts as often as possible, especially when the effects of climate change are starting to be seen and felt all around us. My hometown of McKinney, Texas, does not have a bag ban and when I go home, I see the consequences: plastic bags blowing in the streets and swaying in the tree branches in my yard. The Austin Chronicle can and should lead the way to a more educated public that is ready to combat climate change.
Margaux Bartzen