CA considers Styrofoam containers ban

[red states rule]

The nanny state continues





Restaurant owner Gary Honeycutt says a push in California's state Legislature to ban the plastic foam containers he uses to serve up takeout meals could cost him thousands of dollars in an industry where profit margins already are razor thin.
BJ's Kountry Kitchen, in the heart of California's farm country, uses about 26,000 of the 9-inch foam clamshells a year, mostly for takeout by the customers who come in for the restaurant's popular breakfast omelets.

"We put cheese on those omelets. And when we put the cheese on, it's really hot and bubbly and it goes right through the biodegradable stuff," he said. He expects his costs would more than double if the state requires him to use only biodegradable cartons.
The bill by Democratic state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, would prohibit restaurants, grocery stores and other vendors from dispensing food in expanded polystyrene containers, commonly known as Styrofoam, beginning in 2016. If signed into law, the measure would make California the first to institute a statewide ban on such containers. More than 50 California cities and counties already have similar bans

The bill would exempt school districts and city and county jurisdictions if they implemented programs that recycled more than 60 percent of their foam waste.

Lowenthal said litter from the foam containers is one of the most abundant forms of debris found in city streets, sewers and beaches.

"It's not biodegradable, it's not compostable, and if it's in the water for a long time, it breaks up into small beads and lasts for thousands of years. It costs (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) millions to clean up beaches," he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44306741/ns/business-going_green/

[ConHog]

Man come on, styrofoam is a nasty product that id non biodegradable and we have plenty of alternative products which do the same thing. I have no problem with outlawing it.


And if we outlaw Styrofoam, does that mean no more McDonalds , since that's all their "food" is anyway?

[red states rule]

Man come on, styrofoam is a nasty product that id non biodegradable and we have plenty of alternative products which do the same thing. I have no problem with outlawing it.


And if we outlaw Styrofoam, does that mean no more McDonalds , since that's all their "food" is anyway?

During my ifetime CA has always led the way when it comes to liberal insanity and green stupidity

They are driving people and businesses out fo the sate and this will only continue to exit.

So what if thousands of jobs would be lost? Given the unempolyment rate who would notice?

[logroller]

During my ifetime CA has always led the way when it comes to liberal insanity and green stupidity

They are driving people and businesses out fo the sate and this will only continue to exit.

So what if thousands of jobs would be lost? Given the unempolyment rate who would notice?


What jobs are those? Styrofoam package manufacturing, I'm guessing, can be converted relatively easily to cellulose-based sources.The only thing that would change would be the source of the polymer from oil to compostable/ biodegradable sources. And last I checked, petroleum refineries have a pretty healthy demand for their other petroleum-based products.

[red states rule]

What jobs are those? Styrofoam package manufacturing, I'm guessing, can be converted relatively easily to cellulose-based sources.The only thing that would change would be the source of the polymer from oil to compostable/ biodegradable sources. And last I checked, petroleum refineries have a pretty healthy demand for their other petroleum-based products.

You guessed wrong




snip

Dart, one of two companies in California that make the Styrofoam products, employs about 600 people in the state. The company already makes the biodegradable alternative, but the two California plants are incapable of producing anything other than the Styrofoam material.
"If you get rid of manufacturers like Dart, how do you know all the alternative materials will come from California? The reality is, they won't," he said.

The California Chamber of Commerce has labeled the measure as one of its "job-killer bills," saying it threatens manufacturing jobs while increasing costs for restaurants that will have to spend more on alternative containers.

Honeycutt estimates he will have to spend more than twice as much on biodegradable containers if he is forced to switch. Because hot food melts through the cardboard, he said his Fresno restaurant will have to use two cardboard packages for every order, driving costs up even further.

"That doesn't seem too smart," he said.


http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=8332270

[logroller]

You guessed wrong

They needn't shut down I assure you. The technology is there to convert, they just don't want to because the price of source material is higher and they'll need to invest in equipment upgrades. And higher priced, I might add, because the cost of styrofoam doesn't include styrofoam's damaging effects on the environment. But I'll grant you choice in the matter--would a tax levied on styrofoam containers, similar to redemption deposits, be preferable to a ban?

[red states rule]

They needn't shut down I assure you. The technology is there to convert, they just don't want to because the price of source material is higher and they'll need to invest in equipment upgrades. And higher priced, I might add, because the cost of styrofoam doesn't include styrofoam's damaging effects on the environment. But I'll grant you choice in the matter--would a tax levied on styrofoam containers, similar to redemption deposits, be preferable to a ban?

and pass the increased costs onto their customers and/or layoff workers

Once again we see the nanny state leading the way to higher unemployment, increased costs for our everyday items, and standing in the way of private sector growth

and libs wonder why businesses are NOT hiring

[logroller]

and pass the increased costs onto their customers and/or layoff workers

Once again we see the nanny state leading the way to higher unemployment, increased costs for our everyday items, and standing in the way of private sector growth

and libs wonder why businesses are NOT hiring

As opposed to what, passing the cost of cleaning up the mess to everybody, regardless of rather they contributed to it? What exactly do you see as the role of the State-- jobs and low prices above all? Just glaze over the external costs which inevitably lead to state and federal taxpayers funding incomprehensible cleanup activities. Or is that the kind of job creation you feel we should be investing in?

[red states rule]

As opposed to what, passing the cost of cleaning up the mess to everybody, regardless of rather they contributed to it? What exactly do you see as the role of the State-- jobs and low prices above all? Just glaze over the external costs which inevitably lead to state and federal taxpayers funding incomprehensible cleanup activities. Or is that the kind of job creation you feel we should be investing in?

The states and Feds should get out of the way when it comes to the private sector. Seems to me CA is making it harder for their economy to grow and are obsessed with the nanny state way of thinking.

I have noticed with every new idea they link it to some "crisis" and only their intervention wil solve the problem.

Then they wonder why companies (and people) are leaving their state and why even with higher taxes they are still short on cash

[logroller]

As opposed to what, passing the cost of cleaning up the mess to everybody, regardless of rather they contributed to it? What exactly do you see as the role of the State-- jobs and low prices above all? Just glaze over the external costs which inevitably lead to state and federal taxpayers funding incomprehensible cleanup activities. Or is that the kind of job creation you feel we should be investing in?


The states and Feds should get out of the way when it comes to the private sector.

Privatize government responsibilities to yield short-term benefits, rather than long-term ones. Been tried red, some pretty bad stuff happened. Either way, styrofoam will be floating about long after those jobs have gone-- it'll happen sooner or later as landfill cost escalate, private or public--people will pay. I getcha though, why not capitalize on those resources now; we need it now. I disagree because I care about the future opportunities provided by those resources, and wish to share that with those who will inherit it; but I can understand why you believe the financial rewards resulting from private freedom is the best medicine.

Other than arguing CA being screwed up, which I don't dispute BTW, i watch prices, but I don't consider the cost of styrofoam an everyday necessity. How many styrofoam containers do you use in a week? 5, 10, 20.And what's the cost? I bought a package of cups at warehouse store over a year ago and still have them, but I couldn't tell you what it cost. Maybe if I owned a resatuarant or something, i would; but I, the most finite "private" entity of concern---could care less if styrofoam cost doubled, tripled,...or just wasn't available due to some ban. Not my problem, that's private thinking in it's essence.

We live in a world where we're answerable for our actions, and those who have profited at the expense of another must be checked within a healthy society. It'd be a bit too broad a class action, and far too complex to assess liability for damages from styrofoam litter.

Is now the right time to do something about it? ---Well, not as good of a time as it would have been long before--as my mother always says, An ounce of prevention, is worth a pound of cure. Or we wait; seeing as how the economy sucks and we needn't risk job loss; but then we're causing more damage all along. It's a tough call red; but I'm no politician, i needn't represent the interests of anybody but myself, but I respect a majority consensus. If that means jobs are lost, then I guess CA doesn't want those jobs. Others may disagree; but isn't that really for Californians to decide?