Yes on Proposition 67 – Talking Points

 

Yes on 67 is good for the environment and for taxpayers

  • Single-use plastic bags are damaging to the environment and wildlife, expensive to clean up, and an easily preventable source of litter.
  • The Ocean Conservancy recently deemed plastic bags as the #2 deadliest threat to sea turtles, birds, and marine mammals.
  • Plastic bags eat up taxpayer dollars in cleanup costs. Local governments across the state spend $428 million each year to prevent litter in streets and storm drains.
  • Less than 3% of plastic bags are recycled, and rather they jam most recycling equipment.
  • Prop 67 is the last statewide on the ballot, but the most important for our oceans, rivers, and parks.

Yes on 67 reaffirms legislation signed by Governor Brown

  • In an attempt to mitigate an easily preventable form of plastic pollution, Senate Bill 270 (Padilla, De León, Lara) was adopted by the Legislature and signed by Governor Jerry Brown establishing a statewide ban on the distribution of single-use plastic grocery bags at most stores in 2014.
  • It was the culmination of a five-year effort that included the adoption of numerous local bag bans and the support of local governments, environmental groups, grocers, retailers and labor organizations.
  • Prop 67 asks voters to affirm statewide legislation that phases out single-use plastic grocery bags and requires stores to pass along the 10 cent cost of paper bags.

 

Yes on 67 bans plastic bags in California once and for all

  • Immediately after SB 270 was signed, out-of-state plastic bag manufacturers spent more than $3 million on a paid signature gathering effort to qualify Proposition 67 for the November 2016 ballot for voters to decide its fate.
  • This postponement of the law has resulted in the continued distribution of more than 192 million single-use plastic bags every week. Today, these manufacturers have spent over $6 million, and are expected to spend $25 to 40 million more in order to protect their profits.
  • The plastic companies behind this attempt to hijack our state’s referendum and initiative system have a disastrous environmental record, including pollution by one Chinese-based firm, Formosa International, which caused one of the largest fish kills ever recorded.
  • As part of their last ditch effort to overturn the bag ban, the out-of-state bag manufacturers have put a competing measure on the ballot (Prop 65) the Mercury News described as “one of the most disingenuous ballot measures in state history–and that’s saying something.”

 

Yes on 67 has already shown to be effective

  • Plastic bag bans work. Today 151 California communities have them. In all of these cities and counties, bag use declines as customers bring their own bags, as well as plastic bag litter that blow out of trash cans, solid waste vehicles and landfills into streets, parks and waterways.
  • California’s environmental leadership has been challenged and we cannot allow a monied special interest to succeed in an ‘end run’ around our hard fought environmental victories.

NCRA wants you! Phonebank for the Ban on Tuesday 11/1

JOIN NCRA TO PHONEBANK FOR THE BAG BAN!

Tuesday, November 1 from 6 pm – 8 pm

Click here to access Yes on 67 Phone Bank and Event List!

2150 Allston Way, Berkeley, David Brower Conference Room, 4th Floor

  • Please bring your cell phone
  • Pizza will be provided
  • BYO beverages and snacks

See you there! Thank you for your commitment to assisting our communities in upholding the bag ban!

Please RSVP to ncra@ncrarecycles.orgncra-yes-on-67-no-on-65-2016

Bag The Ban – By County

ncra-yes-on-67-no-on-65-2016

Please let us know what is happening in your County! Send brief updates to both Zero Waste Advocacy Committee and NCRA News. See County listings at end.

  1. Determine if local public agencies – the county, cities, special districts,agencies, etc., have policies on the two initiatives and whether help is needed establishing, supporting or refuting these policies.
  2. Tell NCRA when a speaker is needed to be present at an event where some public agency is making up its mind or thinking about changing it.
  3. Communities that already have local bag ban laws should not sit on their hands but make sure all voters know why 67 is so important and that it is at the end of a long ballot.

BY COUNTY – In progress

ALAMEDA – Contact Arthur Boone/ZWAC

SONOMA – Contact Portia Sinnott/NCRA News. At the August Sonoma County Local Task Force For Solid Waste meeting it was decided to send letters to the Board of Supervisors, the Joint Powers Agency and all cities asking each to go on record in support of 67 and against 65. The next step is for the LTF members to contact our elected officials to reinforce this request. Tabling and tabling training starts the week of 10/17. Phone banking with Clean Water Action will be encouraged.

CONTRA COSTA

MARIN

NAPA

SAN FRANCISCO

SAN MATEO

SANTA CLARA

SOLANO

Vote YES on PROP 67 to Uphold the California Bag Ban!

NCRA has taken a fervent YES position on Prop 67!  Please get involved, and share with others the importance of upholding the California Bag Ban!

Links to websites for more info and ways to get involved:

Protect Plastic Bag Ban Campaign
CAW Campaign
Surfrider Campaign

If Proposition 67 is approved by the state’s voters, it would:[1][2]

  • Ratify Senate Bill 270 (2014).
  • Prohibit large grocery stores and pharmacies from providing plastic single-use carryout bags and ban small grocery stores, convenience stores and liquor stores from doing so the following year.
  • Allow single-use plastic bags for meat, bread, produce, bulk food and perishable items.
  • Mandate stores to charge 10 cents for recycled, compostable and reusable grocery bags.
  • Exempt consumers using a payment card or voucher issued by the California Special Supplemental Food Program from being charged for bags.
  • Provide $2 million to state plastic bag manufacturers for the purpose of helping them retain jobs and transition to making thicker, multi-use, recycled plastic bags.

The American Progressive Bag Alliance, an opponent of the measure, is leading the campaign to repeal SB 270.[3]

The Money Behind Big Plastic’s Campaign

More than $6 million has been poured into an effort to challenge California’s plastic bag ban on the November 2016 ballot. Behind the effort are four out-of-state plastic and chemical producers, channeling funds through the plastic industry’s astroturf trade group, “American Progressive Bag Alliance.” Led by ringleader South Carolina-based Hilex Poly and New Jersey-based Formosa Plastics which does not have any locations in California – these companies produce most of the more than 200 billion plastic bags generated in the US annually. View their financial contributions to the referendum campaign at the California Secretary of State’s Website.

Hilex Poly (South Carolina): The top contributor to the American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA) to overturn the plastic bag ban, having contributed $2.78 million since 2014. Hilex Poly has led lawsuits against municipalities with plastic bag bans and a reusable bag company, all in an effort to protect the lucrative California plastic bag market.

Formosa Plastics (New Jersey): The second largest contributor to the APBA, having contributed $1.5 million so far. Formosa Plastics parent company is suspected in a natural disaster in Vietnam, polluting 120-miles of coastlines and causing a massive fish kill off. In the U.S. Formosa has a long track record of EPA and OSHA violations for pollution and reckless safety standards that have resulted in various polluting violations and the death and injury of numerous employees.

Superbag (Texas): The third largest contributor at $945,719. Superbag is one of a group that has sued cities and other municipalities for banning plastic bags and launched a frivolous lawsuit against ChicoBag, a reusable bag manufacturer, which ChicoBag challenged and the group subsequently dropped, unable to make an actual case.

Advance Polybag (Texas): The fourth largest contributor at $939,333, Also a member of the group that sued municipalities for banning plastic bags and unsuccessfully sued ChicoBag.