To the Editor:

Non-biodegradable plastic bags are filling up landfills. Princeton does not have an active landfill within its boundaries, thus any problem with plastic bags does not uniquely concern Princeton.

The proposed ordinance would impose a tax on those Princeton shoppers who use store-supplied plastic bags. Proponents of the tax would have us believe that this is not a tax because we can bring our own bags and thus avoid it. If we apply the same reasoning to the gasoline tax, then it, too, is only a fee that can be avoided if we walk or use bicycles. Orwellian Newspeak, long used by the Federal government (“Collateral Damage” or “Revenue Enhancement” anyone?), has arrived in Princeton!

Proponents of the proposed ordinance claim the plastic bags supplied by retail stores are single use because they fail to acknowledge that these bags are also used for garbage (making them dual use, which is why they are in the landfills rather than being recycled). If the consumer complies with the ordinance and carries his purchases home in a reusable bag, then he must change his garbage handling. The obvious solution is to buy plastic kitchen garbage bags that are small enough to line a kitchen waste container. These thicker plastic bags will then go to the landfill instead of those supplied by the store, making a net reduction of landfill plastic very dubious.

The current store-supplied plastic bags would be replaced, the proponents demand, by a sturdier reusable bag. I have received several of these so-called reusable bags and doubt that they can be used more than 20 times before they tear or break. Comparing a store-supplied plastic bag tax of 10 cents with a reusable bag sold by McCaffrey’s for $1.99 plus sales tax, the consumer really has no net cost incentive to abandon the store-supplied bags.

The proposed tax would apply only to Princeton, thus encouraging people to shop outside of Princeton. The only justification put forth by the proponents is that Princeton should be a model for the rest of the world to copy. The latter outcome is at most unlikely. But, as pointed out by McCaffrey’s, this tax would place local vendors at a real competitive disadvantage. Such a tax should be state-wide, or at least county-wide, but that is unlikely after the defeat of the county referendum in the last election. (How the proponents expect to move the world when they can’t even succeed in their home county is an unaddressed question.)

The proposed ordinance would exempt people on public assistance from the tax. If that clause is approved, the goal of eliminating plastic bags from future garbage streams will not be met, but if not, the tax would be regressive.

The proposed bag tax would also apply to paper bags. Since when are paper bags not biodegradable?

The job of Princeton’s mayor and Council is to do the best they can for the people of Princeton. It is not their job to set a dubious standard which the rest of the world may not follow.

Ronald Nielsen

Humbert Street