On Wednesday this week, the House passed HB130, which would limit the availability of single use plastic carryout bags in Delaware. The vote was 33-7, with the no votes coming all from Republicans south of the canal, because it is their God-given right to pollute the oceans with plastic apparently.
Delaware already requires large retail stores to establish at-store recycling receptacles so customers can return plastic bags. Plastic carryout bags are also required to have labels that contain printed recycling messaging. Even so, plastic carryout bags are recycled at alarmingly low rates – less than 10 percent – leaving more than 3.5 million tons of plastic bags to be discarded annually.
“I am pleased that the House of Representatives took this substantial step forward to limit the use of plastic bags in Delaware. We have an obligation to the future generations in our state to take action, and with this legislation we are showing we are serious about addressing this issue, said the bill prime sponsor’s Rep. Gerald Brady. “This is a measured, reasonable approach that will severely cut the number of plastic bags distributed throughout Delaware by focusing on large and chain retail stores. It is my hope that we will no longer see plastic bags waving in the wind, littering our environment and waterways.”
Under HB 130, stores with more than 7,000 square feet of retail sales space, or chains with three or more locations with each having at least 3,000 square feet of retail sales space would be affected. Restaurants would be excluded. Beginning Jan. 1, 2021, those stores would not be permitted to provide “any single-use plastic carryout bag” to a customer at the point of sale.
The bill includes a few, small exceptions, including: bags used to wrap meat, fish, flowers or potted plants or that contain unwrapped food items; bags that contain live animals; bags used to transport chemical pesticides; and bags placed over articles of clothing on a hanger.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, three states have effectively enacted statewide bans on single-use plastic bags, while major cities such as Boston, Chicago and Seattle have also enacted similar reforms.
HB 130 now heads to the Senate for consideration
WHERE IS THE BILL NOW? Ready for a vote on the Senate floor 6/5/19
DEMOCRATIC SPONSORS – Brady, Paradee, McDowell, Sokola, Longhurst, Bentz, Chukwuocha, Cooke, Dorsey Walker, Jaques, K.Johnson, Minor-Brown, Osienski, Seigfried, Hansen, Baumbach, Griffith, Heffernan, Kowalko, Lynn
REPUBLICAN SPONSORS – Cloutier
YES VOTES – Baumbach, Bennett, Bentz, Bolden, Brady, Bush, Carson, Chukwuocha, Cooke, Dorsey Walker, Gray, Griffith, Heffernan, Hensley, Jaques, K.Johnson, K.Williams, Kowalko, Longhurst, Lynn, Matthews, M.Smith, Minor-Brown, Mitchell, Osienski, Q.Johnson, Ramone, Schwartzkopf, Seigfried, Smyk, Spiegelman, Vanderwende, Viola
NO VOTES – Briggs King, Collins, D.Short, Dukes, Morris, Postles, Yearick
ABSENT – Shupe
I remember going shopping with my mother and never once seeing a plastic bag. Fish were wrapped in newspaper and articles of clothing were covered with paper… or sometimes not covered at all. Good grief! How did we ever manage?
Thanks for the coverage. For more info see http://www.plasticfreedelaware.org and please email your state senator to request their support of HB130 in June.
Super proud of Delaware for this!!!
We need Wilmington to ban bags from smaller local stores. I think that half of them end up in the trees.
Doesn’t take anything but effort to weed your property and clean up the trash. Poverty isn’t a cause, it’s a symptom of mindset and values.
What a terrible bill. Paper and reusable bags leave a much greater carbon footprint. Cotton farming accounts for 25% of the pesticides used in the US and requires so much more water than other crops due to the arid soil. The ocean waste fad ignores the contributions from Asia which account for almost all of it.
It is only in manufacturing that there is a smaller carbon footprint. The disposal and litter and the persistence of this plastic in the environment is the problem being targeted by this bill, Mr. CRI.
We are increasing carbon output and ignoring science.
We you might be, but the plastic bags are made from carbon byproducts so the fewer there are of them, we improve the carbon footprint.
Not trying to make an argument but that doesn’t make sense and it’s not true. If you are eliminating plastic bags for something that science has proven requires more carbon (not considering the ground and water impacts), you are increasing the carbon footprint.
Carbon emissions is different than carbon footprint which is how we know that you are *not* a scientist. Treating plastic vs paper vs recyclable bags as single use bags recyclable has the higher carbon emissions. But if you use a paper bag 3 times or more, you have lower carbon emissions than a single use plastic bag. If you use a recyclable bag 11 times, you have lower emissions than a single use plastic bag. And since recyclable bags are normally used more than 11 times, you have even more carbon emissions savings. There’s your science.
A simple Google search would have shown you that mainstream science disagrees with your *opinion*. That you can’t take an objective look at facts is how we know you are a partisan. Not here to change your mind, just to point out how hypocritical this bill is for a group who takes the opposite stance when it supports feelings.
I don’t need a Google search to tell me the difference between carbon footprint and carbon emissions. I do this for a living. Getting rid of plastic is just fine — it reduces carbon footprint AND it reduces carbon emissions when replaced with reusable items.
My comments never mentioned or insinuated they are the same. You’re now trying to cover up your illogical argument and misunderstanding about science proving a single use plastic bag has a smaller carbon footprint than a paper and reusable bag. Facts don’t support what you’re saying just like science shows this bill does the opposite of what many who support it otherwise fight for.
And you still can’t differentiate carbon footprint from carbon emissions. You and yours are why we can’t make progress on this issue — you’re belligerent as hell but you don’t know what you are talking about. Come back when you are ready for the grownups table.