HARD TO SWALLOW: Another characteristic of the true babooze is that he thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room but in reality everyone sees through the ploy he’s trying to foist on everyone.
So it should come as no surprise to anyone that, after seeing the tape of Wednesday’s council meeting and receiving a copy of the text of Mel Rapozo’s so-called amendment to the plastic bag ban bill, we’ve confirmed that we were right yesterday in asserting that the move is a thinly disguised attempt to allow their ubiquitous use once again.
As we suspected yesterday his bill strikes the definition of a plastic checkout grocery bag that, in Ordinance 885 made for a “de facto” ban by requiring, not just that they are compostable or biodegradable but that they not contain any fossil fuel polymers, since no such bag currently exists. Unlike the outright ban on Maui our bill allows the bags if and when a bag that meets this requirement becomes available.
So the bill simply changes the definition removing the “fossil fuel polymers” part.
The amendment now defines a plastic bag by saying:
“Biodegradable bag" means a bag that is made of a degradable plastic in which the degradation is caused by naturally occurring microorganisms such as bacteria fungi and algae.
But if anyone had any doubt about Rapozo’s intent they need only have watched the meeting where, although lip service was given to things like “food safety” and “sanitation,” no one who spoke could really say how exactly plastic bags would specifically keep food safe.
Rather, each person - including Rapozo himself- couldn’t help themselves in quickly descending into whining and sniveling about the inconvenience and how paper bags break and are more costly and we reuse the plastic bags and all the other blah, blah, blah arguments made by people who can’t be bothered ending even one little disgustingly polluting habit or putting a small kink in their consumerist lifestyle.
Two fascinating exchanges put an end to any argument of food safety and its relationship with plastic bags. Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura tried to follow the chain of events that would actually lead to food poisoning with and without plastic bags.
Whether or not a cloth bag contains pathogenic – disease causing- germs those germs must somehow get from the bag into someone’s mouth. So the link- admitted by both the “expert” Kaua`i Community College instructor and "chef" and the restaurant owner eventually admitted was that- shock of shock, news of news- people need to wash their hands before they eat, especially if they have had them in a dirty smelly bag that they had previously spilled pathogen-containing materials.
Didn’t these people have mothers?
No one of course ever suggested just using clean, reusable bags when putting their food in them.
The Chef wasn’t even really clear on where germs live, maintaining that metal, wood and plastic contain “no” germs. Actually studies have shown that the most germ-laden things in a typical room are the metal door knobs and the plastic telephone receiver.
The restaurateur- Mark Oyama of “Mark’s Place”- came with a bunch of his employees in tow to oppose the bill. He went so far as to say that no one ever washes their hands before they eat their plate lunch.
And, as we said, they all gave initial lip service to food safety before launching into descriptions of broken paper bags, public inconvenience and the way plate lunches spill on the car seat or get crushed if you stack them.
At one point the seriousness of it all- the inconvenience not the food safety- was described at the behest of Councilperson Dickie Chang who urged one of Oyama’s employees to tell a story that she had told him earlier.
Seems that a stack of plate lunches had been ordered and the one at the bottom had become crushed and spilled- although it was not really obvious how it even had anything to do with the use or non-use of plastic bags.
And whose lunch was that asked Chang?
Seemly on the verge of tears the employee blurted out “Th-th-the mayor’s lunch.” Fortunately there was an extra lunch so the 300-plus pound behemoth didn’t have to skip a meal (god forbid). But it was a disaster nonetheless because they mayor didn’t get the lunch he actually wanted, she explained.
And on and on it went with a bit of initial mumbling about this mythical food safety issue followed by tales of horror, supposedly- but actually tenuously- involving the lack of plastic bags.
One of our favorite non-sequitors was that out of one side of their mouths people wanted to use the plastic bags for when the plate lunch- the ones dripping with extra gravy and sauces, ably described by Chang- spill inside the bag.
But almost all of the Mark’s place staff- and Rapozo himself at one point- just had to state that everyone uses the plastic bags for trash can lines, dog poop picker-uppers, wet bathing suits and the like.
So you’re reusing the ones dripping with gravy? Or is there really a whole other agenda at work here?
Those who care about keeping the plastic bag law the way it is you might want to consider calling Oyama at 245-2522 and telling him that if he keeps it up you’re not going to be patronizing his establishments anymore.
The worst part is that no one at the meeting pointed out either the scam contained in the wording of the bill or called all these people on their obvious real motive in trying to get back their precious free plastic bags back. Some even complained that they would now need to buy huge 13 gallon trash bags even though the small wastebasket size ones are also available everywhere.
Finally we just have to respond to Rapozo’s charge that we “left out” an important part of a Consumer Reports story about the University of Arizona study- funded by the plastic bag industry- calling the health issues “just baloney”.
Nitpicker Glenn Mickens had quoted the report saying he read about it in Andy Parx’s blog. Rapozo responded that we had left out the “important part” which he read aloud.
It stated that:
It’s easy to spread bacteria from meat, fish, or poultry to other foods... So we do think it’s wise to carry those items in disposable bags. Reusable bags are fine for most everything else, but it’s a good idea to wash them occasionally.
There are two problems here. First we did in fact post the paragraph he read. Second, as we said, the reference is to use of disposable (note the use of disposable not plastic) for RAW meats which is of course a use that our ordinance exempts anyway.
After that the whole thing degenerated into a discussion of Andy Parx’s blog eventually ending with a ruling from the county attorney that anything Andy Parx says is not on the agenda and so any discussion of what Andy Parx says must stop immediately.
One more thing- we just love this argument- made by Rapozo in bullying and badgering activist Ken Taylor- that somehow because we’re not banning all sorts of bad things like Styrofoam and other plastics pollutants we shouldn’t be banning plastic bags.
Rapozo seized on the phrase used by Taylor and others that they “support the bill as it is” and absurdly twisted that into trying to say that meant that people didn’t want to ban anything else like plastic water bottles or Styrofoam.
Finally, veins bulging in his forehead Rapozo prosecutorially shouted at Taylor requring him to “answer yes or no” as to whether the environment was more important that human food safety.
Taylor kept his cool saying that it wasn’t a yes or no question and turning the tables on Rapozo asking why he wasn’t amending the bill to ban all sort of plastics. That shut Rapozo up but the attempt at imtimidation was classic Rapozo- a tactic he’d learned at the feet of the master, former Chair Kaipo Asing.
The public hearing on the bill is March 2 at 1:30 p.m. Don’t miss it. Let Rapozo know you won’t stand for this kind of crap.
And bring a plate lunch- with extra gravy. Maybe even two... just in case the mayor is there.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query plastic bag. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query plastic bag. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, February 11, 2011
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
WRAPPING IT UP
WRAPPING IT UP: It was going swimmingly last December. As we said at the time, Kaua`i was having it's first non-white Christmas in decades after our single-use plastic grocery bag ban had miraculously cleansed the roadsides, trees and oceans of the ugly tinsel that the use of the bags had ubiquitously wrought.
Not only had Maui similarly banned them, but the Big Island was poised to okay a bill (since passed) which, while delaying a complete ban for a couple of years, will make it three out of four counties that have cleaned up their acts.
So it was a pleasant surprise at the time when Honolulu Council Chair Ernie Martin said he would introduce a bill to add O`ahu to the list, making for an effective "county-by-county" state-wide ban.
But when the state legislature opened in January, things fell apart. As we wrote at the time, a bill was introduced at the legislature- loudly backed by the Sierra Club (SC) and their Executive Director/lobbyist, Robert Harris- to institute a fee for all grocery bags, plastic and paper.
The bill would have allowed the bans on Kaua`i, Maui and Hawai`i to stand, but the subtleties of the repercussions of the bill in reopening the issue were apparently lost on Harris and the SC.
As we wrote in February, the state "fee" bill was actually opposed by those on Maui and Kaua`i who had worked hard to pass their bans and feared that the supermarket and plastic bag lobbyists- who had battled hard against the three neighbor island bans- would use the bill to drive a wedge between those whose efforts stood to come to fruition in effectively banning plastic bags statewide and the SC's Harris, along with a couple of other environmental lobbyists on O`ahu. They included the Honolulu chapter of the Surfrider Foundation which supported the SC and Harris despite opposition from the Kaua`i Surfrider group that had worked for the ban here as we reported in February.
Right now the state bill teeters on the brink of death. But because of the discussions over the state bill, the Honolulu City Council's Martin altered his bill from an outright ban to a sort of hybrid requiring a fee at first, then leading up to a total ban (although when--and if--the latter would happen is anybody’s guess at this point).
Because of the legislative confusion and indecision, the lobbyists for the grocery stores are back using one of their arguments against plastic bag bags--that using paper bags is more costly and in the long run worse for the environment than plastic.
In yesterday's Civil Beat Sophie Cocke reported that:
On Kauai and Maui, retailers are paying about $30,000 more every year to cover the costs of increases in paper bag use, according to Melissa Pavlicek, a spokeswoman for Safeway and Times Supermarket stores.
The contention is that this is because people are actually shunning the use of reusable cloth bags and are demanding paper bags since plastic ones are unavailable.
But anyone who shops on Kaua`i and has tried to walk out of a supermarket- especially Safeway- knows this is total bullsh*t.
When we do our shopping our habit is to bring a cooler for chilled goods and, rather than try to remember to bring some cloth bags into the store, we simply put our purchases back in the cart and bring them to the car where we either put them directly in the cloth bags or on the seat to bag if necessary when we get home to carry in the groceries.
But trying to get past the checkout without our purchases winding up in paper bags--even if it's one or two small items that can be carried in our arms--is like trying get the dreaded bottle of water on an airplane: it simply cannot be done.
Never, we repeat never, has anyone shopping at Safeway been asked "Do you need a bag today?" That alone would remind people that they don't really need one, especially on Kaua`i where nobody is walking but rather driving away with their goodies.
We did a little "research" and found out that not only are check-out personnel not told to ask but they are forbidden from asking if people need a bag.
The evolution of our typical visits has gone like this since the ban on plastic bags.
At first as the check-out process began we'd say "no bags please." Then while we were busy swiping our card or fishing out the money they'd invariably place the items in a bag anyway, forcing us to remove the items.
So we decided to say it twice- once when they started the process and another time halfway through. Still all the stuff was in a bag when we looked up.
This went on and on and, no matter our level of vigilance, it was "all in the bag" as it were.
We finally took our "club card" and put a piece of masking tape on the front of it saying "NO BAGS PLEASE" with a red laundry marker. Still the stuff wound up in a paper bag even if it was simply a quart of milk.
It became like some kind misdirection magic trick. No matter how much we tried to pay attention, the had was quicker than the eye and poof- a paper bag invariably appeared surrounding our purchases.
The last time we attempted to pay full attention- almost Clockwork Orange style- we had gotten the attention of the check-out person and repeated "no bags please" three times, kept our eye on the whole process only to look to our right and find that another checkout clerk had sneaked around to the front of the checkout stand and placed all our stuff in paper bags.
Our next step is to bring in a boom box, place the volume at "eleven" and play a loop of 100 people loudly chanting "No Bags Please.... No Bags Please... No Bags Please."
Are these the actions of a store that is concerned about the use of paper bags?
Perhaps making reusable bags for 50 cents a piece like WalMart does would help but then how could Safeway lobby to make plastic available due to the "cost" of paper?
The Sierra Club does lots of good, especially through the lobbying efforts of people like Harris and the executive directors who came before him. But the fact is that sometimes they become so enamored of their own power and blinded by what sounded like a "good idea" at one time that they can’t see the forest for the trees. They become so insular and invested in their own ideas and pet projects--many of them Honolulu-centric--they can't tell they are doing more harm than good.
And because they have the power to speak for the entire environmental community, others wind up with little or no ability to lobby against a position taken by Harris and the SC when they remain blind to the repercussions of their actions.
One apparent reason that Harris has been supporting the state "fee" bill is that some of the money would have gone to a watershed protection fund. But just because it's a "neat scheme" and Harris can more easily wield his power in the legislature than the rest of the environmental community--especially when it comes to opposition from neighbor islanders--that doesn't automatically make his and SC's position a good idea.
On the contrar, it is Harris and the SC that have effectively facilitated the Honolulu Council's altering of their bill to now include a fee that will supposedly lead to a total ban sometime in the indeterminate future. But that will take another revisiting of the issue and leave the door open to more intense lobbying from the supermarket and plastic bag industries.
In this case it was easy to foresee that the industry lobbyists would take advantage of this "fee" business to throw the whole issue back up for discussion. We said it back in January.
Rather than supporting the county-by-county statewide ban, which Harris says is his and SC's eventual goal, they have stuck like glue to this convoluted "fee" system.
Fortunately, the legislative bill seems to be dying the death it deserves despite last ditch efforts from Harris. We know we speak for many when we say that all Harris is doing at this point is threatening to undo all the work we did to pass the bans on Kaua`i, Maui and Hawai`i by opening the door to further corporate lobbying.
If this keeps up it may well get to some of those neighbor island council members who opposed the bans now in place--as well as those that were fence sitting but did vote to ban plastic bag--to revisit the bans in place over here.
Please Bob--you made a mistake, just let it go. Otherwise we may have to spend inordinate amounts of time and energy just to keep the gains we have made. We have our hands full already dealing with Safeway's paper bag policies--we know they'd just love to start wrapping their "gifts" in plastic once again.
Not only had Maui similarly banned them, but the Big Island was poised to okay a bill (since passed) which, while delaying a complete ban for a couple of years, will make it three out of four counties that have cleaned up their acts.
So it was a pleasant surprise at the time when Honolulu Council Chair Ernie Martin said he would introduce a bill to add O`ahu to the list, making for an effective "county-by-county" state-wide ban.
But when the state legislature opened in January, things fell apart. As we wrote at the time, a bill was introduced at the legislature- loudly backed by the Sierra Club (SC) and their Executive Director/lobbyist, Robert Harris- to institute a fee for all grocery bags, plastic and paper.
The bill would have allowed the bans on Kaua`i, Maui and Hawai`i to stand, but the subtleties of the repercussions of the bill in reopening the issue were apparently lost on Harris and the SC.
As we wrote in February, the state "fee" bill was actually opposed by those on Maui and Kaua`i who had worked hard to pass their bans and feared that the supermarket and plastic bag lobbyists- who had battled hard against the three neighbor island bans- would use the bill to drive a wedge between those whose efforts stood to come to fruition in effectively banning plastic bags statewide and the SC's Harris, along with a couple of other environmental lobbyists on O`ahu. They included the Honolulu chapter of the Surfrider Foundation which supported the SC and Harris despite opposition from the Kaua`i Surfrider group that had worked for the ban here as we reported in February.
Right now the state bill teeters on the brink of death. But because of the discussions over the state bill, the Honolulu City Council's Martin altered his bill from an outright ban to a sort of hybrid requiring a fee at first, then leading up to a total ban (although when--and if--the latter would happen is anybody’s guess at this point).
Because of the legislative confusion and indecision, the lobbyists for the grocery stores are back using one of their arguments against plastic bag bags--that using paper bags is more costly and in the long run worse for the environment than plastic.
In yesterday's Civil Beat Sophie Cocke reported that:
On Kauai and Maui, retailers are paying about $30,000 more every year to cover the costs of increases in paper bag use, according to Melissa Pavlicek, a spokeswoman for Safeway and Times Supermarket stores.
The contention is that this is because people are actually shunning the use of reusable cloth bags and are demanding paper bags since plastic ones are unavailable.
But anyone who shops on Kaua`i and has tried to walk out of a supermarket- especially Safeway- knows this is total bullsh*t.
When we do our shopping our habit is to bring a cooler for chilled goods and, rather than try to remember to bring some cloth bags into the store, we simply put our purchases back in the cart and bring them to the car where we either put them directly in the cloth bags or on the seat to bag if necessary when we get home to carry in the groceries.
But trying to get past the checkout without our purchases winding up in paper bags--even if it's one or two small items that can be carried in our arms--is like trying get the dreaded bottle of water on an airplane: it simply cannot be done.
Never, we repeat never, has anyone shopping at Safeway been asked "Do you need a bag today?" That alone would remind people that they don't really need one, especially on Kaua`i where nobody is walking but rather driving away with their goodies.
We did a little "research" and found out that not only are check-out personnel not told to ask but they are forbidden from asking if people need a bag.
The evolution of our typical visits has gone like this since the ban on plastic bags.
At first as the check-out process began we'd say "no bags please." Then while we were busy swiping our card or fishing out the money they'd invariably place the items in a bag anyway, forcing us to remove the items.
So we decided to say it twice- once when they started the process and another time halfway through. Still all the stuff was in a bag when we looked up.
This went on and on and, no matter our level of vigilance, it was "all in the bag" as it were.
We finally took our "club card" and put a piece of masking tape on the front of it saying "NO BAGS PLEASE" with a red laundry marker. Still the stuff wound up in a paper bag even if it was simply a quart of milk.
It became like some kind misdirection magic trick. No matter how much we tried to pay attention, the had was quicker than the eye and poof- a paper bag invariably appeared surrounding our purchases.
The last time we attempted to pay full attention- almost Clockwork Orange style- we had gotten the attention of the check-out person and repeated "no bags please" three times, kept our eye on the whole process only to look to our right and find that another checkout clerk had sneaked around to the front of the checkout stand and placed all our stuff in paper bags.
Our next step is to bring in a boom box, place the volume at "eleven" and play a loop of 100 people loudly chanting "No Bags Please.... No Bags Please... No Bags Please."
Are these the actions of a store that is concerned about the use of paper bags?
Perhaps making reusable bags for 50 cents a piece like WalMart does would help but then how could Safeway lobby to make plastic available due to the "cost" of paper?
The Sierra Club does lots of good, especially through the lobbying efforts of people like Harris and the executive directors who came before him. But the fact is that sometimes they become so enamored of their own power and blinded by what sounded like a "good idea" at one time that they can’t see the forest for the trees. They become so insular and invested in their own ideas and pet projects--many of them Honolulu-centric--they can't tell they are doing more harm than good.
And because they have the power to speak for the entire environmental community, others wind up with little or no ability to lobby against a position taken by Harris and the SC when they remain blind to the repercussions of their actions.
One apparent reason that Harris has been supporting the state "fee" bill is that some of the money would have gone to a watershed protection fund. But just because it's a "neat scheme" and Harris can more easily wield his power in the legislature than the rest of the environmental community--especially when it comes to opposition from neighbor islanders--that doesn't automatically make his and SC's position a good idea.
On the contrar, it is Harris and the SC that have effectively facilitated the Honolulu Council's altering of their bill to now include a fee that will supposedly lead to a total ban sometime in the indeterminate future. But that will take another revisiting of the issue and leave the door open to more intense lobbying from the supermarket and plastic bag industries.
In this case it was easy to foresee that the industry lobbyists would take advantage of this "fee" business to throw the whole issue back up for discussion. We said it back in January.
Rather than supporting the county-by-county statewide ban, which Harris says is his and SC's eventual goal, they have stuck like glue to this convoluted "fee" system.
Fortunately, the legislative bill seems to be dying the death it deserves despite last ditch efforts from Harris. We know we speak for many when we say that all Harris is doing at this point is threatening to undo all the work we did to pass the bans on Kaua`i, Maui and Hawai`i by opening the door to further corporate lobbying.
If this keeps up it may well get to some of those neighbor island council members who opposed the bans now in place--as well as those that were fence sitting but did vote to ban plastic bag--to revisit the bans in place over here.
Please Bob--you made a mistake, just let it go. Otherwise we may have to spend inordinate amounts of time and energy just to keep the gains we have made. We have our hands full already dealing with Safeway's paper bag policies--we know they'd just love to start wrapping their "gifts" in plastic once again.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
WHERE’S DOROTHY LAMOURE WHEN YOU NEED HER
WHERE’S DOROTHY LAMOURE WHEN YOU NEED HER: One thing you’ve got to give the guardians at the gates of county council information: they don’t need Bing and Bob to guide us down the Road to Ignorance.
When it comes to using underhanded and unscrupulous methodologies that are rarely deciphered in time to do anything about it, they take a back seat to none.
But the clues are there for any forensic document reader if you know what to look for and are ready to do a little work to find out what the heck is going on.
So last Thursday when we received and examined the agenda for today’s council meeting this stood out as an executive session (ES) item begging for explanation and exposition.
The meat of it reads:
The Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with the Council to discuss legal issues pertaining to the implementation of Ordinance 885.
Of course no one knows what ordinance 885 is.
When a bill becomes an ordinance it is given a number. But since the Kaua`i County Code essentially remains a secret document- with no on-line version and the only way to see it being to request it by number even though finding out the number is nearly impossible- with the topic, for the uninitiated, remaining meaningless.
They also cleverly post the agenda late on Thursdays, often after official office hours, so with “furlough Fridays” the earliest one can call and find out anything is Mondays, a mere 48 hours before the meeting. That makes notifying others- so as to gather a crowd to testify- a Herculean effort.
But apparently one of those that worked tirelessly to see the bill that became Ordinance 885 pass also actually reads each week’s agenda and wondered, with us, what 885 was all about.
We’ll let Pat Gegan’s letter to the mayor and the council (edited for spelling) speak for itself since we could not say it better.
Subject: Kauai's Bag Bill Under Attack???? HELP!
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:48:52 -0400
Dear Zerowasters, Apollo Kauai Members, County Council Members and Honorable Mayor:
After pulling up the Council agenda last night and a quick call to Council Services this AM for clarification (since Kauai County doesn't want to make it too easy for citizens to get info by putting OUR information on the internet....) I began to get worried.........
I am confused and concerned by tomorrow's Council Agenda, specifically the Executive Session item #2. The item in question is Ordinance #885 which is the Plastic Bag Ban that is scheduled to be in place starting this January when Maui is also doing the same.
Why is an executive session needed to discuss the Plastic Bag Ban??? As I recall the issue was deferred multiple times as the county attorney and the council were trying to find the "correct" language for the definition of what constitutes a "plastic bag". Now - Only 3 months before implementation - the attorney and council want to meet behind closed doors to discuss this issue. What could be the "...powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the council as they relate to this agenda item."? It has been over a year since the bill passed and the ordinance was signed.
What could the issue be??? The ordinance allows no single use plastic bags with petroleum products to be given away in retail establishments . This was meeting the needs of what we wanted, 1) Less rubbish for the landfill that lasts for a long time w/o breaking down, 2) less opala flying around our garden Island and harming our wildlife, 3) No new feed for the floating Pacific plastic patch, and 4) less use of petroleum based products. Section 1 of the Ordinance below states it better than I can:
"The Council of the County of Kauai finds and declares that to preserve health, safety, welfare and the scenic beauty of Kauai, the distribution of plastic bags should be regulated and prohibited."
Seems very clear to me - I would like to believe that when the council and the mayor propose and sign a bill into an ordinance that the legislation has some meaning. Why hasn't Kauai county government taken an active role in the implementation of this legislation like Maui appears to (look at the Maui county website dealing with implementation of their bag ban - http://www.co.maui.hi.us/index.aspx?NID=1688 )?
Going forward:
-I will be at the council meeting tomorrow to address my concerns,
-I humbly would ask for others to let your council members know how you feel about the bag ban as it was signed - if you have time (see email addresses above),
-I personally vow to vote against any council member who tries to change the Ordinance or the implementation date as it stands (and I will actively try to influence others similarly) .
I would appreciate feedback. I am concerned especially since it is in executive session and can only hope my concerns are unfounded.
Humbly,
Pat Gegen
According to a source who spoke to a councilperson, County Attorney Al Castillo has now decided that his own language- which he insisted on during the council sessions on the bill- regarding the "no petroleum content" requirement is now somehow problematic.
Of course it’s too late for you to go down there and insist on a public airing of the issues involved or demand they leave the bill alone- by the time we post this the meeting will be over.
Why it’s almost as if they planned it that way.
---------
For those interested in more information on Waldorf “Wally” Wilson whereabouts and related issues, please read Joan Conrow’s interview today with KPD Chief Darryl Perry.
When it comes to using underhanded and unscrupulous methodologies that are rarely deciphered in time to do anything about it, they take a back seat to none.
But the clues are there for any forensic document reader if you know what to look for and are ready to do a little work to find out what the heck is going on.
So last Thursday when we received and examined the agenda for today’s council meeting this stood out as an executive session (ES) item begging for explanation and exposition.
The meat of it reads:
The Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with the Council to discuss legal issues pertaining to the implementation of Ordinance 885.
Of course no one knows what ordinance 885 is.
When a bill becomes an ordinance it is given a number. But since the Kaua`i County Code essentially remains a secret document- with no on-line version and the only way to see it being to request it by number even though finding out the number is nearly impossible- with the topic, for the uninitiated, remaining meaningless.
They also cleverly post the agenda late on Thursdays, often after official office hours, so with “furlough Fridays” the earliest one can call and find out anything is Mondays, a mere 48 hours before the meeting. That makes notifying others- so as to gather a crowd to testify- a Herculean effort.
But apparently one of those that worked tirelessly to see the bill that became Ordinance 885 pass also actually reads each week’s agenda and wondered, with us, what 885 was all about.
We’ll let Pat Gegan’s letter to the mayor and the council (edited for spelling) speak for itself since we could not say it better.
Subject: Kauai's Bag Bill Under Attack???? HELP!
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:48:52 -0400
Dear Zerowasters, Apollo Kauai Members, County Council Members and Honorable Mayor:
After pulling up the Council agenda last night and a quick call to Council Services this AM for clarification (since Kauai County doesn't want to make it too easy for citizens to get info by putting OUR information on the internet....) I began to get worried.........
I am confused and concerned by tomorrow's Council Agenda, specifically the Executive Session item #2. The item in question is Ordinance #885 which is the Plastic Bag Ban that is scheduled to be in place starting this January when Maui is also doing the same.
Why is an executive session needed to discuss the Plastic Bag Ban??? As I recall the issue was deferred multiple times as the county attorney and the council were trying to find the "correct" language for the definition of what constitutes a "plastic bag". Now - Only 3 months before implementation - the attorney and council want to meet behind closed doors to discuss this issue. What could be the "...powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the council as they relate to this agenda item."? It has been over a year since the bill passed and the ordinance was signed.
What could the issue be??? The ordinance allows no single use plastic bags with petroleum products to be given away in retail establishments . This was meeting the needs of what we wanted, 1) Less rubbish for the landfill that lasts for a long time w/o breaking down, 2) less opala flying around our garden Island and harming our wildlife, 3) No new feed for the floating Pacific plastic patch, and 4) less use of petroleum based products. Section 1 of the Ordinance below states it better than I can:
"The Council of the County of Kauai finds and declares that to preserve health, safety, welfare and the scenic beauty of Kauai, the distribution of plastic bags should be regulated and prohibited."
Seems very clear to me - I would like to believe that when the council and the mayor propose and sign a bill into an ordinance that the legislation has some meaning. Why hasn't Kauai county government taken an active role in the implementation of this legislation like Maui appears to (look at the Maui county website dealing with implementation of their bag ban - http://www.co.maui.hi.us/index.aspx?NID=1688 )?
Going forward:
-I will be at the council meeting tomorrow to address my concerns,
-I humbly would ask for others to let your council members know how you feel about the bag ban as it was signed - if you have time (see email addresses above),
-I personally vow to vote against any council member who tries to change the Ordinance or the implementation date as it stands (and I will actively try to influence others similarly) .
I would appreciate feedback. I am concerned especially since it is in executive session and can only hope my concerns are unfounded.
Humbly,
Pat Gegen
According to a source who spoke to a councilperson, County Attorney Al Castillo has now decided that his own language- which he insisted on during the council sessions on the bill- regarding the "no petroleum content" requirement is now somehow problematic.
Of course it’s too late for you to go down there and insist on a public airing of the issues involved or demand they leave the bill alone- by the time we post this the meeting will be over.
Why it’s almost as if they planned it that way.
---------
For those interested in more information on Waldorf “Wally” Wilson whereabouts and related issues, please read Joan Conrow’s interview today with KPD Chief Darryl Perry.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
SUFFOCATED
SUFFOCATED: One thing we might not have made clear in our three prior posts on apparent efforts to undermine Kaua`i Ordinance 885 restricting the use of plastic grocery bags is that there is a two prong test for acceptable “plastic” bags.
The ordinance allows only "biodegradable bags" which according to the ordinance “means a bag that (1) contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; and (2) is intended for single use and will decompose in a natural setting at a rate comparable to other biodegradable materials such as paper, leaves, and food waste.”
The second is important too because any bags that merchants use must be certified to meet both standards.
As we said Monday researcher Brad Parsons has been diligently doing the job the Department of Public Works should be doing and will present the following testimony today. Keep the two prong test in mind as you read what he found out. See ya on the other side.
--------
Aloha Councilmembers:
Over the past week, since the last Council meeting regarding Ordinance 885, I have spent probably 50 hours researching the plastic bag issue. I may not get a chance to say or write everything I found, but here are a few notes, and I will try to write up everything I found after today and submit it to you.
First, after almost literally scouring the planet, I did NOT definitively find a poly bag for sale on the market that meets both of Ordinance 885's requirements, those being that it have no fossil fuel polymers (equivalent to ASTM D 6866 industry standard) and that it be compostable at a natural rate as with paper, leaves, and food waste (equivalent to ASTM D 6400 industry standard). I also heavily research the two industry standards, NOT national standards referenced in the prior sentence. The compostable standard ASTM D 6400 is what is used only in San Francisco, California state law, and Minnesota state law for poly bags. It is used in those two states only regarding poly bags. There are many bags on the market that meet the compostable standard ASTM D 6400. The limiting industry standard of the two is ASTM D 6866 the renewable content standard. Of the 19 other jurisdictions in the U.S. with some form of a poly bag ban, I did not find one other jurisdiction that specifically mentions a legal standard of allowing poly bags with no fossil fuel content.
What I did find is at least two bioresins out there that are 100% biobased (that is the term under D 6866 for a polymer that has no fossil fuel content) made by 1) The company Braskem out of Brazil made 100% from sugarcane called green polyethylene. Braskem is in a JV with Proctor & Gamble to distribute products from this, and 2) the company NatureWorks LLC out of Minnesota who's Ingeo biopolymer is 100% biobased from corn. NatureWorks did refer me to two bag makers that they supply. Of those two, there is the possibility that one of them, Indaco of Canada makes a bag called "Bag to Nature" (about 11 cents per bag) that MIGHT be compostable AND 100% biobased. Indaco starts with a bioresin from NatureWorks LLC that is 100% biobased, but if they add their own polymers that have fossil fuel content, then even their "Bag to Nature" would not be 100% biobased and not meet Ordinance 885's unique requirements. I did also come across one other interesting poly bag maker in Minnesota, in Northern Technologies Natur-Tec "Natur-Bag". The "Natur-Bag" is compostable but not 100% biobased, but I did have a chance to have a long conversation with a Rick Lombardo of Northern Tech this morning that was very helpful and will pass on his contact information in my full written testimony to you in the next few days. Lastly, I did come across 2 Chinese companies who's claims are not tested, but which may have a bioresin approaching 100% biobased by Wuhan Huali in a corn-based resin, and Tianan Biologic Material Co. in a bioresin apparently derived from bacteria.
In the course of this search I did also make contact with the only Biodegradable Products Institute approved ASTM D 6400 testing lab on the West Coast, Soil Control Lab, and exchanged a number of useful emails with their lab director Mike Galloway and also made contact and exchanged email and phone conversations with the only lab in the U.S., Beta Analytic, based out of Florida and Europe, that does systematic testing for ASTM D 6866. The useful feedback and documentation they have provided to me, I will include in my next writeup on this.
There are a number of other details that I will try to mention in my testimony or include in my follow-up writing.
----
Today’s council meeting should be a real doozie as the DPW will be forced to explain why they spent a few days short of a full year futzing around and coming up with nothing while Brad spent a few days doing their job for them.
But one thing we will probably not find out today is exactly who approached County Attorney Al Castillo to try to go behind closed doors apparently to sabotage the ordinance’s implementation.
Castillo has refused to say who it was but we sure would like to ask if might have been a certain councilmember who has recused himself due to a conflict of interest due to his employment with Big Save Markets,.
A number of readers have suggested and even alleged this is true but none could provide definitive evidence as to whether Mr. Kawakami used his position as a councilperson to influence the county attorney to put a monkey wrench in the works- which might be seen as a use his position to further a private interest in violation of the county’s code of ethics.
We’re certainly not saying we have any knowledge that it was Kawakami who brought the matter to Castillo’s attention but we’d love to have the both of them answer the question as to whether they have discussed implementation of the bill, especially given Kawakami’s recusal on the matter.
The ordinance allows only "biodegradable bags" which according to the ordinance “means a bag that (1) contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; and (2) is intended for single use and will decompose in a natural setting at a rate comparable to other biodegradable materials such as paper, leaves, and food waste.”
The second is important too because any bags that merchants use must be certified to meet both standards.
As we said Monday researcher Brad Parsons has been diligently doing the job the Department of Public Works should be doing and will present the following testimony today. Keep the two prong test in mind as you read what he found out. See ya on the other side.
--------
Aloha Councilmembers:
Over the past week, since the last Council meeting regarding Ordinance 885, I have spent probably 50 hours researching the plastic bag issue. I may not get a chance to say or write everything I found, but here are a few notes, and I will try to write up everything I found after today and submit it to you.
First, after almost literally scouring the planet, I did NOT definitively find a poly bag for sale on the market that meets both of Ordinance 885's requirements, those being that it have no fossil fuel polymers (equivalent to ASTM D 6866 industry standard) and that it be compostable at a natural rate as with paper, leaves, and food waste (equivalent to ASTM D 6400 industry standard). I also heavily research the two industry standards, NOT national standards referenced in the prior sentence. The compostable standard ASTM D 6400 is what is used only in San Francisco, California state law, and Minnesota state law for poly bags. It is used in those two states only regarding poly bags. There are many bags on the market that meet the compostable standard ASTM D 6400. The limiting industry standard of the two is ASTM D 6866 the renewable content standard. Of the 19 other jurisdictions in the U.S. with some form of a poly bag ban, I did not find one other jurisdiction that specifically mentions a legal standard of allowing poly bags with no fossil fuel content.
What I did find is at least two bioresins out there that are 100% biobased (that is the term under D 6866 for a polymer that has no fossil fuel content) made by 1) The company Braskem out of Brazil made 100% from sugarcane called green polyethylene. Braskem is in a JV with Proctor & Gamble to distribute products from this, and 2) the company NatureWorks LLC out of Minnesota who's Ingeo biopolymer is 100% biobased from corn. NatureWorks did refer me to two bag makers that they supply. Of those two, there is the possibility that one of them, Indaco of Canada makes a bag called "Bag to Nature" (about 11 cents per bag) that MIGHT be compostable AND 100% biobased. Indaco starts with a bioresin from NatureWorks LLC that is 100% biobased, but if they add their own polymers that have fossil fuel content, then even their "Bag to Nature" would not be 100% biobased and not meet Ordinance 885's unique requirements. I did also come across one other interesting poly bag maker in Minnesota, in Northern Technologies Natur-Tec "Natur-Bag". The "Natur-Bag" is compostable but not 100% biobased, but I did have a chance to have a long conversation with a Rick Lombardo of Northern Tech this morning that was very helpful and will pass on his contact information in my full written testimony to you in the next few days. Lastly, I did come across 2 Chinese companies who's claims are not tested, but which may have a bioresin approaching 100% biobased by Wuhan Huali in a corn-based resin, and Tianan Biologic Material Co. in a bioresin apparently derived from bacteria.
In the course of this search I did also make contact with the only Biodegradable Products Institute approved ASTM D 6400 testing lab on the West Coast, Soil Control Lab, and exchanged a number of useful emails with their lab director Mike Galloway and also made contact and exchanged email and phone conversations with the only lab in the U.S., Beta Analytic, based out of Florida and Europe, that does systematic testing for ASTM D 6866. The useful feedback and documentation they have provided to me, I will include in my next writeup on this.
There are a number of other details that I will try to mention in my testimony or include in my follow-up writing.
----
Today’s council meeting should be a real doozie as the DPW will be forced to explain why they spent a few days short of a full year futzing around and coming up with nothing while Brad spent a few days doing their job for them.
But one thing we will probably not find out today is exactly who approached County Attorney Al Castillo to try to go behind closed doors apparently to sabotage the ordinance’s implementation.
Castillo has refused to say who it was but we sure would like to ask if might have been a certain councilmember who has recused himself due to a conflict of interest due to his employment with Big Save Markets,.
A number of readers have suggested and even alleged this is true but none could provide definitive evidence as to whether Mr. Kawakami used his position as a councilperson to influence the county attorney to put a monkey wrench in the works- which might be seen as a use his position to further a private interest in violation of the county’s code of ethics.
We’re certainly not saying we have any knowledge that it was Kawakami who brought the matter to Castillo’s attention but we’d love to have the both of them answer the question as to whether they have discussed implementation of the bill, especially given Kawakami’s recusal on the matter.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
UNSUFFOCATINGABLE
UNSUFFOCATINGABLE:Babooze-In-Chief Mel Rapozo's attempt to reverse the so-called "plastic bag ban" has gone down to its inevitable defeat but after sitting through hours- nay months- of yammering it was both refreshing and, at the same time, distressing to have seen those who weren't going to vote for a change in the first place just sit there and say nothing as disinformation flowed like a beer keg at a toga party.
Not once was the fact that we don't really have any "ban" on Kaua`i mentioned in debate.
As we wrote in February when the bill was first introduced
(Rapozo's) bill strikes the definition of a plastic checkout grocery bag that, in Ordinance 885 made for a “de facto” ban by requiring, not just that they are compostable or biodegradable but that they not contain any fossil fuel polymers, since no such bag currently exists. Unlike the outright ban on Maui our bill allows the bags if and when a bag that meets this requirement becomes available.
So the bill simply changes the definition removing the “fossil fuel polymers” part.
And, as we wrote the day before after an nation-wide investigation by our friend Brad Parsons- later confirmed by the Department of Public Works (DPW)- although material exist that would meet the standard no one is making bags out of it.
It was like sitting through one of those horror movies and wanting to scream "look out" as the knife wielding villain sneaks up on the protagonist from behind, as the plastic bag industry lobbyist- who failed to declare that fact in each of his appearances despite council rules requiring that disclosure- told the council that the only problem with the bill was that silly inconsequential "no fossil fuel polymers" provision, which he asked to be removed so his "new science" plastic could be sold.
Of course this had nothing to do with "food safety" as Rapozo claimed was the sole purpose of the bill. As a matter of fact the words "food safety" barely left anyone’s lips after the first couple of times the bill was on the council's agenda.
Also unmentioned was the fact that any allowance for establishments that purveyed hot food would have allowed any supermarket with a deli- which includes almost every one on the island- to again provide plastic bags.
The expected attempt from "the compromiser," rookie Councilperson Nadine Nakamura to amend the bill also reflected facts missing from the week upon week long gab-fest.
Although we're reluctant to accept as fact anything written by Leo Azumbuja in the local newspaper he wrote
Nakamura introduced an amendment Wednesday in an attempt to offer a compromise between an “outright ban on biodegradable bags” and Rapozo’s proposal.
She said her amendment, which tightened the broad definition of “biodegradable bags” in Rapozo’s amendment, would have required ready-to-eat food establishments to use compostable bags that meet specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics D6400.
“Progressive cities like San Francisco and Santa Monica use this standard in defining biodegradable bags,” she said.
The problem is that these bags don't really biodegrade like organic materials but rather break into itsy-bitsy little pieces which still litter the roads, are swallowed by birds and turtles and generally don’t break down into their component chemicals for a bazillion years.
Unbelievably, rather than spend all that time asking those we identified in February as having materials that are made without fossil fuel polymers to produce plastic bags that fulfill our unique ordinance, councilmembers all sat there like bumps on a log and allowed Rapozo to hijack the staff, the viewing public and the public access camera time for a self-aggrandizing appeal to idiocy filling the room and everyone's ears with utter bullsh*t.
And when one did do some "research" she came up with a totally unacceptable change.
Yes Rapozo is a boob. But to allow him to spout his drivel without any corrections for almost three months doesn't speak well of the others who had already decided how they would vote the day the bill hit the table.
Not once was the fact that we don't really have any "ban" on Kaua`i mentioned in debate.
As we wrote in February when the bill was first introduced
(Rapozo's) bill strikes the definition of a plastic checkout grocery bag that, in Ordinance 885 made for a “de facto” ban by requiring, not just that they are compostable or biodegradable but that they not contain any fossil fuel polymers, since no such bag currently exists. Unlike the outright ban on Maui our bill allows the bags if and when a bag that meets this requirement becomes available.
So the bill simply changes the definition removing the “fossil fuel polymers” part.
And, as we wrote the day before after an nation-wide investigation by our friend Brad Parsons- later confirmed by the Department of Public Works (DPW)- although material exist that would meet the standard no one is making bags out of it.
It was like sitting through one of those horror movies and wanting to scream "look out" as the knife wielding villain sneaks up on the protagonist from behind, as the plastic bag industry lobbyist- who failed to declare that fact in each of his appearances despite council rules requiring that disclosure- told the council that the only problem with the bill was that silly inconsequential "no fossil fuel polymers" provision, which he asked to be removed so his "new science" plastic could be sold.
Of course this had nothing to do with "food safety" as Rapozo claimed was the sole purpose of the bill. As a matter of fact the words "food safety" barely left anyone’s lips after the first couple of times the bill was on the council's agenda.
Also unmentioned was the fact that any allowance for establishments that purveyed hot food would have allowed any supermarket with a deli- which includes almost every one on the island- to again provide plastic bags.
The expected attempt from "the compromiser," rookie Councilperson Nadine Nakamura to amend the bill also reflected facts missing from the week upon week long gab-fest.
Although we're reluctant to accept as fact anything written by Leo Azumbuja in the local newspaper he wrote
Nakamura introduced an amendment Wednesday in an attempt to offer a compromise between an “outright ban on biodegradable bags” and Rapozo’s proposal.
She said her amendment, which tightened the broad definition of “biodegradable bags” in Rapozo’s amendment, would have required ready-to-eat food establishments to use compostable bags that meet specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics D6400.
“Progressive cities like San Francisco and Santa Monica use this standard in defining biodegradable bags,” she said.
The problem is that these bags don't really biodegrade like organic materials but rather break into itsy-bitsy little pieces which still litter the roads, are swallowed by birds and turtles and generally don’t break down into their component chemicals for a bazillion years.
Unbelievably, rather than spend all that time asking those we identified in February as having materials that are made without fossil fuel polymers to produce plastic bags that fulfill our unique ordinance, councilmembers all sat there like bumps on a log and allowed Rapozo to hijack the staff, the viewing public and the public access camera time for a self-aggrandizing appeal to idiocy filling the room and everyone's ears with utter bullsh*t.
And when one did do some "research" she came up with a totally unacceptable change.
Yes Rapozo is a boob. But to allow him to spout his drivel without any corrections for almost three months doesn't speak well of the others who had already decided how they would vote the day the bill hit the table.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
ONE WORD BEN: PLASTICS
ONE WORD BEN: PLASTICS: Back before late ’08 when the bottom fell out of the free-for-all, credit-spawned, consumerism bubble it was common to hear people bemoan the gobble, gobble, gobble of your typical over fed, too-much-stuff turkey-American.
But in spite of the hope of many that perhaps the crash presaged a new era of right-sized consumption, we’ve gone right back to our old, traditional, grab-it-while-you-can rituals, like Coneheads demanding the restoration of our right to “consume mass quantities”.
And as if to underline the way that, when challenged to do the very least we can do- and we mean the very least- we act like whiny, weaned infants demanding the restoration of our endless supply of teat.
So it shouldn’t be any surprise that, backed by a wave of sniveling, self-centered assholes, Councilperson Mel Rapozo is trying to make sure the baby has his bottle by reversing the ban on plastic grocery bags that went into effect last month.
And make no mistake about it. This would be a reversal.
According to Joan Conrow’s post yesterday the bill would exempt “Food Service Establishment(s)” and defines them as
any building, vehicle, place, or structure, or any room or division in a building, vehicle, place, or structure where food is prepared, served, or sold for immediate consumption on or in the vicinity of the premises; called for or taken out by customers; or prepared prior to being delivered to another location for consumption. This term includes, but not limited to restaurants; coffee shops; cafeterias; short-order cafes; luncheonettes; taverns; lunchrooms; places which manufacture wholesale or retail sandwiches or salads; institutions, both public and private; food carts; itinerant restaurants; industrial cafeterias; and catering establishments.
That of course means that every supermarket with a “deli” on the island is exempt, as is any place that “prepares food” even if all you do is serve coffee.
This is supposedly about “health issues” and maintaining “sanitary conditions” but it’s anything but.
What kind of slobs are these people that they can’t make sure their takeout doesn’t spill all over the place without rewrapping it in a plastic grocery bag? Don’t forget that those plastic bags that people use to wrap fruits an veges and meats are already exempt.
But that’s not enough for your fat, pre-diabetic ass? You obviously need all that greasy, fat-laden gravy on your nutritionless white rice but are you such freakin’ pigs that you can’t get your slop from the store into your pie hole without spilling it all over your morbidly obese lap?
All that plastic that the deli wraps your food in isn’t enough for ya, eh? You need another bag to put it all in, in anticipation of the fact that you’re in such a rush to cram more garbage down your gullet that can’t get out of the store without spilling it on you $500 designer jeans.
Health? If you cared about health you wouldn’t be eating all that processed pre-prepared crap and go home and cook a real meal.
Sanitation? You mean after you’re careless enough to let your stuff spill out into the bag you’re so intent on getting every last drop into that gaping maw of yours that you’ve gotta lick the bag?
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this bellyaching gripe session that’s been going on since the ban is that it comes from people who claim to be nature lovers and even environmental activists.
If you love your plastic grocery bags so much why don’t you go live in the Texas-sized plastic bag gyre out in the middle of the Pacific? Perhaps you should go on a diet of the shearwaters, dolphins and turtles the bags kill.
If you can’t live without your nasty plastic grocery bags maybe we should make ones big enough to wrap you in when we bury you in the ground... we wouldn’t want to spill you and make a mess on the way to the cemetery.
But in spite of the hope of many that perhaps the crash presaged a new era of right-sized consumption, we’ve gone right back to our old, traditional, grab-it-while-you-can rituals, like Coneheads demanding the restoration of our right to “consume mass quantities”.
And as if to underline the way that, when challenged to do the very least we can do- and we mean the very least- we act like whiny, weaned infants demanding the restoration of our endless supply of teat.
So it shouldn’t be any surprise that, backed by a wave of sniveling, self-centered assholes, Councilperson Mel Rapozo is trying to make sure the baby has his bottle by reversing the ban on plastic grocery bags that went into effect last month.
And make no mistake about it. This would be a reversal.
According to Joan Conrow’s post yesterday the bill would exempt “Food Service Establishment(s)” and defines them as
any building, vehicle, place, or structure, or any room or division in a building, vehicle, place, or structure where food is prepared, served, or sold for immediate consumption on or in the vicinity of the premises; called for or taken out by customers; or prepared prior to being delivered to another location for consumption. This term includes, but not limited to restaurants; coffee shops; cafeterias; short-order cafes; luncheonettes; taverns; lunchrooms; places which manufacture wholesale or retail sandwiches or salads; institutions, both public and private; food carts; itinerant restaurants; industrial cafeterias; and catering establishments.
That of course means that every supermarket with a “deli” on the island is exempt, as is any place that “prepares food” even if all you do is serve coffee.
This is supposedly about “health issues” and maintaining “sanitary conditions” but it’s anything but.
What kind of slobs are these people that they can’t make sure their takeout doesn’t spill all over the place without rewrapping it in a plastic grocery bag? Don’t forget that those plastic bags that people use to wrap fruits an veges and meats are already exempt.
But that’s not enough for your fat, pre-diabetic ass? You obviously need all that greasy, fat-laden gravy on your nutritionless white rice but are you such freakin’ pigs that you can’t get your slop from the store into your pie hole without spilling it all over your morbidly obese lap?
All that plastic that the deli wraps your food in isn’t enough for ya, eh? You need another bag to put it all in, in anticipation of the fact that you’re in such a rush to cram more garbage down your gullet that can’t get out of the store without spilling it on you $500 designer jeans.
Health? If you cared about health you wouldn’t be eating all that processed pre-prepared crap and go home and cook a real meal.
Sanitation? You mean after you’re careless enough to let your stuff spill out into the bag you’re so intent on getting every last drop into that gaping maw of yours that you’ve gotta lick the bag?
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this bellyaching gripe session that’s been going on since the ban is that it comes from people who claim to be nature lovers and even environmental activists.
If you love your plastic grocery bags so much why don’t you go live in the Texas-sized plastic bag gyre out in the middle of the Pacific? Perhaps you should go on a diet of the shearwaters, dolphins and turtles the bags kill.
If you can’t live without your nasty plastic grocery bags maybe we should make ones big enough to wrap you in when we bury you in the ground... we wouldn’t want to spill you and make a mess on the way to the cemetery.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GERMS
GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GERMS: A characteristic trait of the true babooze is the reluctance to let facts get in the way of a good babble.
So now that we’ve dispensed with the preliminaries we can get down the real idiocy behind Babooze-In-Chief Mel Rapozo’s demagoguing of the plastic grocery bag ban.
Because had Rapozo actually tried to find out whether the claims that reusable bags carry pathogens that can cause disease are true he would have found that they were “just baloney.”
At least according to the respected independent publication Consumer Reports’ “Safety Blog,”
Turns out that media hysteria over bad bugs in reusable bags came from a study conducted with funding from- you’ve probably guessed already- the plastic bag industry.
“Which is why” said the article,
“we’re not so swayed by a recent report about reusable grocery bags and their potential to make you sick.
The report came out of the University of Arizona, Tucson and Loma Linda University in California. Smack on page one is this note: “The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the American Chemistry Council for providing funding to support this study.”
The American Chemistry Council is the trade group that advocates on behalf of plastic-bag manufacturers. Now why would the folks who make plastic grocery bags want to cast doubts on the safety of reusable grocery bags? Oh, right.”
After pointing out that the study was based on a grand total of 84 bags the article says that:
The researchers tested for pathogenic bacteria Salmonella and Listeria, but didn’t find any, nor did they find strains of E. coli that could make one sick. They only found bacteria that don’t normally cause disease, but do cause disease in people with weakened immune systems.
Our food-safety experts were underwhelmed as well. “A person eating an average bag of salad greens gets more exposure to these bacteria than if they had licked the insides of the dirtiest bag from this study,” says Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at Consumers Union. “These bacteria can be found lots of places, so no need to go overboard.”
But Hansen notes that there are some reminders to take away from the study. It’s easy to spread bacteria from meat, fish, or poultry to other foods – in your kitchen or in your grocery bags. So we do think it’s wise to carry those items in disposable bags. Reusable bags are fine for most everything else, but it’s a good idea to wash them occasionally.
And of course the current ordinance on Kaua`i specifically exempts the bags used for vegetables and meats anyway.
We’re not suggesting that campaign contributions from places like Safeway Inc., the Kauai Beverage & Ice Cream Co., Ltd or Randall Francisco, the head of the Chamber of Commerce- which was the only entity that strenuously opposed the bill- influenced Rapozo’s decision to reverse the ban... but they couldn’t have hurt.
The fact is that the “amendment,” as currently written, would allow every single supermarket on the island to go back to those white plastic grocery bags when, first the original bill provided for bags for individual items like meats and produce and second, if people use common sense and wash out their reusable bags when they spill stuff in them there’s no health or sanitation issue.
Are we a bunch of baboozes who don’t have the smarts to know how to keep our food safe?
Well, apparently it takes one to know one.
So now that we’ve dispensed with the preliminaries we can get down the real idiocy behind Babooze-In-Chief Mel Rapozo’s demagoguing of the plastic grocery bag ban.
Because had Rapozo actually tried to find out whether the claims that reusable bags carry pathogens that can cause disease are true he would have found that they were “just baloney.”
At least according to the respected independent publication Consumer Reports’ “Safety Blog,”
Turns out that media hysteria over bad bugs in reusable bags came from a study conducted with funding from- you’ve probably guessed already- the plastic bag industry.
“Which is why” said the article,
“we’re not so swayed by a recent report about reusable grocery bags and their potential to make you sick.
The report came out of the University of Arizona, Tucson and Loma Linda University in California. Smack on page one is this note: “The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the American Chemistry Council for providing funding to support this study.”
The American Chemistry Council is the trade group that advocates on behalf of plastic-bag manufacturers. Now why would the folks who make plastic grocery bags want to cast doubts on the safety of reusable grocery bags? Oh, right.”
After pointing out that the study was based on a grand total of 84 bags the article says that:
The researchers tested for pathogenic bacteria Salmonella and Listeria, but didn’t find any, nor did they find strains of E. coli that could make one sick. They only found bacteria that don’t normally cause disease, but do cause disease in people with weakened immune systems.
Our food-safety experts were underwhelmed as well. “A person eating an average bag of salad greens gets more exposure to these bacteria than if they had licked the insides of the dirtiest bag from this study,” says Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at Consumers Union. “These bacteria can be found lots of places, so no need to go overboard.”
But Hansen notes that there are some reminders to take away from the study. It’s easy to spread bacteria from meat, fish, or poultry to other foods – in your kitchen or in your grocery bags. So we do think it’s wise to carry those items in disposable bags. Reusable bags are fine for most everything else, but it’s a good idea to wash them occasionally.
And of course the current ordinance on Kaua`i specifically exempts the bags used for vegetables and meats anyway.
We’re not suggesting that campaign contributions from places like Safeway Inc., the Kauai Beverage & Ice Cream Co., Ltd or Randall Francisco, the head of the Chamber of Commerce- which was the only entity that strenuously opposed the bill- influenced Rapozo’s decision to reverse the ban... but they couldn’t have hurt.
The fact is that the “amendment,” as currently written, would allow every single supermarket on the island to go back to those white plastic grocery bags when, first the original bill provided for bags for individual items like meats and produce and second, if people use common sense and wash out their reusable bags when they spill stuff in them there’s no health or sanitation issue.
Are we a bunch of baboozes who don’t have the smarts to know how to keep our food safe?
Well, apparently it takes one to know one.
Friday, February 13, 2015
DO YOU SMELL THAT?
Despite the seriousness of the subject of Thursday's State Senate hearing on establishing buffer zones for the use of Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP), the almost comic routine by international chemical cartel mouthpieces and second banana Scott Enright, the head of the Department of Agriculture, had many guffawing at the benign "nothing to see here- go back to your pesticide-laden homes" portrayal of some of the most toxic substances on the face of the earth.
It was reminiscent of the classic Dan Aykroyd "Bag o' Glass" Saturday Night Live sketch from the 70's where Aykroyd plays Erwin Mainway, President of Mainway Toys.
Using many of the same ploys that poison-purveyors like Syngenta, Dow and of course Monsanto use to get convince us we're just a bunch of hysterical nut cases, Aykroyd does his con-man best to try to convince "Consumer Probe" host Candice Bergen that what she calls his "so-called harmless playthings"- playthings like Pretty Peggy Ear Piercing Set, Mr. Skin Grafter, General Tron's Secret Police Confession Kit Doggie Dentist and Teddy Bear Chainsaw- are nothing to worry about.
And of the Bag of Glass- a big plastic bag full of, yes, shards of broken glass- Mainway scoffs at the dangers like Enright et. al. defending the use of deadly chemicals adjacent to schools, hospitals, homes in towns like Waimea on Kaua`i.
Ask yourself if this type of folderol sound familiar? As Aykroyd tells Curtain:
"Yeah, well, look - you know, the average kid, he picks up, you know, broken glass anywhere, you know? The beach, the street, garbage cans, parking lots, all over the place in any big city. We're just packaging what the kids want! I mean, it's a creative toy, you know? If you hold this up, you know, you see colors, every color of the rainbow! I mean, it teaches him about light refraction, you know? Prisms, and that stuff! You know what I mean?"
Yeah- it's all just science- whaddaya some kinda Luddite?
"Look, we put a label on every bag that says, 'Kid! Be careful - broken glass!' I mean, we sell a lot of products in the "Bag O'" line.. like Bag O' Glass, Bag O' Nails, Bag O' Bugs, Bag O' Vipers, Bag O' Sulfuric Acid. They're decent toys, you know what I mean?"
Just like RUPs- it's all right there on the label. Everything is safe as long as it's on the label.
There's also action figure Johnny Switchblade Adventure Punk which Aykroyd dismisses by saying "So Barbie takes a knife or Ken gets cut every once in a while. I mean there's no harm in it as far as I can see," later demonstrating the dangers choking on a runaway Nerf Ball.
Finally when Bergen presents him with Alphabet Blocks as an example of a safe toy Aykroyd screams "C'mon, this is harmless? Alright, okay, you call this harmless? [holds block in hand] I mean.. [plays with block and fakes injury] Aagghh!! I got a splinter in here, look at that! This is wood! This is unsanded wood, it's rough!"
Kind of reminds one of industry PR flacks who, with a straight face, try to convince legislators that the REAL problem isn't the literally tons of RUPs blowing all over town but rather the home gardener who uses a few tablespoons of non-RUP Round-up a couple of times a year.
Just like kids want those toys we're told people want pesticides- even in the DNA of their corn, soy beans and glow-in-the-dark goldfish. And hey- what's a few perfectly innocuous pesticides among play-friends?
Just like Mr. Mainway dismisses the dangers of his products, what does it matter if people's homes are coated with neuro-toxins or if they get a giant whiff of them when the winds suddenly pick up. As long as we don't have brown spots on our papayas who cares what happens to a few brown people. We're too busy feeding the world to worry about that.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
ONE OF THESE DAYS...
ONE OF THESE DAYS...: The motto of the true babooze is “don’t confuse me with the facts.”
For our purposes it doesn’t really matter whether he’s merely too lazy to look at Ordinance 885 and read the record or hell bent on misrepresenting his effort to gut the plastic bag ban.
Either way Councilmember Mel Rapozo’s efforts are an affront to rationality.
After yesterday’s first reading the bill now heads to a public hearing where Rapozo’s “amendment”- which doesn’t seem to be posted at the county’s web site- will no doubt be further ridiculed.
And sensing he’s fighting a losing battle, it’s apparent that Rapozo is going to try to use lies and obfuscation to essentially end the ban.
In a comment on the article in the newspaper Rapozo wrote:
This article failed to mention the most important component of the amendment. Food service establishments will be required to use biodegradable/compostable plastic bags. These bags will help to protect the environment while addressing the issue of food safety.
Bullsh*t Mel.
First of all, if he had bothered to read the ordinance and the record he’d have found out that we don’t really ban plastic bags. But we have a stricter standard than simply “biodegradable” which is a nebulous terms that has allowed bags that are not really “biodegradable” to be used in other jurisdictions where bans on non-biodegradable bags are in effect.
Our ordinance requires two things of any plastic grocery bags. As we wrote last October as part of our extensive coverage of the development and passage of the ordinance:
The ordinance allows only "biodegradable bags" which according to the ordinance “means a bag that (1) contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; (emphasis added) and (2) is intended for single use and will decompose in a natural setting at a rate comparable to other biodegradable materials such as paper, leaves, and food waste.”
And, as we detailed, that type of bag is not yet being produced anywhere in the world, according to both researcher Brad Parsons- who spent a week on the phone ascertaining this fact and also the Department of Public Works (DPW) which therefore currently has zero acceptable bags on their “list.”
This leaves a “de facto” ban unless and until someone begins selling non-fossil-fuel-containing bags- which is possible since, as Parsons found, there are materials out there that could serve the purpose only no one is currently manufacturing them into bags.
So either one of two things are true.
Either the amendment doesn’t do anything at all and keeps the current definition of ‘biodegradable bag” and, in essence continues the effective ban or, more than likely (as we said the bill isn’t posted anywhere) it changes the definition of biodegradable to mean those bags that actually aren’t.
What passes for biodegradable bags these days are bags made with fossil fuels that simply break up into little pieces. They still don’t truly “biodegrade” for thousands of years. The only difference is that they are broken into tiny specks of plastic which many say is even worse for sea life which is now more likely to wind up with a clump in their belly with bite-size pieces floating around.
So either Rapozo is actually trying to change the definition, which would effectively lift the “ban,” or he’s not changing anything and the ban will continue- the latter of which is unlikely.
We'll have more after viewing the meeting but either way this whole thing is a waste of time and energy and the product of a regressive mind where Rapozo thinks he is not just entitled to his own opinion but his own facts.
For our purposes it doesn’t really matter whether he’s merely too lazy to look at Ordinance 885 and read the record or hell bent on misrepresenting his effort to gut the plastic bag ban.
Either way Councilmember Mel Rapozo’s efforts are an affront to rationality.
After yesterday’s first reading the bill now heads to a public hearing where Rapozo’s “amendment”- which doesn’t seem to be posted at the county’s web site- will no doubt be further ridiculed.
And sensing he’s fighting a losing battle, it’s apparent that Rapozo is going to try to use lies and obfuscation to essentially end the ban.
In a comment on the article in the newspaper Rapozo wrote:
This article failed to mention the most important component of the amendment. Food service establishments will be required to use biodegradable/compostable plastic bags. These bags will help to protect the environment while addressing the issue of food safety.
Bullsh*t Mel.
First of all, if he had bothered to read the ordinance and the record he’d have found out that we don’t really ban plastic bags. But we have a stricter standard than simply “biodegradable” which is a nebulous terms that has allowed bags that are not really “biodegradable” to be used in other jurisdictions where bans on non-biodegradable bags are in effect.
Our ordinance requires two things of any plastic grocery bags. As we wrote last October as part of our extensive coverage of the development and passage of the ordinance:
The ordinance allows only "biodegradable bags" which according to the ordinance “means a bag that (1) contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; (emphasis added) and (2) is intended for single use and will decompose in a natural setting at a rate comparable to other biodegradable materials such as paper, leaves, and food waste.”
And, as we detailed, that type of bag is not yet being produced anywhere in the world, according to both researcher Brad Parsons- who spent a week on the phone ascertaining this fact and also the Department of Public Works (DPW) which therefore currently has zero acceptable bags on their “list.”
This leaves a “de facto” ban unless and until someone begins selling non-fossil-fuel-containing bags- which is possible since, as Parsons found, there are materials out there that could serve the purpose only no one is currently manufacturing them into bags.
So either one of two things are true.
Either the amendment doesn’t do anything at all and keeps the current definition of ‘biodegradable bag” and, in essence continues the effective ban or, more than likely (as we said the bill isn’t posted anywhere) it changes the definition of biodegradable to mean those bags that actually aren’t.
What passes for biodegradable bags these days are bags made with fossil fuels that simply break up into little pieces. They still don’t truly “biodegrade” for thousands of years. The only difference is that they are broken into tiny specks of plastic which many say is even worse for sea life which is now more likely to wind up with a clump in their belly with bite-size pieces floating around.
So either Rapozo is actually trying to change the definition, which would effectively lift the “ban,” or he’s not changing anything and the ban will continue- the latter of which is unlikely.
We'll have more after viewing the meeting but either way this whole thing is a waste of time and energy and the product of a regressive mind where Rapozo thinks he is not just entitled to his own opinion but his own facts.
Friday, October 1, 2010
SNIPE HUNT
SNIPE HUNT: When it comes to playing the middle ground in the old “corruption vs. incompetence” game, the Kaua`i Department of Public Works (DPW) has had years of practical experience in befuddling the naturally befuddled county council.
If we had a dollar every time we had to ask of the county engineer and his underlings “are you crooked or just stupid” we’d be able to afford a new computer to replace the 2001 dinosaur on which we do our daily hunt and peck.
So it comes as no surprise that request for the scheduled executive session (ES) on the plastic bag ban ordinance that we wrote about Wednesday was a result of the usual inability of the DPW to do their job.
Although County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo was his usual cryptic self Wednesday in requesting an ES to tell the council about some sort of imagined liability contained in the current ordinance, the council, amazingly enough- refused to go behind closed doors to discuss what most called pubic policy.
But through questioning the reason Castillo was there in the first place became obvious- despite having a year and a half to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules to flesh out the details of the ban, the DPW hadn’t even begun the process and were now arguing about what the “intent” of the bill was instead of just reading and implementing it.
Actually, as member of the public pointed out, the intent of the ordinance was actually written into the bill which say it’s designed to move people to use cloth bags.
The council ended up “requesting the presence” of a DPW representative at next week’s pubic works committee meeting to explain why they haven’t begun the process that usually takes a few months, considering that the ordinance takes effect next January.
Part of the problem comes from the fact that rather than banning plastic bags entirely the ordinance was designed allow “biodegradable” plastic bags specifically banning ones that contain “polymers derived from fossil fuels”.
But, in fact, as it stands today nobody makes plastic bags that don’t contain fossil fuel polymers. And there is no standard as to what a “biodegradable plastic bag” is anyway which is why the council came up with their own definition of what they were banning.
We suspect that Castillo’s “liability” problem is that while the bill allows the use of certain plastic bags it makes it impossible to obtain bags that meet the standard.
It would be like allowing the use of cell phones while driving but only if they were made on the moon. Although someday there may be some moon-manufactured cell phone it ain’t gonna happen an time soon.
We also suspect that this was precisely why the supermarkets and the Chamber of Commerce lobbied so hard- and successfully- to allow for “biodegradable plastic”, knowing that there was no such thing and that they could come back close to the deadline and threaten a lawsuit with a CA that’s always doing everything he can to influence pubic policy when someone comes up with some cockamamie legal argument.
But, as we said, the fault really lies with the DPW which has shunned promulgating “ad rules” for years... sometimes decades.
We’re still waiting for the regulations for the infamous grubbing and grading (G&G) rules to flesh out the way they handle violations of the ordinance that was passed following the extensive “Developers Gone Wild” hearings in the late 90’s and early ’00’s.
At the time it became apparent to an astonished council that there was no official process for enforcing G&G violations and decisions were being made arbitrarily and capriciously... or not at all.
One of the problems in that was that DPW officials claimed they were unable to check out complaints of violations of the ordinance that was in place at the time. That conveniently allowed them to ignore violations at the instructions of then Mayor Maryann Kusaka who has been extensively alleged to have instructed the DPW to ignore violations by the likes of “friends of Maryanne” Jimmy Pflueger and Tom McCloskey.
Of course that led to the Ka Loko dam break and the county’s multi-million dollar settlement apparently for ignoring violations that led to it.
But guess what? Although the council included many things in the G&G bill itself that would normally be done through administrative rules they couldn’t really be expected to do it all,
They got guarantees from DPW that the rules would be done in six months from passage. And the last time we checked there still aren’t any.
The DPW was actually scheduled for a management audit more than once. In fact prior to that there was an aborted attempt at a charter section 3.17 council official investigation of the massive department.
Those half-hearted efforts- done only in response to public political pressure- eventually led to the establishment of the new Office of the County Auditor where, many hoped, the first order of business would be to look into the incompetence (or is it corruption?) of the DPW.
But as yet, it doesn’t even seem to appear on the radar screen of former Deputy County clerk and now Auditor, Ernie Passion.
The problem seems to come down to this attitude on the council that once they pass a new law they not only expect but are confident that the administration will, actually enforce it.
The fact that that is rarely the case has gotta make you ask whether the council too is corrupt or just incompetent in their administrative oversight role.
Either way it’s the public that has to suffer through it.
If we had a dollar every time we had to ask of the county engineer and his underlings “are you crooked or just stupid” we’d be able to afford a new computer to replace the 2001 dinosaur on which we do our daily hunt and peck.
So it comes as no surprise that request for the scheduled executive session (ES) on the plastic bag ban ordinance that we wrote about Wednesday was a result of the usual inability of the DPW to do their job.
Although County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo was his usual cryptic self Wednesday in requesting an ES to tell the council about some sort of imagined liability contained in the current ordinance, the council, amazingly enough- refused to go behind closed doors to discuss what most called pubic policy.
But through questioning the reason Castillo was there in the first place became obvious- despite having a year and a half to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules to flesh out the details of the ban, the DPW hadn’t even begun the process and were now arguing about what the “intent” of the bill was instead of just reading and implementing it.
Actually, as member of the public pointed out, the intent of the ordinance was actually written into the bill which say it’s designed to move people to use cloth bags.
The council ended up “requesting the presence” of a DPW representative at next week’s pubic works committee meeting to explain why they haven’t begun the process that usually takes a few months, considering that the ordinance takes effect next January.
Part of the problem comes from the fact that rather than banning plastic bags entirely the ordinance was designed allow “biodegradable” plastic bags specifically banning ones that contain “polymers derived from fossil fuels”.
But, in fact, as it stands today nobody makes plastic bags that don’t contain fossil fuel polymers. And there is no standard as to what a “biodegradable plastic bag” is anyway which is why the council came up with their own definition of what they were banning.
We suspect that Castillo’s “liability” problem is that while the bill allows the use of certain plastic bags it makes it impossible to obtain bags that meet the standard.
It would be like allowing the use of cell phones while driving but only if they were made on the moon. Although someday there may be some moon-manufactured cell phone it ain’t gonna happen an time soon.
We also suspect that this was precisely why the supermarkets and the Chamber of Commerce lobbied so hard- and successfully- to allow for “biodegradable plastic”, knowing that there was no such thing and that they could come back close to the deadline and threaten a lawsuit with a CA that’s always doing everything he can to influence pubic policy when someone comes up with some cockamamie legal argument.
But, as we said, the fault really lies with the DPW which has shunned promulgating “ad rules” for years... sometimes decades.
We’re still waiting for the regulations for the infamous grubbing and grading (G&G) rules to flesh out the way they handle violations of the ordinance that was passed following the extensive “Developers Gone Wild” hearings in the late 90’s and early ’00’s.
At the time it became apparent to an astonished council that there was no official process for enforcing G&G violations and decisions were being made arbitrarily and capriciously... or not at all.
One of the problems in that was that DPW officials claimed they were unable to check out complaints of violations of the ordinance that was in place at the time. That conveniently allowed them to ignore violations at the instructions of then Mayor Maryann Kusaka who has been extensively alleged to have instructed the DPW to ignore violations by the likes of “friends of Maryanne” Jimmy Pflueger and Tom McCloskey.
Of course that led to the Ka Loko dam break and the county’s multi-million dollar settlement apparently for ignoring violations that led to it.
But guess what? Although the council included many things in the G&G bill itself that would normally be done through administrative rules they couldn’t really be expected to do it all,
They got guarantees from DPW that the rules would be done in six months from passage. And the last time we checked there still aren’t any.
The DPW was actually scheduled for a management audit more than once. In fact prior to that there was an aborted attempt at a charter section 3.17 council official investigation of the massive department.
Those half-hearted efforts- done only in response to public political pressure- eventually led to the establishment of the new Office of the County Auditor where, many hoped, the first order of business would be to look into the incompetence (or is it corruption?) of the DPW.
But as yet, it doesn’t even seem to appear on the radar screen of former Deputy County clerk and now Auditor, Ernie Passion.
The problem seems to come down to this attitude on the council that once they pass a new law they not only expect but are confident that the administration will, actually enforce it.
The fact that that is rarely the case has gotta make you ask whether the council too is corrupt or just incompetent in their administrative oversight role.
Either way it’s the public that has to suffer through it.
Monday, October 4, 2010
PANTS ON FIRE
PANTS ON FIRE: In the wake of County Attorney Al Castillo’s performance in requesting the council go into executive session to discuss the ordinance banning plastic bags last Wednesday things have became curiouser and curiouser over the weekend.
As we noted last week on Wednesday and Friday Castillo told the council that, despite the fact that the ordinance had been passed about a year ago, the Department of Public Works (DPW) had not even begun to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules (ad rules) because they- and he- were confused about the “intent” of the ordinance.
He also told them apparently after doing their due diligence the DPW found there were no bags in existence that fit the requirements that “no fossil fuel polymers” be used in manufacturing them.
But late Friday, an email showed up in the inbox of one of those most active in the passage of the bill with a brand new informational county web page containing a draft of those very rules which were supposedly nonexistent.
Brad Parson, who worked diligently with others to pass the bill last year, said he had run into Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s assistant Beth Tokioka after the council meeting and asked about the rules and apparently, in response, she sent him a link to the brand new country web page containing a copy of the ordinance, the ad rules and the public hearing notice for the bill.
The rules were either done in one night by Menehunes or more likely existed despite Castillo’s assurance they didn’t exist.
The rules do contain a “list” of acceptable plastic bags under which is printed the word “none”. They also have a section describing a process for submission by merchants of bags for testing to see if they comply.
But the contention that there are no bags being made today that do not contain fossil fuel polymers and in fact that they had checked, seemed a little too pat an answer for Parsons who got busy over the weekend to see if it was true.
It didn’t take him long to find at least one called the “Naturtech Nature Bag” from Northern Technologies Industrial Corp (NTIC) out of Minnesota that thus far appears meets the standard in addition to others that may.
Parsons, a meticulous researcher, is still on the case today to verify the claims made by NTIC as well as others.
But one thing was becoming apparent to Parsons as he did his inquiry- that no one else had asked questions of these manufacturers that he found on-line.
As anyone who has done any research knows- especially in the on-line age- when you start nosing around you will find the fingerprints of anyone who did the same research before you. But Parsons says that so far he seems to be asking questions of the various manufacturers that haven’t been asked before, possibly due to the unique nature of the Kaua`i ordinance.
Another problem with the administration’s whole approach to the implementation is that the notice of public hearing for the rules is being held the very day Ordinance 885 goes into effect, January 11, 2011. That apparently “builds in” a delay in implementation between when the old bags become illegal and when stores can know what bags to use, if any- or even worse, submit one for testing and wait until the results come back- and then order and receive them.
And, in typical “fire ready aim” county manner, they have scheduled a series of three “public information meetings” on October 25 and November 4 and 8, however they are all being held from 10:00 am to 11:00 am for some reason.
The answer to the question as to what “information” is to be disseminated if the rules have yet to be finalized through a public hearing isn’t apparent... unless of course the public hearing is actually superfluous and it doesn’t really matter to them what the public says.
The whole thing is up for discussion this Wednesday at the meeting of the council’s Public Works and Energy Committee where Chair Tim Bynum is “requesting the Administration's presence to discuss Ordinance No. 885, relating to Plastic Bag Reduction.”
In addition there is another request on the agenda from Castillo to go behind closed doors to discuss some kind of “liability” with the council.
Whatever the outcome, one extremely troublesome issue with Castillo’s approach is in his contention that without knowing the council’s “intent” it is impossible to know what to put into the ad rules.
This isn’t the first time that Kaua`i CAs have decided that they need to “interpret” ordinances rather than relying on the plain reading of the law. The same has happened in the Board of Ethics brouhaha over the plain reading of the charter and how it conflicts with the rules of the BOE because someone decided to “interpret” the plain meaning of the charter... interpreting the plain reading out of existence, as it were.
The ordinance is plain- if a bag that meets the criteria exists, it is permissible, If not it isn’t and people must use paper or preferable reusable canvas bags, as is stated in the “purpose” section of the bill that became Ordinance 885.
The reality is that there are only 18 jurisdictions that have any plastic bag bills and the one on Kaua`i is unique in allowing only those that contain no petroleum products. In doing so we are leading the way in providing the industry with the impetus to manufacture them so that other jurisdictions will be able follow in our steps.
But apparently there are bags that meet out standards if the DPW gets off their butts and looks for them.
As we noted last week on Wednesday and Friday Castillo told the council that, despite the fact that the ordinance had been passed about a year ago, the Department of Public Works (DPW) had not even begun to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules (ad rules) because they- and he- were confused about the “intent” of the ordinance.
He also told them apparently after doing their due diligence the DPW found there were no bags in existence that fit the requirements that “no fossil fuel polymers” be used in manufacturing them.
But late Friday, an email showed up in the inbox of one of those most active in the passage of the bill with a brand new informational county web page containing a draft of those very rules which were supposedly nonexistent.
Brad Parson, who worked diligently with others to pass the bill last year, said he had run into Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s assistant Beth Tokioka after the council meeting and asked about the rules and apparently, in response, she sent him a link to the brand new country web page containing a copy of the ordinance, the ad rules and the public hearing notice for the bill.
The rules were either done in one night by Menehunes or more likely existed despite Castillo’s assurance they didn’t exist.
The rules do contain a “list” of acceptable plastic bags under which is printed the word “none”. They also have a section describing a process for submission by merchants of bags for testing to see if they comply.
But the contention that there are no bags being made today that do not contain fossil fuel polymers and in fact that they had checked, seemed a little too pat an answer for Parsons who got busy over the weekend to see if it was true.
It didn’t take him long to find at least one called the “Naturtech Nature Bag” from Northern Technologies Industrial Corp (NTIC) out of Minnesota that thus far appears meets the standard in addition to others that may.
Parsons, a meticulous researcher, is still on the case today to verify the claims made by NTIC as well as others.
But one thing was becoming apparent to Parsons as he did his inquiry- that no one else had asked questions of these manufacturers that he found on-line.
As anyone who has done any research knows- especially in the on-line age- when you start nosing around you will find the fingerprints of anyone who did the same research before you. But Parsons says that so far he seems to be asking questions of the various manufacturers that haven’t been asked before, possibly due to the unique nature of the Kaua`i ordinance.
Another problem with the administration’s whole approach to the implementation is that the notice of public hearing for the rules is being held the very day Ordinance 885 goes into effect, January 11, 2011. That apparently “builds in” a delay in implementation between when the old bags become illegal and when stores can know what bags to use, if any- or even worse, submit one for testing and wait until the results come back- and then order and receive them.
And, in typical “fire ready aim” county manner, they have scheduled a series of three “public information meetings” on October 25 and November 4 and 8, however they are all being held from 10:00 am to 11:00 am for some reason.
The answer to the question as to what “information” is to be disseminated if the rules have yet to be finalized through a public hearing isn’t apparent... unless of course the public hearing is actually superfluous and it doesn’t really matter to them what the public says.
The whole thing is up for discussion this Wednesday at the meeting of the council’s Public Works and Energy Committee where Chair Tim Bynum is “requesting the Administration's presence to discuss Ordinance No. 885, relating to Plastic Bag Reduction.”
In addition there is another request on the agenda from Castillo to go behind closed doors to discuss some kind of “liability” with the council.
Whatever the outcome, one extremely troublesome issue with Castillo’s approach is in his contention that without knowing the council’s “intent” it is impossible to know what to put into the ad rules.
This isn’t the first time that Kaua`i CAs have decided that they need to “interpret” ordinances rather than relying on the plain reading of the law. The same has happened in the Board of Ethics brouhaha over the plain reading of the charter and how it conflicts with the rules of the BOE because someone decided to “interpret” the plain meaning of the charter... interpreting the plain reading out of existence, as it were.
The ordinance is plain- if a bag that meets the criteria exists, it is permissible, If not it isn’t and people must use paper or preferable reusable canvas bags, as is stated in the “purpose” section of the bill that became Ordinance 885.
The reality is that there are only 18 jurisdictions that have any plastic bag bills and the one on Kaua`i is unique in allowing only those that contain no petroleum products. In doing so we are leading the way in providing the industry with the impetus to manufacture them so that other jurisdictions will be able follow in our steps.
But apparently there are bags that meet out standards if the DPW gets off their butts and looks for them.
Monday, October 11, 2010
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTIONS
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTIONS: We fully expected the brief, clueless presentation by the Department of Public Works (DPW) at last Wednesday’s council Public Works and Energy Committee meeting on the plastic bag ban ordinance 885 which we predicted over the past two weeks.
But the council’s equally befuddled response to both the lack of due diligence by the DPW and the incompetence of County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo in maintaining his quest to hold the legally required public hearing on the administrative rules after the ban takes effect, was both predictable and incomprehensibly blind to irregularities and outright chicanery.
The always incompetent DPW Solid Waste Division Director Troy Tanegawa’s “Power Point” presentation contained exactly one sentence in claiming that in fact there were no bags that meet the standards for use but offered no evidence that he had even checked with anyone, nor did he present any report on the subject.
The fact is that according to researcher Brad Parsons- who as we said last week spent a few days looking into the subject- although no one is presently making bags that are both “compostable” and “contain no fossil fuel polymers” there are companies that make material that could be used to manufacture them if there was a demand for them.
That of course means that if Tanigawa and his division had bothered to look into it as the official government representative of a jurisdiction that wanted bags to fit our unique ordinance - and do so when the ordinance was passed last October- they might have them available by now.
But we would have been shocked to actually find him doing his job at this point in time- he hasn’t shown any ability or initiative in the past 15 years so why would he start now?
And the fact that the council just sat there and bought his brief claim to have looked and found nothing isn’t much of a surprise either- why would they start actually doing their oversight job now?
But the real outrage was this absurdity- courtesy of CA Castillo- of holding the official public hearing on January 11, 2011 the date the ban goes into effect- and, even worse, the way the council went along with it.
Castillo first went into his “say no more-I can say no more” routine regarding the reason claiming it had something to do with a provision in the Hawai`i Revised Statues Chapter 91 which governs administrative (ad) rules, apparently trying to say that he couldn’t have the hearing until the law want into effect but not citing any provision.... perhaps because there isn’t one.
This of course despite the fact that the Maui plastic bag ban law’s ad rules have already gone through their public hearing in August for an ordinance with an effective date of, not so coincidentally, January 11, 2011.
But the real debacle was the fact that the “informational meetings” that the county has announced they will hold on Oct 25 and Nov. 5th & 8th from 10-11 a.m. are apparently being offered in lieu of the legally required official public hearings.
And of course no one on the council had any problem with that.
So why should you?
Maybe its because there’s nothing required of “informational meetings”- where Tanigawa assured the council they would “take testimony”- while there are 1767 words in §91-3 alone regarding “Procedure for adoption, amendment, or repeal of rules”.
Whereas nothing has to occur at an “informational meeting”- and no information obtained must be considered- under an official Chapter 91 public hearing on ad rules.
(2) Afford all interested persons opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing. The agency shall fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule. The agency may make its decision at the public hearing or announce then the date when it intends to make its decision. Upon adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule, the agency, if requested to do so by an interested person, shall issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against its determination.(emphasis added).
Not only that but while the county can just plop a “notice” of an unofficial informational meeting on their web site in order to give the notice for a public hearing the agency promulgating the rules must
(1) Give at least thirty days' notice for a public hearing. The notice shall include:
(A) A statement of the topic of the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal or a general description of the subjects involved; and
(B) A statement that a copy of the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed will be mailed to any interested person who requests a copy, pays the required fees for the copy and the postage, if any, together with a description of where and how the requests may be made;
(C) A statement of when, where, and during what times the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed may be reviewed in person; and
(D The date, time, and place where the public hearing will be held and where interested persons may be heard on the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal.
But here’s the kicker:
The notice shall be mailed to all persons who have made a timely written request of the agency for advance notice of its rulemaking proceedings, given at least once statewide for state agencies and in the county for county agencies. Proposed state agency rules shall also be posted on the Internet as provided in section 91-2.6
The whole purpose of this process is to allow the greatest public input and scrutiny possible to these “rules” which, after all, have the effect of law. What’s supposed to happen is that since they are required to “fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule”- and of course demonstrate that they have- once that input is given, if it is substantive they are supposed to go back and rewrite the rules.
If that happens, according to the case note 50 H. 156, 434 P.2d 516 on §91-3:
Changes may be made in a rule between the original proposed and presented at a public hearing and as finally adopted. Substantial change in a rule after a public hearing may require another public hearing.
But leave it to a befuddled DPW, a twit of a CA, an Ainokea council and an administration that is so addicted to secrecy and dedicated to keeping incompetent appointees that they would rather ignore the laws in favor of minimizing public participation in public processes, to think their little mid-morning hour-long schmooze session can suffice for official state procedures, as expressed in law.
This whole business is of course a result of the way the council went about “banning” plastic bags in the first place.
Rather than just ban them outright as Maui and other jurisdictions have done, they decided to kiss the butts of the stores that insist on packing our landfill and polluting our roads and waters with these poison products by trying to carve out an “allowable” plastic bag... and then depend on the administration to actually do it’s due diligence in creating a set of rules for the two prong test they set out.
Because there are so few places with bans, in the first to set a reasonable standard that assures petroleum-free biodegradability, the Kaua`i standard would be able to be used by other jurisdictions when manufacturers actually produced them because there was now a market for them.
But our lazy DPW dunderheads had a year to work with manufacturers to use available materials to actually produce the type of bag that local merchants would buy- or at least attempt to do so- and instead sat on their collective `okole protecting their clicking and dialing fingers to they could show us all the middle one.
Then, to make this an archetypical tale of Kaua`i-style incompetence and illegalities, they have decided to supplant the rule making process with a secretive process designed to make sure the public has the least input into the rules possible.
The one mistake the council made was thinking Kaua`i could ever do anything innovative or even new.
And that might have caused Castillo’s, Tanegawa’s and Mayor Carvalho’s heads to explode.... not that that would make any difference...
But the council’s equally befuddled response to both the lack of due diligence by the DPW and the incompetence of County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo in maintaining his quest to hold the legally required public hearing on the administrative rules after the ban takes effect, was both predictable and incomprehensibly blind to irregularities and outright chicanery.
The always incompetent DPW Solid Waste Division Director Troy Tanegawa’s “Power Point” presentation contained exactly one sentence in claiming that in fact there were no bags that meet the standards for use but offered no evidence that he had even checked with anyone, nor did he present any report on the subject.
The fact is that according to researcher Brad Parsons- who as we said last week spent a few days looking into the subject- although no one is presently making bags that are both “compostable” and “contain no fossil fuel polymers” there are companies that make material that could be used to manufacture them if there was a demand for them.
That of course means that if Tanigawa and his division had bothered to look into it as the official government representative of a jurisdiction that wanted bags to fit our unique ordinance - and do so when the ordinance was passed last October- they might have them available by now.
But we would have been shocked to actually find him doing his job at this point in time- he hasn’t shown any ability or initiative in the past 15 years so why would he start now?
And the fact that the council just sat there and bought his brief claim to have looked and found nothing isn’t much of a surprise either- why would they start actually doing their oversight job now?
But the real outrage was this absurdity- courtesy of CA Castillo- of holding the official public hearing on January 11, 2011 the date the ban goes into effect- and, even worse, the way the council went along with it.
Castillo first went into his “say no more-I can say no more” routine regarding the reason claiming it had something to do with a provision in the Hawai`i Revised Statues Chapter 91 which governs administrative (ad) rules, apparently trying to say that he couldn’t have the hearing until the law want into effect but not citing any provision.... perhaps because there isn’t one.
This of course despite the fact that the Maui plastic bag ban law’s ad rules have already gone through their public hearing in August for an ordinance with an effective date of, not so coincidentally, January 11, 2011.
But the real debacle was the fact that the “informational meetings” that the county has announced they will hold on Oct 25 and Nov. 5th & 8th from 10-11 a.m. are apparently being offered in lieu of the legally required official public hearings.
And of course no one on the council had any problem with that.
So why should you?
Maybe its because there’s nothing required of “informational meetings”- where Tanigawa assured the council they would “take testimony”- while there are 1767 words in §91-3 alone regarding “Procedure for adoption, amendment, or repeal of rules”.
Whereas nothing has to occur at an “informational meeting”- and no information obtained must be considered- under an official Chapter 91 public hearing on ad rules.
(2) Afford all interested persons opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing. The agency shall fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule. The agency may make its decision at the public hearing or announce then the date when it intends to make its decision. Upon adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule, the agency, if requested to do so by an interested person, shall issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against its determination.(emphasis added).
Not only that but while the county can just plop a “notice” of an unofficial informational meeting on their web site in order to give the notice for a public hearing the agency promulgating the rules must
(1) Give at least thirty days' notice for a public hearing. The notice shall include:
(A) A statement of the topic of the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal or a general description of the subjects involved; and
(B) A statement that a copy of the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed will be mailed to any interested person who requests a copy, pays the required fees for the copy and the postage, if any, together with a description of where and how the requests may be made;
(C) A statement of when, where, and during what times the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed may be reviewed in person; and
(D The date, time, and place where the public hearing will be held and where interested persons may be heard on the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal.
But here’s the kicker:
The notice shall be mailed to all persons who have made a timely written request of the agency for advance notice of its rulemaking proceedings, given at least once statewide for state agencies and in the county for county agencies. Proposed state agency rules shall also be posted on the Internet as provided in section 91-2.6
The whole purpose of this process is to allow the greatest public input and scrutiny possible to these “rules” which, after all, have the effect of law. What’s supposed to happen is that since they are required to “fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule”- and of course demonstrate that they have- once that input is given, if it is substantive they are supposed to go back and rewrite the rules.
If that happens, according to the case note 50 H. 156, 434 P.2d 516 on §91-3:
Changes may be made in a rule between the original proposed and presented at a public hearing and as finally adopted. Substantial change in a rule after a public hearing may require another public hearing.
But leave it to a befuddled DPW, a twit of a CA, an Ainokea council and an administration that is so addicted to secrecy and dedicated to keeping incompetent appointees that they would rather ignore the laws in favor of minimizing public participation in public processes, to think their little mid-morning hour-long schmooze session can suffice for official state procedures, as expressed in law.
This whole business is of course a result of the way the council went about “banning” plastic bags in the first place.
Rather than just ban them outright as Maui and other jurisdictions have done, they decided to kiss the butts of the stores that insist on packing our landfill and polluting our roads and waters with these poison products by trying to carve out an “allowable” plastic bag... and then depend on the administration to actually do it’s due diligence in creating a set of rules for the two prong test they set out.
Because there are so few places with bans, in the first to set a reasonable standard that assures petroleum-free biodegradability, the Kaua`i standard would be able to be used by other jurisdictions when manufacturers actually produced them because there was now a market for them.
But our lazy DPW dunderheads had a year to work with manufacturers to use available materials to actually produce the type of bag that local merchants would buy- or at least attempt to do so- and instead sat on their collective `okole protecting their clicking and dialing fingers to they could show us all the middle one.
Then, to make this an archetypical tale of Kaua`i-style incompetence and illegalities, they have decided to supplant the rule making process with a secretive process designed to make sure the public has the least input into the rules possible.
The one mistake the council made was thinking Kaua`i could ever do anything innovative or even new.
And that might have caused Castillo’s, Tanegawa’s and Mayor Carvalho’s heads to explode.... not that that would make any difference...
Friday, January 27, 2012
JUST A MOTION AWAY
JUST A MOTION AWAY: Our high school Economics class had us bored to tears. For a red diaper baby in the midst of the late 60's "revolution" it held little relevance. But we do remember one thing- the way Mr. Voorhies would ask questions of our equally narcoleptic classmates and, when no one raised their hands, he would rub his thumb across his other four fingers, indicating the inevitable answer to every question in economics... money.
Perhaps it has stuck with us because every time we see the Hawai`i State Legislature, or any legislative body in the country for that matter, propose some inane and out-of-touch piece of legislation- many times either in opposition to pervasive public opinion or presenting a version of the ideal that is so watered-down you can actually hear it gurgling as it goes down for the third time- we leap to the conclusion that the answer as to "why" can be summed up with Mr. Voorhies' gesture.
So when we heard that rather than ban those one-time-use, white, plastic grocery bags like Kaua`i and Maui have done, the bill streaking through the legislature aims to simply put a 10 cent fee on them- to go to 25 cents if it doesn't decrease the use significantly.
At first blush we assume it was, as usual, the "money in the system" from both the supermarkets and plastic bag makers that was the proverbial fly in the ointment.
But the reality is that the reason why the corporate media is framing any controversy over the bill as whether in fact to institute a fee and if so how much it should be, is that our own people have sold us down the river once again.
Rather than look at how incredibly beautiful the roadsides, beaches and, everything else looks on Kaua`i and Maui now that everything isn't draped in white plastic and advocate for a total ban statewide, according to Civil Beat:
Sierra Club director Robert Harris told the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection Thursday that a fee — which would be charged to consumers at the checkout counter — has worked to reduce plastic bag use in other areas.
Harris was among those testifying on House Bill 2260. Environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy and Surfrider Foundation, as well as government department heads and even major supermarkets, testified in support of the bill.
The important part that tells you something is wrong is that last part- it wasn't just the environmental group but "even major supermarkets, testified in support of the bill."
Now we get the "strange bedfellows" aspect of politics. Many times we have to question our own sanity when we find ourselves agreeing on some issue with various and sundry fascists, war mongers and general all-around creeps and cretins.
But that isn't the case here.
Way too often, especially in "the Aloha State," those who put themselves out as allies in the fight to stop despoilment in the name of progress in the islands abandon the fight to enact effective legislation in favor of compromising our environment before the fight even begins.
The thought process, as we've been told in similar circumstances in the past, is that the good fight isn't worth fighting this time. We've been admonished by the leadership of the above listed groups that certain battles aren't worth fighting and scoring political points for the organization on "this one" is more important than staking out the "perfect" so that the final "good" will be just a little better when all is said and done.
The way politics is supposed to work is that you stake out your perfect position and either win over the other side or find a happy medium. But lately- whether it's the Hawai`i environmental groups or the national Democratic Party, the position taken going into negotiations is already compromised to the extent that the final measure is inevitably horrific.
It isn't the money itself in many of these situations. Rather it's the acknowledging- and therefore condoning- of the fear from legislators over the use of that money to challenge them at election time that creates the defeatist attitude of progressive organizations these days.
Yes- getting all money out of politics is the ultimate solution to our broken political system. But if we give up before we begin, we're giving that money exponentially more power than it already has.
Perhaps it has stuck with us because every time we see the Hawai`i State Legislature, or any legislative body in the country for that matter, propose some inane and out-of-touch piece of legislation- many times either in opposition to pervasive public opinion or presenting a version of the ideal that is so watered-down you can actually hear it gurgling as it goes down for the third time- we leap to the conclusion that the answer as to "why" can be summed up with Mr. Voorhies' gesture.
So when we heard that rather than ban those one-time-use, white, plastic grocery bags like Kaua`i and Maui have done, the bill streaking through the legislature aims to simply put a 10 cent fee on them- to go to 25 cents if it doesn't decrease the use significantly.
At first blush we assume it was, as usual, the "money in the system" from both the supermarkets and plastic bag makers that was the proverbial fly in the ointment.
But the reality is that the reason why the corporate media is framing any controversy over the bill as whether in fact to institute a fee and if so how much it should be, is that our own people have sold us down the river once again.
Rather than look at how incredibly beautiful the roadsides, beaches and, everything else looks on Kaua`i and Maui now that everything isn't draped in white plastic and advocate for a total ban statewide, according to Civil Beat:
Sierra Club director Robert Harris told the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection Thursday that a fee — which would be charged to consumers at the checkout counter — has worked to reduce plastic bag use in other areas.
Harris was among those testifying on House Bill 2260. Environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy and Surfrider Foundation, as well as government department heads and even major supermarkets, testified in support of the bill.
The important part that tells you something is wrong is that last part- it wasn't just the environmental group but "even major supermarkets, testified in support of the bill."
Now we get the "strange bedfellows" aspect of politics. Many times we have to question our own sanity when we find ourselves agreeing on some issue with various and sundry fascists, war mongers and general all-around creeps and cretins.
But that isn't the case here.
Way too often, especially in "the Aloha State," those who put themselves out as allies in the fight to stop despoilment in the name of progress in the islands abandon the fight to enact effective legislation in favor of compromising our environment before the fight even begins.
The thought process, as we've been told in similar circumstances in the past, is that the good fight isn't worth fighting this time. We've been admonished by the leadership of the above listed groups that certain battles aren't worth fighting and scoring political points for the organization on "this one" is more important than staking out the "perfect" so that the final "good" will be just a little better when all is said and done.
The way politics is supposed to work is that you stake out your perfect position and either win over the other side or find a happy medium. But lately- whether it's the Hawai`i environmental groups or the national Democratic Party, the position taken going into negotiations is already compromised to the extent that the final measure is inevitably horrific.
It isn't the money itself in many of these situations. Rather it's the acknowledging- and therefore condoning- of the fear from legislators over the use of that money to challenge them at election time that creates the defeatist attitude of progressive organizations these days.
Yes- getting all money out of politics is the ultimate solution to our broken political system. But if we give up before we begin, we're giving that money exponentially more power than it already has.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
SLOPPY COPY
SLOPPY COPY: The other day “Eleanor” left a comment asking “How do you keep your blood pressure down?”.
The fact is that all the ACE inhibitors and beta and calcium channel blockers in the world couldn’t keep out head from spinning and exploding over the latest mind-bogglingly incompetent article from haplessly inept local newspaper reporter Leo Azambuja.
Despite the fact that the county council’s discussion of the plastic bag ban ordinance occurred last Wednesday- as we reported Monday- Azambuja reported yesterday that “Councilman Tim Bynum has requested the administration’s presence to discuss the plastic bag reduction ordinance at the council meeting this Wednesday in Nawiliwili”.
The only reference to the ordinance on this week’s council agenda is the committee report from the meeting at which the discussion took place.
But though it was bad enough have the “newspaper of record” record it falsely, sometimes when they do it takes on a life of it own.
So it was little surprise that the false information made it’s way into a “Newswatch” blurb in today’s Star(Ad)vertiser repeating the misinformation because they have no correspondent on Kaua`i and rely on reports in our local newspaper since the “merger” of the Star-Bulletin and Advertiser.
They were actually able to pick out the lede- albeit with incorrect information- that Azambuja had buried, writing that “The Kauai County Council today will discuss the law banning plastic bags.”
Meanwhile former Advertiser correspondent Diana Leone was filing her first “Special to the Star-Advertiser” story today covering the all-important-to-Kaua`i public hearings held here for the administrative rules for the 2007 Dam Safety Act- a story we fully expect the local paper to blow off.
How long can the island go on like this? It’s bad enough when coverage fails to report or reports in a manner designed to protect advertisers and political cronies. But when the level of incompetence causes false reporting across the state, well, as our friend Dr. Katz says “you know what the music means”.
The fact is that all the ACE inhibitors and beta and calcium channel blockers in the world couldn’t keep out head from spinning and exploding over the latest mind-bogglingly incompetent article from haplessly inept local newspaper reporter Leo Azambuja.
Despite the fact that the county council’s discussion of the plastic bag ban ordinance occurred last Wednesday- as we reported Monday- Azambuja reported yesterday that “Councilman Tim Bynum has requested the administration’s presence to discuss the plastic bag reduction ordinance at the council meeting this Wednesday in Nawiliwili”.
The only reference to the ordinance on this week’s council agenda is the committee report from the meeting at which the discussion took place.
But though it was bad enough have the “newspaper of record” record it falsely, sometimes when they do it takes on a life of it own.
So it was little surprise that the false information made it’s way into a “Newswatch” blurb in today’s Star(Ad)vertiser repeating the misinformation because they have no correspondent on Kaua`i and rely on reports in our local newspaper since the “merger” of the Star-Bulletin and Advertiser.
They were actually able to pick out the lede- albeit with incorrect information- that Azambuja had buried, writing that “The Kauai County Council today will discuss the law banning plastic bags.”
Meanwhile former Advertiser correspondent Diana Leone was filing her first “Special to the Star-Advertiser” story today covering the all-important-to-Kaua`i public hearings held here for the administrative rules for the 2007 Dam Safety Act- a story we fully expect the local paper to blow off.
How long can the island go on like this? It’s bad enough when coverage fails to report or reports in a manner designed to protect advertisers and political cronies. But when the level of incompetence causes false reporting across the state, well, as our friend Dr. Katz says “you know what the music means”.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
ROOTING OUT THE RUBBISH
ROOTING OUT THE RUBBISH: Although the article in today’s local paper announcing that Mayor Bernard Carvalho will be supporting- and presumably signing- the bill banning plastic grocery bags set for council approval next Wednesday, it doesn’t mention what anyone following the bill knows... that this is a major flip flop for hizzonah.
But anyone who thinks that this is some kind of decision resulting from a studied change of heart borne of a concern over the environmental degradation caused by these scurrilous sacks either isn’t paying attention or is on the mayor’s payroll.
Reporter Michael Levine, who penned today’s story, can be excused if he missed Coco Zickos’ story last May before the bill was introduced where she wrote
(A)t Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.’s office, the administration says it remains concerned about the environment but seems to favor incentivizing the behavior as opposed to banning the sale of plastic bags.
“The mayor has no immediate plans to introduce legislation banning plastic bags, however, efforts like that of some Kaua`i retail outlets to incentivize the use of reusable grocery bags via discounts or rebates is a great first step in reducing the number of plastic bags on Kaua`i,” said Beth Tokioka, the mayor’s executive assistant, in an e-mail Wednesday.
Carvalho has publicly remained silent on his intentions, although PNN has heard from two different advocates for the bill who were told by him that he opposed the bill and did not intend to sign it.
The “letter” to the council that Levine cited came not in a press release from county spokesperson Mary Daubert but in an email from Carvalho’s mouthpiece and chief political advisor Tokioka who distributed the announcement of the Mayor’s new stance yesterday afternoon in a "reply all" response to a widely distributed email containing an article from local activist Ken Taylor.
The letter was actually a copy of “testimony” sent to the council and doesn’t mention the Carvalho’s former apparent opposition to the ban nor does it of course offer an explanation or any of Carvalho’s thinking on why he changed his mind at the last minute- or more precisely, in a way, after the last minute since the council was poised to pass the bill last Wednesday until testimony from the Chamber of Commerce and the Retail Merchants of Hawai`i opposing the bill caused a deferral for two weeks in order to “consider” the testimony from potential big campaign contributors.
As an aside, we’ve got to say that in 30 years of council watching we’ve never seen any council defer a bill just prior to “second reading” to consider the testimony from an individual community member asking them to reconsider a vote they were about to take.
Well, so what? Well, let us fill in Carvalho’s assessment of his - or should we say Tokioka’s- options... politically that is.
The delay was simply a “consideration” for the all powerful CofC, but not because anyone on the council was going to be changing their mind and voting against the bill two weeks hence.
To do so would be political suicide, as has become apparent during the month or so the bill has been before the council with virtually no testimony opposing it and an island-wide- or more precisely world wide- movement to end the era of plastic grocery bags.
Indeed, as they say, the whole world is watching due to the huge plastic bag patch in the Pacific Ocean, right on our doorstep.
At one point Tokioka- er, Carvalho- must have thought he could garner the votes to sustain a veto. But when it became apparent that all six councilmembers hearing the bill- with Derek “Mr. Big Save” Kawakami recusing himself- were going to vote for the bill Tokioka rightly saw the potential political fallout in November of 2010 and the opportunity that an overridden veto would present to Carvalho’s opponents.
On Kaua`i where people generally want to see the mayor and council working together to address issues, any veto would be a blot on the record of a mayor. Indeed there hasn’t been one that we can recall in the last decade or so.
And an override would stick out like a sore thumb and be not just a meaningless gesture but a meaningful one to his detractors.
Carvalho will certainly be challenged next year and needs to make sure he doesn’t hand any potential opponents- especially ones with superior environmental credentials and endorsements- an issue that would resonate with the powerful environmental protection constituency.
He also can’t afford to be seen as favoring the Chamber of Commerce position among the same constituency that would see it as kow-towing to the fat cats that will no doubt fill his campaign coffers. He can’t hide many of his contributions this time like he did last election when he used the sudden election- and his lack of any past contributions- as well as the laws allowing late filing to delay revealing many of his contributors until after the election was over.
While some may be duped into thinking that this was something that came from a concern for environment on Carvalho’s part they would do well to look at the politics involved and figure out what the real reason is for Carvalho’s 180.
But anyone who thinks that this is some kind of decision resulting from a studied change of heart borne of a concern over the environmental degradation caused by these scurrilous sacks either isn’t paying attention or is on the mayor’s payroll.
Reporter Michael Levine, who penned today’s story, can be excused if he missed Coco Zickos’ story last May before the bill was introduced where she wrote
(A)t Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.’s office, the administration says it remains concerned about the environment but seems to favor incentivizing the behavior as opposed to banning the sale of plastic bags.
“The mayor has no immediate plans to introduce legislation banning plastic bags, however, efforts like that of some Kaua`i retail outlets to incentivize the use of reusable grocery bags via discounts or rebates is a great first step in reducing the number of plastic bags on Kaua`i,” said Beth Tokioka, the mayor’s executive assistant, in an e-mail Wednesday.
Carvalho has publicly remained silent on his intentions, although PNN has heard from two different advocates for the bill who were told by him that he opposed the bill and did not intend to sign it.
The “letter” to the council that Levine cited came not in a press release from county spokesperson Mary Daubert but in an email from Carvalho’s mouthpiece and chief political advisor Tokioka who distributed the announcement of the Mayor’s new stance yesterday afternoon in a "reply all" response to a widely distributed email containing an article from local activist Ken Taylor.
The letter was actually a copy of “testimony” sent to the council and doesn’t mention the Carvalho’s former apparent opposition to the ban nor does it of course offer an explanation or any of Carvalho’s thinking on why he changed his mind at the last minute- or more precisely, in a way, after the last minute since the council was poised to pass the bill last Wednesday until testimony from the Chamber of Commerce and the Retail Merchants of Hawai`i opposing the bill caused a deferral for two weeks in order to “consider” the testimony from potential big campaign contributors.
As an aside, we’ve got to say that in 30 years of council watching we’ve never seen any council defer a bill just prior to “second reading” to consider the testimony from an individual community member asking them to reconsider a vote they were about to take.
Well, so what? Well, let us fill in Carvalho’s assessment of his - or should we say Tokioka’s- options... politically that is.
The delay was simply a “consideration” for the all powerful CofC, but not because anyone on the council was going to be changing their mind and voting against the bill two weeks hence.
To do so would be political suicide, as has become apparent during the month or so the bill has been before the council with virtually no testimony opposing it and an island-wide- or more precisely world wide- movement to end the era of plastic grocery bags.
Indeed, as they say, the whole world is watching due to the huge plastic bag patch in the Pacific Ocean, right on our doorstep.
At one point Tokioka- er, Carvalho- must have thought he could garner the votes to sustain a veto. But when it became apparent that all six councilmembers hearing the bill- with Derek “Mr. Big Save” Kawakami recusing himself- were going to vote for the bill Tokioka rightly saw the potential political fallout in November of 2010 and the opportunity that an overridden veto would present to Carvalho’s opponents.
On Kaua`i where people generally want to see the mayor and council working together to address issues, any veto would be a blot on the record of a mayor. Indeed there hasn’t been one that we can recall in the last decade or so.
And an override would stick out like a sore thumb and be not just a meaningless gesture but a meaningful one to his detractors.
Carvalho will certainly be challenged next year and needs to make sure he doesn’t hand any potential opponents- especially ones with superior environmental credentials and endorsements- an issue that would resonate with the powerful environmental protection constituency.
He also can’t afford to be seen as favoring the Chamber of Commerce position among the same constituency that would see it as kow-towing to the fat cats that will no doubt fill his campaign coffers. He can’t hide many of his contributions this time like he did last election when he used the sudden election- and his lack of any past contributions- as well as the laws allowing late filing to delay revealing many of his contributors until after the election was over.
While some may be duped into thinking that this was something that came from a concern for environment on Carvalho’s part they would do well to look at the politics involved and figure out what the real reason is for Carvalho’s 180.
Friday, December 23, 2011
GROUNDING THE BERLIN AIR LIFT
GROUNDING THE BERLIN AIR LIFT: The weather guy on CNN this morning couldn't help but point to a map with a slew of airplanes headed for Hawai`i and comment on the fleeing hoi polloi, escaping snow-shoveling, followed by that messy march through the slushy, mushy muck which inevitably winds up inside their boots.
But little do they know that this year is the first time in decades that there is no White Christmas here on Kaua`i.
Those with short memories have probably forgotten the great Kaua`i white out that, until last January 11, covered every conceivable area- our sidewalks and oceans and rooftops, from Ha`ena to Kekaha. Sames went for Maui. And a couple of Christmases from now it will, with a little luck, be all over on the Big Island- and maybe even Honolulu- where white is still the decorative, if not festive, color of everything in sight.
For those still confused January 11, 2011 is when Kaua`i and Maui stopped trimming the trees- and everything else- with those hideous white plastic grocery bags.
Have you noticed? In one short year the island has gone from looking like the proverbial polar bear in a snowstorm to a place that is no longer an pervasive eye sore.
The news today is that, if Hawai`i Island Mayor Billy Kanoi signs the bill passed by an un-vetoproof majority of their council (5-3 and it takes six to override) there will just be one island to go: Honolulu. And, as Civil Beat reported this morning, Councilmember Ernie Martin says he will introduce a bill to get rid of their blight too.
But those in Honolulu who want to stop seeing red when all they can see is white are going to have to gear up for a battle royal, as the whining and sniveling crowd- the ones that don't think they can live without their precious plastic bags- joins up with the chemical industry to try to continue polluting their visual field... not to mention choking and filling the guts of ocean and wild life everywhere and expanding the great Pacific Garbage Patch- all so they don't have to pay for trash can liners or go buy a waterproof bag to put their wet bathing suits into.
The truth is that, amazingly enough, Kaua`i has gotten used to the idea of bringing reusable cloth bags to the store... although it would be nice if places like Safeway took after some of the local stores like Ishihara's and, while you're fumbling for your cash or card, actually ask you if you want a paper bag before automatically stuffing your crap into one.
Actually, we have lined our smaller rubbish cans around the house with plastic bags left over from the days of yore. But guess what? By not throwing anything wet or sloppy into them and walking a few feet to the big 13-gallon kitchen can when we have gooky, yuchy trash, we are still using the same bags that were in them last January since we just dump the contents into the kitchen can when they're full.
We still have a huge supply of plastic grocery bags in a closet somewhere- so much so that we're actually thinking of who we can give them away to some selfish, lazy, asshole who can't be bothered with a little extra effort so the island doesn't looking like a demented Christo and Jeanne-Claude exhibit with bags flying through the air like autonomous kites until they wind up draped on powerlines, trees and anything else that gets in their way.
We on Kaua`i are going to have to lend our support and testimony for the O`ahu battle, telling our stories about how we were not happy about losing the our precious plastic but now, when we look around and don't have to see those nasty things, we realize it's worth the effort to get a few reusable cloth bags.
Now that that's done, how about that Styrofoam crap?- do we really need it? We'll bet anything that if you give it up and use the cardboard ones for a year you won't even notice it when that year is over.
----
We're still taking a semi-hiatus here, working on a long form project and other things.
But little do they know that this year is the first time in decades that there is no White Christmas here on Kaua`i.
Those with short memories have probably forgotten the great Kaua`i white out that, until last January 11, covered every conceivable area- our sidewalks and oceans and rooftops, from Ha`ena to Kekaha. Sames went for Maui. And a couple of Christmases from now it will, with a little luck, be all over on the Big Island- and maybe even Honolulu- where white is still the decorative, if not festive, color of everything in sight.
For those still confused January 11, 2011 is when Kaua`i and Maui stopped trimming the trees- and everything else- with those hideous white plastic grocery bags.
Have you noticed? In one short year the island has gone from looking like the proverbial polar bear in a snowstorm to a place that is no longer an pervasive eye sore.
The news today is that, if Hawai`i Island Mayor Billy Kanoi signs the bill passed by an un-vetoproof majority of their council (5-3 and it takes six to override) there will just be one island to go: Honolulu. And, as Civil Beat reported this morning, Councilmember Ernie Martin says he will introduce a bill to get rid of their blight too.
But those in Honolulu who want to stop seeing red when all they can see is white are going to have to gear up for a battle royal, as the whining and sniveling crowd- the ones that don't think they can live without their precious plastic bags- joins up with the chemical industry to try to continue polluting their visual field... not to mention choking and filling the guts of ocean and wild life everywhere and expanding the great Pacific Garbage Patch- all so they don't have to pay for trash can liners or go buy a waterproof bag to put their wet bathing suits into.
The truth is that, amazingly enough, Kaua`i has gotten used to the idea of bringing reusable cloth bags to the store... although it would be nice if places like Safeway took after some of the local stores like Ishihara's and, while you're fumbling for your cash or card, actually ask you if you want a paper bag before automatically stuffing your crap into one.
Actually, we have lined our smaller rubbish cans around the house with plastic bags left over from the days of yore. But guess what? By not throwing anything wet or sloppy into them and walking a few feet to the big 13-gallon kitchen can when we have gooky, yuchy trash, we are still using the same bags that were in them last January since we just dump the contents into the kitchen can when they're full.
We still have a huge supply of plastic grocery bags in a closet somewhere- so much so that we're actually thinking of who we can give them away to some selfish, lazy, asshole who can't be bothered with a little extra effort so the island doesn't looking like a demented Christo and Jeanne-Claude exhibit with bags flying through the air like autonomous kites until they wind up draped on powerlines, trees and anything else that gets in their way.
We on Kaua`i are going to have to lend our support and testimony for the O`ahu battle, telling our stories about how we were not happy about losing the our precious plastic but now, when we look around and don't have to see those nasty things, we realize it's worth the effort to get a few reusable cloth bags.
Now that that's done, how about that Styrofoam crap?- do we really need it? We'll bet anything that if you give it up and use the cardboard ones for a year you won't even notice it when that year is over.
----
We're still taking a semi-hiatus here, working on a long form project and other things.
Monday, April 18, 2011
SLIPPIN' ON THE SLIME
SLIPPIN' ON THE SLIME: Someone who we thought would know better called to ask why new state rep Derek Kawakami didn't have to recuse himself from voting on the "plastic grocery bag fee" bill currently still alive at the legislature, as he did as a county council member with our plastic bag "ban."
There were two reason why that struck us as strange- the first being that the person didn't know that state legislators don't even have to declare conflicts-of-interest much less refrain from participating or voting on the matter, the second that, unlike many, they did know that Kaua`i voters changed our county charter to state that councilmembers with a conflict "in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter."
The only problem with the provision is that the charter does not make clear who decides whether a conflict exists and so evidently leaves it up to the conflicted member to declare they have one. All the charter says is that "(t)he mayor, the council and the board of ethics shall be responsible for the enforcement of provisions of this article."
So when we saw Bill 2404 on the council's April 6 agenda which would give a $150,000 grant to this year's Kaua`i marathon, we could not believe that not only didn't Councilmember Dickie Chang recuse himself but he actually introduced the bill and it will be heard in his Economic Development Committee.
Chang, of course, hosts the local "Wala`au" television program which has gotten hours of "content" from the past two marathons- content which is the lifeblood for any television program as it generates the advertising revenue that Chang depends on for his living.
While the bill is in trouble already with Councilmember Mel Rapozo voting a rare "no" on the first reading of the bill and others expressing doubts they would vote to give money to the marathon again this year, the fact that there is a direct financial benefit to Chang from the marathon makes his failure to declare his conflict of interest unconscionable.
The charter also says that "(a)ny violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute cause for fine, suspension or removal from office."
The real solution to the whole conflict of interest problem is to make the office of councilmember a full time job and eliminate outside employment. That would of course necessitate raising the salary for the position to a level equitable with that of the mayor or department heads- about double what it is now.
But those who object to the extra approximately $350,000 a year that would take would do well to note that this not-at-all-unique expenditure is 3/7ths of that in one fell swoop and, when combined with other expenditures of a similar ilk, demonstrate that we're paying way more that 350Gs on the "back end."
Those wishing to testify on Bill 2404 can send their mana`o to counciltestimony@kauai.gov .
There were two reason why that struck us as strange- the first being that the person didn't know that state legislators don't even have to declare conflicts-of-interest much less refrain from participating or voting on the matter, the second that, unlike many, they did know that Kaua`i voters changed our county charter to state that councilmembers with a conflict "in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter."
The only problem with the provision is that the charter does not make clear who decides whether a conflict exists and so evidently leaves it up to the conflicted member to declare they have one. All the charter says is that "(t)he mayor, the council and the board of ethics shall be responsible for the enforcement of provisions of this article."
So when we saw Bill 2404 on the council's April 6 agenda which would give a $150,000 grant to this year's Kaua`i marathon, we could not believe that not only didn't Councilmember Dickie Chang recuse himself but he actually introduced the bill and it will be heard in his Economic Development Committee.
Chang, of course, hosts the local "Wala`au" television program which has gotten hours of "content" from the past two marathons- content which is the lifeblood for any television program as it generates the advertising revenue that Chang depends on for his living.
While the bill is in trouble already with Councilmember Mel Rapozo voting a rare "no" on the first reading of the bill and others expressing doubts they would vote to give money to the marathon again this year, the fact that there is a direct financial benefit to Chang from the marathon makes his failure to declare his conflict of interest unconscionable.
The charter also says that "(a)ny violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute cause for fine, suspension or removal from office."
The real solution to the whole conflict of interest problem is to make the office of councilmember a full time job and eliminate outside employment. That would of course necessitate raising the salary for the position to a level equitable with that of the mayor or department heads- about double what it is now.
But those who object to the extra approximately $350,000 a year that would take would do well to note that this not-at-all-unique expenditure is 3/7ths of that in one fell swoop and, when combined with other expenditures of a similar ilk, demonstrate that we're paying way more that 350Gs on the "back end."
Those wishing to testify on Bill 2404 can send their mana`o to counciltestimony@kauai.gov .
Monday, August 17, 2009
BAG O’ CATS
BAG O’ CATS: The gushing over Sunday’s piece by Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s “Five magic words: I don’t need a bag” commentary in the local newspaper- one we suspect was ghost-written by his top aide and mouthpiece Beth Tokioka- flooded cyberspace yesterday.
“Ditto!!” wrote one environmental activist. “To all of us, we ARE making a difference and this mayor is an example of together, we can!! I'm bowled over!!”
Another couldn’t contain herself saying “OMG thank you thank you thank you thank you and thank you!”.
And of course refusing those nasty and often deadly non-biodegradables floating petro-products is something anyone with a cloth bag can and should do as Diana LaBedz letter today reiterates.
But for the politically astute it’s what Carvalho didn’t say that sticks out like a shearwater’s plastic-distended belly- a promise to support and sign the bill set for public hearing on Wednesday that would ban stores from distributing those nasty pollutants.
As a matter of fact for the more cynical among us it might seem like Carvalho is indeed saying that the real solution is not in the legislation introduced by Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara but solely in people refusing to accept them and instead bringing their own bags.
Yeah- that’ll work... it’s worked so well that despite years of campaigns by groups like LaBenz’s Surfrider Foundation the bags are more ubiquitous and causing more destruction than ever.
Gee, it couldn’t be because businesses who filled Carvalho’s campaign coffers last November are howling over the prospect of spending a few cents more on the biodegradable bags that are now or soon to be required on Maui, in San Francisco and in any growing number of jurisdictions across the country.
The suspicions are well founded. Carvalho recently has been accused of trying to sabotage the curbside recycling part of the county’s solid waste reform efforts using the county’s standard “fire, ready, aim” operating procedure to institute a “pilot” curbside recycling program in Lihu`e despite the fact that there is no materials recovery facility or MRF yet to accommodate the separation of those collected recyclables.
Why? Well that’s because, according to the administrations solid waste coordinator Troy Tanegawa, purchasing the bins with already appropriated monies was “the low hanging fruit” of recycling efforts.
Of course the crop was nowhere near ripe but politically it will provide a good sounding half truth during November 2010 campaign when Carvalho claims he “instituted curbside recycling”.
While the naive and easily duped might at best see it as the usual county incompetence others see it as a cynical attempt to make sure the pilot program fails so the county can build it’s long-desired “silver bullet” incinerator to burn all our rubbish (supposedly for energy) and in addition build a new landfill- two insanities that result from their refusal to hire a “zero waste” consultant and rather go with good old boy’s favorite consultants R.W. Beck that has been behind the failure to properly deal with solid waste on the island for over 20 years now.
We- and Zero Waste Kauai- been proponents of a full curbside recycling preceded by the construction of a MRF, a “hard to recycle good” facility, composting of green waste and other trash stream reduction measures.
We’ve even suggested shipping the small amount of waste that’s left (some say as low as 10% or less although 20-25% is commonly cited) off island where mainland landfills are fighting over who will get Honolulu’s waste.
We’ve even been proponents of a “ship it in, ship it out” law requiring that larger businesses whose products generate huge amounts of waste to deal with the aftermath.
While some say it’s “unethical” to foist our opala on others they forget that we are in a unique situation where all but our green waste is already shipped in and shipping that stuff out is only the fulfillment of the ecosystem we’ve created.
And, despite 15 years of asking, Beck has never done a full cost analysis of shipping trash including all the secondary and even tertiary expenses of our current land filling adventures although this time they have a brief dismissive paragraph in their latest report.
We can “do” zero waste here- as a matter of fact we’re uniquely situated and circumstanced to make it work. But that would take some vision and ability to grasp a changing paradigm for dealing with solid waste- a can of worms that our politically motivated elected officials have kicked down the road for decades.
Watch out for the Trojan Horse- let the mayor know that telling people to “just say no” is an ineffective substitute for banning the non-biodegradable plastic bags entirely by law.
You can do so at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday (8/19) in the council chambers at the historic county building when bill 2321 is up for pubic hearing . If you can’t make it you can email testimony to counciltestimony@kauai.gov ... and make sure you email a copy to hizzonnah and let him know you expect him to support and sign the bill when it lands on his desk.
“Ditto!!” wrote one environmental activist. “To all of us, we ARE making a difference and this mayor is an example of together, we can!! I'm bowled over!!”
Another couldn’t contain herself saying “OMG thank you thank you thank you thank you and thank you!”.
And of course refusing those nasty and often deadly non-biodegradables floating petro-products is something anyone with a cloth bag can and should do as Diana LaBedz letter today reiterates.
But for the politically astute it’s what Carvalho didn’t say that sticks out like a shearwater’s plastic-distended belly- a promise to support and sign the bill set for public hearing on Wednesday that would ban stores from distributing those nasty pollutants.
As a matter of fact for the more cynical among us it might seem like Carvalho is indeed saying that the real solution is not in the legislation introduced by Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara but solely in people refusing to accept them and instead bringing their own bags.
Yeah- that’ll work... it’s worked so well that despite years of campaigns by groups like LaBenz’s Surfrider Foundation the bags are more ubiquitous and causing more destruction than ever.
Gee, it couldn’t be because businesses who filled Carvalho’s campaign coffers last November are howling over the prospect of spending a few cents more on the biodegradable bags that are now or soon to be required on Maui, in San Francisco and in any growing number of jurisdictions across the country.
The suspicions are well founded. Carvalho recently has been accused of trying to sabotage the curbside recycling part of the county’s solid waste reform efforts using the county’s standard “fire, ready, aim” operating procedure to institute a “pilot” curbside recycling program in Lihu`e despite the fact that there is no materials recovery facility or MRF yet to accommodate the separation of those collected recyclables.
Why? Well that’s because, according to the administrations solid waste coordinator Troy Tanegawa, purchasing the bins with already appropriated monies was “the low hanging fruit” of recycling efforts.
Of course the crop was nowhere near ripe but politically it will provide a good sounding half truth during November 2010 campaign when Carvalho claims he “instituted curbside recycling”.
While the naive and easily duped might at best see it as the usual county incompetence others see it as a cynical attempt to make sure the pilot program fails so the county can build it’s long-desired “silver bullet” incinerator to burn all our rubbish (supposedly for energy) and in addition build a new landfill- two insanities that result from their refusal to hire a “zero waste” consultant and rather go with good old boy’s favorite consultants R.W. Beck that has been behind the failure to properly deal with solid waste on the island for over 20 years now.
We- and Zero Waste Kauai- been proponents of a full curbside recycling preceded by the construction of a MRF, a “hard to recycle good” facility, composting of green waste and other trash stream reduction measures.
We’ve even suggested shipping the small amount of waste that’s left (some say as low as 10% or less although 20-25% is commonly cited) off island where mainland landfills are fighting over who will get Honolulu’s waste.
We’ve even been proponents of a “ship it in, ship it out” law requiring that larger businesses whose products generate huge amounts of waste to deal with the aftermath.
While some say it’s “unethical” to foist our opala on others they forget that we are in a unique situation where all but our green waste is already shipped in and shipping that stuff out is only the fulfillment of the ecosystem we’ve created.
And, despite 15 years of asking, Beck has never done a full cost analysis of shipping trash including all the secondary and even tertiary expenses of our current land filling adventures although this time they have a brief dismissive paragraph in their latest report.
We can “do” zero waste here- as a matter of fact we’re uniquely situated and circumstanced to make it work. But that would take some vision and ability to grasp a changing paradigm for dealing with solid waste- a can of worms that our politically motivated elected officials have kicked down the road for decades.
Watch out for the Trojan Horse- let the mayor know that telling people to “just say no” is an ineffective substitute for banning the non-biodegradable plastic bags entirely by law.
You can do so at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday (8/19) in the council chambers at the historic county building when bill 2321 is up for pubic hearing . If you can’t make it you can email testimony to counciltestimony@kauai.gov ... and make sure you email a copy to hizzonnah and let him know you expect him to support and sign the bill when it lands on his desk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
