What community means: It’s not about you, or your plastic bags

Published in the Wakefield Daily Item Forum, March 30, 2017.

I’m not really sure when plastic shopping bags came into existence. Maybe the 1980s. As a kid in the 1970s, I remember my mother coming home from the grocery store with lots of brown paper shopping bags. When the plastic bags appeared, I welcomed their convenience and utility. But I didn’t think much in those days about the environmental impact of the products I used every day. Neither did lots of folks. We’ve made substantial progress since then.

I wish that I, and everyone else, had thought more about environmental impact years and decades ago. If we had, I expect we would have made different choices as consumers and that the market and culture would have evolved differently than they did. For example, if more people had been more environmentally aware earlier on, perhaps Mark Sardella and others would not have become so attached to plastic bags and incandescent lightbulbs, and would not find the prospect of their unavailability so annoying and distressing now.

It’s worth pointing out some assumptions in Sardella’s recent article (“Bag the ban,” March 23), and how these highlight some fundamental differences between his more curmudgeonly conservative point of view and a more progressive one.

Personally, I’m not certain that a bylaw banning plastic bags is the best way forward. But just because a group of people proposes a change in the rules that they believe can help protect the environment does not mean they are out to “take away your choice” or that they fancy themselves more “virtuous” than anyone. Saying so is just a cynical rhetorical ploy, often used by Fox News and other conservative channels to divide people.

Folks who are basically progressive (I include myself in this group) look at the world and see challenges and problems and wonder, How can things be improved? Unfortunately, when progressives propose solutions, conservative folks (who tend to dislike change) often push back defensively – Why should I change and do things *your* way? You must think you’re better than me! It’s an exhausting and tedious dynamic. Of course, people proposing changes should not put on superior airs. But people also should not reflexively ascribe superior airs to anyone who proposes a change. A little more empathy and a little less snark would help.

Another assumption running through the piece is that the “free market” – with unconstrained individual consumer choice at the center – should reign supreme. Don’t worry about any environmental problems that may result from such a system, Sardella suggests – collective consumer choice will take care of everything and if plastic bags lose their consumer appeal, they’ll “disappear naturally and organically.” (Except, actually, they’ll remain forever in landfills or the exhaust from their incineration will contribute to global warming.)

There are a number of problems with this assumption. First, as Robert Reich starkly illustrates in his important book, Saving Capitalism, there is really no such thing as the free market. The market’s rules and structures are created by people, and, well, these people are not like you and me. (They’re rich and powerful.) Why do you think income inequality has increased in recent decades? Because this corporate and financial elite control how the market is organized and direct most of the wealth creation back to themselves. We could actually use some good “artificial restrictions” to help rebalance the market in favor of regular folks.

A related problem in the piece is its polarized and behind-the-curve perspective on business. The point of view seems to be that anyone who would consider environmentally sensitive regulations to try to help steer the economy and society in a greener, more sustainable direction must be anti-business. But the current reality is very different. Environmentally sensitive business owners everywhere are, more and more, infusing their values into their business models and strategies – and finding that it is profitable to do so, since this is responsive to ever more consumers, from Millennials to Boomers. (Would Sardella be so irked if it were business owners shifting away from plastic bags rather than concerned citizens?)

Finally, the article reveals the selfish (or perhaps self-focused or individualistic are better words) worldview at the center of the conservative mindset. The people proposing the ban are, Sardella argues, threatening your personal choices and perhaps even your rights. Do-gooders and tree-huggers with “grey ponytails” can have their choices, “Yet, somehow I must be denied my choice, my preference.”

Ultimately, though, it’s not just about you as an individual. I’m a strong believer in individual rights (especially of those who’ve historically been denied those rights, such as women, people of color, immigrants, and LGBT folks). But we also live in a community. Sometimes I feel like conservatives think the definition of community is a place where everyone takes care of themselves and minds their own business. Progressive folks, on the other hand, tend to feel that our responsibility to the community is just as important as individual rights. We should all help each other, and we should be always trying to find ways to help the community progress and become stronger and more sustainable for the long term.

The largest community that we belong to is the human community on this earth. It’s our responsibility as humans to take care of our planet, and so I laud the intentions and aims of Wakefield citizens who want our town to do its part. As above, I’m not sure a bylaw is the best way forward. Perhaps there are incentives for Wakefield business owners to shift toward more sustainable practices (besides the obvious good PR such a shift would bring). But let’s talk about it as a community, with respect and without questioning motives. We all need to move forward together.

© Jeff Kehoe