Facts, and the 2016 Presidential Race

As of this writing, it appears that the GOP is prepared for the possibility that Donald Trump may not be their nominee for president. His campaign is not viewed very favorably by “establishment” conservatives- perhaps they are worried about how he is viewed by the rest of the world.

Whether or not he is the eventual nominee, what many find particularly troublesome is Trump’s disdain for facts, and his being able to get away with it. What has happened to the ability of the press and fact checkers take him to task? 

The best take on it that I have seen so far calls this Trump phenomenon “gaslighting”:

“It’s a technique abusers use: through manipulation and outright lies, they so disorient their target that the person (or in this case, the country) is left defenseless.

“Political journalists have been repeatedly criticized for not confronting Trump on his lies. But of course they have. For political journalists, a politician caught in a lie is chum in the water. But when they confront Trump with his lies, he doesn’t behave like most people. He doesn’t blush or equivocate or argue. He steamrolls. He bullies. He lies some more. And the journalists don’t know what to do. They brought facts to an ego fight, and found them to be worthless weapons.”

In what turned out to be a prescient warning in an article published in the Washington Post last November, Chris Cillizza wrote:

“The obsession with disqualifying the ability of the media to referee what is factual and what is not is a terrible thing for the future of our democracy. Of course the media makes mistakes. Of course there are bad apples among us. Of course we are human.

“And, yes, the fracturing of the mainstream media has made it easier than ever to get your own set of ‘facts' and your own ‘evidence’ that supports those ‘facts’. You can now live in a world in which only your opinions, often loosely based on factual evidence, are not only never challenged but are affirmed. But just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it. Challenging your assumptions, digging beyond surface claims, educating yourself on what's real and what's not are the basic tasks of being a citizen of this country and of the world. Refusing to do that allows this fact-less environment not only to continue to exist but to prosper.

“No matter your political affiliation or how negatively you view the media, think of Trump and this campaign more generally as the leading edge of what politics could look like if fact checkers and the media suddenly disappeared. Not too pretty, right?

“That is the path we are headed down as of today. Campaigns and candidates, seeing the success Trump has had, will imitate his cavalier attitude toward an established and agreed-upon set of facts. And, before long, the media will be helpless to fight for facts because the efforts to discredit what we do have been so sustained and successful.

“That's not the future I want to be part of — as a journalist or as a citizen.”

Amen to that.

D. Norman

The Bottle Bill in Amador County

The California Redemption Value (CRV) deposit has been a part of life in California since Assembly Bill AB 2020 was implemented in September of 1987. There are two separate CRV deposits- distributors pay into a state fund for covered containers. Deposit amounts are five cents (under 24 oz.) and ten cents (over 24 oz.). Consumers pay the same deposit at the store, which can be recovered by returning them to certified recyclers. The “bottle bill” was enacted to encourage recycling and reduce litter, and had a program goal of an 80% recycling rate.

According to the Bottle Bill Resource Guide:

“Since implementation of the deposit program, California's beverage container recycling rates have increased significantly, from an overall 52% in 1988 to 85% in 2013. In the eight years from 2006 to 2013 alone, the program has increased recycling from 13 billion containers per year to more than 18.2 billion containers per year. Because California is so large, that increase of 5.2 billion containers has an impact on the nation’s beverage container recycling rate as well. The 18.2 billion containers recycled in California are nearly 21% of the 88.2 billion containers that are recycled nationally each year. 1 out of 5 beverage containers recycled in the USA are recycled in California.”

As residents of Amador County were notified by KVGC radio and Capitol Public Radio on February 8, five rePlanet centers have recently closed, citing a decline in the commodity prices of aluminum and plastic, reduced state payments, increased costs for health insurance, and a higher minimum wage. People that live in Jackson, Pioneer, Pine Grove, Plymouth, and Ione are left with one remaining center in Sutter Hill. I wonder if that location will be able to remain open for the same reasons. Or if it does, if it will be able to handle the additional traffic. One might also wonder that if rePlanet’s costs have become so onerous, how are they able to keep their remaining 350 centers open?

What is meant by “reduced state payments” are processing payments. Again from the Bottle Bill Resource Guide:

“Processing payments are paid to all redemption centers and to curbside programs to help cover the costs of recycling materials with a low scrap value. Processing payment amounts vary by container type and are determined annually, based on audited data and scrap market prices. Part of the processing payments are supplied by distributors' processing fees, but the majority of processing payments come from unredeemed deposits. Unredeemed deposits are also used to administer the system and fund education programs.”

According to an article in the Environmental Leader:

“Prior to shuttering the recycling centers, rePlanet said it had several meetings with CalRecycle to resolve issues surrounding the state’s beverage container recycling fund, which is “critical” to rePlanet’s recycling program success.

“The recycling fund collects deposits paid for bottles and other covered containers and then pays out when bottles get redeemed. But it relies on bottles not being redeemed because the surplus funds pay for statewide recycling programs, among other initiatives. Because bottles are recycled at such a high rate, recycling programs are paying out more redemption money and thus keeping less of this money from the fund to support their operations.”

From the same article, CalRecycle spokesman Mark Oldfield explains:

“We’re staring at a structural deficit in the program, with more money going out than coming in,” he explains. “We have to look at reforming the program and that would include processing payments but it has to be looked at holistically.

“Clearly the closure of a large number of recycling centers all at once has a very negative affect on consumers in those areas and we’ve been working with industry stakeholders to come up with solutions to this.

“While falling commodity prices plays a major role, and CalRecycle can’t control commodity prices, that state agency can work with organizations that want to open new recycling centers and help speed up that process. CalRecycle also recently held a workshop to look at where recycling centers can realize cost savings and how the industry can better weather the ups and downs of commodity prices. The agency will continue to hold these discussions about how to make the recycling industry more sustainable”.

Part of the reason for the structural deficit is fraud, involving out-of-state “entrepreneurs” bringing in large quantities of bottles and cans from states such as Nevada and Arizona. The impact was estimated to be as much as $40 million in 2012. Recycling centers are supposed to restrict redemptions to no more than 500 lbs. of aluminum and 2,500 lbs. of glass from any one one person in any given day.

Of note is a recent article in the Orange County Register, that would seem to offer a different take on the issue of the profitability of the recycling industry in California. It relates to a case of wage and hour violations being investigated by the U.S. Labor Department:

“The Orange County crackdown is part of a statewide campaign aimed at what officials say are widespread labor law violations at California’s 1,837 recycling centers.

“‘This is an industry that doesn’t seem to be following the law,’ said Rodolfo Cortez, director of the department’s wage and hour district office. ‘It employs a large number of vulnerable workers who are afraid to speak up and don’t know their rights.’

“Californians redeem $900 million worth of beverage containers each year. Most of the recycled material is exported to Asia where it is reprocessed to manufacture new products. ‘Tax records show many recycling companies are highly profitable’, Cortez said, adding, ‘The annual dollar value is in the millions.’

“Besides Los Angeles and Orange counties, the federal probe is targeting recycling companies in San Diego, Fresno and Sacramento counties. ‘We find the exact same issues everywhere,’ Cortez said. ‘The underground economy is a big problem in California. We are trying to clean it up.’”

Last year, various companies including rePlanet closed 200 redemption centers throughout the state. Now the largest recycler has closed 191 more. Reducing the number of conveniently located recycling centers would seem to run counter to the aims of the program. Residents of Grass Valley find that their only recourse now is about a ten mile drive away. But that is nothing compared to those would-be recyclers in Needles. Now they have to make a 96 mile drive to Blythe.

What will happen to the consumers here in Amador County, regarding their ability to recoup the redemption deposits they have paid when purchasing their beverages? If the Sutter Hill location were to close (which I am not suggesting will happen), it appears that one of the next closest locations would be in Valley Springs. People in Murphys, Angels Camp, and San Andreas were left with that option last month.

The tagline on rePlanet’s website reads “We’re creating real value for people, humanity and the planet”. Clicking over to their jobs section, it shows that many of their openings are in Southern California and look to be mostly part-time. Perhaps these latest closures, including our five, happened because they couldn’t figure out a way to staff them with part-timers. The PG site I frequented had one full-time attendant- I don’t know about the others. One might conclude that they are really closing locations to protest reforms in health insurance and the minimum wage.

D. Norman

Undoing the Plastic Bag Ban

The statewide plastic bag ban, SB-270, was passed in the California legislature in August, 2014 and signed into law by Governor Brown on September 30, 2014. It was to have taken effect on July 1 of last year, after which specified stores such as large grocery chains and pharmacies could no longer provide single-use plastic carryout bags. It would have been extended to convenience and liquor stores on July 1 of this year. The law includes $2 million in loans to plastic bag manufacturers for retooling to switch to production of reusable bags that are certified and designed for at least 125 uses.

Not covered are those bags used by pharmacies for prescriptions, bags used for produce, fruit, and other unwrapped bulk foods, and bags designed to be placed over clothing on a hanger.

But as is readily evident, July 1, 2015 came and went, and grocery stores are still distributing single use bags. The roadsides, waterways, and oceans are still being littered. The ink was barely dry on the Governor’s signing of SB-270 when the plastic bag manufacturers went to work to stop its implementation. On the very same day of the signing, the American Progressive Bag Alliance filed a request for title and summary for a referendum, and soon began collecting signatures. The required number of signatures were obtained to qualify it as a veto referendum on the November 6 ballot. According to Secretary of State Alex Padilla, the industry will generate $138 million in revenues by delaying the ban until November.

As of February 12, a second initiative from the group, characterized as a bid that could divide supporters of the statewide ban, had collected 25% of the needed signatures. The deadline for filing with county election officials is April 26.

According to Cal Recycle, as of January 1 there are already ten counties and 104 cities with ordinances that ban the bags, meaning that nearly half of California residents live in affected jurisdictions. SB-270 was intended to replace these varying ordinances with a single statewide standard. Overturning it will not affect them.

The plastics industry and dissenting politicians and media outlets have made a number of claims in opposition. The interested reader can fact check the issues here.

It is estimated that the state spends as much as $107 million per year managing plastic bag litter. San Jose estimates that it costs them $1 million per year in plastic bag-related repairs to their recycling facilities. A recycling facility in Sacramento has stated that they have to shut down at least six times a day to remove plastic bags from their machines.

The plastic bag industry plan to spend $50+ million in their 2016 campaign to overturn SB-270. Be prepared for a flood of commercials hitting your TV screen soon.

D. Norman