加州試圖禁止用塑膠袋購物 失敗收場

Almost a decade ago, California became the first state in the United States to ban single-use plastic bags in an effort to tackle an intractable plastic waste problem.

將近十年前，加州成為美國第一個禁止一次性塑膠袋的州，以努力解決棘手的塑膠廢棄物問題。

Then came the reusable, heavy-duty plastic bags, offered to shoppers for 10 cents. Designed to withstand dozens of uses, and technically recyclable, many retailers treated them as exempt from the ban.

接著出現可重複使用的耐用塑膠袋，以10美分提供給消費者。這種塑膠袋設計成經得起數十次使用，而且技術上可回收利用，許多零售商把它們當成豁免於禁令之外。

But because they didn’t look much different from the flimsy bags they replaced, lots of people didn’t actually reuse them. And though they came emblazoned with a recycling symbol, it turned out that few, if any, actually were recycled.

但因為這種袋子看上去跟它們取代的輕薄袋子沒有太大區別，很多人其實並未重複利用。儘管袋子上印有回收標誌，但結果卻顯示，如果有的話，實際上很少被回收。

The unhappy result: Last year, Californians threw away more plastic bags, by weight, than when the law first passed, according to figures from CalRecycle, California’s recycling agency.

這導致了一個不愉快的結果：根據加州回收機構CalRecycle的數據，比起法律首度通過的時候，按照重量計算，加州人去年丟掉更多塑膠袋。

Now, lawmakers are trying to fix that. A new bill seeks to ban all plastic bags offered at the checkout line, including the heavy duty kind. (Shoppers would still be able to pay for a paper bag.)

現在，立法者正在設法收拾這個問題。一項新法案試圖禁止在收銀台提供一切塑膠袋，包括耐用類。（消費者仍將能夠付錢買紙袋）。

“It’s time for us to get rid of plastic bags all together,” said state Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat and a sponsor of the bill.

民主黨籍法案提案人、州參議員艾倫說，「現在我們該完全擺脫塑膠袋了」。

By some accounts, California’s initial plastic bag ban was a well-meaning but failed experiment, an environmental rule that backfired and inadvertently made the matter worse. “We didn’t worry about the carve-out for these thicker bags in the early days,” said Mark Murray, director of Californians Against Waste, an advocacy group. “It just didn’t seem like they were going to be the thing that they ultimately became.”

根據一些說法，加州最初的塑膠袋禁令是個出於善意但失敗的實驗，一個適得其反的環保規定，而且不經意把情況變得更糟。倡議團體「加州人反對浪費」主任穆雷說，「一開始我們並不擔心推出這種較厚的袋子，只是它們似乎沒有成為最終想要變成的樣子」。

Some advocates say the initial ban would have been effective if properly enforced. The ban, adopted in 2014, allowed for plastic bags to be sold to shoppers only if they were widely recycled in California.

一些倡議人士說，如果妥善執行，最初的禁令本來會起作用。該禁令於2014年正式通過，只要是在加州廣泛回收，就允許出售塑膠袋給消費者。

Daniel Conway of the California Grocers Association said retailers had “followed the letter of the law.” He said he hoped new legislation would clear up any confusion that remained over the thicker bags.

加州雜貨商協會的康威表示，零售商已「遵循法律條文」。他說，他希望新的立法能釐清與較厚袋子有關的任何尚存混亂。

“We see this as finishing what we started,” he said. “People are really starting to accept that they bring reusable bags with them when they go to the grocery store.”

他說，「我們認為，這是完成我們開始的工作。人們真的已開始接受，前往雜貨店時隨身帶著可重複使用的袋子」。

哈佛品牌遭到侵蝕 全美各大學戒慎恐懼

When 70 university presidents gathered for a summit at the end of January, the topic on everyone’s mind was the crisis at Harvard University.

當70個大學校長1月底齊聚參加一場峰會時，每個人心中主題都是哈佛大學的危機。

The hosts of the summit treated the university, battered by accusations of coddling antisemitism, as a business-school case study on leadership in higher education, complete with a slide presentation on its plummeting reputation.

哈佛大學因被控放縱反猶主義而遭受重創，峰會主持人將此視為高等教育領導能力的一個商學院個案研究，配有一張該校聲望重挫的投影片簡報。

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at Yale University’s School of Management, organized the summit. “Despite near 400 years of history, the value of brand equity is nowhere near as permanent as Harvard trustees think it is,” he said in an interview.

耶魯大學管理學院教授桑能菲爾德組織這場峰會。他受訪時表示，「儘管有將近400年歷史，其品牌資產價值遠遠不如哈佛董事們認為的那樣耐久」。

Many presidents attending the summit saw the erosion of Harvard’s brand as a problem not only for the school, but also by extension for the entire enterprise of higher education. If Harvard could not protect itself, then what about every other institution? Could Harvard’s leadership find an effective response?

出席峰會的許多校長認為，哈佛品牌的侵蝕不只是該校的問題，廣泛來說也是整個高等教育事業的問題。如果哈佛都無法保護自己，那其他機構會怎麼樣？哈佛的領導階層能找到有效的回應嗎？

There was a hint of a more assertive approach by Harvard on Monday, when the university announced that it was investigating “deeply offensive antisemitic tropes” posted on social media by pro-Palestinian student and faculty groups.

哈佛大學有了一點更果斷的態度，該校周一宣布，正在調查親巴勒斯坦學生與教職員團體在社群媒體發布「極為冒犯的反猶比喻」。

Harvard took the action at a time when the House Committee on Education and the Workforce has begun to scrutinize its record on antisemitism. On Friday, the committee issued subpoenas to Harvard’s interim president, the head of the school’s governing board and its investment manager, in a wide-ranging hunt for documents relating to the university’s handling of campus antisemitism claims. The threat of the subpoenas led PEN America, a writers’ group that defends academic freedom, to warn against a fishing expedition.

哈佛大學採取這項行動之際，美國眾議院教育和勞動力委員會已著手詳細檢查該校的反猶主義紀錄。委員會周五向哈佛的臨時校長、該校董事會主席與投資經理發出傳票，以廣泛搜尋該大學處理校園反猶主義主張的文件。傳票的威脅，致使維護學術自由的作家團體「美國筆會」警告，不要進行蓄意盤查。

There is also a lawsuit against Harvard, calling the university “a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment,” as well as federal investigations into charges that the university ignored both antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus.

還有針對哈佛的訴訟，稱該大學是「反猶太仇恨與騷擾猖獗的堡壘」，以及聯邦調查相關指控，稱該校忽視校內反猶主義與伊斯蘭恐懼症。

There is evidence of reputational damage: a 17% drop in the number of students applying to Harvard for early admission decisions this year. Other Ivy League schools saw increases.

有證據顯示哈佛的聲譽受損：今年向哈佛申請提前入學決定的學生人數下降了17%。其他常春藤盟校出現成長。

The attacks “have obviously unsettled Harvard, in terms of its highest leadership,” said Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor. “They have undermined morale. It has been a very effective attack.”

哈佛法學院教授甘迺迪表示，「就最高領導階層而言」，這種攻擊「顯然讓哈佛感到焦慮不安」，「它們打擊了士氣，這是一次非常有效的攻擊」。