Greece is the fiscally-dysfunctional member of the European Union. On this side of the pond we have California. Illustrating just how bleak the situation is on the Left coast, it was recently reported in the London Telegraph that at JP Morgan Chase’s annual meeting, the banking behemoth’s chairman Jamie Dimon warned that investors should be more concerned about California defaulting than Greece.

In the face of such dire warnings, a $20 billion budget deficit, and the lowest credit rating among all states, one might think righting the state’s financial ship would be the primary focus of legislators in Sacramento, and one would be very wrong to think so.

For a concrete example of just how Golden State legislators are fiddling while Rome burns, take Assembly Bill 1998, now sitting in the California Assembly Committee on Appropriations and scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday. Introduced by Assemblywoman Julia Brownley of Santa Monica, AB 1998 would ban all plastic and paper bags currently provided to customers at grocery stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, and other retailers statewide.

Not only is such legislation a distraction from the real issues facing the state, all evidence indicates that a bag ban is unnecessary, would be ineffective, and may have unintended consequences that create new problems. Legislative language claims that a bag prohibition is necessary to address the environmental burdens imposed by plastic bags. If that is the case, it should be incumbent upon the committee to first prove that a bag ban will not simply reduce plastic bag usage, but will actually reduce litter and improve the environment. Proponents of the bag ban have yet to provide any such evidence. In fact, evidence that a bag ban will provide zero benefit to the environment can be found right in the district of AB 1998 co-author Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).

In 2007 San Francisco became the first city in the country to ban plastic bags at supermarkets and pharmacies. Litter audits conducted before and after the ban found that not only did the ban provide no positive environmental impact, plastic bags actually comprised a higher percentage of total litter after the ban.

Trash composition studies show plastic bags that would be banned under AB 1998 are a negligible contributor total litter, making up less than one percent of street litter and accounting for less than one half of one percent of landfill use according to a 2004 study commissioned by the Integrated Waste Management Board.

Supporters of a statewide bag prohibition also claim it will improve public health. Yet it may very well have the opposite effect as there is reason to fear outlawing plastic bags can cause an unnecessary public health risk.

Reusable bags, whose use AB 1998 aims to encourage, become easily contaminated when used to transport common household items. Tests conducted by a Miami news station found a reusable bag used to transport meat “covered with bacteria.” A bag that had been used to transport produce contained “80 organisms of coliform.” Coliform is a bacteria found in the excrement of warm blooded animals, not exactly something you want your groceries anywhere near, let alone wading in. Despite what I’m sure are the noblest intentions of AB 1998 proponents, the fact is, that in addition to providing no environmental benefit, a ban on plastic bags will also impose an unnecessary risk to public health and food safety.

Supporters of AB 1998 also erroneously contend that it is needed for California to remain in step with the West Coast Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Health, which Governor Schwarzenegger signed in 2006. However, Oregon and Washington, both parties to this agreement, have neither banned nor taxed plastic bags. Crunchy Seattle voters overwhelmingly voted down a bag tax last summer and the environmentally-minded Oregon legislature rejected a bag ban just this year, making it clear that a ban on bags is not necessitated by the Governor’s agreement.

Furthermore, a statewide bag ban would greatly inconvenience all Californians, but even more so lower income households and those of modest means that use public transportation and thus, unlike most bag ban proponents, don’t have a Volvo wagon or Subaru Outback with a spacious trunk in which to stow all of their “Life is Good” canvas bags. Worse, this burden that would be unduly born by the poor is a tremendous and unnecessary overreaction to what amounts to a non-problem.

It’s time for California lawmakers, especially Democrats who hold large legislative majorities, to start acting like adults and get serious about the real challenges facing the state, namely it’s more than $20 billion overspending problem and onerous tax and regulatory structure that is driving businesses and jobs from the state in droves. In case lawmakers in Sacramento haven’t notice, Uncle Sam is over $12 trillion in debt and, unlike Greece, California doesn’t have a Germany to bail it out.